Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why is the UK's violent crime rate almost 10x higher than the US?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
TomHansley Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-12-08 11:40 PM
Original message
Why is the UK's violent crime rate almost 10x higher than the US?
Edited on Mon May-12-08 11:41 PM by TomHansley
US Violent Crime Rate: 475 per 100,000 citizens
(Year: 2003 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html )

UK Violent Crime Rate: 4,100 per 100,000 citizens
(Year: 2003 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf )

They have a total ban on guns, I thought guns made people violent?!?!?!?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
barbtries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-12-08 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. it doesn't make sense to me
look up the murder rate instead. bet we "win" going away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomHansley Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-12-08 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Murder Rates from Wikipedia
Muder Rate:

UK: 2.03 per 100,000 in 2002

US: 7.6 per 100,000 in 2002

While the US has 4x the murder rate of the UK, some places like DC (has a handgun ban, 35.8 murders per 100,000) really skew our numbers... Vermont has the least restrictive gun laws in the country (don't even need a permit to conceal carry) and their murder rate is 2.6 per 100,000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbtries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-13-08 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. that sounds about right
i come from los angeles where people are murdered daily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pepperbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-13-08 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. so tom, to what do you attribute this? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Big Al Mac Donating Member (52 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-14-08 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
38. The Home Office cooks the books
I'd like to point out that much of the disparity between the UK murder rate and the US murder rate is in how the numbers are arrived at.

In the US if a coroner established that the death of an individual was caused by another individual that death is counted as a homicide (murder).

In the UK the death of an individual is not considered a murder UNTIL someone is CONVICTED of causing the death and if that murderer caused multiple deaths it is counted as ONE murder.
In other words the Home Office doesn't report dead bodies they report convicted killers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blowtorchevans Donating Member (14 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-16-08 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #38
42. mmm ?
I don't believe that can be correct - do you have link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blowtorchevans Donating Member (14 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-16-08 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. I thought so
Here is the link to explain definitions - see para 1.1. Seems to me that this is the opposite of what Big Al wrote

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0308.pdf

pip-pip
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-16-08 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. I think

You could have left off the "so".

You thought.

;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blowtorchevans Donating Member (14 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-16-08 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. Quite possibly..Ta n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-13-08 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #1
11. Did somebody say "US vs. UK homicide rates?
What a coincidence! I just happen to have a handy-dandy graph here in my wallet.





It even has the ratio of US to UK homicide rates!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tuvor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-12-08 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
2. Two different groups doing the calculations.
For example, do they both define "violent crime" the same, or differently?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomHansley Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-12-08 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Here's statistics from another source...
On the east side of the Atlantic, we have the British Home Office and the British Crime Survey for 2005/2006. The UK does not use a calendar-year reporting scheme, but reports on a September-to-September time-frame. (These figures do NOT represent two years' worth of data.) The first problem is that there appear to be two separate figures for the crime rate. If we look at the tables supporting Chapter 5, on Violent Crime, (this is an Excel Workbook) we are told that there was a total of 2,420,000 violent crimes in the time-frame covered by the report. If we take the word of the CIA Factbook the UK had a population of 60,609,153 (July 2006 est.) This gives a rate of violent crime per 100,000 inhabitants as 3992.8. However in Chapter 7, (Table 7a) of the BCS, the total violent crime rate per 1000 inhabitants is listed as 23, which is equivalent to 2300 per 100,000 inhabitants. Even this lower number is an astonishing figure when compared to the US data.

On the west side of the Atlantic we have the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Uniform Crime Report for 2005. (2005 is the last year for which the data are not preliminary.) In table 1, we see that in 2005, the violent crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants was 469.2.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-13-08 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #3
16. and the source would be?


Feel free to name it.

Oh look. A blog:

http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2007/01/crime-in-uk-versus...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-12-08 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
4. Only 5 per cent of those crimes involved "more serious violence" against the victim
Edited on Mon May-12-08 11:56 PM by villager
According to the British report you cite, which I bet was not the case here.

Oh, and you "accidentally" neglected to mention how small the homicide rate was, in the British report.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomHansley Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-12-08 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I didn't accidently neglect anything...
I posted the murder rates in a post above, was looking through Wikipedia for info.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-13-08 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. well, sure, you posted after my comment went up...
But at least they're there, and at least they're honest.

The statistics, that is. Your commentary afterwards was pure, decontextualized NRA spin.

