The C word has now been said

Originally Posted by jaydee    

I'm pretty sure from what you are saying that you have lifted your facts straight from Ben Swanns 'Reality checks' without even bothering to research what he says so maybe you could spend a few minutes of your time to read this link instead of taking everything on face value as you did with another link you posted that was dated 10 years ago so barely relevant
Fact-Checking Ben Swann: Is the UK really 5 times more violent than the US? | The Skeptical Libertarian
The unbiased programme on TV - it gave both sides of the argument - also stated that the vast majority of guns involved in crimes were originally bought legally or were 'straw sales' that were then sold on by the public illegally.
I would have thought that the easiest way to keep track of where guns were and where they were changing hands inappropriately was to have a national register of guns and gun owners. This does help the police a lot in the UK - apples and oranges I know - because we arent in fear that our government is out to get us so no use using it as a comparison.
In fact I think past posts already established that trying to compare the UK to the US is actually 'apples and oranges' If you can't see that then try pushing the population of the UK - 62,641,000 into the US state of Alabama which is the same size as the UK and has a population of only 4,822,023
Despite this only 3 UK police officers were killed on duty in 2011

Originally Posted by Clava    

Excellent and interesting link which helps to explain a lot.

Originally Posted by Darrin    

To me it once again proves how everyone uses statistics to stretch the truth in the direction they want. It was done by the "Fact Checker" and in the article rebutting the checked facts.

Originally Posted by Clava    

The analysis of why the Uk would might appear to have a high violent crime rate (but in reality doesn't) is not about stretching the truth but simply stating that definitions and collection of statistics must be the same in order to compare things. Death numbers are more definitive and quantifiable.

Originally Posted by Darrin    

In his article there was a lot of assumptions, guesswork and my opinions. People will take that information as the gospel up to and including Ben Swann on his corrections to his original story as pointed out by the skeptical libertarian. I do agree the different methods of reporting make a direct comparison hard but not impossible.

But, one side was taking numbers easily available (without definition) to claim a much higher rate in the UK while the other side was tossing out a lot of numbers (he may be right or wrong) to make it looks like the difference is much, much closer. That's why I said both sides are torturing statistics to make their point. Fact is we wont really know until an actual researcher (showing all their data) turns apples and oranges into apples and apples for a direct comparison. Even then the next reporter to come along will put their own spin on those numbers.

Originally Posted by Darrin    

/sigh.....

Originally Posted by Darrin    

Looked around on Oregon, my state. This chart nails Oregon from one source and looks like where this chart likely came from. Couple other sites seemed to be in the same ball park of 10.5 per 100000. Interestingly, Oregon runs 75-80% of gun deaths are suicides with the total averaging between 350-400/year. If you take suicides out of it and just do murders it comes to about 1.5 per 100000.

Soooooo, do we really put gun suicide in the same category as gun murders? In my world, no.