BRITISH VIOLENT CRIME EXCEEDS RATES IN USA

0 views
Skip to first unread message

an0...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/13/00
to

http://www.stats.org/newsletters/0006/britcrime.htm


Firing Blanks on British Crime Rates
Oh, I say! The New York Times fell victim to a common fallacy about
those ever-so-polite Englishmen when it covered a story about the rise
of rural crime in Britain (“A Rural Intruder’s Slaying Unsettles
England,” May 24).

“In general,” asserts the Times, “crime rates in Britain are much
lower than they are in the United States, a phenomenon largely
attributed to the strict laws that ban handguns ... and strictly
regulate who can have a gun and under what circumstances.” The
statement is simply incorrect. A recent joint study by America’s
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and Britain’s Cambridge University
shows that crime rates are higher in Britain than the United States
for robbery, assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft – in other
words, all the major crimes apart from rape (where the figures on both
sides of the Atlantic are notoriously unreliable) and murder. Crime
rates in Britain have also grown since the study’s time period, while
they have declined over here. Gun control in Britain has also become
much stricter.

Linking low crime rates to strict gun control therefore seems like a
non-starter. The only area in which the cause and effect relationship
of guns and crime seems to hold true is in the realm of murder, but
even America’s non-gun murder rate is much higher than Britain’s,
indicating that something else may be afoot.

The BJS/Cambridge study suggests that the reason for the disparities
lies in the fact that a criminal’s risk of being punished has been
falling in Britain while rising in the USA. Britain is no longer the
idyllically peaceful place Americans think it is. That’s one aspect of
British culture that doesn’t make it onto PBS


Sam A. Kersh

unread,
Aug 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/13/00
to
an0...@hotmail.com wrote:

>
>http://www.stats.org/newsletters/0006/britcrime.htm
>
>
>Firing Blanks on British Crime Rates
>Oh, I say! The New York Times fell victim to a common fallacy about
>those ever-so-polite Englishmen when it covered a story about the rise
>of rural crime in Britain (“A Rural Intruder’s Slaying Unsettles
>England,” May 24).
>
>“In general,” asserts the Times, “crime rates in Britain are much
>lower than they are in the United States, a phenomenon largely
>attributed to the strict laws that ban handguns ... and strictly
>regulate who can have a gun and under what circumstances.” The
>statement is simply incorrect. A recent joint study by America’s
>Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and Britain’s Cambridge University
>shows that crime rates are higher in Britain than the United States

That study can be found in the Department of Justice publication
NCJ-169284, "Crime in the United States and in England and Wales,
1981-96," dated October 1998.

By and large, the study showed crime and violent crime was committed at
a much higher rate in "gun-safe" England than by those 'murderous
colonials.'


Sam A. Kersh
NRA Endowment Member
L.E.A.A. Life Member
TSRA Life Member
GOA, JPFO, SAF
http://www.flash.net/~csmkersh/
===============================================================
Read Jeff Snyder's unabridged analysis of the S&W/HUD sellout
at http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/jeffsnyder.html


Tigga

unread,
Aug 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/13/00
to

<an0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3995ff63...@news.atl.bellsouth.net...
>
> http://www.stats.org/newsletters/0006/britcrime.htm
>
>

Wow, it is true... when yankkks are in need of a genuine argument, they make
things up...

Bursa awatii minima kadaitcha

unread,
Aug 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/13/00
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tigga <ti...@NOSPAM.start.net.au> wrote in message
news:tKvl5.64$002....@news0.optus.net.au...

Then they buy a gun.

- --
The end of the internet...
http://www.kadaitcha.cjb.net/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQA/AwUBOZb+DV1AFRGX+3VVEQJlCACfcUDChiebc6fvpRKCOKy+Qy0Dwb0AoK4+
oFp8X9ySReDRLeAaMrFYUSzQ
=EFz7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Marksman

unread,
Aug 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/13/00
to

"Tigga" <ti...@NOSPAM.start.net.au> wrote in message
news:tKvl5.64$002....@news0.optus.net.au...
>
> <an0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3995ff63...@news.atl.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > http://www.stats.org/newsletters/0006/britcrime.htm
> >
> >
>
> Wow, it is true... when yankkks are in need of a genuine argument, they
make
> things up...
>
>

WOW!!! Do all aussies ignore facts?

rbowen

unread,
Aug 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/13/00
to

Yes.


Rick Bowen
May God bless Texas
TSRA Life Member
NRA Member

James D. Nicholson

unread,
Aug 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/13/00
to
Tigga wrote:
>
> <an0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3995ff63...@news.atl.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > http://www.stats.org/newsletters/0006/britcrime.htm
> >
> >
>
> Wow, it is true... when yankkks are in need of a genuine argument, they make
> things up...

