UK Violent Crime Rate Eight Times Higher Than The US

According to the FBI, there were 1.2 million violent crimes committed in the US during 2011.  FBI — Violent Crime

According to the UK government, there were 1.94 million violent crimes in the UK during 2011.  www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_296191.pdf

There are almost exactly five times as many people in the US as in the UK – 314 million vs. 63 million. The violent crime rate in the UK is 3,100 per 100,000, and in the US it is 380 per 100,000 population.

Brits are eight times more likely to be victims of violent crime than Americans. For some reason, Piers Morgan doesn’t talk about this.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to UK Violent Crime Rate Eight Times Higher Than The US

  1. Gamecock says:

    I’d bet serious money that if you took black crime out of the American statistics, it would be even more lopsided.

    Rate of homicide by firearms discharge for black Americans: 16 per 100,000
    Rate of homicide by firearms discharge for non-black Americans: 2 per 100,000

    Over half of the murders committed in the U.S. with guns are committed by blacks, even though they are only 13% of the population.

  2. Wyguy says:

    Interesting stats, very interesting indeed.

  3. Pathway says:

    Here in GJ most violent crime is committed by illegals or meth heads

  4. Bloke down the pub says:

    I doubt that the FBI’s definition of violent crime is the same as that used by the UK govt. Here in the UK, if I raised my voice in a threatening manner it would be put down by the pen pushers as violent. As for murder rates, I expect the ratios are similar to those noted by Gamecock. Not that the govt. would publicize those figures as that would be considered racist.

  5. Bill Dawson says:

    Steve, I sent your note on crime comparisons to my sister in law. You apparently embarrassed me:
    Hi Bill:

    Interesting, and since I was among other things, a fact checker at GE–especially of government data sets– I dug into these reports. It appears to me that the two data sets (FBI and UK gov) are really not comparable and are being misread by Steven Goddard. In other words the FBI’s categories for violent crime include only…

    In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault

    Whereas the UK database includes…

    Violent crime covers a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder

    So, the way I’m reading these data sets, comparing the two as if they measure similar violent crimes will lead to a misreading of the level of violence in UK–it will look much higher when “pushing and shoving” makes the list!

    Who is Steven Goddard? Clearly, he’s interpreting the data for some political purpose. They all do that on both sides, in my opinion.

    I’m a big fan of yours but……………

    Bill Dawson

    • Given that most of the reported violent crimes resulted in injury, I would say that analysis is complete crap.

      In order for the US to have a higher violent crime rate than the UK, 88% of the reported UK violent crimes would have to be harmless “pushing and shoving” like a typical London commute on the tubes.

      ROFLMAO You don’t throw out the entire data set over a minor discrepancy in the definitions. The UK is much more violent. I have lived in both places.

      • Titanium Dragon says:

        Bill is quite correct, Steven. Unsurprisingly, the less serious the offense, the more common it is; property crime rates, for instance, are an order of magnitude greater than violent crimes.

        In the US, the FBI only classifies four types of crime as “violent crime”: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

        Therefore, to do an apples to apples comparison, you would have to do a comparison to the UK rates.

        As it turns out, this is much, much harder than it seems. While the homicide rate is easy, it is also negligible; while the US has a homicide rate about four times that of the UK, the difference is 1.2 versus 4.8 per 100k – homicides make up less than 1% of violent crimes by the FBi’s definition.

        Unfortunately, things get murkier with the other offenses. Aggravated assault has no precise equivalent in British law, which makes it very difficult to compare, and “forcible rape” is not a single crime in the UK (nor in the US, for that matter), and the UK defines rape differently than the US, something for which it has been criticized.

        However, if you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics, you can see a table of data suggesting that the UK rate is comparable to the US rate, though it is likely somewhat underreported due to differences in reporting. Still, the overall difference probably isn’t that large and, as you’ll note, the numbers are very small – an order of magnitude above homicide, but an order of magnitude below robbery.

        Robberies SEEM easy; figures from 2006 put the brits at about 30% more robberies per capita than the US, at 188 versus 146.4 per 100k (note that both rates are lower today, as crime rates have continued to decline). However, this required adjustment by the people doing the comparison, as robbery does not apparently have the same definition from the US to the UK.