Meanwhile, here's a good graphic on gun deaths in America:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinrevi...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-13-08 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Ah, you include suicides
Which have everything to do with violent crime rates, yes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-13-08 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. Hmm. Looks like lipstick (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-13-08 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I suppose for some people, "erotic" and "violent" are hopelessly fused
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-14-08 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #14
36. Perhaps, but I never got off to a tube of lip stick (though pink ordnance is funny)nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-14-08 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Ah, you get off on bullets instead?
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. I prefer lips, entirely different from your "erotic" metaphor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. One couldn't tell from your conflating bullets with facial adornment, however...
Edited on Thu May-15-08 09:44 PM by villager
Unless you confuse those lips with targets?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-16-08 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #40
52. Hmm, well they are targets of a sort. And over the years, my aim has been good!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-17-08 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. And I expect additional gun metaphors fill your bedroom!
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-17-08 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #53
54. Why metaphors when you have the real deal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-17-08 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. In the bedroom, eh? Brought to mind during romance? Well I have nothing to add.
Edited on Sat May-17-08 12:08 PM by villager
And this entire sub-thread now stands starkly exposed/explained/clarified, as we return full circle to the erotic fetishizing of guns by their worshippers.

Good job avoiding talking about the actual gun stats on the chart, btw...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-13-08 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. You take suicide out of that picture
And it doesn't look nearly so bleak.

It is my belief that suiciders always find a way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-16-08 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #17
47. Having worked in the field in one capacity or another for around 20 years
and being quite familiar with the research I strongly disagree. There is a reason why suicide, in the business of folks who work with life and death, call it "a long term solution to a short term problem."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varkam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-13-08 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
10. Being a skeptic and all...
it might have to do with how the different organizations operationalize "violent crime". It seems to me that the British statistics might be including several types of crimes not covered in the US stats, though that is difficult to determine (for example, approximately half of all violent crime in the UK involved "less serious violence with no injury" which could mean simple assault - whereas in the US simple assault doesn't even appear to be tabulated in the stats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-13-08 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
15. why do people constantly post these falsehoods in the Guns forum?


Here's your first clue.

The UK rate includes common assault -- simple assault, no injuries, the lowest level of assault.

The US rate does not.


Check your UK document. The crime survey data shows that 37% of the "violent crimes" reported were "common assault (no injury)".


The UK figures include "sexual offences". The US figures include only "forcible rape".


8% of the recorded crime figure for violent crimes in the UK is "other violence". Where is that in the US figures?

15% of the recorded crime figure for violent crimes the UK is "harassment". Where is that in the US figures?

5% of the UK survey-reported crime is "snatch theft" as distinct from "robbery". Is that covered by "robbery" in the US figures? Have you attempted to find out?



They have a total ban on guns, I thought guns made people violent?!?!?!?

Would you like my theory about why you would think something like this?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-14-08 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #15
33. Exactly
Two separate nations, two separate governments, tabulating their data sets to different criteria. That is why I only post homicide stats for comparison; anything else is intellectually dishonest.

Or I look at trends within a country by comparing year-to-year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-13-08 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
18. oh, by the way


They have a total ban on guns


Where do you get your bizarre ideas?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-13-08 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
19. so what's the answer?

Why are you posting this completely false crap here?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-13-08 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-13-08 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. it's a recurring meme all right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-13-08 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
20. Here's something fun for you to look at, TomHansley.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomHansley Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-14-08 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. So if guns MURDER people...
Then my car is responsible for me speeding.

I'll have to tell the police officer to write the ticket to my car next time I'm pulled over for speeding.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-14-08 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. Guns are manufactured for ONLY ONE reason...
To wound and kill. Cars are manufactured for transportation. I stopped taking that silly "car vs gun" argument seriously years ago. You really have no way to disprove the fact that guns kill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-14-08 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. No one disputes the fact that guns kill.
Guns are manufactured for ONLY ONE reason...To wound and kill. Cars are manufactured for transportation. I stopped taking that silly "car vs gun" argument seriously years ago. You really have no way to disprove the fact that guns kill.

No one disputes the fact that guns kill. What is disputed is how frequently they kill. There are some 250 million firearms in this country owned by some 40-80 million firearm owners. Annually, firearms account for some 10,000 homicides. This means that only 0.004% of all firearms are used for homicides every year. This means that only 0.025% to 0.0125% of firearm owners are involved in homicides every year.

That is four one-hundredths of one percent of all firearms, and less than two-tenths of one percent of firearm owners involved in homicides.

Of course guns kill. This is why soldiers carry them. And that, in turn, is why our founding fathers wanted the citizenry of this country to be similarly armed - so that the average citizen could be, and consequently stand up to, soldiers with guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
highground Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-14-08 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. I'm a gun owner
I agree with you 100%!

Ban crime not guns!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-14-08 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #23
28. so if your statement in the opening post was false


Why did you post it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-14-08 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. Yanno...
Edited on Wed May-14-08 01:07 AM by krispos42
I bet there is a very low number of black Iraqis killed every year, too. Doesn't mean Iraq is a garden of peace.