The truth hurts, huh, mate. Tell you wot, for some more disillusionment,
take a gander at:

http://www.tsra.com/banbad.htm

Be sure to check out the increase in Aussie youth suicide rates.
--
Jim Nicholson
http://www.tsra.com
Every general increase of freedom is accompanied by some degeneracy,
attributable to the same causes as the freedom. Charles Horton Cooley
(1864-1929), U.S. sociologist.

James D. Nicholson

unread,
Aug 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/13/00
to
Bursa awatii minima kadaitcha wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Tigga <ti...@NOSPAM.start.net.au> wrote in message
> news:tKvl5.64$002....@news0.optus.net.au...
> >
> > <an0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3995ff63...@news.atl.bellsouth.net...
> > >
> > > http://www.stats.org/newsletters/0006/britcrime.htm
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Wow, it is true... when yankkks are in need of a genuine argument, they
> make
> > things up...
>
> Then they buy a gun.

Right. Without a license, too. There was a time when you were that free.

Shouldn't you be worrying about the Indonesians rather than the
Americans. It's the Americans that you are going to want to save your
sorry arse from the Indonesians. Now that you have reduced your armed
defenses to naught and disarmed your citizens of much of it's weaponry
you are somewhat defenseless and all alone down under while the natives
are getting restless as heck north of you.

Jim McCulloch

unread,
Aug 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/13/00
to
in article 39961778....@news.flash.net, Sam A. Kersh at
csmk...@flash.net wrote on 8/12/00 10:29 PM:


> That study can be found in the Department of Justice publication
> NCJ-169284, "Crime in the United States and in England and Wales,
> 1981-96," dated October 1998.
>
> By and large, the study showed crime and violent crime was committed at
> a much higher rate in "gun-safe" England than by those 'murderous
> colonials.'

Once again, Sam, I have to say I am puzzled by why you bring up these rather
damning statistics.

It is fairly obvious that, if, as you and several gun enthusiasts on the gun
newsgroups have pointed out, the inhabitants of England, Scotland, and Wales
are as violent as we are (indeed, more violent, perhaps), yet (and this is
undisputed) the murder rate in Britain is _vastly_ lower than the murder
rate in the United States, then it is very plausible that the reason for the
lower murder rate is that guns are correspondingly scarcer in Britain than
in the USA.

In other words, a bar fight, or a traffic dispute leading to assault, or a
dispute between gangs, or a domestic dispute, or any quarrel you can
imagine, are all as likely to lead to violence in Britain as here. But not
to murder. What's different? Guns.

Now I realize, that's simplistic. I can _imagine_ some other cause of the
difference in murder rates. The trouble is, I just can't imagine one that
would stand up to scrutiny. Help me out, Sam.

Best regards,

--Jim McCulloch

Paul Barnett

unread,
Aug 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/13/00
to
Jim McCulloch <mccu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:B5BC32B5.41AA%mccu...@mail.utexas.edu...

> Once again, Sam, I have to say I am puzzled by why you bring up these
rather
> damning statistics.

And I'm rather puzzled why you don't remember history.

> It is fairly obvious that, if, as you and several gun enthusiasts on the
gun
> newsgroups have pointed out, the inhabitants of England, Scotland, and
Wales
> are as violent as we are (indeed, more violent, perhaps), yet (and this is
> undisputed) the murder rate in Britain is _vastly_ lower than the murder
> rate in the United States, then it is very plausible that the reason for
the
> lower murder rate is that guns are correspondingly scarcer in Britain than
> in the USA.

Your "plausible reason" falls apart when you examine history and find that
Britain's lower murder rates were significantly lower than the US _before_
they started legislating guns out of existence.

> In other words, a bar fight, or a traffic dispute leading to assault, or a
> dispute between gangs, or a domestic dispute, or any quarrel you can
> imagine, are all as likely to lead to violence in Britain as here. But not
> to murder. What's different? Guns.

I thought you were above trotting out the "blood in the streets" strawman,
Jim.

> Now I realize, that's simplistic. I can _imagine_ some other cause of the
> difference in murder rates. The trouble is, I just can't imagine one that
> would stand up to scrutiny. Help me out, Sam.

Yes, it is simplistic. But, you would have figured it out simply by looking
at the trend -- the British murder rate has been climbing while ours has
been falling. If the trend continues, what are you going to blame when the
two lines cross?


phx...@home.com

unread,
Aug 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/13/00
to

>
> Now I realize, that's simplistic. I can _imagine_ some other cause of the
> difference in murder rates. The trouble is, I just can't imagine one that
> would stand up to scrutiny. Help me out, Sam.
>
> Best regards,
>
> --Jim McCulloch

I'm not Sam, but I know the answer. It's been handed to you over and
over again, but you continue to ignore it.

Our insane War On Drugs has driven street drug prices to levels you
would not believe. Children just entering puberty are able to earn
<thousands> of dollars for just a few hours spent standing on the stret
corners of their neighborhoods. Like in any other retail business,
location is paramount. Ability to conduct business only a few blocks
away can mean loss of thousands and thousands of dollars. Turf wars are
the natural result. Often even when older gang members are involved in
confrontations, they often send younger members to do the actual
shootings. Generally speaking, the younger the shooter, the lighter the
slap on the wrist. They're not stupid, & play to the handwringing
bleedyhearts, who howl about 'devil whitey' being the cause of the
problems. They're right. Most republicrat politicians who support the
War On Drugs are white.

Jim McCulloch

unread,
Aug 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/13/00
to
in article 49Al5.2164$iI5....@news-west.usenetserver.com, Paul Barnett at
ne...@ptb.org wrote on 8/13/00 11:36 AM:


>>It is fairly obvious that, if, as you and several gun enthusiasts on the gun
>> newsgroups have pointed out, the inhabitants of England, Scotland, and Wales
>> are as violent as we are (indeed, more violent, perhaps), yet (and this is
>> undisputed) the murder rate in Britain is _vastly_ lower than the murder
>> rate in the United States, then it is very plausible that the reason for the
>> lower murder rate is that guns are correspondingly scarcer in Britain than
>> in the USA.
>
> Your "plausible reason" falls apart when you examine history and find that
> Britain's lower murder rates were significantly lower than the US _before_
> they started legislating guns out of existence.

It would be interesting to see if gun ownership rates, whether of handguns,
long guns, or both, in Britain ever remotely approached those that have
historically been prevalent in the US. Do you have any figures?

Best regards,

--Jim McCulloch


.


Paul Barnett

unread,
Aug 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/13/00
to

Jim McCulloch <mccu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:B5BC4574.41EE%mccu...@mail.utexas.edu...

> It would be interesting to see if gun ownership rates, whether of
handguns,
> long guns, or both, in Britain ever remotely approached those that have
> historically been prevalent in the US. Do you have any figures?

Not off the top of my head, but I know some people that have been doing
research about firearm ownership in the Revolution era, in both the US and
the UK. I'll see what I can dig up.

Jim McCulloch

unread,
Aug 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/13/00
to
in article 3996D60B...@home.com, phx...@home.com at phx...@home.com
wrote on 8/13/00 12:14 PM:

Well, Phxbrd, I can't honestly say you have even addressed my question, much
less answered it.

Nobody opposes the Insane War on Drugs more than I do. Like you, I believe
it increases lawlessness, and probably has increased the murder rate. But
the fact is that the murder rate in the US has for the past several years
been falling, and the War on Drugs is neither more nor less intense, and
neither more nor less successful, now than a decade ago, when the murder
rates were higher. Murder rates in the United States have risen and fallen,
for reasons that I won't pretend to know, during the entire 20th century,
but as far as I know (and correct me if you have figures that show the
contrary) have always been much higher than the British murder rate.

I don't see how the War on Drugs has any explanatory value in telling us why
British murder rates are lower, and always been lower than in the United
States.

If it is not that the British have less access to guns, particularly
handguns, and always have, then what other explanation is left? Well, I can
only think of one, and it is a racist one that I personally don't accept,
that is implied in your remarks above, that black people are more prone to
kill each other than white people, regardless of access to guns, and that
our murder rate (and the slowly increasing murder rate with black emigration
into Britain) is due to black murderousness.

I think that's a crock. This is apparent if you observe the fact that
southern whites have always had a higher murder rate than the same racial
and ethnic stock they mostly came from in Britain. Southern whites have
always been heavily armed. Lower class and rural British people, by and
large, are not, and never have been.


Best regards,

--Jim McCulloch

Kevin Craig

unread,
Aug 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/13/00
to
In article <B5BC32B5.41AA%mccu...@mail.utexas.edu>, Jim McCulloch
<mccu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:

> It is fairly obvious that, if, as you and several gun enthusiasts on the gun
> newsgroups have pointed out, the inhabitants of England, Scotland, and Wales
> are as violent as we are (indeed, more violent, perhaps), yet (and this is
> undisputed) the murder rate in Britain is _vastly_ lower than the murder
> rate in the United States, then it is very plausible that the reason for the
> lower murder rate is that guns are correspondingly scarcer in Britain than
> in the USA.
>

> In other words, a bar fight, or a traffic dispute leading to assault, or a
> dispute between gangs, or a domestic dispute, or any quarrel you can
> imagine, are all as likely to lead to violence in Britain as here. But not
> to murder. What's different? Guns.