        Aggravated assault which is the single most common sort of violent crime in the US (and probably in the UK as well), and the fact that this is not the same in the UK as in the US is a big problem for comparison. According to http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/feb/07/crime-statistics-england-wales-violent-sexual-offences , which unfortunately reports ABSOLUTE numbers, there were 498k woundings in a year. Now, it is tempting to say wounding = aggravated assault, but unfortunately, British law is rather stupid. A wounding requires that either blood is spilled or that serious bodily harm be inflicted, or that you are intending to do so. Unfortunately this isn’t the same thing as aggravated assault, so you have to take the number with a grain of salt. Assuming you said “Okay, this is close enough”, though, it would put their wounding rate at a whopping 787 per 100k – vastly outstripping total violent crime in the US. However, that chart also gives a much higher robbery rate (401 per 100k) than the other data I was looking at, which makes me wonder how the earlier comparison was done. The US rate of aggravated assaults for 2012 was 242, as a point of comparison – so there are three times more woundings in the US than there are aggravated assaults in the US.

        Unfortunately, this is further complicated by the fact that the number of incidents is slightly misleading; you’ll note that the numbers don’t actually add up, and that’s because a robbery where you got threatened with a knife would count as both wounding and robbery, so it would have two entries but only be one incident of violent crime. As our goal is to look at the overall incidence rate, this makes everything all the murkier.

        The UK may have a higher rate of “violent crime” by the FBI’s definition, but the rate is probably closer to twice that of the US – while the wounding rate is quite high, the rates for other crimes are not all that different by comparison, so the difference is probably pretty much entirely in the wounding rate… which unfortunately is also the shakiest statistic as wounding and aggravated assault aren’t the same crime. Overall, your odds of being killed are four times higher in the US, but they’re very low in both countries, whereas your odds of being violently assaulted might be as much as three times higher in the UK… but that’s likely an overestimate.

        Note that assaults with minor or no injury (which includes assaults merely threatening minor injury) outnumber woundings three to one, so just using the straight-up overall violent crime rate is clearly wrong – those are definitely not aggravated assaults, and likewise are much more common than aggravated assault in the US as well.

        • The violent crime rate in the UK is much higher than in the US. I have lived ion both places.

        • SomeGuy says:

          Steven, that is purely anecdotal and you know it. Come on. Come up with a statistical counter-rebuttal to a statistic rebuttal.

          (also, the reply button is missing from your October 13 2013 comment, probably to prevent threads from going on too long)

        • Gail Combs says:

          Do not forget all the UNREPORTED RAPES committed on little girls by ‘Asians’.

          Rotherham: 1400 Children Groomed, Drugged and Raped by Multiculturalism

          And that is just ONE city and One type of crime. The ‘Asians’ in the UK get even more of a free pass in the UK than the blacks do here in the USA.

          Britain Is Getting More Dangerous. So Give Us Our Guns Back

          Drawing from a recent paper by Carlisle E Moody, Andrews notes in her article that contrary to liberal received wisdom widespread gun ownership by law abiding citizens tends to make people safer.

          This is true historically:

          Homicide was increasing before the invention of concealable firearms and decreasing after. While there may be many other theories, the sudden and spectacular decline in violence around 1505 and again around 1610-1621 is consistent with the theory that the invention and proliferation of concealable firearms was responsible, at least in part, for the decline in homicide. The landscape of personal violence was suddenly and permanently altered by the introduction of a new technology. The handgun was the ultimate equalizer. The physically strong could no longer feel confident of domination over the weak.

          It reflects the experience of the US:

          Even in the United States today, criminals are reluctant to encounter armed victims. In 1981 Wright and Rossi interviewed 1874 incarcerated felons in ten states. Eighty-one percent agreed with the statement, “A smart criminal always tries to find out if his potential victim is armed.” Thirty-four percent report being, “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim. (Wright and Rossi 1986, pp. 132-155) Using the same data, Kleck found that, among criminals who had committed violent crimes or burglaries, 42 percent had been deterred during an attack by an armed victim and 56 percent agreed that, “most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.”(Kleck 1997, p. 180)

          And it doesn’t say much for British gun law policy which, over the years, has made us all demonstrably less safe and more likely to get shot – like the unfortunate chap who was out for a walk one day a few hundred yards from where I used to live in South London and made the mistake of nodding one of those embarrassed friendly greetings you give to scary local yoof types in a bid to discourage them from mugging you. For his troubles he was shot in the testicles.

