I only posted the statistics, which I got straight from the pages I referenced: the official government statistics of the UK and the US respecively. If you don`t like the statistics, fine, but don`t go flaming the moderators for being biased. Can you not differentiate between facts and argument? What I posted above are FACTS: they are the numbers gathered by police and government surveys. I quite deliberately did not then go on to say `And these statistics show that guns ought to be banned`; as the post below points out, the statistics show that *all* assaults, not just those involving firearms, are higher in the US. I suppose it was naive of me to assume that the people reading the facts would have the intelligence to interpret them for themselves, rather than merely saying `Oh, it says the number of deaths is higher in the US, therefore the poster must be anti-gun, therefore the moderators were biased in moderating it up`.
I would like to think that the reason my post was rated `informative` was because I gave both the salient statistics and links to where I found them, so that people who were interested could investigate further themselves. I suppose I was expecting too much in thinking that you`d actually bother to think about it at all.
Okay. I was just going by the hemp clothing I`ve seen, which tends to be rather rough. I take it though that that`s the environmentalist ideology of the manufacturers showing through rather than any shortcomings in the actual fibres.
I don`t know much about hemp, but I get the impression that the paper it produces is rather coarse. Would it be of sufficient quality for a decent laser printer output?
Well, yes. Personally, I would love a smart ID card, containing all my bank account information, driver`s licence, passport info, blood donor info, and supermarket loyalty cards all on one piece of plastic. It`s no more information than is available to people at the moment, and it would be much more convenient all in one card - and losing it would be about the same as losing my wallet; there`d be a number to phone to report it missing and get a new one.
Besides, given the Data Protection Act (people aren`t allowed to hold personal data (including as little as a name and address) about you on computers unless you give them permission, AND they have to be registered to do so, and you can demand to see the information they have on you and ask to be removed at any time) I don`t think there`s that much to worry about.
Access to databases? Depends who`s wanting it. Perhaps you`d have to register and give a legitimate reason for wanting to see it (things like Research Project would have to be backed up by the relevant institution), or perhaps there`d be a summary version that would be available to the general public, with the full details only available to the police..
I dunno. I don`t think it`s necessary to invoke the uncertainty principle. It`s sufficient that there are so many atoms doing so many things that it`s a chaotic system. Is there a difference between not knowing what the cause is, and saying `That electron did that because it wanted to`?
Would it annoy you if someone followed you around with a notepad, recording your every movement, what shops you go into, how many times you use the toilet in a day, who you see (and what you do with them) etc etc?
Yes, but only because it would by its intrusive nature hinder my activities. This isn`t a problem with security cameras, however.
I do agree with what you say about monitoring access to the resulting databases though.
Yes, but then, if criminals know that there`s a camera pointing at them they`re less likely to do stuff. The point about `Police Camera Action` is that most of the people shown on it do get caught. And they wouldn`t if they weren`t being filmed. (Actually, a lot of the footage in PCA is taken from cameras mounted on police cars or helicopters. So it`s not that the police aren`t there.)
I have nothing against cameras filming in public places. Your living room is a different matter. What you do in the street is public domain: by doing it in a public place you are tacitly consenting to being seen by other people, and thus to having it recorded. But I would be the first to object if surveillance cameras in the living-room became commonplace. (I know that it already happens sometimes, and I`m not happy about it.)
Maybe it is. But the original question asked for a comparison of two equal cities. I`m merely pointing out that in at least one way, New York and London are not equal, and this could have a bearing on the statistics. Only when all extraneous factors (such as geographical size) have been removed can we then look and say: yes, the remaining difference must be due to gun control, as that`s the only thing there is left.
The trouble is that we`llnever get to that stage. As has been pointed out elsewhere, culture has a great deal to do with it. If guns were as easy to get hold of in the UK as in the US, most people still wouldn`t go and get one. They simply don`t want to. But criminals would, simply because they`d know that most people wouldn`t. And the rate of firearm injury and death would go up. On the other hand, if more restrictive legislation were enacted in the US, a lot of people would probably keep hold of their guns illegally, simply because that`s the way it is in that culture.
We don't know how many red-blooded American nutcases would be setting off bombs, burning down buildings, and hoarding surplus Russian Pu-239 in their basements if firearms weren't out there. Very few, if countries without great access to firearms are any example. People tend to take the course of least resistance. If it`s easy to kill people, they`re more likely to kill people.
The trouble is that that sort of thing happens far too often to be news. Thousands of people still dying in car crashes! It falls into the category of `Dog Bites Man`, and no-one takes any notice. To be newsworthy, something has to be unusual.
It`s a shame that this is the case, because it often means that really important things (like the rate of car accident deaths) tend to get ignored, and unusual (and thus in some ways less important) things like school shootings get blown up out of all proportion..
If you look closely at the comment you reference, you`ll notice that I`ve already followed up to it, saying that I agree wholeheartedly. And if you look closely at my article that you followed up to, you`ll notice that all I gave was the facts. I drew no conclusions. If you think I did, well, maybe that`s how loudly the facts speak..
The point being that these studies do also say that excessive drinking (ie more than a few units a week) are bad for you, far worse than leaving drink alone. Moreover, it`s not the alcohol that`s good for you, but antioxidants found specifically in red wine. If you drink too much, the bad effects of the alcohol outweigh the benefits of the antioxidants.
And the research wasn`t funded by French wine growers, but by UK academic funding bodies.
Not every result of research you don`t like is FUD..
Anti-depressants are over-prescribed because people can`t tell the difference between being depressed and merely being unhappy. Instead of sorting themselves out, they go to the doctor and demand antidepressants to make them feel better, because they have the right never to be unhappy. It`s the same as the over-prescription of antibiotics that has resulted in increasing numbers of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The patients demand antibiotics, even for viral infections where they wouldn`t do any good, because they have the right to be healthy all the time, and aren`t prepared to wait three days to get over it. The doctors give in and prescribe, because if they don`t then the patients file complaints saying the doctor is refusing to treat them. The doctor is in the right, but the proceedings are such a hass and cause such stress that they`re willing to prescribe in order to avoid them.
None of this is to deny that some people really are seriously depressed, and need medication. I`m just saying that most of the people who think they need it, and ask their doctor for it, actually don`t.
I agree with this entirely. The only problem is, how do you change a culture, especially given that many (most) people won`t want their culture changed?
Yes, doctors get given freebies by drug reps. So what? All it means is that they never have to buy another pen again. They`re under no obligation to actually prescribe/I> the drugs just because they write with a Lustral pen on Zirtek paper and have a Losec clock on the wall.
And while you may accuse me of being idealistic, I doubt a well-educated doctor would attatch any significance to the fact that a drug rep is goodlooking. In fact, most doctors I know tend to milk drug reps for all they can get out of them (free dinners and whatnot), and tend to despise them for knowing little more than their sales pitch.
Following up to my own article before anyone else notices: I used the statistics for England&Wales, but the population for the whole of the UK. That makes the murders per head look lower than it should. Still, even if there`s as many murders in Scotland as in the whole of the rest of the UK, it`s still an order of magnitude lower than the rate in the US.
Although the populations of New York and London are pretty much the same, London is geographically twice the size. Perhaps a lower population density could account for some of this?
Granted, no statistic is really reliable, it would be nice to see some sort of numbers comparing crime in the US to crime in a place such as the UK...but more specifically a certain city in the UK that scales well to a city in the US. Anybody have any data, or know a good source for solid statistical data?
Okaaaaay..
From the Home Office Statistical Publications website, I can get the 1998 British Crime Survey, which tells me that in the UK in 1997 there were 714,000 wounding assaults (more than trivial injury). Only 25% of violent crime is committed by people previously unknown to the victim. The Statistics of Deaths Reported to Coroners: England and Wales 1998 tells us that 142 deaths were given a verdict of `unlawful homicide` in 1997 (note this doesn`t include Scotland); this works out as 2.4 murders per 1,000,000 head of population (see below).
The Bureau of Justice Statistics has a summary of firearm-related crimes, wherein we are told that: "Victimizations involving a firearm represented 23% of the 2.9 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault" and that it is "estimated that 68% of the 18,209 murders in 1997 were committed with firearms." This works out as 67.9 murders per 1,000,000 people, or 46.2 murders with firearms per 1,000,000 people.
The population of the US is 268 million, with 29 people per square kilometre. The population of the UK is 59 million, with 243 people per square kilometre. (Source: World Bank country data.)
I`m afraid I don`t have time to go looking up specific cities though.
On the other hand, I find that these days I do all my browsing horizontally rather than vertically: rather than click on a link straight to load it into the same page (thus losing whatever I was reading at the time) I`ll right-click (in Windows) or middle-click (in Linux) to open it in a new window, and continue to read the referring page as well as the new one. Now that I`ve discovered this facility, I certainly wouldn`t want it disabled!
Slashdot Mirror
I only posted the statistics, which I got straight from the pages I referenced: the official government statistics of the UK and the US respecively. If you don`t like the statistics, fine, but don`t go flaming the moderators for being biased. Can you not differentiate between facts and argument? What I posted above are FACTS: they are the numbers gathered by police and government surveys. I quite deliberately did not then go on to say `And these statistics show that guns ought to be banned`; as the post below points out, the statistics show that *all* assaults, not just those involving firearms, are higher in the US. I suppose it was naive of me to assume that the people reading the facts would have the intelligence to interpret them for themselves, rather than merely saying `Oh, it says the number of deaths is higher in the US, therefore the poster must be anti-gun, therefore the moderators were biased in moderating it up`.
I would like to think that the reason my post was rated `informative` was because I gave both the salient statistics and links to where I found them, so that people who were interested could investigate further themselves. I suppose I was expecting too much in thinking that you`d actually bother to think about it at all.
Why do we have to have a computer program to tell us to turn off our computers?
Did that happen to you? And would it have been any more or less likely to happen if you had had an ID card?
Okay. I was just going by the hemp clothing I`ve seen, which tends to be rather rough. I take it though that that`s the environmentalist ideology of the manufacturers showing through rather than any shortcomings in the actual fibres.
I don`t know much about hemp, but I get the impression that the paper it produces is rather coarse. Would it be of sufficient quality for a decent laser printer output?
Well, yes. Personally, I would love a smart ID card, containing all my bank account information, driver`s licence, passport info, blood donor info, and supermarket loyalty cards all on one piece of plastic. It`s no more information than is available to people at the moment, and it would be much more convenient all in one card - and losing it would be about the same as losing my wallet; there`d be a number to phone to report it missing and get a new one.
Besides, given the Data Protection Act (people aren`t allowed to hold personal data (including as little as a name and address) about you on computers unless you give them permission, AND they have to be registered to do so, and you can demand to see the information they have on you and ask to be removed at any time) I don`t think there`s that much to worry about.
Access to databases? Depends who`s wanting it. Perhaps you`d have to register and give a legitimate reason for wanting to see it (things like Research Project would have to be backed up by the relevant institution), or perhaps there`d be a summary version that would be available to the general public, with the full details only available to the police..
I dunno. I don`t think it`s necessary to invoke the uncertainty principle. It`s sufficient that there are so many atoms doing so many things that it`s a chaotic system. Is there a difference between not knowing what the cause is, and saying `That electron did that because it wanted to`?
Would it annoy you if someone followed you around with a notepad, recording your every movement, what shops you go into, how many times you use the toilet in a day, who you see (and what you do with them) etc etc?
Yes, but only because it would by its intrusive nature hinder my activities. This isn`t a problem with security cameras, however.
I do agree with what you say about monitoring access to the resulting databases though.
Yes, but then, if criminals know that there`s a camera pointing at them they`re less likely to do stuff. The point about `Police Camera Action` is that most of the people shown on it do get caught. And they wouldn`t if they weren`t being filmed.
(Actually, a lot of the footage in PCA is taken from cameras mounted on police cars or helicopters. So it`s not that the police aren`t there.)
I have nothing against cameras filming in public places. Your living room is a different matter. What you do in the street is public domain: by doing it in a public place you are tacitly consenting to being seen by other people, and thus to having it recorded. But I would be the first to object if surveillance cameras in the living-room became commonplace. (I know that it already happens sometimes, and I`m not happy about it.)
But then.. if they think everyone runs windows, they`re not ever going to think it`s worth doing anything for Linux, are they?
Remember, this is completely speculative. Sun could do any, all, or none of these things. Let`s just wait and see before we start flaming, shall we?
As it happens, personally I don`t see anything wrong with server-based applications - in the right situations, of course.
Maybe it is. But the original question asked for a comparison of two equal cities. I`m merely pointing out that in at least one way, New York and London are not equal, and this could have a bearing on the statistics. Only when all extraneous factors (such as geographical size) have been removed can we then look and say: yes, the remaining difference must be due to gun control, as that`s the only thing there is left.
The trouble is that we`llnever get to that stage. As has been pointed out elsewhere, culture has a great deal to do with it. If guns were as easy to get hold of in the UK as in the US, most people still wouldn`t go and get one. They simply don`t want to. But criminals would, simply because they`d know that most people wouldn`t. And the rate of firearm injury and death would go up. On the other hand, if more restrictive legislation were enacted in the US, a lot of people would probably keep hold of their guns illegally, simply because that`s the way it is in that culture.
We don't know how many red-blooded American nutcases would be setting off bombs, burning down buildings, and hoarding surplus Russian Pu-239 in their basements if firearms weren't out there.
Very few, if countries without great access to firearms are any example. People tend to take the course of least resistance. If it`s easy to kill people, they`re more likely to kill people.
The trouble is that that sort of thing happens far too often to be news. Thousands of people still dying in car crashes! It falls into the category of `Dog Bites Man`, and no-one takes any notice. To be newsworthy, something has to be unusual.
