Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #157652 > unrolled thread

Britain -- the land of violent crime.

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  Britain -- the land of violent crime. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2013-01-13 13:44 +0000
    LOL! You are being lead around by your nose! You are too ridiculous! :) Big Steel <"The One"@One.net> - 2013-01-13 08:49 -0500
      Re: LOL! You are being lead around by your nose! You are too ridiculous! :) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2013-01-13 13:54 +0000
    America still the murder capital of the world 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2013-01-13 14:03 +0000
      Re: America still the murder capital of the world owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2013-01-13 14:10 +0000
    Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-01-13 15:11 +0000
      Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2013-01-13 15:52 +0000
        Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. Big Steel <"The One"@One.net> - 2013-01-13 10:58 -0500
          Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2013-01-13 16:07 +0000
            Diaper Rash Owl, I am sure your drugs have you confused again. Big Steel <"The One"@One.net> - 2013-01-13 11:10 -0500
            Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-13 11:12 -0500
              Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. George <hpt@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-13 09:37 -0700
                Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-13 11:43 -0500
                  Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. "Cola Zealot" <Cola_Zealot@fuckoff.com> - 2013-01-13 19:28 +0100
                    Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-13 13:29 -0500
        Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-01-13 17:01 +0000
          Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2013-01-13 12:36 -0500
            Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-01-13 23:25 +0000
              Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2013-01-14 00:51 +0000
              Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2013-01-14 13:40 -0500
          Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2013-01-14 00:20 +0000
            Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-01-14 00:31 +0000
        Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. spike1@freenet.co.uk - 2013-01-13 16:42 +0000
          Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2013-01-13 13:03 -0500
            Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2013-01-15 08:29 -0600
    Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. Big Steel <"The One"@One.net> - 2013-01-13 10:18 -0500
      Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. "Mr Pounder" <MrPounder@RationalThought.com> - 2013-01-13 19:18 +0000
        Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. Big Steel <"The One77"@One77.net> - 2013-01-13 14:26 -0500
          Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. "Mr Pounder" <MrPounder@RationalThought.com> - 2013-01-13 20:13 +0000
            Hi Mr. Pounder!:) No no ho, it's not going to work Mr. Pounder the Chicago City Dump is where a sociopath as the Chicago City dump creature  (you) belongs. :) You can't change your spots on your hairy nasty back. :) Big Steel <"The One77"@One77.net> - 2013-01-13 15:18 -0500
        Mr.  Pounder  your ass we know what part of your body you are pounding, huh? :) Big Steel <"The One77"@One77.net> - 2013-01-13 14:29 -0500
        Yeah you had better pound the Chicago City Dump -- Chicago's City Dump creature.   :) Big Steel <"The One77"@One77.net> - 2013-01-13 14:35 -0500
        Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2013-01-15 08:04 -0600
          Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. Big Steel <"The OneOOOOwee"@OneOOOOweee.net> - 2013-01-15 09:21 -0500
          Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2013-01-15 10:14 -0500
          Re: Britain -- the land of violent crime. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2013-01-16 00:55 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#157652 — Britain -- the land of violent crime.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
<quote>
Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types
of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one
of the world's most dangerous countries.
</quote>

What a shitty country.
And they still have that inbred "royal family."
Maybe they should bring back guns and get rid of *those* fucktards.
(I still can't believe they "suicided" that poor woman who worked
at the hospital and took the prank call).

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#157654 — LOL! You are being lead around by your nose! You are too ridiculous! :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157656 — Re: LOL! You are being lead around by your nose! You are too ridiculous! :)

Big Steel <"The One"@one.net> wrote:
<insane lies>

I am not holding the rod with my nose, Mr Limpet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157661 — America still the murder capital of the world

Snit wrote:

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-
Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html


> Official crime figures

2009? Thats going back a bit. Did you use bong for your search?

Even then, the US was still the murder capital of the world despite the
misleading use of statistics.



The easiest way to get control is to get its owners
to go register IN PERSON their personal devices EVERY YEAR for $10.

It doesn't violate the right to bear arms.

Full ownership documents must be presented.
Full proof of ID must be presented.
No more than 2 devices can be registered per day
for personal use per person.

It doesn't violate the right to bear arms.

Devices left unregistered for more than 3 months
will need to be destroyed and can't be re-registered
unless exceptional circumstances apply.

It doesn't violate the right to bear arms.