How strong is your message when the only way you can promote it is through either selective or misleading statistics?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-14-08 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Nothing will convince you, will it?
Just like the Bush supporters of the war in Iraq, when facts and figures are presented to you, you just turn a blind eye and say "It doesn't matter". Cognitive dissonance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-14-08 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #25
31. "Lies, damn lies, and statistics"
You have two problems, Zanne.


One, you have to convince me that strict gun control laws will go a long way towards lowering our crime and homicide rates. Which I don't think anybody has done via simply saying "turn in your guns" or "no more guns can be bought or sold".

Two, you have to convince me that such a result is worth taking away or severely limiting people constitutional rights. I don't buy it when the Republicans take away (or severely restricty) my 1st Amendment rights, or my 4th Amendment rights, or my Fifth Amendment rights, or my Sixth Amenedment rights, or my Eight Amendment rights, or my habeas corpus rights, and I'm sure as not going to buy it when Democrats want to take away (or severely restrict) my Second Amendment rights.



Spouting off about how few people were killed in Britian and Wales by guns is not an effective nor an honest argument when their total homicide rate is at or near historic highs. The express reason I made this damn graph:



is because I got sick and tired from somebody, I think the late billbuckhead, crowing about how only 52 people were killed with handguns in 2006 and how the UK's homicide rate was only 1/3 that of ours.



And the reason I made THIS damn graph:


is because somebody kept making a point that DC's homicide rate in 2006 was lower than the homicide rate when they enacted the handgun ban. More intellectual dishonestly.



Incidently, I noticed you failed to weigh in on this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

after trying to laugh it off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-14-08 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. I've still never figured out

How come it took a decade for the handgun ban in DC to "cause" all those homicides??

Weren't we supposed to be looking for blood in the streets the morning after the assault weapons ban died? And isn't the fact that there wasn't any supposed to be proof of ... something?

If you're not suggesting the handgun ban caused the rise in the homicide rate and the high homicide rate a decade later ... but not the sharp drop in the rate after that ... what are you suggesting?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-14-08 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. To an extent, DC follows national trends
Edited on Wed May-14-08 11:18 AM by krispos42
DC is also counted statisically as only an urban area, so that kicks the homicide rate much higher than if it was a state. States have suburbs and rural areas that make the state-wide homicide rate lower than just the urban area.

Being only a statistical urban area, DC got hit hard by the drug gangs problem and the crack cocaine problem. Such things also happened in, say, Los Angeles or New York, but those two states have vast non-urban lands and populations to dilute the effects of such activity in their cities.

Regarding the assault-weapons ban, it was a ban on newly-sold rifles with combinations of cosmetic features. Existing, pre-ban rifles were not outlawed or confisctated or anything like that, and some work with a grinder, MIG welder, or a new stock turned defined "assault weapons" into defined "non-assault weapons". BenEzra has a pic of his own AK-47ish rifle he posts regularly that he bought during the Ban.

Behold the California-legal, non-assault-weapon AR-15 semiautomatic rifle:



No protruding pistol grip, no thumbhole grip, no bayonet mount, no grenade-launcher mount, no folding/telescoping stock.



Or, in some cases they removed the conventional push-button magazine release on an AR-15 and replaced it with one that requires a "tool", such as the point of a cartridge, to release. By replacing the magazine release as described, the AR-15 goes from a detachable-magazine rifle to a fixed-magazine rifle, and can have a pistol grip, bayonet lug, etc.

This makes the AR-15 similar to the Lee-Enfield Mark III rifle or SKS rifle, both of which have a "fixed" magazine that are removed for maintenence and cleaning, but not for reloading.

If you're not suggesting the handgun ban caused the rise in the homicide rate and the high homicide rate a decade later ... but not the sharp drop in the rate after that ... what are you suggesting?


I'm suggesting that saying the DC handgun ban in working because the homicide rate in 2006 was lower than it was in 1975 is a disingenous statement to make because it ignores what happened during the intervening decades.

It did not, apparantly, prevent the crack-fueled slaughter of the '80s nor help in the massive decline of the '90s.

<edit: typo>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-14-08 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #24
30. eh?

What's selective or misleading there?

Surely nobody imagines that the populations of NZ and the US are equal, for instance -- or that anyone was suggesting they were.

The math is pretty easy.

73 firearms murders in the UK x 5 = 365
184 firearms murders in Canada x 9 = 1656

Those are roughly how many firearms murders there would have been in the US in 2004 if the firearms homicide rate in the US had been equivalent to the rate in the UK or Canada.


And surely you're not joining the chorus of "Eek! Eek! The criminals have seized the streets!" when it comes to violent crime in the UK. You, I believe, know better.

If you're suggesting that the firearms murder rate is not an adequate indication of something ... well, you might want to be having a word with benEzra.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-14-08 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. See my reply to Zanne
And if the math is so simple, why is it not mentioned on the poster? Why is it not listed in a per-capita basis?

How about mentioning the fact that the US non-gun homicide rate is about as high as those country's TOTAL homicide rates?

