7
   

Britian's crime rate is SO BAD compared to US?

 
 
Lordyaswas
 
  3  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2013 06:47 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter, please would you be good enough to clarify that set of figures. Is it as it states, ie crime, or violent crime?

If it refers to the vast range of offences that the UK record as "violent", it has already been stated on this thread that the UK and USA have very different ideas about what should and should not be recorded as violent.

I think it's the case that the lowest level of violence the FBI actually records as such, is 'aggravated assault', which is waaaay above the entry level for violence in the UK.
When you think that all these lower offences of "violence", such as people shouting profanities, people punching, or jostling, or pushing each other, or a young lad just acting plain mouthy, is about as common as sneezing in most countries, trying to compare such things is completely meaningless.
Brits aren't angels. The stupid extended pub opening times brought in by the poodle Bliar didn't help matters, as young Brits tend to over indulge in the ale given half a chance. Letting all the High Street pubs stay open for two more hours in the evenings was BOUND to cause more adolescent punch ups at turning out time.
The way we record "violence" is also ludicrous, and so it's no wonder that the cold stats, at first glance, point the finger at us and say that the UK is unsafe.
But, unfortunately, that's the way that our dear Government has decided to record it in this gloriously PC, "no win, no fee", "everyone's a victim" "transparent" country that we have acquired since the day when everybody sang "things can only get better" outside Downing Street.

But to get drawn in by this "handbags at closing time" skewing of the figures is wrong, and people really should only look at the top end tip of the iceberg figures that the USA limits itself to. The real violence where someone is hurt, seriously.....I repeat....seriously intimidated or threatened, raped, or killed.
When you study the serious stuff, there's really no contest as to who should pick up the psycho trophy at the end of the day.

parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2013 06:59 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
If someone denies something that is clearly true to everyone, I blame the person, and not the fact.

That sounds like psychosis to me on your part. And that should be "self evident."

I suppose you think it's clearly true to everyone that you are Napoleon Bonaparte.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2013 07:07 am
@Lordyaswas,
Lordyaswas wrote:

Walter, please would you be good enough to clarify that set of figures. Is it as it states, ie crime, or violent crime?
That table shows the number of recorded crimes across the EU. (Decreases of more than 10 % between 2001 and 2010 were observed in Malta, the United Kingdom, Poland and Greece.)
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2013 07:13 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
You do not routinely back up your claims. In fact, you so rarely back up your claims that i can't recall your having done so within the last several months, if not years.

As previously noted, if a fact is self evident, I generally do not offer evidence unless first asked for it.

As an example: In one of the other threads, I stated the self-evident fact that Muslims like to target civilians.

I did not provide evidence of Muslims targeting civilians until after you asked for that evidence.


Setanta wrote:
Stop lying.

I never lie.

Not that I can't be wrong. I do sometimes make mistakes, on rare occasions.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2013 07:13 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
If someone denies something that is clearly true to everyone, I blame the person, and not the fact.

That sounds like psychosis to me on your part.

How odd.


parados wrote:
And that should be "self evident."

It's not. Nor is it even true.


parados wrote:
I suppose you think it's clearly true to everyone that you are Napoleon Bonaparte.

No. But I regard it as a self-evident fact that I am not that person.

For starters, that person has been dead for well more than a century. As of when I submit this post, I am still alive.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2013 07:14 am
@Lordyaswas,
The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a ‘violent crime’ as one of four specific offences: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

By contrast, the British definition includes all ‘crimes against the person’, even without any injuries, including simple assaults, all robberies, and all ‘sexual offences,’ as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and ‘forcible rapes.’

Sources: FBI ( Uniform Crime Report). Home Office (BCS Crime in England and Wales 2010/11)
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2013 07:59 am
@oralloy,
Just because you declare something is true, doesn't make it true. To insist that it is true and to insist that no one can question it is bordering on psychotic.
Lordyaswas
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2013 08:06 am
www.policymic.com/articles/22686/america-s-10-deadliest-cities-2012

