-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
T
TheGrungeDiva
Guest
This is not true.
I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers. According to multiple sources compiled by Wikipedia, including both pro-gun and anti-gun sources, the US saw about 10 deaths per 100,000 in population in 2012. The UK saw 0.25 per 100K the same year. In Mexico, where guns are restricted even more than they are in the UK, the rate in 2011 was 11.14 per 100K in population, even higher than in the US. In Australia, where gun laws are about as lax as they are in the US, or perhaps even more lax, the rate was 1.05.
If you look across the board, the severity of a country's gun laws do not appear to have any relation to that nation's gun violence.
All of it has to do with this, and culture.
Yup. I am totally with you on this one.
And again, I agree 100%.
T
TheGrungeDiva
Guest
I'm wondering if you could comment on the current economic picture in the UK, both for individuals and as a nation.
In the US, the general picture we're getting is that all of Europe is headed for trouble, due to "entitlements," such as free health care like this. We hear about Greeks going on strike because the government wants to raise the retirement age from 57 to 58 so that they don't go completely bankrupt, and we think they're spoiled brats, because we're lucky if we get to retire at 65.
Do most Europeans, or at least Brits, feel over-burdened by taxes? In other words, surely you pay dearly for your free cadilac health care that includes mental health benefits. Is it worth it? Do some citizens feel they shouldn't have to pay for others?
Is the government trying to restrict certain behaviors and/or favor others by taxation and credits? For example, are cigarettes taxes excessively, with the understanding that those who smoke utilize the health system more (cancer, emphysema, etc.), or perhaps a "fat tax" as has been suggested here, for obese persons? Or conversely, is there a tax credit for gym memberships?
Obviously, there will be a variety of views in the UK on that topic, as there are a variety of views anywhere on any topic. (I've always said if you ask 3 people the same question you'll get 4 different answers.) But is there a majority feeling one way or another?
T
TheGrungeDiva
Guest
I so totally agree with you on this.
There is no evidence that the death penalty reduces crime through example, and you certainly can't bring back the victim. The only way I would support the death penalty is if the criminal continued to kill after he was in prison.
T
TheGrungeDiva
Guest
I think a lot of people who are against guns, especially those from outside of America, don't understand the pro-gun lobby's point. I am not necessarily saying I agree with them, but they do have an important point:
The reason for the second amendment, they argue, was not so that a person can protect his or her family from a robber, or so he or she can hunt for food or sport. Those are "nice" fringe benefits to having guns available, but they are not the purpose behind the 2nd amendment, according to the gun lobby.
The founders of this nation had just finished overthrowing what they felt was a tyrannical government. They wanted to do everything in their power to prevent the next government from becoming as burdensome as the one they had just overthrown. They recognized the real possibility of replacing one tyrant with another, and put dozens of safe-guards in place to prevent this from happening. The "checks-and-balances" of the 3-branch government is one example. The two houses of congress is another.
The 2nd amendment, our gun lobby argues, is there so that the people can revolt against the government whenever that may become necessary. Those who wish to restrict high-powered weapons, saying, "You don't need an AK-47 to shoot a deer," are missing the point. If you agree with the gun lobby, guns aren't for shooting deer, they're for rebelling against the government, and citizens should be able to attain the exact same weaponry as is available to the government's military. Otherwise, the people will not be able to overthrow the tyrant, who controls the military.
Again, I'm not saying I agree with this line of thinking. I am presenting it, especially since some of our people here are not in the US, and may not be aware of where the US pro-gun lobby is coming from.
The reason for the second amendment, they argue, was not so that a person can protect his or her family from a robber, or so he or she can hunt for food or sport. Those are "nice" fringe benefits to having guns available, but they are not the purpose behind the 2nd amendment, according to the gun lobby.
The founders of this nation had just finished overthrowing what they felt was a tyrannical government. They wanted to do everything in their power to prevent the next government from becoming as burdensome as the one they had just overthrown. They recognized the real possibility of replacing one tyrant with another, and put dozens of safe-guards in place to prevent this from happening. The "checks-and-balances" of the 3-branch government is one example. The two houses of congress is another.
The 2nd amendment, our gun lobby argues, is there so that the people can revolt against the government whenever that may become necessary. Those who wish to restrict high-powered weapons, saying, "You don't need an AK-47 to shoot a deer," are missing the point. If you agree with the gun lobby, guns aren't for shooting deer, they're for rebelling against the government, and citizens should be able to attain the exact same weaponry as is available to the government's military. Otherwise, the people will not be able to overthrow the tyrant, who controls the military.
Again, I'm not saying I agree with this line of thinking. I am presenting it, especially since some of our people here are not in the US, and may not be aware of where the US pro-gun lobby is coming from.
TheGrungeDiva .. I looked at the actual statistic for the rate of homicide percentage by firearm .. not death percentage.
Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country | News | guardian.co.uk
It is a fact that the UK's credit rating is higher than the US's. So generally, it is safe to assume that the NHS isn't that much of a burden. America likely spend a lot more money on military funding than the UK does on healthcare. In 2011, America's Military budget was reportedly (not counting for secret spending), $680 Bn. Our total healthcare budget in the same year was around £500 Bn. And that includes over £120 Bn of state pensions for the elderly.
Here, people generally pay a flat rate 20% tax (plus national insurance) on any earnings up to £60,000. Which is roughly $80 - 100k, depening on exchange rate fluctuation.
Anything above this £60,000 is known as 'higher rate tax', which is 40%
We all know Mexico is a haven for crime regardless of laws. It's generally a very violent country that doesn't have the same financial means as the US and UK to enforce a law such as the banning of guns.
Guns clearly aren't more 'strictly controlled', as evidenced by the rate of homicides by firearm in Mexico. The law may be more strict, but the application is obviously extremely difficult to uphold in Mexico.
Personally, and I think most people in the UK would agree,the NHS is a lifesaver. And an extremely worthwhile thing to use taxpayers money for.
I would be hard pressed to find anyone, out of my friends, family, work colleagues or college-mates that would say that the NHS isn't worth the tax we pay. Sure, the waits for treatment can be long at times, generally because people can go with the most minor of problems and have their minds put at ease, but it is a fantastic set-up.
Also, from a Christian point of view, many say that people are to submit to governmental authority. Now, I don't agree with submitting to something that is against God's laws. The ten commandments for instance. Order to murder, or anything like that. But I do agree with the rights to free speech and 'freedom', so to speak. But again, from a Christian perspective, it isn't exactly like Jesus to own a gun to shoot someone, or to go out and revolt against the government.
Just because guns are allowed, doesn't cover the fact they they are used highly immorally and without common sense by many people. Case in point; the shooter.
Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country | News | guardian.co.uk
It is a fact that the UK's credit rating is higher than the US's. So generally, it is safe to assume that the NHS isn't that much of a burden. America likely spend a lot more money on military funding than the UK does on healthcare. In 2011, America's Military budget was reportedly (not counting for secret spending), $680 Bn. Our total healthcare budget in the same year was around £500 Bn. And that includes over £120 Bn of state pensions for the elderly.
Here, people generally pay a flat rate 20% tax (plus national insurance) on any earnings up to £60,000. Which is roughly $80 - 100k, depening on exchange rate fluctuation.
Anything above this £60,000 is known as 'higher rate tax', which is 40%
We all know Mexico is a haven for crime regardless of laws. It's generally a very violent country that doesn't have the same financial means as the US and UK to enforce a law such as the banning of guns.
Guns clearly aren't more 'strictly controlled', as evidenced by the rate of homicides by firearm in Mexico. The law may be more strict, but the application is obviously extremely difficult to uphold in Mexico.
Personally, and I think most people in the UK would agree,the NHS is a lifesaver. And an extremely worthwhile thing to use taxpayers money for.
I would be hard pressed to find anyone, out of my friends, family, work colleagues or college-mates that would say that the NHS isn't worth the tax we pay. Sure, the waits for treatment can be long at times, generally because people can go with the most minor of problems and have their minds put at ease, but it is a fantastic set-up.
Also, from a Christian point of view, many say that people are to submit to governmental authority. Now, I don't agree with submitting to something that is against God's laws. The ten commandments for instance. Order to murder, or anything like that. But I do agree with the rights to free speech and 'freedom', so to speak. But again, from a Christian perspective, it isn't exactly like Jesus to own a gun to shoot someone, or to go out and revolt against the government.