Why is the implication that if guns were severly restricted, all victims of gun violence would not have been killed at all? That 11,000 people a years would still be alive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-15-08 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
41. has TomHansley left the building?
Edited on Thu May-15-08 09:38 PM by iverglas


You seem to have suddenly become rather unconcerned with the dreadful situation in the UK, Tom. Whyzzat?



I wish this place would correct my typos the way my Word does.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-16-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #41
48. stop being so damn lazy
See that big button in the lower left that says "check spelling?"

Simply press that thing and it will act a lot like like Word. Just one more step. Press the button and decide to, or not, accept the changes it suggests.

Godddammm, you'd think now that it's warming up in the North you wouldn't be so cranky on a Friday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Irreverend IX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-16-08 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. Or use Firefox...
Which has had a built-in spell-checker for the last several versions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-16-08 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. true enough
I thought about that, but I didn't want to get too technical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-16-08 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. foreign spellcheckers

No, ta.

I also never acquired the habit of using the one here, because back when I was stubbornly using my antique netscape, javascript would assassinate it every so often, so I kept it turned off. That averted many other problems at the time too, but is no longer reasonable, sigh. So I've been a Firefox proselytizer for a long time now. Gotta love that Adblock. Still don't want its spellchecker. Mine does what I tell it to do.

I fired off an email in haste to a francophone colleague the other day; he wanted accusation of reception, and I was in a hurry. I just typed "ta" and sent. What did I mean by that, he asked. So a few days later I had to spend 10 minutes trying to figure out what somebody in Quebec meant when she called her boss a "tata" and he fired her. Turns out it means "moron". (And this was not part of my French vocabulary already??) I figure my colleague thought I was calling him half a moron ...

Anyhow, the co-vivant has just come up with some newfangled thing that beats Firefox by a mile in the speed category, so that will get downloaded this wknd. Did you know that Monday is Queen Victoria's birthday? It isn't actually. It's the closest Monday to May 24th without going over, and May 24th wasn't her birthday anyhow, it's just the day everybody had fireworks for her birthday. So we still do. I just love our quaint Canadian ways.

And now I have to get back to the thing that was due at 4pm and may be finished by Monday, when it is not a holiday in Quebec. They celebrate St John the Baptist in June instead of Queen Vic in May. Anybody ever worked in XML Editor? If anybody tries to make you, don't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indy Lurker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-16-08 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
46. different countries have different problems
PER CAPITA ROBBERIES

Spain: 12.3265 per 1,000 people
Mexico: 2.02555 per 1,000 people
Portugal: 1.6237 per 1,000 people
United Kingdom: 1.57433 per 1,000 people
Poland: 1.38838 per 1,000 people
United States: 1.38527 per 1,000 people


PER CAPITA BURGLARIES

Australia: 21.7454 per 1,000 people
#3 Denmark: 18.3299 per 1,000 people
#5 Finland: 16.7697 per 1,000 people
#6 New Zealand: 16.2763 per 1,000 people
#7 United Kingdom: 13.8321 per 1,000 people
#8 Poland: 9.46071 per 1,000 people
#9 Canada: 8.94425 per 1,000 people
#13 Switzerland: 8.06303 per 1,000 people
#17 United States: 7.09996 per 1,000 people



PER CAPITA ASSAULTS

United States: 7.56923 per 1,000 people
#7 New Zealand: 7.47881 per 1,000 people
#8 United Kingdom: 7.45959 per 1,000 people
#9 Canada: 7.11834 per 1,000 people
#10 Australia: 7.02459 per 1,000 people
#11 Finland: 5.32644 per 1,000 people


PER CAPITA CAR THEFTS

Australia: 6.92354 per 1,000 people
#2 Denmark: 5.92839 per 1,000 people
#3 United Kingdom: 5.6054 per 1,000 people
#4 New Zealand: 5.45031 per 1,000 people
#5 Norway: 5.08143 per 1,000 people
#6 France: 4.9713 per 1,000 people
#7 Canada: 4.88547 per 1,000 people
#8 Italy: 4.19755 per 1,000 people
#9 United States: 3.8795 per 1,000 people



PER CAPITA RAPES

Australia: 0.777999 per 1,000 people
#5 Canada: 0.733089 per 1,000 people
#9 United States: 0.301318 per 1,000 people



PER CAPITA SUICIDE AGE 15-24

New Zealand: 26.7 per 100,000 people
#2 Finland: 22.8 per 100,000 people
#3 Switzerland: 17.9 per 100,000 people
#4 Canada: 15 per 100,000 people
#5 Austria: 15 per 100,000 people
#6 Australia: 14.6 per 100,000 people
#7 United States: 13.7 per 100,000 people



It's a mistake to try and correlate one country to another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jul 14th 2014, 06:00 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC