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.
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.