Just because guns are allowed, doesn't cover the fact they they are used highly immorally and without common sense by many people. Case in point; the shooter.
T
TheGrungeDiva
Guest
Hey Colours. We're kinda talking about two very different topics, aren't we?
With regards to the NHS, I am glad to hear what you report, and it confirms what my impression had been. I don't like to "assume" stuff, when I have minimal personal exposure. I have never lived in the UK, and have in fact only visited once. I love BBC, but that's as bad as saying, "some of my best friends are black" as being proof you're not racist, lol. My ability to quote any Dr. Who episode is hardly evidence of expertise in current British socio-political standards
I hope the US figures out what the UK -- and most of the civilized would -- has known now for decades. Socialized health care is the best way to control costs, period. And it just makes sense.
It appears we are in complete agreement on that issue.
With regards to gun control, I think we disagree respectfully with each other.
In fact, your comment somewhat supports my point: the passing of laws is not what determines violence. It is the enforcement of those laws. I submit that the US already has enough laws on the books, and that we just have a problem enforcing those laws. Criminals should not have access to guns. There is no state in which a convicted criminal who has not yet served all his or her time may obtain a handgun. All states also have required background checks for the purchase of all guns. That means anyone who obtains a gun who is a criminal either has not yet been caught, or has obtained that gun illegally. If they haven't been caught yet, how will more laws help get them caught? If the mandatory background check doesn't flag anything, what would? If they are obtaining the weapons illegally, obviously, making guns "more" illegal is not going to stop them from getting guns.
So I'm still not sure how passing more laws restricting guns will help decrease the rate of gun violence. We don't need more laws, we need better enforcement of the laws that are already on the books.
Likewise, I grow tired of the liberals who go on and on about how Jesus was all about love and forgiveness, but as soon as you start talking about personal responsibility and accountability, they're like, "Don't you throw stones at me."
In other words, I see it on both sides.
There are plenty of moral uses for guns. Hunting food to feed a starving family. Protecting someone from being attacked by someone or something. (For example, if a mountain lion is about to pounce on a child, I would say shooting the lion would be more moral than letting it eat the child.)
Automobiles are "allowed" also. These, too, can be used immorally. In some ways, I'm harder pressed to think of a moral use for a privately owned vehicle, in this day and age of dwindling resources. How do we justify, before God, such a large carbon footprint, when most of us could accomplish everything we need to through public transportation and/or walking or biking. (I could make exceptions to people living in less urban areas, and clearly emergency vehicles and public vehicles such as buses and taxis should be allowed, but anyone who lives in a major city, if the public transportation is not good enough, that is a problem to be solved, not an excuse to continue living in sin.) Knowing that automobiles are the #1 cause of death of people under the age of 40, how do we justify the continued use of such killing machines? We pass laws to make them safer, but people keep breaking those laws and getting hurt. Is the answer just to make automobiles completely illegal, so that the option just isn't there any more?
I would like to see privately-owned and operated petrol-powered vehicles outlawed before guns are outlawed in this country. There's no pesky constitution to re-write for that one.
With regards to the NHS, I am glad to hear what you report, and it confirms what my impression had been. I don't like to "assume" stuff, when I have minimal personal exposure. I have never lived in the UK, and have in fact only visited once. I love BBC, but that's as bad as saying, "some of my best friends are black" as being proof you're not racist, lol. My ability to quote any Dr. Who episode is hardly evidence of expertise in current British socio-political standards
I hope the US figures out what the UK -- and most of the civilized would -- has known now for decades. Socialized health care is the best way to control costs, period. And it just makes sense.
It appears we are in complete agreement on that issue.
With regards to gun control, I think we disagree respectfully with each other.
I would be willing to "give" you that one: a nation's economic situation is a factor in its gun violence. But this does not negate what I said. My point is that more laws limiting guns does not necessarily lead to less gun violence. There are plenty of countries that prove that it is more complex. Some countries with relatively lax gun laws have less violence than the US, and countries with strict laws (regardless of how well those laws are enforced) have more.
In fact, your comment somewhat supports my point: the passing of laws is not what determines violence. It is the enforcement of those laws. I submit that the US already has enough laws on the books, and that we just have a problem enforcing those laws. Criminals should not have access to guns. There is no state in which a convicted criminal who has not yet served all his or her time may obtain a handgun. All states also have required background checks for the purchase of all guns. That means anyone who obtains a gun who is a criminal either has not yet been caught, or has obtained that gun illegally. If they haven't been caught yet, how will more laws help get them caught? If the mandatory background check doesn't flag anything, what would? If they are obtaining the weapons illegally, obviously, making guns "more" illegal is not going to stop them from getting guns.
So I'm still not sure how passing more laws restricting guns will help decrease the rate of gun violence. We don't need more laws, we need better enforcement of the laws that are already on the books.
This is another tough issue. I've found that Christians on both sides like to "pick and choose" the application of this Christian principal, about submission to the government. For example, when some hippie is protesting against, say, the war in Iraq, a republican will argue the whole "submit to the government" thing, and tell that protester she is not being a good Christian. But that same Republican will hold a sign protesting that same government under a different administration for some other policy just as vociferously, and claim that he's justified by God in his outrage.
Likewise, I grow tired of the liberals who go on and on about how Jesus was all about love and forgiveness, but as soon as you start talking about personal responsibility and accountability, they're like, "Don't you throw stones at me."
In other words, I see it on both sides.
I wouldn't say that guns are immoral. A gun is no less moral than a knife, or a spoon, or a chair. It is an object with no will or conscience of its own. Sure, an immoral person can kill with a gun. An immoral person can kill with a knife, spoon, chair, or with his bare hands.
There are plenty of moral uses for guns. Hunting food to feed a starving family. Protecting someone from being attacked by someone or something. (For example, if a mountain lion is about to pounce on a child, I would say shooting the lion would be more moral than letting it eat the child.)
Automobiles are "allowed" also. These, too, can be used immorally. In some ways, I'm harder pressed to think of a moral use for a privately owned vehicle, in this day and age of dwindling resources. How do we justify, before God, such a large carbon footprint, when most of us could accomplish everything we need to through public transportation and/or walking or biking. (I could make exceptions to people living in less urban areas, and clearly emergency vehicles and public vehicles such as buses and taxis should be allowed, but anyone who lives in a major city, if the public transportation is not good enough, that is a problem to be solved, not an excuse to continue living in sin.) Knowing that automobiles are the #1 cause of death of people under the age of 40, how do we justify the continued use of such killing machines? We pass laws to make them safer, but people keep breaking those laws and getting hurt. Is the answer just to make automobiles completely illegal, so that the option just isn't there any more?
I would like to see privately-owned and operated petrol-powered vehicles outlawed before guns are outlawed in this country. There's no pesky constitution to re-write for that one.
Hey Colours. We're kinda talking about two very different topics, aren't we?
With regards to the NHS, I am glad to hear what you report, and it confirms what my impression had been. I don't like to "assume" stuff, when I have minimal personal exposure. I have never lived in the UK, and have in fact only visited once. I love BBC, but that's as bad as saying, "some of my best friends are black" as being proof you're not racist, lol. My ability to quote any Dr. Who episode is hardly evidence of expertise in current British socio-political standards
I hope the US figures out what the UK -- and most of the civilized would -- has known now for decades. Socialized health care is the best way to control costs, period. And it just makes sense.
It appears we are in complete agreement on that issue.
With regards to gun control, I think we disagree respectfully with each other.
I would be willing to "give" you that one: a nation's economic situation is a factor in its gun violence. But this does not negate what I said. My point is that more laws limiting guns does not necessarily lead to less gun violence. There are plenty of countries that prove that it is more complex. Some countries with relatively lax gun laws have less violence than the US, and countries with strict laws (regardless of how well those laws are enforced) have more.