USA TOP TEN DEADLIEST CITIES 2012
....................................PER 100,000 ........(total homicides)
1. FLINT, MICH...........64.9 ........................( 66)
2. DETROIT.................54.6 .........................(386)
3. NEW ORLEANS .....53.5..........................(193)
4. ST LOUIS ...............35.5...........................(113)
5. BALTIMORE ..........35.0...........................(217)
6. BIRMINGHAM, AL..33.7..........................( 72)
7. NEWARK................33.1 ..........................(92)
7. OAKLAND ..............33.1 ..........................(131)
8. BATON ROUGE........28.9 ..........................(67)
9. CLEVELAND ...........24.6 ..........................(97)
10. MEMPHIS .............24.1 ..........................(157)
........................................................TOTAL=(1491)

LONDON, UK..... 1.46 PER 100,000 .........(117)

TOTAL USA (from fbi.gov).......................(14612) = 4.7 PER 100,000

TOTAL ENGLAND AND WALES = ..............(619) = 1.35 PER 100,000.


LIST FOR SOME OTHER EU COUNTRIES, PER 100,000
FINLAND .....2.34
SCOTLAND ..2.14
IRELAND .....2.0
AUSTRIA ......0.61



And as far as the homicide figures for 10 years ago are concerned, the link below will give graphs and details for the UK, right back to 2001.
The highest England and Wales have ever scored was in 2002/3, when we reached the dizzy heights of 1.79 murders per 100, 000.

www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2013 08:10 am
@oralloy,
Your claim about Muslims suggested that the trait is unique to Muslims, something you can't and haven't shown to be true. The rest of this drivel is just another fine example of your "nope" rhetorical method in which you offer nothing but your ipse dixit claims and when challenged, just deny what anyone says to you. You're pathetic, and i won't waste any more time on you.
0 Replies
 
Lordyaswas
 
  3  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2013 08:26 am
So, just to clarify just who feels the safest...

ST LOUIS ...Population 319,000 ..................................HOMICIDES 113
LONDON, ENGLAND Population 8 MILLION....................... 117

If Billybob and Oralboy want to pick any other US major city to compare ANY UK City alongside, just bring it on.
You pick the cities on both sides of the pond, and I'll simply provide you with the figures.
Hint......I'm guessing that Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow may score very high, but it's your choice.


Yawn.....I don't think for one minute that you'll accept the challenge, knowing the quality of your input so far.
Lordyaswas
 
  3  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2013 09:52 am
I can see Billyboy clucking away over on edgar's thread, but I don't want to prolong his shenanigans on there.
He's obviously checked in here, as it's an hour since my last post (above), which sort of proves my point that the idiot can never back up what he starts.
Maybe if we all make loud chicken noises it will draw him to us....


Then again, I'll just walk the dog and thank the powers that be that I don't need to even consider taking a handgun with me.
0 Replies
 
Lordyaswas
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2013 02:58 pm
A full 5 hours later.....

《Tap tap》 Yoo hoo......Billyboy..... Oral.....

Cluck cluck......here chicky chickies.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2013 03:06 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Just because you declare something is true, doesn't make it true.

Correct. However, you can declare that something is true, and just let it be true on its own merits.


parados wrote:
To insist that it is true and to insist that no one can question it is bordering on psychotic.

To insist that no one can question something borders more on "silly" than "psychotic".

But regardless, I'm not insisting that something cannot be questioned.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2013 03:07 pm
@Lordyaswas,
Lordyaswas wrote:
If Billybob and Oralboy want to pick any other US major city to compare ANY UK City alongside, just bring it on.

I'm curious if you think that your name-calling is adequate compensation for your lack of a sound argument?


Lordyaswas wrote:
knowing the quality of your input so far.

I note the fact that you've never been able to show any flaws in anything I've ever said.
parados
 
  4  
Reply Thu 19 Sep, 2013 04:16 pm
@oralloy,
No, you just declared it is self evident so therefore you don't have to provide evidence to support your claim. When questioned, you simply declare what you said was true because you declared it was true. That is not on its merits. That is simply on your word.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Sep, 2013 04:24 am
@parados,
The only thing that's self evident is that Oralboy can't find anything to back up his nonsensical claims.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Sep, 2013 04:52 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
No, you just declared it is self evident so therefore you don't have to provide evidence to support your claim.

I don't recall declaring anything as self evident recently.

If I did declare such a thing, it would not alter any requirement for me to provide evidence to support my claim.

I don't think such a requirement exists, though in most cases I will fulfill reasonable requests for evidence.


parados wrote:
When questioned, you simply declare what you said was true because you declared it was true. That is not on its merits. That is simply on your word.