It`s a shame that this is the case, because it often means that really important things (like the rate of car accident deaths) tend to get ignored, and unusual (and thus in some ways less important) things like school shootings get blown up out of all proportion..
If you look closely at the comment you reference, you`ll notice that I`ve already followed up to it, saying that I agree wholeheartedly. And if you look closely at my article that you followed up to, you`ll notice that all I gave was the facts. I drew no conclusions. If you think I did, well, maybe that`s how loudly the facts speak..
The point being that these studies do also say that excessive drinking (ie more than a few units a week) are bad for you, far worse than leaving drink alone. Moreover, it`s not the alcohol that`s good for you, but antioxidants found specifically in red wine. If you drink too much, the bad effects of the alcohol outweigh the benefits of the antioxidants.
And the research wasn`t funded by French wine growers, but by UK academic funding bodies.
Not every result of research you don`t like is FUD..
Anti-depressants are over-prescribed because people can`t tell the difference between being depressed and merely being unhappy. Instead of sorting themselves out, they go to the doctor and demand antidepressants to make them feel better, because they have the right never to be unhappy. It`s the same as the over-prescription of antibiotics that has resulted in increasing numbers of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The patients demand antibiotics, even for viral infections where they wouldn`t do any good, because they have the right to be healthy all the time, and aren`t prepared to wait three days to get over it. The doctors give in and prescribe, because if they don`t then the patients file complaints saying the doctor is refusing to treat them. The doctor is in the right, but the proceedings are such a hass and cause such stress that they`re willing to prescribe in order to avoid them.
None of this is to deny that some people really are seriously depressed, and need medication. I`m just saying that most of the people who think they need it, and ask their doctor for it, actually don`t.
I agree with this entirely. The only problem is, how do you change a culture, especially given that many (most) people won`t want their culture changed?
woops, should have used preview. Sorry folks.
Yes, doctors get given freebies by drug reps. So what? All it means is that they never have to buy another pen again. They`re under no obligation to actually prescribe/I> the drugs just because they write with a Lustral pen on Zirtek paper and have a Losec clock on the wall.
And while you may accuse me of being idealistic, I doubt a well-educated doctor would attatch any significance to the fact that a drug rep is goodlooking. In fact, most doctors I know tend to milk drug reps for all they can get out of them (free dinners and whatnot), and tend to despise them for knowing little more than their sales pitch.
Following up to my own article before anyone else notices: I used the statistics for England&Wales, but the population for the whole of the UK. That makes the murders per head look lower than it should. Still, even if there`s as many murders in Scotland as in the whole of the rest of the UK, it`s still an order of magnitude lower than the rate in the US.
Okay, but what about the probability of serious injury when the attacker is carrying a gun versus when the attacker is not carrying a gun?
And it`s not just a choice between `resisting with a gun` and `offering no resistance`. How about `resisting with kung-fu`, for example?
Although the populations of New York and London are pretty much the same, London is geographically twice the size. Perhaps a lower population density could account for some of this?
Granted, no statistic is really reliable, it would be nice to see some sort of numbers comparing crime in the US to crime in a place such as the UK...but more specifically a certain city in the UK that scales well to a city in the US. Anybody have any data, or know a good source for solid statistical data?
Okaaaaay..
From the Home Office Statistical Publications website, I can get the 1998 British Crime Survey, which tells me that in the UK in 1997 there were 714,000 wounding assaults (more than trivial injury). Only 25% of violent crime is committed by people previously unknown to the victim. The Statistics of Deaths Reported to Coroners: England and Wales 1998 tells us that 142 deaths were given a verdict of `unlawful homicide` in 1997 (note this doesn`t include Scotland); this works out as 2.4 murders per 1,000,000 head of population (see below).
The Bureau of Justice Statistics has a summary of firearm-related crimes, wherein we are told that: "Victimizations involving a firearm represented 23% of the 2.9 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault" and that it is "estimated that 68% of the 18,209 murders in 1997 were committed with firearms." This works out as 67.9 murders per 1,000,000 people, or 46.2 murders with firearms per 1,000,000 people.
The population of the US is 268 million, with 29 people per square kilometre. The population of the UK is 59 million, with 243 people per square kilometre. (Source: World Bank country data.)
I`m afraid I don`t have time to go looking up specific cities though.
On the other hand, I find that these days I do all my browsing horizontally rather than vertically: rather than click on a link straight to load it into the same page (thus losing whatever I was reading at the time) I`ll right-click (in Windows) or middle-click (in Linux) to open it in a new window, and continue to read the referring page as well as the new one. Now that I`ve discovered this facility, I certainly wouldn`t want it disabled!