In fact, your comment somewhat supports my point: the passing of laws is not what determines violence. It is the enforcement of those laws. I submit that the US already has enough laws on the books, and that we just have a problem enforcing those laws. Criminals should not have access to guns. There is no state in which a convicted criminal who has not yet served all his or her time may obtain a handgun. All states also have required background checks for the purchase of all guns. That means anyone who obtains a gun who is a criminal either has not yet been caught, or has obtained that gun illegally. If they haven't been caught yet, how will more laws help get them caught? If the mandatory background check doesn't flag anything, what would? If they are obtaining the weapons illegally, obviously, making guns "more" illegal is not going to stop them from getting guns.
So I'm still not sure how passing more laws restricting guns will help decrease the rate of gun violence. We don't need more laws, we need better enforcement of the laws that are already on the books.
This is another tough issue. I've found that Christians on both sides like to "pick and choose" the application of this Christian principal, about submission to the government. For example, when some hippie is protesting against, say, the war in Iraq, a republican will argue the whole "submit to the government" thing, and tell that protester she is not being a good Christian. But that same Republican will hold a sign protesting that same government under a different administration for some other policy just as vociferously, and claim that he's justified by God in his outrage.
Likewise, I grow tired of the liberals who go on and on about how Jesus was all about love and forgiveness, but as soon as you start talking about personal responsibility and accountability, they're like, "Don't you throw stones at me."
In other words, I see it on both sides.
I wouldn't say that guns are immoral. A gun is no less moral than a knife, or a spoon, or a chair. It is an object with no will or conscience of its own. Sure, an immoral person can kill with a gun. An immoral person can kill with a knife, spoon, chair, or with his bare hands.
There are plenty of moral uses for guns. Hunting food to feed a starving family. Protecting someone from being attacked by someone or something. (For example, if a mountain lion is about to pounce on a child, I would say shooting the lion would be more moral than letting it eat the child.)
Automobiles are "allowed" also. These, too, can be used immorally. In some ways, I'm harder pressed to think of a moral use for a privately owned vehicle, in this day and age of dwindling resources. How do we justify, before God, such a large carbon footprint, when most of us could accomplish everything we need to through public transportation and/or walking or biking. (I could make exceptions to people living in less urban areas, and clearly emergency vehicles and public vehicles such as buses and taxis should be allowed, but anyone who lives in a major city, if the public transportation is not good enough, that is a problem to be solved, not an excuse to continue living in sin.) Knowing that automobiles are the #1 cause of death of people under the age of 40, how do we justify the continued use of such killing machines? We pass laws to make them safer, but people keep breaking those laws and getting hurt. Is the answer just to make automobiles completely illegal, so that the option just isn't there any more?
I would like to see privately-owned and operated petrol-powered vehicles outlawed before guns are outlawed in this country. There's no pesky constitution to re-write for that one.
I like talkin' to you. You make sensicalness.
You said there 'if a criminal is already obtaining guns illegally, how will making them more illegal stop him?'
It's only partly about the criminal obtaining them. It's also partly about the practice of selling them. That's the kicker. That it's illegal to both buy and sell guns to the general public.
Obviously there are issues. Loss of business being the one most likely to halt any proposed gun law changes.
And as you say, there may be a problem enforcing it. I don't mean to be stereotypical, but let's face it; If America bans guns, people will start'a shootin'.
It's a tough one.
It's like trying to stop atrocity while likely causing a bigger one.
And yes, your point about wild animals and the like is very valid. But take a look at the UK solution, particularly the 'valid reason' part:
Gun Laws UK | Gun Licences | Firearms Law
The shooter at Sandyhook tried to buy guns five times.
He was rebuffed all five times. (He stole the guns he used from his mother)
Guns are to protect the innocent from the marauder.
B.T.W. violent crime in England is well over the average in the U.S.A.
Take away the right of law abiding people to defend themselves against the criminal element and you have a turkey shoot.
With the criminals doing the bludgeoning.
In England the rate of barbarism has skyrocketed since the total banning of guns.
Before the "bobbies"(police) only carried nightsticks, now they carry guns.
Why?
Because the knowledge of an unarmed citizenry has emboldened the criminal element.
The highest murder rates in America are in cities where the right to defend oneself has been abridged.
Chicago, Detroit, Washington D.C.
Like I said, those cities are a turkey shoot for the criminal element because they know the average citizen is unarmed.