Maybe on rare occasions. If someone were demanding that I spend hours of my life proving that 2+2=4 I would likely respond in that manner, for example.

It would be unlikely to happen in normal debate.
0 Replies
 
Lordyaswas
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Sep, 2013 05:19 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Lordyaswas wrote:
If Billybob and Oralboy want to pick any other US major city to compare ANY UK City alongside, just bring it on.

I'm curious if you think that your name-calling is adequate compensation for your lack of a sound argument?


Lordyaswas wrote:
knowing the quality of your input so far.

I note the fact that you've never been able to show any flaws in anything I've ever said.


1.I note that you diverted everything onto the name calling, like the chicken you are, rather than sticking up for the USofA and nominating your major city.
One more chance. Pick one of your major cities ( I'll even go so far as any of your top 20, you never know, you could win) and we'll see how your supposed safe country holds up to scrutiny.

2. As far as not finding flaws in what you have ever said, I never take hot air into consideration, unless PROOF is supplied to back it up.
Take my cities list for instance. It took me about half an hour. Let's see what evidence you can muster to prove me wrong.
I'll repost it under here, so you don't have to search too far.

You're all hot air and diversion.
Lordyaswas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Sep, 2013 05:20 am
@Lordyaswas,
Lordyaswas wrote:

www.policymic.com/articles/22686/america-s-10-deadliest-cities-2012

USA TOP TEN DEADLIEST CITIES 2012
....................................PER 100,000 ........(total homicides)
1. FLINT, MICH...........64.9 ........................( 66)
2. DETROIT.................54.6 .........................(386)
3. NEW ORLEANS .....53.5..........................(193)
4. ST LOUIS ...............35.5...........................(113)
5. BALTIMORE ..........35.0...........................(217)
6. BIRMINGHAM, AL..33.7..........................( 72)
7. NEWARK................33.1 ..........................(92)
7. OAKLAND ..............33.1 ..........................(131)
8. BATON ROUGE........28.9 ..........................(67)
9. CLEVELAND ...........24.6 ..........................(97)
10. MEMPHIS .............24.1 ..........................(157)
........................................................TOTAL=(1491)

LONDON, UK..... 1.46 PER 100,000 .........(117)

TOTAL USA (from fbi.gov).......................(14612) = 4.7 PER 100,000

TOTAL ENGLAND AND WALES = ..............(619) = 1.35 PER 100,000.


LIST FOR SOME OTHER EU COUNTRIES, PER 100,000
FINLAND .....2.34
SCOTLAND ..2.14
IRELAND .....2.0
AUSTRIA ......0.61



And as far as the homicide figures for 10 years ago are concerned, the link below will give graphs and details for the UK, right back to 2001.
The highest England and Wales have ever scored was in 2002/3, when we reached the dizzy heights of 1.79 murders per 100, 000.

www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html




There y'go. Pick the bones out of this, Oralloy.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Sep, 2013 07:06 am
@Lordyaswas,
Lordyaswas wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Lordyaswas wrote:
If Billybob and Oralboy want to pick any other US major city to compare ANY UK City alongside, just bring it on.

I'm curious if you think that your name-calling is adequate compensation for your lack of a sound argument?

1.I note that you diverted everything onto the name calling,

When people attack me with unprovoked and unjustified name-calling, I am within my rights to respond as I see fit.


Lordyaswas wrote:
like the chicken you are,

Cowardice is a legitimate urge that evolved into the human psyche in order to help preserve the species when it faces a threat that cannot be overcome by direct confrontation.

Contempt for cowardice is also a legitimate urge, which evolved to encourage humans to go out and face those threats that can in fact be overcome by direct confrontation.

I note that you are unable to show any instances of cowardice on my part.


Lordyaswas wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Lordyaswas wrote:
knowing the quality of your input so far.

I note the fact that you've never been able to show any flaws in anything I've ever said.

2. As far as not finding flaws in what you have ever said, I never take hot air into consideration, unless PROOF is supplied to back it up.
Take my cities list for instance. It took me about half an hour. Let's see what evidence you can muster to prove me wrong.
I'll repost it under here, so you don't have to search too far.
You're all hot air and diversion.

I note that, in addition to you not being able to show any flaws in anything I've ever said, you are also unable to show any cases of hot air or diversion on my part.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Safest cities in the US - Discussion by cicerone imposter
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/15/2024 at 11:17:51