Why don't you try comparing the murder stats *without* guns? Although
it's not a fact I'm proud of, the U.S. *non-gun* murder rate is higher
than the U.K.'s non-gun murder rate. Thus, even in the absence of guns,
our murder rate is higher.

Why don't you do a little digging, find out the ratio of guns:murders in
both the U.S. and the U.K.? (I'm putting the burden on you, since you're
the one claiming guns are to blame.) I suspect you'll find that, as a
percentage of guns in the nation, the U.K.'s murder rate is vastly higher
than the U.S.'s. By your claim that the higher gun availability in the
U.S. causes more murders, then our murder rate should be *thousands* of
times that of Britain, since we have thousands of times the number of
guns.

Kevin

Scott Miller

unread,
Aug 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/13/00
to

>Once again, Sam, I have to say I am puzzled by why you bring up these rather
>damning statistics.
>

>It is fairly obvious that, if, as you and several gun enthusiasts on the
>gun
>newsgroups have pointed out, the inhabitants of England, Scotland, and
>Wales
>are as violent as we are (indeed, more violent, perhaps), yet (and this
>is
>undisputed) the murder rate in Britain is _vastly_ lower than the murder
>rate in the United States, then it is very plausible that the reason for
>the
>lower murder rate is that guns are correspondingly scarcer in Britain than
>in the USA.
>
>In other words, a bar fight, or a traffic dispute leading to assault, or
>a
>dispute between gangs, or a domestic dispute, or any quarrel you can
>imagine, are all as likely to lead to violence in Britain as here. But
>not
>to murder. What's different? Guns.
>

>Now I realize, that's simplistic. I can _imagine_ some other cause of
>the
>difference in murder rates. The trouble is, I just can't imagine one that
>would stand up to scrutiny. Help me out, Sam.


Looking into our own stats, you'll see that our murder rate is culturally
dependent: if you are young, black and in a gang, you fit the profile of many
murderers/murder victims in this country. That is not a fault of guns, but a
result of who decides to take up a gun and use it.

In the UK, the people who are using guns are also the young street criminals.
If anything, it's not a gun thing, but a street sub-culture thing. They're all
just using the most effective means to kill each other.

--Scott Miller


"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and
never will be."
--Thomas Jefferson

Verne

unread,
Aug 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/13/00
to

"Jim McCulloch" <mccu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:B5BC4BCC.41F4%mccu...@mail.utexas.edu...

> in article 3996D60B...@home.com, phx...@home.com at phx...@home.com
> wrote on 8/13/00 12:14 PM:
>
> >
> >>
> >> Now I realize, that's simplistic. I can _imagine_ some other cause of
the
> >> difference in murder rates. The trouble is, I just can't imagine one
that
> >> would stand up to scrutiny. Help me out, Sam.
> >>

True

>
> I don't see how the War on Drugs has any explanatory value in telling us
why
> British murder rates are lower, and always been lower than in the United
> States.

Thats also true

>
> If it is not that the British have less access to guns, particularly
> handguns, and always have,

Not true a hundred years ago the only thing that prvented a Englishman from
owning a gun was income.

> then what other explanation is left? Well, I can
> only think of one, and it is a racist one that I personally don't accept,
> that is implied in your remarks above, that black people are more prone to
> kill each other than white people, regardless of access to guns, and that
> our murder rate (and the slowly increasing murder rate with black
emigration
> into Britain) is due to black murderousness.
>
> I think that's a crock.

Your right as African immigrants to the USA are very law abiding. England's
black immigrants often are from Jamaica, one of the most crime ridden
nations on earth. The problem is cultural not racial

> This is apparent if you observe the fact that
> southern whites have always had a higher murder rate than the same racial
> and ethnic stock they mostly came from in Britain. Southern whites have
> always been heavily armed. Lower class and rural British people, by and
> large, are not, and never have been.

And western and Midwestern whites are also heavily armed with the western
rural whites being the most heavily armed people in this nation. They also
have a very low crime rate as do all rural residents in this nation and they
are the most heavily armed people in this nation.,

Comparing Americans to Americans we find that those groups that are most
likely to own guns are the most peaceful in this nation. For guns to be a
cause of violence in America the opposite would need to be true and it
isn't.


