"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
Uh, I guess that means that you don't like it when someone goes to the
original source and quotes actual numbers, eh? You'd much rather wallow
in
whatever crap you can find that supports your arguments.
Except that your "actual numbers" give no different conclusion than
the first ones....just that you seem to see some satisfaction in
arguing minutia.
Richard, this is probably too complicated for you to follow, so you'd best
stay out of it and take a nap. But maybe somebody else is interested.
I was disagreeing with Tom here. If by "the first ones" Richard means Tom's
figures, then I think that the DoJ report Gunner posted, which is based on
an original source (victim surveys) is, as I said, pretty convincing
refutation of Tom's figures.
If Richard means the figures Gunner cut and pasted from the blog, then yes,
the actual figures do produce a different conclusion. I posted that warning
from Interpol in another message, and here's an example of what they mean.
Based on Interpol's numbers, this is what Gunner quoted:
Here are Interpol 2001 crime statistics (rate per 100,000):
4161 - US
7736 - Germany
6941 - France
9927 - England and Wales
They're 'way off base. Here are the Interpol numbers that actually can be
compared, if you want to compare them:
4161 - US
3682 - Germany
4530 - France
5955 - England and Wales
Here's why. Those totals Gunner quoted are exactly what I said in another
message: the totals that each country CHOOSES to report in its total crime
reports. They ARE NOT the total crimes, and no two countries' totals are
comparable. For example, the US's FBI UCR, which is the basis for the
numbers, works like this:
====================================
"The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program's Crime Index is composed of
selected offenses used to gauge fluctuations in the volume and rate of crime
reported to law enforcement. These selected offenses include the violent
crimes of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and
aggravated assault, and the property crimes of burglary, larceny-theft, and
motor vehicle theft."
=====================================
European countries report many crimes that the US does not. If you look at
the Interpol spreadsheet for Germany, for example, and add up Germany's
figures for just those categories that the US reported, the total is
3682.05, not the 7736 that Gunner reported. That compares with 4160.51 for
the US.
Which are the ones that the US reported? Interpol regrouped them, but
they're the exact numbers the FBI reports in the Crime Index. If you go to
the Interpol site,
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Stati...wnloadList.asp, and download
the reports for the US and Germany, you'll see that the US total (4160.51)
is the sum of the first five lines in the report (1. through 4.). The US
doesn't report total sex offenses, so throw out line 2. The remaining four
numbers add up to 4160.51, which is the total you'll see that Interpol
reported at the bottom of the page. It's identical to the total that the FBI
reports in its UCR. It is NOT a sum of all of the lines in the report, just
the ones that the US *chooses* to report.
Take the same four lines for Germany and you get 3682.05. France and the UK
produce the other numbers I quoted above.
So, the US in the ballpark with Germany and France. It does NOT have "a
substantially lower crime rate than the major European countries," as Gunner
said, even based on these data. In fact, if you want to use the Interpol
numbers to make a point (and I really don't, for the other reasons that
Interpol itself said you shouldn't use their numbers to compare countries),
you see that the US's reported crime rate is slightly higher than that of
Germany, slightly lower than that of France, and a lot lower than that of
the UK. The DoJ report that Gunner quoted fully supports the higher figure
for the UK. In fact, it's probably a lot higher than the Interpol numbers
suggest, if that DoJ report is accurate.
But the UK is not "the major European countries." So I said I didn't accept
what he said about those numbers. End of story.
Pathetic idiot.
If you're still awake, Richard, you're probably getting all tangled up in
those popsicle sticks you use to do your statistics. It probably isn't worth
the effort for you. If you do manage to sharpen up and actually understand
some of it, you'll only find it annoying, and it will get in the way of your
bluster and bull****, you lazy blowhard.
Ed Huntress