          The government in England has been placing increasingly stringent controls on guns especially handguns, since 1920, reducing both the actual and the effective supply of firearms. (Malcolm 2002) The homicide rate in England in 1920 was 0.84 and the assault rate was 2.39. In 1999, the corresponding rates were 1.44 and 419.29. Thus both the homicide and assault rates increased as the effective supply of handguns declined.

          Andrews calculates that this represents a 17,544 per cent increase in England’s assault crime over the last 100 years.….

        • Gail Combs says:

          Link to the paper by Carlisle E Moody.
          http://economics.wm.edu/wp/cwm_wp158.pdf

          link to “…Kate Andrews of the libertarian think tank the Adam Smith Institute – Make Britain Safer: Bring Back Handguns …”
          http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/liberty-justice/make-britain-safer-bring-back-handguns/

      • Bob Lowes says:

        I can only assume that while living in the UK, “Steven Goddard” (the conservative Republican voting, pro gun, anti-Obama, anti-socialisim, climate change-denying conspiracy theorist idiot that he obviously is), was constantly and consistently told to shut the fuck up or risk being punched on the nose, every time he voiced his nasty, bigoted opinions. Everything, literally EVERYTHING he’s written on the subject of which country (US vs UK) has a higher crime rate is demonstrably false. Steven Goddard distorts the truth to fit his disturbingly rightwing worldview. The man’s a liar. It’s as simple as that. At this point, I’m surprised he hasn’t been snapped up as a pundit for Faux News. The saddest part is that some people are stupid enough to take him at face value and believe his lies. “Steven” – you’re an awful person. Get of the internet. Never come back.

        • rah says:

          Apparently we Americans are more tolerant than you Brits about speech, having the first amendment and all. Funny, because I really enjoy checking out the oratory in Parliament sometimes, because unlike our congress it allows reactions of agreement or disagreement, humor and even disdain for the speaker during the speech. But I’m sure you would change that for everyone but yourself and those that agree with you if you had your way you leftist twit.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Such as Sweetheart.

          I am sure you are looking forward to the demise of free speech and the take over of your country by the ‘Asians’
          Rotherham: 1400 Children Groomed, Drugged and Raped by Multiculturalism and the authorities tell the girls and their parents to FUCK OFF!

          Coming soon to a EU country near you.

        • Bob Lowes says:

          @ Rah – there’s a huge difference between free speech and lying.

          @ Gail – I love the way you keep mentioning ‘The Asians’ is if they’re some shadowy force out to get us all. Keep drinking the Kool Aid and hunker down in your Panic Room, you beautifully ridiculous loon.

    • Sleepalot says:

      I think Steve should get the benefit of the doubt. IF he were wrong (and hearsay doesn’t establish that), it doesn’t follow that Steve has a nefarious political agenda: someone’s imputing motives on no evidence whatsoever!

      • Bob Lowes says:

        You don’t think a right-wing conservative political bias is a political agenda?
        Steven Goddard doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt on this because he’s completely, demonstrably wrong. Everything he’s written on this subject is so full of shit he could sell it to famers as manure.

  6. Luke says:

    Violent crime statistics are recorded differently in both countries. In the US it has to be violent acts such as murder, rape, aggravated assault. In the UK a push is a violent crime, a grab on the shirt is a violent crime, harassment (verbal) is a violent crime, verbal threats are a violent crime. The majority of violent crime in the UK doesn’t involve in any injury to the person

    Also in the US you record incidents as acts against the person, whereas in the UK they are recorded as separate incidents. e.g If a guy abuses his wife in the US thats 1 incident of violent crime. In the UK each incident is recorded separately as a violent crime, so if a man hits his wife 5 times in a year thats 5 separate crimes.

    • Ty says:

      Are you seriously suggesting a man who beats his wife on five separate occasions in the US only has his “incident” recorded once?

      That is not how it works.

    • asdf says:

      I’ve read the UK doesn’t even count things like murder unless a guilty prosecution is obtained. So 5 people viciously murdered in the UK aren’t counted as murdered until a suspect has been determined guilty and sentenced for the offenses. That’s not the way it works in the US. We don’t give 21yr prison sentences for 77 people massacred or allow the public to force an early release of ‘misunderstood & rehabilitated’ serial killers like in the UK who predictably resume their killing spree’s after release.

      • balthcat says:

        Where’d you read that, Alex Jones? It is absolutely false. Canada and the UK both include LESSER violent crimes in their violent crimes statistics, which is perhaps (not guaranteed) the reason that Canada and the UK have higher numbers per capita.

        It is absolutely ludicrous to even entertain the idea that a murder stat wouldn’t include crimes that are unsolved. You should be ashamed of admitting to considering it in public.

  7. Yet it’s illegal to own a gun other than for hunting purposes and most knives are illegal?? The UK sucks and i’m from there.

  8. Bob Lowes says:

    The idea that the UK is somehow vastly more violent than the US is laughable. Mostly because people interpret the data completely incorrectly. Saying “I’ve lived in both places” is meaningless – you haven’t lived in every single part of the UK or US at once, so your personal observations are irrelevant. http://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

      • Bob Lowes says:

        Yeah, it goes off every time you speak.

      • asdf says:

        I like how those idiots whine about a mere ‘push’ constituting a violent crime in the UK. It’s actually no different than in the USA, where any unwanted physical contact constitutes an assault and is reported far more often.

        The USA has the highest perception of police efficiency among in its citizens in the world, thus more criminal offenses are reported to police which is further shown in the highest jailed population in the world.

        • Bob Lowes says:

          I’m not sure having the highest jailed population in the world is something to be proud of.

        • Gail Combs says:

          The increase in jailed US citizens corresponds to the progresives closing down state mental institutions in the 1970s and tossing the inmates out “To be integrated into society” (I did a long comment on it about a month ago but did not save the pointer)

          So now we have sidewalk sleepers and prison inmates and psychos with guns shooting people BUT IT IS ALL the fault of gun loving republican retards.

          According to Progressives it is NOT OK to put the mentally ill into institutions against their will but it IS OK to drug the shit our of our children if they give a progressive teacher any problems. And if the parents disagree the child is removed from the parents and given to the state to raise,

          Go figure.
          I have the pointer to the Drugging of our children
          https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/assault-with-a-deadly-pop-tart/#comment-336782

        • darren says:

          You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. Pushing is not considered violent crime in America. a fat misfit shooting dead a unarmed teenager with a bag of skittles isn;t even considered a crime.

          Anyone who thinks England is more violent than America is delusional.

          I don’t think many impoverished blacks from your extensive ghettoes have much confidence in your police either.

  9. Ioana Popa says:

    I live also in USA and UK. In Berwyn (Chicago) and Bracknell (London). Chicago is much violent to London and I feel very safe in London in compare to Chicago.

    This from link from Bob Lowes.

    CONCLUSION: =======================================
    While it becomes clear that certain types of offenses are marginally higher in the UK than in the US (robbery and knife crime being more likely in the UK by an order of 1.1x and 1.27x respectively) a number of other, more serious offenses, are both marginally and substantially higher in the US. Rape of a female is 1.02x more likely in the US, while theft of a vehicle is 1.29x more likely. More disturbingly, burglary is significantly higher at 1.52x more likely to occur in the US. However, it is at the considerably more, well, violent crimes that America really supersedes England and Wales into its own class. In the United States, you are 6.9x more likely to be the victim of aggravated assault resulting in serious injury than in the UK. You are 4.03x more likely to be murdered than in the UK. And more staggeringly (though not surprising) you are 35.2x more likely to be shot dead in the Unites States than in the UK. Before anybody asks, no, these do not take into account justifiable homicide and other “acceptable shootings”, nor do murders for that matter:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s