>
>
> Best regards,
>
> --Jim McCulloch
>
>
>
>

Sam A. Kersh

unread,
Aug 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/13/00
to
Jim McCulloch <mccu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:

>in article 39961778....@news.flash.net, Sam A. Kersh at
>csmk...@flash.net wrote on 8/12/00 10:29 PM:
>
>
>> That study can be found in the Department of Justice publication
>> NCJ-169284, "Crime in the United States and in England and Wales,
>> 1981-96," dated October 1998.
>>
>> By and large, the study showed crime and violent crime was committed at
>> a much higher rate in "gun-safe" England than by those 'murderous
>> colonials.'
>

>Once again, Sam, I have to say I am puzzled by why you bring up these rather
>damning statistics.
>
>It is fairly obvious that, if, as you and several gun enthusiasts on the gun
>newsgroups have pointed out, the inhabitants of England, Scotland, and Wales
>are as violent as we are (indeed, more violent, perhaps), yet (and this is
>undisputed) the murder rate in Britain is _vastly_ lower than the murder
>rate in the United States, then it is very plausible that the reason for the
>lower murder rate is that guns are correspondingly scarcer in Britain than
>in the USA.
>
>In other words, a bar fight, or a traffic dispute leading to assault, or a
>dispute between gangs, or a domestic dispute, or any quarrel you can
>imagine, are all as likely to lead to violence in Britain as here. But not
>to murder. What's different? Guns.
>

Wrong. Ethnic groups and cultures... or have you forgotten Europe
where most American's forbearers came from? The Swiss are known for
their chocolates and full-auto battle rifles behind the kitchen door...
Germany, France, and most others have a "gun culture" but not the
crime/homicide rate we do...

>Now I realize, that's simplistic. I can _imagine_ some other cause of the
>difference in murder rates. The trouble is, I just can't imagine one that
>would stand up to scrutiny. Help me out, Sam.

Well, Jim, the answer is not at all pleasing to you liberals.... A
minority that makes up a mere 12.5 percent of our population is
responsible for 49 percent of the homicides(1). We Caucasians account
for 83 percent of the population and also are responsible for 49 percent
of the homicides. Factoring out that group drops "our" homicide rate
down on a par with you fantasy world of England.. But you've been told
this before... You must be hoping to impress the newbie lurker out
there.

1. See "Nature", page 17, FBI UCR for 1998.

And glad to see you're posting on your dime, not the University's...

Sam A. Kersh

unread,
Aug 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/13/00
to
rbo...@ticnet.com (rbowen) wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 12:47:57 GMT, "Marksman"
><som...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>>

>>"Tigga" <ti...@NOSPAM.start.net.au> wrote in message
>>news:tKvl5.64$002....@news0.optus.net.au...
>>>
>>> <an0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3995ff63...@news.atl.bellsouth.net...
>>> >
>>> > http://www.stats.org/newsletters/0006/britcrime.htm
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> Wow, it is true... when yankkks are in need of a genuine argument, they
>>make
>>> things up...
>>>
>>>
>>

>>WOW!!! Do all aussies ignore facts?
>
>Yes.

And you also have to remember they came from the shallow end of the
English gene pool...

phx...@home.com

unread,
Aug 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/13/00
to

Jim McCulloch wrote:
>
> in article 3996D60B...@home.com, phx...@home.com at phx...@home.com
> wrote on 8/13/00 12:14 PM:
>
> >
> >>

> >> Now I realize, that's simplistic. I can _imagine_ some other cause of the
> >> difference in murder rates. The trouble is, I just can't imagine one that
> >> would stand up to scrutiny. Help me out, Sam.
> >>

> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> --Jim McCulloch
> >
> > I'm not Sam, but I know the answer. It's been handed to you over and
> > over again, but you continue to ignore it.
> >
> > Our insane War On Drugs has driven street drug prices to levels you
> > would not believe. Children just entering puberty are able to earn
> > <thousands> of dollars for just a few hours spent standing on the stret
> > corners of their neighborhoods. Like in any other retail business,
> > location is paramount. Ability to conduct business only a few blocks
> > away can mean loss of thousands and thousands of dollars. Turf wars are
> > the natural result. Often even when older gang members are involved in
> > confrontations, they often send younger members to do the actual
> > shootings. Generally speaking, the younger the shooter, the lighter the
> > slap on the wrist. They're not stupid, & play to the handwringing
> > bleedyhearts, who howl about 'devil whitey' being the cause of the
> > problems. They're right. Most republicrat politicians who support the
> > War On Drugs are white.
>
> Well, Phxbrd, I can't honestly say you have even addressed my question, much
> less answered it.

Yes, I did, but like Greg, it doesn't fit your needs, so you'll ignore
it and then claim it was never provided.

>
> Nobody opposes the Insane War on Drugs more than I do. Like you, I believe
> it increases lawlessness, and probably has increased the murder rate. But
> the fact is that the murder rate in the US has for the past several years
> been falling, and the War on Drugs is neither more nor less intense, and
> neither more nor less successful, now than a decade ago, when the murder
> rates were higher. Murder rates in the United States have risen and fallen,
> for reasons that I won't pretend to know, during the entire 20th century,
> but as far as I know (and correct me if you have figures that show the
> contrary) have always been much higher than the British murder rate.

I'll pass on that. I really have little regard for stats, even when I
occasionally use them myself. We all know they can be created and/or
found to support <ANY> position.

I agree murder rates rise & fall for a number of reasons. I don't make
any claims to account for all murders, or even the killings wrongly
called murders. What I said above though is simple truth, even if it
doesn't account for all gun deaths, & it stands.

>
> I don't see how the War on Drugs has any explanatory value in telling us why
> British murder rates are lower, and always been lower than in the United
> States.

It's not the entire story, but that doesn't mean it's totally
unimportant, either.

>
> If it is not that the British have less access to guns, particularly

> handguns, and always have, then what other explanation is left? Well, I can


> only think of one, and it is a racist one that I personally don't accept,
> that is implied in your remarks above, that black people are more prone to
> kill each other than white people, regardless of access to guns,

But that is precisely the case, & it has not a goddam thing to do with
whether any of us happen to like the fact or not. You may feel free to
name underlying causes, but the fact is simple and unavoidable.

> and that
> our murder rate (and the slowly increasing murder rate with black emigration
> into Britain) is due to black murderousness.

Underlying reasons are not my forte, but maybe yours. Have at it, just
don't deny bald unvarnished fact.

>
> I think that's a crock. This is apparent if you observe the fact that


> southern whites have always had a higher murder rate than the same racial
> and ethnic stock they mostly came from in Britain. Southern whites have
> always been heavily armed. Lower class and rural British people, by and
> large, are not, and never have been.

Which all has not a goddam thing to do with the basic fact that most
violent crime here is black on black.


>
> Best regards,
>
> --Jim McCulloch

Greg

unread,
Aug 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/14/00
to
> >Now I realize, that's simplistic. I can _imagine_ some other cause of the
> >difference in murder rates. The trouble is, I just can't imagine one that
> >would stand up to scrutiny. Help me out, Sam.
>
> Well, Jim, the answer is not at all pleasing to you liberals.... A
> minority that makes up a mere 12.5 percent of our population is
> responsible for 49 percent of the homicides(1). We Caucasians account
> for 83 percent of the population and also are responsible for 49 percent
> of the homicides.
>
> 1. See "Nature", page 17, FBI UCR for 1998.
>
> And glad to see you're posting on your dime, not the University's...
>
> Sam A. Kersh

Right, lets run with those numbers:


1996 gun murder statistics:
Population: per 100,000 at US rate
New Zealand 2 3.6 0.055 128.

Australia 13 18.2 0.071 647.

Japan 15 125.4 0.012 4,460.

Great Britain 30 58.7 0.051 2,088.

Canada 106 28.2 0.376 1,003.

Germany 211 76.3 0.276 2,714.

TEXAS 787 ?
at NZ's rate
USA 9,390 264.0 3.557 1,467.
at Japan's rate
316.

US Caucasians: 4,601 219.1M 2.100
US Minority": 4,601 33.0M 13.942
US Others: 188 11.9M 1.580

> Factoring out that group drops "our" homicide rate
> down on a par with you fantasy world of England.. But you've been told
> this before... You must be hoping to impress the newbie lurker out
> there.

The US rate per 100,00 of 2.100 is on a par with Great Britain's 0.051
?!?!
At what School of Creative Statistics did you learn to count your ears
and toes Sam?
Don't give up that day job at the sewerage works just yet.

Regards,
Greg.P.

Sam A. Kersh

unread,
Aug 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/14/00
to
Greg <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

Greg, I told you before, get the correct data, not the misinformation
from the VPC... the only thing you've posted that's even in the
ballpark is the population breakdown of the U.S.

Tigga

unread,
Aug 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/14/00
to

James D. Nicholson <jam...@akamail.com> wrote in message
news:3996C3C7...@akamail.com...

> Tigga wrote:
> >
> > <an0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3995ff63...@news.atl.bellsouth.net...
> > >
> > > http://www.stats.org/newsletters/0006/britcrime.htm
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Wow, it is true... when yankkks are in need of a genuine argument, they
make
> > things up...
>
> The truth hurts, huh, mate. Tell you wot, for some more disillusionment,
> take a gander at:
>
> http://www.tsra.com/banbad.htm
>
> Be sure to check out the increase in Aussie youth suicide rates.

Oh yeah... now there would be a real accurate source of information....
</sarcasm>

Tigga

unread,
Aug 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/14/00
to

James D. Nicholson <jam...@akamail.com> wrote in message
news:3996C547...@akamail.com...

> Bursa awatii minima kadaitcha wrote:
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Tigga <ti...@NOSPAM.start.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:tKvl5.64$002....@news0.optus.net.au...
> > >
> > > <an0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3995ff63...@news.atl.bellsouth.net...
> > > >
> > > > http://www.stats.org/newsletters/0006/britcrime.htm
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Wow, it is true... when yankkks are in need of a genuine argument,
they
> > make
> > > things up...
> >
> > Then they buy a gun.
>
> Right. Without a license, too. There was a time when you were that free.

Yah, but now we are free of high school massacres.....

> Shouldn't you be worrying about the Indonesians rather than the
> Americans. It's the Americans that you are going to want to save your
> sorry arse from the Indonesians. Now that you have reduced your armed
> defenses to naught and disarmed your citizens of much of it's weaponry
> you are somewhat defenseless and all alone down under while the natives
> are getting restless as heck north of you.

We bent the Indo's over and but fucked them out of E. Timor... luckily
without the "assistance" of you yankkks.... I shudder to think of the high
rate of casualties if you fuck heads were there. But fortunately, you people
considered it to not be profitable to attend, so you sent a few message
boys.

The big open space of water would stop their armed forces.. our navy (even
with the handicap of the Collins Class Sub) and our air force would beat
them into submission before they left indo waters.

Margovula bimaculata kadaitcha

unread,
Aug 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/14/00
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Verne <ver...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
news:spe2c9...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Jim McCulloch" <mccu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:B5BC4BCC.41F4%mccu...@mail.utexas.edu...


> > in article 3996D60B...@home.com, phx...@home.com at
phx...@home.com
> > wrote on 8/13/00 12:14 PM:

> Comparing Americans to Americans we find that those groups that are most


> likely to own guns are the most peaceful in this nation. For guns to be a
> cause of violence in America the opposite would need to be true and it
> isn't.

Are you trying to convince yourself or someone else?


- --
The end of the internet...
http://www.kadaitcha.cjb.net/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQA/AwUBOZgst11AFRGX+3VVEQKpuwCg0FRT4AI6dVTdsFYCjefPofHi9AgAnA/j
XMB4nkqZVnBxiVeuzyErCU8L
=+R9G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Cymbiola aulica kadaitcha

unread,
Aug 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/14/00
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Sam A. Kersh <csmk...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:399773bd....@news.flash.net...
> Greg <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

> Greg, I told you before, get the correct data, not the misinformation
> from the VPC... the only thing you've posted that's even in the
> ballpark is the population breakdown of the U.S.

Breakdown being the operative word.

- --
The end of the internet...
http://www.kadaitcha.cjb.net/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQA/AwUBOZg5fV1AFRGX+3VVEQJn/gCeL4Khnya5NhxhJBaknNM8ILv/22wAnRsw
J4i7lcjUfq1iod6EAs3zuWcR
=VKYT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


James D. Nicholson

unread,
Aug 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/14/00
to
Tigga wrote:
>
> James D. Nicholson <jam...@akamail.com> wrote in message
> news:3996C3C7...@akamail.com...

> > Tigga wrote:
> > >
> > > <an0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3995ff63...@news.atl.bellsouth.net...
> > > >
> > > > http://www.stats.org/newsletters/0006/britcrime.htm
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Wow, it is true... when yankkks are in need of a genuine argument, they
> make
> > > things up...
> >
> > The truth hurts, huh, mate. Tell you wot, for some more disillusionment,
> > take a gander at:
> >
> > http://www.tsra.com/banbad.htm
> >
> > Be sure to check out the increase in Aussie youth suicide rates.
>
> Oh yeah... now there would be a real accurate source of information....
> </sarcasm>

The numbers are right out of your beloved Oz bureaucracy. Don't trust
your government? After the UFL it's obvious that they don't trust you
either.

James D. Nicholson

unread,
Aug 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/14/00
to
Tigga wrote:
>
> James D. Nicholson <jam...@akamail.com> wrote in message
> news:3996C547...@akamail.com...
> > Bursa awatii minima kadaitcha wrote:
> > >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > Tigga <ti...@NOSPAM.start.net.au> wrote in message
> > > news:tKvl5.64$002....@news0.optus.net.au...
> > > >
> > > > <an0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:3995ff63...@news.atl.bellsouth.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.stats.org/newsletters/0006/britcrime.htm
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wow, it is true... when yankkks are in need of a genuine argument,
> they
> > > make
> > > > things up...
> > >
> > > Then they buy a gun.
> >
> > Right. Without a license, too. There was a time when you were that free.
>
> Yah, but now we are free of high school massacres.....
>
> > Shouldn't you be worrying about the Indonesians rather than the
> > Americans. It's the Americans that you are going to want to save your
> > sorry arse from the Indonesians. Now that you have reduced your armed
> > defenses to naught and disarmed your citizens of much of it's weaponry
> > you are somewhat defenseless and all alone down under while the natives
> > are getting restless as heck north of you.
>
> We bent the Indo's over and but fucked them out of E. Timor... luckily
> without the "assistance" of you yankkks.... I shudder to think of the high
> rate of casualties if you fuck heads were there. But fortunately, you people
> considered it to not be profitable to attend, so you sent a few message
> boys.
>
> The big open space of water would stop their armed forces.. our navy (even
> with the handicap of the Collins Class Sub) and our air force would beat
> them into submission before they left indo waters.