All future guns must be manufactured to
have a 5 digit counter to indicate
how many rounds it has fired.

It doesn't violate the right to bear arms.

If the gun has been used between registrations,
an explanation must be given as to what it may
have been used for when re-registering.

It doesn't violate the right to bear arms.

If no explanations are given, or if gun
has been used one or more times, then 
a fingerprint of a fired bullet is taken.

It doesn't violate the right to bear arms.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157666 — Re: America still the murder capital of the world

Snit <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> owl wrote:
> 
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-
> Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
> 
> 
>> Official crime figures
> 
> 2009? Thats going back a bit. Did you use bong for your search?
> 
> Even then, the US was still the murder capital of the world despite the
> misleading use of statistics.
> 
> 
> 
> The easiest way to get control

to get control.
That's your mantra.

> 
> It doesn't violate the right to bear arms.
> 

What the hell would you know about the right to bear arms which you don't
have in your shithole country?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157673

owl wrote:

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-
Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
> <quote>
> Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types
> of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one
> of the world's most dangerous countries.
> </quote>
> 
> What a shitty country.
> And they still have that inbred "royal family."
> Maybe they should bring back guns and get rid of *those* fucktards.
> (I still can't believe they "suicided" that poor woman who worked
> at the hospital and took the prank call).

Well, speaking of guns:-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-
UN-data3.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/c48vufv
Gives a rather dramatic picture!

Your natural answer will presumably be "but they just find some other way to 
kill if they don't have guns", so let's look at murder rates:-

http://chartsbin.com/view/1454
That shows:-
U.K.  1.57/100.000
U.S.  5.22/100,000

You see, the problem is that you are quoting from The Daily Jackboot.
The quoted figures include "all violent crime".
There's a hell of a lot of reported violent crime in the U.K.  Sure, we have 
football violence, we have pub brawls, and we even classify "verbal assault" 
as a violent crime.
Do try to compare like-with-like, eh?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157694

bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> owl wrote:
> 
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-
> Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
>> <quote>
>> Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types
>> of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one
>> of the world's most dangerous countries.
>> </quote>
>> 
>> What a shitty country.
>> And they still have that inbred "royal family."
>> Maybe they should bring back guns and get rid of *those* fucktards.
>> (I still can't believe they "suicided" that poor woman who worked
>> at the hospital and took the prank call).
> 
> Well, speaking of guns:-
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-
> UN-data3.jpg
> http://tinyurl.com/c48vufv
> Gives a rather dramatic picture!
> 
> Your natural answer will presumably be "but they just find some other way to 
> kill if they don't have guns", so let's look at murder rates:-
> 
> http://chartsbin.com/view/1454
> That shows:-
> U.K.  1.57/100.000
> U.S.  5.22/100,000
> 
> You see, the problem is that you are quoting from The Daily Jackboot.
> The quoted figures include "all violent crime".
> There's a hell of a lot of reported violent crime in the U.K.  Sure, we have 
> football violence, we have pub brawls, and we even classify "verbal assault" 
> as a violent crime.
> Do try to compare like-with-like, eh?
> 

You see, the problem is that you are ignoring the fact that murders are
predominantly an inner-city gang-related problem in the US, and much
more tied to centers of high population density.  I came across a stat
the other day that observed iirc that US has about 180 cities with a
population greater than 200,000, while UK has only about 50 at that level. 

This is also interesting:
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime
<quote>
Crime stats: United Kingdom vs United States
British Crime stats  American Crime stats
Assault victims 2.8% 	            1.2%
Drug offences   183,419 per 100,000 people 	560.1 per 100,000 people

[WTF!  But believable!]

Perception of safety > Walking in dark 	70% 	82% 
Rape victims 	0.9% 	0.4% 
Total crime victims 	26.4% 	21.1%
</quote>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157699

