http://www.minjust.nl:8080/b_organ/wodc/reports/ob187i.htm
For the tables see the "Additional Tables" link which gives you Appendix 4, or click on the link below (watch the wrap, it ends in a ".pdf", so you'll probably need Acrobat Reader):
http://www.minjust.nl:8080/b_organ/wodc/publications/17-icvs-app4.pdf
Interestingly, from 1989 to 2000 (victimization years 1988 to 1999), England and Wales and the USA almost swap places (well perhaps an exaggeration) in the violent crime category (except for "Personal Theft"--and I'm not sure how "violent" those incidents are since a truly violent theft would be a robbery). In the 1989 sweep the stats for Robbery (Rb), Personal Theft (Pt) are Rape & Sexual Incidents (Sx) and Assaults & Threats (AT):
From Table 1. Prevalence of Victimization (% of people victimized once or more times in the previous year).
Rb Pt Sx AT E&W 0.7 3.1 1.1 1.9 USA 1.9 4.5 4.5 5.4
In the 2000 sweep (1999 victims), the stats are:
E&W 1.2 4.6 2.7 6.1 USA 0.6 4.9 1.5 3.4
I also note that according to the ICVS there was a slight decrease in some categories of violent crime from the 1996 to 2000 surveys in E&W and also Scotland and Northern Ireland. I wonder how that tracks with the British Home Office figures.
But then I looked at Table 2. Incidence of Victimization (# of offences per 100 population) and got this!
Rb Pt Sx AT E&W 1989 0.7 4.0 1.2 2.4 USA 1989 2.8 6.1 10.4 10.1
E&W 2000 2.0 5.7 6.1 12.4 USA 2000 0.6 6.7 2.8 6.5
Note: You can also click the "Victimization Rates" link to see some additional charts for the Y2K sweep, or take this link:
http://www.minjust.nl:8080/b_organ/wodc/publications/08-icvs-h2.pdf
Now, I realize that the UK murder rates are still well below the US rates. But I think if I were one of Her Majesty's subjects, I'd be rather peeved right now (or grateful that I had kept my "illegal" gun.)
Lowell C. Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
P.S. Can anyone (Tim?) explain how in the "Burglary from Homes" graph (last link, above), Australia can have more successful burglaries than attempts? :-) Or is it that a successful burglary is not considered an "attempted burglary."
At 10:03 PM 7-27-04, Tim Lambert wrote:
"Joe Sylvester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>From: "Peter Boucher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Gun Crime Down in Britain > >>http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/guncrime/index.html > >>"Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in this >>country is relatively low - less than half of 1% of all crime recorded >>by the police - and in the year ending 31 March 2003, there was: > >>* a 16% reduction in homicides involving firearms >>* a 13% reduction in robberies involving firearms > >>Even so, we have seen an unacceptable rise in gun crime over recent >>years, and are doing everything we can to tackle it. > > Why bother with expending specific effort on "gun crime" when it is already > so low? The real question is what has happened to the overall violent crime > rate. Criminals won't risk a stiff sentence for a "gun crime", if they know > can get by without a gun. If most of citizenry is disarmed, then criminals > have less need for a gun. Again the real question is, does a disarmed > citizenry lead to more or less violent crime, everything else being equal?
Violent crime has decreased steadily since the 1997. The latest figures, released this month, show another decrease. Of course everything else isn't equal and there have been similar declines in the US, Canada and Germany.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