On the other hand, I live in Texas, where we have the right to carry, do you want to know the only murders we have here?
Do you want to know the only aggravated assaults that take place?
(Outside of crimes of passion - those that know each other....., relations usually induced by drugs or alcohol)
They are between law breaker on lawbreaker(Gang related turf wars). Very few innocents are killed by guns (or anything else), here.
Very few robberies,....very few assaults.
Do you want to know why?
Because the criminal mind is basically cowardly.
And it won't take a chance on being blasted by John Q. Public.
He was rebuffed all five times. (He stole the guns he used from his mother)
Guns are to protect the innocent from the marauder.
B.T.W. violent crime in England is well over the average in the U.S.A.
Take away the right of law abiding people to defend themselves against the criminal element and you have a turkey shoot.
With the criminals doing the bludgeoning.
In England the rate of barbarism has skyrocketed since the total banning of guns.
Before the "bobbies"(police) only carried nightsticks, now they carry guns.
Why?
Because the knowledge of an unarmed citizenry has emboldened the criminal element.
The highest murder rates in America are in cities where the right to defend oneself has been abridged.
Chicago, Detroit, Washington D.C.
Like I said, those cities are a turkey shoot for the criminal element because they know the average citizen is unarmed.
On the other hand, I live in Texas, where we have the right to carry, do you want to know the only murders we have here?
Do you want to know the only aggravated assaults that take place?
(Outside of crimes of passion - those that know each other....., relations usually induced by drugs or alcohol)
They are between law breaker on lawbreaker(Gang related turf wars). Very few innocents are killed by guns (or anything else), here.
Very few robberies,....very few assaults.
Do you want to know why?
Because the criminal mind is basically cowardly.
And it won't take a chance on being blasted by John Q. Public.
Not sure where you get your statistics from Rick.
US - Average 5 murders per 100,000 people in 2011.
UK - 1.4 murders per 100,000 people in 2011.
Although it's true that the UK's violent crime (and be aware we count more crimes as violent crime than the US), is higher, our murder rate (particularly by firearm) is drastically lower.
You also have to remember, very, very importantly, that a lot of your information is based on general statistics stretching over 30 years or more.
'Crime got worse after the gun ban in the UK'. But you're forgetting that Northern Ireland is part of the UK. And is incorporated in those statistics.
We're talking religious and political war going on for much of those statistical periods. Where 1 or more murders happened every single day in an area no bigger than inner Boston.
In 1898, 4221 violent crimes were RECORDED.
Also, In the UK, for any type of financial gain, claim, or for accusations to be taken more seriously, and particularly for insurance purposes, we require what is called a 'crime certificate'.
Police figures show a 26 fold increase in reported violent crime since 1960. And the census shows no increase at all in the total number or perpetrated violent crimes.
Seems to me that the reporting of the crime is what has gone up more than the perpetration of them.
BBC News - Why British police don?t have guns
The cops on the beat don't carry guns in most of the UK, Rick. That only happens in Northern Ireland, for obvious reasons.
US - Average 5 murders per 100,000 people in 2011.
UK - 1.4 murders per 100,000 people in 2011.
Although it's true that the UK's violent crime (and be aware we count more crimes as violent crime than the US), is higher, our murder rate (particularly by firearm) is drastically lower.
You also have to remember, very, very importantly, that a lot of your information is based on general statistics stretching over 30 years or more.
'Crime got worse after the gun ban in the UK'. But you're forgetting that Northern Ireland is part of the UK. And is incorporated in those statistics.
We're talking religious and political war going on for much of those statistical periods. Where 1 or more murders happened every single day in an area no bigger than inner Boston.
In 1898, 4221 violent crimes were RECORDED.
Also, In the UK, for any type of financial gain, claim, or for accusations to be taken more seriously, and particularly for insurance purposes, we require what is called a 'crime certificate'.
Police figures show a 26 fold increase in reported violent crime since 1960. And the census shows no increase at all in the total number or perpetrated violent crimes.
Seems to me that the reporting of the crime is what has gone up more than the perpetration of them.
BBC News - Why British police don?t have guns
The cops on the beat don't carry guns in most of the UK, Rick. That only happens in Northern Ireland, for obvious reasons.
Here we go with actual data:
Crime Statistics > Total crime victims (most recent) by country
VIEW DATA: Totals Definition Source
Printable version
Bar Graph Map Correlations
Showing latest available data. Rank Countries
Amount
# 1
Australia: 30.1% - Total Gun Ban
# 2
New Zealand: 29.4% - Total Gun Ban
# 3
United Kingdom: 26.4% - Total Gun Ban
# 4
Netherlands: 25.2% - Total Gun Ban
# 5
Sweden: 24.7%
# 6
Italy: 24.6%
# 7
Canada: 23.8%
# 8
Saint Kitts and Nevis: 23.2%
# 9
Malta: 23.1%
# 10
Denmark: 23%
# 11
Poland: 22.7%
= 12
Belgium: 21.4%
= 12
France: 21.4%
# 14
Slovenia: 21.2%
# 15
United States: 21.1% - Partial Gun Ban
# 16
Finland: 19.1%
# 17
Austria: 18.8%
# 18
Switzerland: 18.2% - Citizens are the militia
# 19
Portugal: 15.5%
# 20
Japan: 15.2%
Weighted average: 22.4%
DEFINITION: People victimized by crime (as a % of the total population). Data refer to people victimized by one or more of 11 crimes recorded in the survey: robbery, burglary, attempted burglary, car theft, car vandalism, bicycle theft, sexual assault, theft from car, theft of personal property, assault and threats. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.
SOURCE: UNICRI (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute). 2002. Correspondence on data on crime victims. March. Turin
Crime Statistics > Total crime victims (most recent) by country
VIEW DATA: Totals Definition Source
Bar Graph Map Correlations
Showing latest available data. Rank Countries
# 1
# 2
# 3
# 4
# 5
# 6
# 7
# 8
# 9
# 10
# 11
= 12
= 12
# 14
# 15
# 16
# 17
# 18
# 19
# 20
Weighted average: 22.4%
DEFINITION: People victimized by crime (as a % of the total population). Data refer to people victimized by one or more of 11 crimes recorded in the survey: robbery, burglary, attempted burglary, car theft, car vandalism, bicycle theft, sexual assault, theft from car, theft of personal property, assault and threats. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.
SOURCE: UNICRI (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute). 2002. Correspondence on data on crime victims. March. Turin
Last edited:
More stats.
Found at: Total crimes statistics - Countries Compared - NationMaster
27th December 2012
Compare the crime numbers with population:
US population 315,000,000 Crimes 12,000,000
UK population 63,000,000 Crimes 6,500,000
German population 82,000,000 Crimes 6,500,000
Canada population 35,000,000 Crimes 2,500,000
You do the math:
VIEW DATA: Totals Definition Source
Printable version
Bar Graph Pie Chart Map
Showing latest available data. Rank Countries
Amount
# 1
United States: 11,877,218
# 2
United Kingdom: 6,523,706
# 3
Germany: 6,507,394
# 4
France: 3,771,850
# 5
Russia: 2,952,370
# 6
Japan: 2,853,739
# 7
South Africa: 2,683,849
# 8
Canada: 2,516,918
# 9
Italy: 2,231,550
# 10
India: 1,764,630
# 11
Korea, South: 1,543,220
# 12
Mexico: 1,516,029
# 13
Netherlands: 1,422,863
# 14
Poland: 1,404,229
# 15
Argentina: 1,340,529
# 16
Sweden: 1,234,784
# 17
Belgium: 973,548
# 18
Spain: 923,271
# 19
Chile: 593,997
# 20
Thailand: 565,108
# 21
Ukraine: 553,594
# 22
Austria: 552,411
# 23
Finland: 520,194
# 24
Denmark: 491,026
# 25
New Zealand: 427,230
# 26
Hungary: 420,782
# 27
Czech Republic: 372,341
# 28
Zimbabwe: 351,153
# 29
Norway: 330,071
# 30
Romania: 312,204
# 31
Switzerland: 307,631
# 32
Turkey: 286,482
# 33
Morocco: 283,702
# 34
Venezuela: 236,165
# 35
Portugal: 218,360
# 36
Colombia: 214,192
# 37
Malaysia: 167,173
# 38
Peru: 161,621
# 39
Bulgaria: 148,915
# 40
Uruguay: 134,010
# 41
Belarus: 132,867
# 42
Tunisia: 130,375
# 43
Slovakia: 107,373
# 44
Greece: 102,783
# 45
Croatia: 101,853
# 46
Lithuania: 92,646
# 47
Philippines: 85,776
# 48
Saudi Arabia: 84,599
# 49
Slovenia: 81,697
# 50
Ireland: 81,274
27th December 2012 Compare the crime numbers with population:
US population 315,000,000 Crimes 12,000,000
UK population 63,000,000 Crimes 6,500,000
Geman population 82,000,000 Crimes 6,500,000
Canada population 35,000,000 Crimes 2,500,000
You do the math.
Found at: Total crimes statistics - Countries Compared - NationMaster
27th December 2012
Compare the crime numbers with population:
US population 315,000,000 Crimes 12,000,000
UK population 63,000,000 Crimes 6,500,000
German population 82,000,000 Crimes 6,500,000
Canada population 35,000,000 Crimes 2,500,000
You do the math:
VIEW DATA: Totals Definition Source
Bar Graph Pie Chart Map
Showing latest available data. Rank Countries
# 1
# 2
# 3
# 4
# 5
# 6
# 7
# 8
# 9
# 10
# 11
# 12
# 13
# 14
# 15
# 16
# 17
# 18
# 19
# 20
# 21
# 22
# 23
# 24
# 25
# 26
# 27
# 28
# 29
# 30
# 31
# 32
# 33
# 34
# 35
# 36
# 37
# 38
# 39
# 40
# 41
# 42
# 43
# 44
# 45
# 46
# 47
# 48
# 49
# 50
27th December 2012 Compare the crime numbers with population:
US population 315,000,000 Crimes 12,000,000
UK population 63,000,000 Crimes 6,500,000
Geman population 82,000,000 Crimes 6,500,000
Canada population 35,000,000 Crimes 2,500,000
You do the math.
T
TheGrungeDiva
Guest
Rick, you have provided information for TOTAL crimes in each country, not violent crimes nor gun-related crimes.
Let's think of it this way: let's make up two hypothetical countries. In one, let's call it "A-land," just for fun, there are many laws. It is illegal to walk. It is illegal to talk. It is illegal to breathe. You're not even allowed to have skin or you will be convicted of a crime.
In our other hypothetical country, let's call it "B-land," there are no laws whatsoever. Murder, rape, whatever. Nothing is illegal.
The citizens of A-land are completely non-violent. You can walk through any city there at 3 AM with $50s hanging out of your pants and no one will take any. You can leave a Rolex sitting on a park bench and no one will take it.
The citizens of B-land, by comparison, are violent and vicious.
What's the crime rate of the two countries? Well, in A-land it's 100%, and in B-land it's 0%.
So saying that the UK has a higher crime rate than the US does not necessarily mean that Englanders are more violent than Americans, or that we are any better behaved. It may simply be a product of the UK having more laws to break.
That's why Colours and I quoted specific crime date -- murder rates and gun-involved crime rates, not just general crime. It does make a difference.
Let's think of it this way: let's make up two hypothetical countries. In one, let's call it "A-land," just for fun, there are many laws. It is illegal to walk. It is illegal to talk. It is illegal to breathe. You're not even allowed to have skin or you will be convicted of a crime.
In our other hypothetical country, let's call it "B-land," there are no laws whatsoever. Murder, rape, whatever. Nothing is illegal.
The citizens of A-land are completely non-violent. You can walk through any city there at 3 AM with $50s hanging out of your pants and no one will take any. You can leave a Rolex sitting on a park bench and no one will take it.
The citizens of B-land, by comparison, are violent and vicious.
What's the crime rate of the two countries? Well, in A-land it's 100%, and in B-land it's 0%.
So saying that the UK has a higher crime rate than the US does not necessarily mean that Englanders are more violent than Americans, or that we are any better behaved. It may simply be a product of the UK having more laws to break.
That's why Colours and I quoted specific crime date -- murder rates and gun-involved crime rates, not just general crime. It does make a difference.