You just think you did. Others disagree.

http://www.etan.org/news/2000a/deleg1.htm

Sam A. Kersh

unread,
Aug 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/14/00
to
"Tigga" <ti...@NOSPAM.start.net.au> wrote:

>We bent the Indo's over and but fucked them out of E. Timor... luckily
>without the "assistance" of you yankkks.... I shudder to think of the high
>rate of casualties if you fuck heads were there. But fortunately, you people
>considered it to not be profitable to attend, so you sent a few message
>boys.

Are all you Brits homos and foul mouthed? Not profitable to attend?
How much money did you all make on the robbing and raping?

Verne

unread,
Aug 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/14/00
to

"Margovula bimaculata kadaitcha"
<polyesterglo...@themovie.atYOUR_NUTS> wrote in message
news:C4BB0BC8.0...@kadaitcha.com...

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Verne <ver...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
> news:spe2c9...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Jim McCulloch" <mccu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> > news:B5BC4BCC.41F4%mccu...@mail.utexas.edu...
> > > in article 3996D60B...@home.com, phx...@home.com at
> phx...@home.com
> > > wrote on 8/13/00 12:14 PM:
>
> > Comparing Americans to Americans we find that those groups that are most
> > likely to own guns are the most peaceful in this nation. For guns to be
a
> > cause of violence in America the opposite would need to be true and it
> > isn't.
>
> Are you trying to convince yourself or someone else?
>
>

Try pointing to any fact that shows me wrong or begone ye troll!


Verne

Scot

unread,
Aug 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/14/00
to

Greg wrote:

<snip>

> > > 1996 gun murder statistics:
> > > Population: per 100,000 at US rate
> > > New Zealand 2 3.6 0.055 128.
> > >
> > > Australia 13 18.2 0.071 647.
> > >
> > > Japan 15 125.4 0.012 4,460.
> > >
> > > Great Britain 30 58.7 0.051 2,088.
> > >
> > > Canada 106 28.2 0.376 1,003.
> > >
> > > Germany 211 76.3 0.276 2,714.
> > >
> > > TEXAS 787 ?
> > > at NZ's rate
> > > USA 9,390 264.0 3.557 1,467.
> > > at Japan's rate
> > > 316.
> > >
> > >US Caucasians: 4,601 219.1M 2.100
> > >US Minority": 4,601 33.0M 13.942
> > >US Others: 188 11.9M 1.580
> >

> > Greg, I told you before, get the correct data, not the misinformation
> > from the VPC... the only thing you've posted that's even in the
> > ballpark is the population breakdown of the U.S.
> >

> > Sam A. Kersh
>
> Oh, "Little Sam you am", if you don't like the numbers, show us which
> ones are wrong.
> The population figures are from my "New Zealand Statistics book.
> The US and New Zealand figures are verified by me. The extensions are
> courtesy of my little scientific calculator (made in China)
> Do tell us all where I am wrong.

Perhaps you could let us know what the relevance of this particular set
of numbers is in your mind. Where are you going with this?

Greg

unread,
Aug 14, 2000, 9:01:15 PM8/14/00
to
Sam A. Cherish wrote:
>
> Greg <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >Sam A. Kersh wrote:
> >>

Tigga

unread,
Aug 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/15/00
to

James D. Nicholson <jam...@akamail.com> wrote in message
news:3997ED9B...@akamail.com...

> Tigga wrote:
> >
> > James D. Nicholson <jam...@akamail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3996C3C7...@akamail.com...

> > > Tigga wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <an0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:3995ff63...@news.atl.bellsouth.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.stats.org/newsletters/0006/britcrime.htm
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wow, it is true... when yankkks are in need of a genuine argument,
they
> > make
> > > > things up...
> > >
> > > The truth hurts, huh, mate. Tell you wot, for some more
disillusionment,
> > > take a gander at:
> > >
> > > http://www.tsra.com/banbad.htm
> > >
> > > Be sure to check out the increase in Aussie youth suicide rates.
> >
> > Oh yeah... now there would be a real accurate source of information....
> > </sarcasm>
>
> The numbers are right out of your beloved Oz bureaucracy. Don't trust
> your government? After the UFL it's obvious that they don't trust you
> either.

tsra.com? its not a dot AU address... the figures would have been
americanised (adjusted and manipulated to suit an argument or cause)

Tigga

unread,
Aug 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/15/00