On 1/13/2013 10:52 AM, owl wrote:
> bbgruff<bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk>  wrote:
>> owl wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-
>> Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
>>> <quote>
>>> Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types
>>> of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one
>>> of the world's most dangerous countries.
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> What a shitty country.
>>> And they still have that inbred "royal family."
>>> Maybe they should bring back guns and get rid of *those* fucktards.
>>> (I still can't believe they "suicided" that poor woman who worked
>>> at the hospital and took the prank call).
>>
>> Well, speaking of guns:-
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-
>> UN-data3.jpg
>> http://tinyurl.com/c48vufv
>> Gives a rather dramatic picture!
>>
>> Your natural answer will presumably be "but they just find some other way to
>> kill if they don't have guns", so let's look at murder rates:-
>>
>> http://chartsbin.com/view/1454
>> That shows:-
>> U.K.  1.57/100.000
>> U.S.  5.22/100,000
>>
>> You see, the problem is that you are quoting from The Daily Jackboot.
>> The quoted figures include "all violent crime".
>> There's a hell of a lot of reported violent crime in the U.K.  Sure, we have
>> football violence, we have pub brawls, and we even classify "verbal assault"
>> as a violent crime.
>> Do try to compare like-with-like, eh?
>>
>
> You see, the problem is that you are ignoring the fact that murders are
> predominantly an inner-city gang-related problem in the US, and much
> more tied to centers of high population density.  I came across a stat
> the other day that observed iirc that US has about 180 cities with a
> population greater than 200,000, while UK has only about 50 at that level.
>
> This is also interesting:
> http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime
> <quote>
> Crime stats: United Kingdom vs United States
> British Crime stats  American Crime stats
> Assault victims 2.8% 	            1.2%
> Drug offences   183,419 per 100,000 people 	560.1 per 100,000 people
>
> [WTF!  But believable!]
>
> Perception of safety>  Walking in dark 	70% 	82%
> Rape victims 	0.9% 	0.4%
> Total crime victims 	26.4% 	21.1%
> </quote>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157709

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Big Steel <"The One"@one.net> wrote:
> On 1/13/2013 10:52 AM, owl wrote:
>> bbgruff<bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk>  wrote:
>>> owl wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-
>>> Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
>>>> <quote>
>>>> Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types
>>>> of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one
>>>> of the world's most dangerous countries.
>>>> </quote>
>>>>
>>>> What a shitty country.
>>>> And they still have that inbred "royal family."
>>>> Maybe they should bring back guns and get rid of *those* fucktards.
>>>> (I still can't believe they "suicided" that poor woman who worked
>>>> at the hospital and took the prank call).
>>>
>>> Well, speaking of guns:-
>>>
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-
>>> UN-data3.jpg
>>> http://tinyurl.com/c48vufv
>>> Gives a rather dramatic picture!
>>>
>>> Your natural answer will presumably be "but they just find some other way to
>>> kill if they don't have guns", so let's look at murder rates:-
>>>
>>> http://chartsbin.com/view/1454
>>> That shows:-
>>> U.K.  1.57/100.000
>>> U.S.  5.22/100,000
>>>
>>> You see, the problem is that you are quoting from The Daily Jackboot.
>>> The quoted figures include "all violent crime".
>>> There's a hell of a lot of reported violent crime in the U.K.  Sure, we have
>>> football violence, we have pub brawls, and we even classify "verbal assault"
>>> as a violent crime.
>>> Do try to compare like-with-like, eh?
>>>
>>
>> You see, the problem is that you are ignoring the fact that murders are
>> predominantly an inner-city gang-related problem in the US, and much
>> more tied to centers of high population density.  I came across a stat
>> the other day that observed iirc that US has about 180 cities with a
>> population greater than 200,000, while UK has only about 50 at that level.
>>
>> This is also interesting:
>> http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime
>> <quote>
>> Crime stats: United Kingdom vs United States
>> British Crime stats  American Crime stats
>> Assault victims 2.8%              1.2%
>> Drug offences   183,419 per 100,000 people    560.1 per 100,000 people
>>
>> [WTF!  But believable!]
>>
>> Perception of safety>  Walking in dark        70%     82%
>> Rape victims  0.9%    0.4%
>> Total crime victims   26.4%   21.1%
>> </quote>
>>
> 

Thanks Big Steel.  You can handle all the crossposting boy.
I can't be bothered with it.  :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157710 — Diaper Rash Owl, I am sure your drugs have you confused again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157711

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 16:07:33 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Big Steel <"The One"@one.net> wrote:
>> On 1/13/2013 10:52 AM, owl wrote:
>>> bbgruff<bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk>  wrote:
>>>> owl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-
>>>> Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
>>>>> <quote>
>>>>> Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types
>>>>> of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one
>>>>> of the world's most dangerous countries.
>>>>> </quote>
>>>>>
>>>>> What a shitty country.
>>>>> And they still have that inbred "royal family."
>>>>> Maybe they should bring back guns and get rid of *those* fucktards.
>>>>> (I still can't believe they "suicided" that poor woman who worked
>>>>> at the hospital and took the prank call).
>>>>
>>>> Well, speaking of guns:-
>>>>
>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-
>>>> UN-data3.jpg
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/c48vufv
>>>> Gives a rather dramatic picture!
>>>>
>>>> Your natural answer will presumably be "but they just find some other way to
>>>> kill if they don't have guns", so let's look at murder rates:-
>>>>
>>>> http://chartsbin.com/view/1454
>>>> That shows:-
>>>> U.K.  1.57/100.000
>>>> U.S.  5.22/100,000
>>>>
>>>> You see, the problem is that you are quoting from The Daily Jackboot.
>>>> The quoted figures include "all violent crime".
>>>> There's a hell of a lot of reported violent crime in the U.K.  Sure, we have
>>>> football violence, we have pub brawls, and we even classify "verbal assault"
>>>> as a violent crime.
>>>> Do try to compare like-with-like, eh?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You see, the problem is that you are ignoring the fact that murders are
>>> predominantly an inner-city gang-related problem in the US, and much
>>> more tied to centers of high population density.  I came across a stat
>>> the other day that observed iirc that US has about 180 cities with a
>>> population greater than 200,000, while UK has only about 50 at that level.
>>>
>>> This is also interesting:
>>> http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime
>>> <quote>
>>> Crime stats: United Kingdom vs United States
>>> British Crime stats  American Crime stats
>>> Assault victims 2.8%              1.2%
>>> Drug offences   183,419 per 100,000 people    560.1 per 100,000 people
>>>
>>> [WTF!  But believable!]
>>>
>>> Perception of safety>  Walking in dark        70%     82%
>>> Rape victims  0.9%    0.4%
>>> Total crime victims   26.4%   21.1%
>>> </quote>
>>>
>> 
> 
> Thanks Big Steel.  You can handle all the crossposting boy.
> I can't be bothered with it.  :)

Britain will destroy itself from the inside out if it doesn't do
something, and quick, about it's immigration policy.

It's well on it's way to becoming a Muslim state.

-- 
flatfish+++
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157718

flatfish+++ wrote:

> It's well on it's way to becoming a Muslim state.
>



With idiots like bbnonce, 7tard, Willy Boaster, Mark Kent, and 
[H]ypocrite representing the UK, how can a few million Muslims possibly 
fuck the country up any further?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157721

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 09:37:31 -0700, George wrote:

> flatfish+++ wrote:
> 
>> It's well on it's way to becoming a Muslim state.
>>
> 
> 
> 
> With idiots like bbnonce, 7tard, Willy Boaster, Mark Kent, and 
> [H]ypocrite representing the UK, how can a few million Muslims possibly 
> fuck the country up any further?

True.
Maybe it will improve things over there.
The biggest idiots in COLA all seem to be located there.

-- 
flatfish+++
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157762

flatfish+++ wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 09:37:31 -0700, George wrote:
> 
>> flatfish+++ wrote:
>> 
>>> It's well on it's way to becoming a Muslim state.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> With idiots like bbnonce, 7tard, Willy Boaster, Mark Kent, and
>> [H]ypocrite representing the UK, how can a few million Muslims
>> possibly fuck the country up any further?
> 
> True.
> Maybe it will improve things over there.
> The biggest idiots in COLA all seem to be located there.

More proof: Roy Schestowitz and Goblin joined their circle jerk!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157763

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 19:28:56 +0100, Cola Zealot wrote:

> flatfish+++ wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 09:37:31 -0700, George wrote:
>> 
>>> flatfish+++ wrote:
>>> 
>>>> It's well on it's way to becoming a Muslim state.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> With idiots like bbnonce, 7tard, Willy Boaster, Mark Kent, and
>>> [H]ypocrite representing the UK, how can a few million Muslims
>>> possibly fuck the country up any further?
>> 
>> True.
>> Maybe it will improve things over there.
>> The biggest idiots in COLA all seem to be located there.
> 
> More proof: Roy Schestowitz and Goblin joined their circle jerk!

It's to be expected. Goblin can't think on his own so when you get
Goblin, you also get Roy Schestowitz.

Two loons for the price of one!


-- 
flatfish+++
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157725

owl wrote:

> You see, the problem is that you are ignoring the fact that murders are
> predominantly an inner-city gang-related problem in the US, and much
> more tied to centers of high population density.  I came across a stat
> the other day that observed iirc that US has about 180 cities with a
> population greater than 200,000, while UK has only about 50 at that level.

Huh?
Perhaps you are missing the point that the population of the U.S. is about 
312 Million compared with less than 63 Million in the UK.
Thus, with large cities in the ratio 180:50, the U.K. has more large cities 
(almost twice as many) per Million population.
The U.K. also has a land area of about 1/40th that of the U.S.
We are FAR more urbanised than you are. and have a population density which 
is about 8 times yours.

I think your argument and conclusion are back-to-front!

Also, the site you quote shows:-
Drug offences  
  UK  183,419 per 100,000 people      
  US  560.1 per 100,000 people

There's a very simple explanation for this - that UK figure is the *TOTAL* 
number of drug offences over the entire population of 62 Million!
The comparable number is therefore really about 291/100,000
Even I know that we don't have two drug offences per year for every man, 
woman, child and newborn baby in the UK!

Also, I don't know about the U.S., but even those UK figures are *NOT* 
sentencing figures.
Last year, we had 42,000 sentences for drug posession, but over 160,000 
recorded "warnings" for cannabis posession.  Again, it depends on your 
definition of "offence", and exactly what you are counting.

Do you never think to check, or use a little intelligence with figures?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157740

"bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:alg7j7Fdko6U1@mid.individual.net...
> owl wrote:
>
>> You see, the problem is that you are ignoring the fact that murders are
>> predominantly an inner-city gang-related problem in the US, and much
>> more tied to centers of high population density.  I came across a stat
>> the other day that observed iirc that US has about 180 cities with a
>> population greater than 200,000, while UK has only about 50 at that 
>> level.
>
> Huh?
> Perhaps you are missing the point that the population of the U.S. is about
> 312 Million compared with less than 63 Million in the UK.

That makes the population ratio in the US 4.95x larger.


> Thus, with large cities in the ratio 180:50, the U.K. has more large 
> cities
> (almost twice as many) per Million population.

Incorrect. Using 200k as some sort of magic-number, according to Wikipedia 
the number of US urban areas with a population of 200k or more is 179. The 
number of UK urban areas with 200k or more residents is 34.

The ratio is 5.26 to one. In other words, the US has 4.95x the population 
with 5.26 the number of large urban areas. The US has *more* large urban 
areas per capita than the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom


> The U.K. also has a land area of about 1/40th that of the U.S.

We may have a lot of land but that doesn't mean that any significant number 
of people live there. The "great plains" are mainly open farmland. We have 
several deserts that are effectively empty and several mountain ranges that 
are also fairly empty.

> We are FAR more urbanised than you are. and have a population density 
> which
> is about 8 times yours.

Your population density figure is based on some bogus/meaningless average 
figures. Fact is that we lots of empty land with nearly nobody living there. 
We also have more large urban areas (200k+ population) per capita than the 
UK. Most of our population lives in urban areas not the desert, great plains 
or up in the mountains.  Your population density is based on some "averege 
figure" and is very misleading.

Just the top 179 urban areas alone have a combined population of 192.5 
million.  That's roughly 2/3rds of our entire country living in just those 
179 cities.


>
> Do you never think to check, or use a little intelligence with figures?
>

Take it up with the author(s) of the article - which was printed in the UK.

   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157795

Ezekiel wrote:

> "bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:alg7j7Fdko6U1@mid.individual.net...
>> owl wrote:
>>
>>> You see, the problem is that you are ignoring the fact that murders are
>>> predominantly an inner-city gang-related problem in the US, and much
>>> more tied to centers of high population density.  I came across a stat
>>> the other day that observed iirc that US has about 180 cities with a
>>> population greater than 200,000, while UK has only about 50 at that
>>> level.
>>
>> Huh?
>> Perhaps you are missing the point that the population of the U.S. is
>> about 312 Million compared with less than 63 Million in the UK.
> 
> That makes the population ratio in the US 4.95x larger.
> 
> 
>> Thus, with large cities in the ratio 180:50, the U.K. has more large
>> cities
>> (almost twice as many) per Million population.
> 
> Incorrect. Using 200k as some sort of magic-number, according to Wikipedia
> the number of US urban areas with a population of 200k or more is 179. The
> number of UK urban areas with 200k or more residents is 34.
> 
> The ratio is 5.26 to one. In other words, the US has 4.95x the population
> with 5.26 the number of large urban areas. The US has *more* large urban
> areas per capita than the UK.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom

So far so good, and thx for the links.

So we agree that the number of people in the U.S. living in cities with a 
population greater than 200,000 is about 6% higher than in the U.K.
That's a close call, in fact?

...but why is the murder rate 400% (per capita) of that in the U.K.?
- and 300% per capita greater than Canada?
 
>> The U.K. also has a land area of about 1/40th that of the U.S.
> 
> We may have a lot of land but that doesn't mean that any significant
> number of people live there. The "great plains" are mainly open farmland.
> We have several deserts that are effectively empty and several mountain
> ranges that are also fairly empty.
> 
>> We are FAR more urbanised than you are. and have a population density
>> which
>> is about 8 times yours.
> 
> Your population density figure is based on some bogus/meaningless average
> figures. Fact is that we lots of empty land with nearly nobody living
> there. We also have more large urban areas (200k+ population) per capita
> than the UK. Most of our population lives in urban areas not the desert,
> great plains
> or up in the mountains.  Your population density is based on some "averege
> figure" and is very misleading.
> 
> Just the top 179 urban areas alone have a combined population of 192.5
> million.  That's roughly 2/3rds of our entire country living in just those
> 179 cities.

Well, you must remember that a large proportion of the land in these tiny 
islands is also very sparsely populated - the Scottish Highlands, Wales, 
moorland, etc.
What matter is the *proportion* of the land, not the size of your deserts.

I followed up a little on your links.

Interestingly, I found the following:-

Conurbations with a pop. density > 2,000/sq km:-

  U.S.    4
  U.K.  136 (and still counting - the list ran out!)

For example, those 136 in the U.K exceed the population density of New York!

Come on Ezekiel, you lot don't know what crowding is - we'd classify your 
city dwellers as Rural Inhabitants!

In all seriousness, from what I've been reading these past couple of weeks, 
we've all been right about "violence in cities" (it happens mostly there), 
but wrong about the cause.
If you want a correlation, it seems that you need to look at the proportion 
of lead in the air, not from guns but from car exhausts, and that 23 years 
previously!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157808

bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Ezekiel wrote:

> > "bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:alg7j7Fdko6U1@mid.individual.net...
> >> owl wrote:
> >>
> >>> You see, the problem is that you are ignoring the fact that murders are
> >>> predominantly an inner-city gang-related problem in the US, and much
> >>> more tied to centers of high population density.  I came across a stat
> >>> the other day that observed iirc that US has about 180 cities with a
> >>> population greater than 200,000, while UK has only about 50 at that
> >>> level.
> >>
> >> Huh?
> >> Perhaps you are missing the point that the population of the U.S. is
> >> about 312 Million compared with less than 63 Million in the UK.
> > 
> > That makes the population ratio in the US 4.95x larger.
> > 
> > 
> >> Thus, with large cities in the ratio 180:50, the U.K. has more large
> >> cities
> >> (almost twice as many) per Million population.
> > 
> > Incorrect. Using 200k as some sort of magic-number, according to Wikipedia
> > the number of US urban areas with a population of 200k or more is 179. The
> > number of UK urban areas with 200k or more residents is 34.
> > 
> > The ratio is 5.26 to one. In other words, the US has 4.95x the population
> > with 5.26 the number of large urban areas. The US has *more* large urban
> > areas per capita than the UK.
> > 
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom

> So far so good, and thx for the links.

> So we agree that the number of people in the U.S. living in cities with a 
> population greater than 200,000 is about 6% higher than in the U.K.
> That's a close call, in fact?

Huh?  More people live in just the top 8 US cities (of 179 with a
population greater than 200K) -- 64,707,439 -- than the entire UK
population -- 62,641,000 (2011). 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157993

"bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:algu3eFirn9U1@mid.individual.net...
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> "bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:alg7j7Fdko6U1@mid.individual.net...
>>> owl wrote:
>>>
>>>> You see, the problem is that you are ignoring the fact that murders are
>>>> predominantly an inner-city gang-related problem in the US, and much
>>>> more tied to centers of high population density.  I came across a stat
>>>> the other day that observed iirc that US has about 180 cities with a
>>>> population greater than 200,000, while UK has only about 50 at that
>>>> level.
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>> Perhaps you are missing the point that the population of the U.S. is
>>> about 312 Million compared with less than 63 Million in the UK.
>>
>> That makes the population ratio in the US 4.95x larger.
>>
>>
>>> Thus, with large cities in the ratio 180:50, the U.K. has more large
>>> cities
>>> (almost twice as many) per Million population.
>>
>> Incorrect. Using 200k as some sort of magic-number, according to 
>> Wikipedia
>> the number of US urban areas with a population of 200k or more is 179. 
>> The
>> number of UK urban areas with 200k or more residents is 34.
>>
>> The ratio is 5.26 to one. In other words, the US has 4.95x the population
>> with 5.26 the number of large urban areas. The US has *more* large urban
>> areas per capita than the UK.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom
>
> So far so good, and thx for the links.
>
> So we agree that the number of people in the U.S. living in cities with a
> population greater than 200,000 is about 6% higher than in the U.K.
> That's a close call, in fact?
>
That is very close in my opinion. But I'm not an expert on this subject 
either so I lookup some numbers, post them and state my opinion. Someone who 
does this for a living could probably point out several mistakes I'm making.


> ...but why is the murder rate 400% (per capita) of that in the U.K.?
> - and 300% per capita greater than Canada?
>
It's simple. There's a lot of people here in the US that don't deserve to 
live. So we kill them.

But don't fret because you're not completely left out - the UK has 500% (per 
capita) more violent crime than we do:
<quote>
UK is violent crime capital of Europe

The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is 
higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, 
Australia and South Africa.

A breakdown of the statistics, which were compiled into league tables by the 
Conservatives, revealed that violent crime in the UK had increased from 
652,974 offences in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007. It means 
there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, 
making it the most violent place in Europe.

By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 
100,000 population.
</quote>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html


>
> Well, you must remember that a large proportion of the land in these tiny
> islands is also very sparsely populated - the Scottish Highlands, Wales,
> moorland, etc.
> What matter is the *proportion* of the land, not the size of your deserts.
>
> I followed up a little on your links.
>
> Interestingly, I found the following:-
>
> Conurbations with a pop. density > 2,000/sq km:-
>
>  U.S.    4
>  U.K.  136 (and still counting - the list ran out!)
>
> For example, those 136 in the U.K exceed the population density of New 
> York!

Is it the population density of "New York" or "New York City" - huge 
difference. The state of New York is relatively large and nearly all of 
"upstate NY" is farm land, the Adirondack Park, etc and is sparsely 
populated. The population density in upstate NY is proably "crowded" 
compared to Montana and Wyoming but compared to NY City it's very rural.

But here's some good population density info:


NY City
Population
 . Estimate (2011)  8,244,910
 . Density  27,012.5/sq mi (10,429.6/km2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City

London
Population
 . London  8,173,194
 . Density  13,466/sq mi  (5,206/km2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London



If that's not enough then this will add some confusion into the mix:
   http://www.demographia.com/db-lonlanypar.htm

This site compares London, Los Angeles, NY and Paris. Take a look at the 4th 
table: Population per Square Mile.



> Come on Ezekiel, you lot don't know what crowding is - we'd classify your
> city dwellers as Rural Inhabitants!
>
According to Wikipedia - the large city that's about 20 minutes from my 
house has "just barely" a lower population density than London. A long time 
ago I used to live in New Jersey and commute to work in Brooklyn, NY every 
day so I'm familiar with crowding.

> In all seriousness, from what I've been reading these past couple of 
> weeks,
> we've all been right about "violence in cities" (it happens mostly there),
> but wrong about the cause.

I've missed most of those threads. (Fortunately)

> If you want a correlation, it seems that you need to look at the 
> proportion
> of lead in the air, not from guns but from car exhausts, and that 23 years
> previously!
>

I never heard of this until just now when I was searching for some 
links/news on crime. I never would have thought that but who knows. From the 
little bit that they mentioned it sure sounds like a possibility. I always 
thought that violent crime was largely tied to poverty and economic climate. 
If someone is doing well they generally don't have a need to stab some guy 
to get his wallet or do to a home invasion and steal someone's TV set. But 
lead in the air... who knew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web