Romney

[Tero]

Is there anyplace in the world that does not have a minority to blame for crimes?

[Blind groper]

You never did answer my question about the rates of violent crime in general (as opposed to only murder). Is there a reason for this omission?

Yes.

There is a problem of definition.
For example : is pointing a gun at someone a violent crime?
If so, America has a very high rate.

If you punch someone, that is a violent crime, and NZ has a high rate of that kind of violence. However, if you shoot someone, and wound him/her, that is also a violent crime, and one that is much much worse than a punch.

I do not see any way of making a fair comparison. NZ has a high rate of low level violence. The USA has a high rate of high level violence (shootings).

[Thumpalumpacus]

You never did answer my question about the rates of violent crime in general (as opposed to only murder). Is there a reason for this omission?

Yes.

There is a problem of definition.
For example : is pointing a gun at someone a violent crime?
If so, America has a very high rate.

If you punch someone, that is a violent crime, and NZ has a high rate of that kind of violence. However, if you shoot someone, and wound him/her, that is also a violent crime, and one that is much much worse than a punch.

I do not see any way of making a fair comparison. NZ has a high rate of low level violence. The USA has a high rate of high level violence (shootings).

Could it be that America doesn't have a terribly high rate of violent crime, in the broad scheme of things?



America's rate: 494 per 100,000 people. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/ ... 68x636.jpg

[Tero]

Looks like them arctic areas are safe. I bet the crime rate is even lower in Antarctica. You have to be close enough to the neighbor to shoot them.

[Blind groper]

Could it be that America doesn't have a terribly high rate of violent crime, in the broad scheme of things?

As I pointed out, that cannot be answered due to a lack of clear definition of 'violent crime'.
I regard the act of one person pointing a loaded gun at another as an act of violence. It may not lead to physical injury but it is sure bloody traumatic! If that was accepted as a violent crime, then I predict the USA would jump to the top of the heap of any OECD list of violent crimes, simply because gun ownership and use against other humans is higher in the USA than any other developed country.

The most clear cut violent crime is murder, since that is definitive. Either a victim is killed or not killed. The USA is way out front in any OECD list of murder rates.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Could it be that America doesn't have a terribly high rate of violent crime, in the broad scheme of things?

As I pointed out, that cannot be answered due to a lack of clear definition of 'violent crime'.
I regard the act of one person pointing a loaded gun at another as an act of violence. It may not lead to physical injury but it is sure bloody traumatic! If that was accepted as a violent crime, then I predict the USA would jump to the top of the heap of any OECD list of violent crimes, simply because gun ownership and use against other humans is higher in the USA than any other developed country.

The most clear cut violent crime is murder, since that is definitive. Either a victim is killed or not killed. The USA is way out front in any OECD list of murder rates.

Here in America, a robbery is counted as a violent crime even if no gun is waved around at all, if the violence is threatened or even implied. A bank robbery committed using nothing more than a threatening note is considered "violent" for the purposes of our statistics:

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offens ... index.html

I think this answers your point about classification. We don't rely on an injury to call a crime "violent".

It may be more in line with foreign perceptions about America to view us as the knuckle-dragging rednecks of the world, but clearly our overall rate of violent crime is not as high as that of some other OECD nations. This isn't to argue "America's number one hur hur hur," but it is to say that stereotyping is not solid thinking, no matter who is practicing it.

Have you ever visited here?

[Svartalf]

Looks like them arctic areas are safe. I bet the crime rate is even lower in Antarctica. You have to be close enough to the neighbor to shoot them.

With outposts being groups of people packed inside their buildings with little personal space? I'd not be surprised if assault and rape (although undeclared) were a lot more common than you'd think.
The Russian stations must be the worst. Cabin fever and vodka don't mix well.

[Blind groper]

Have you ever visited here?

I answered that in an earlier post. Three times.
I have visited the following cities and done some driving in the areas up to 300 kms from those cities.
Honolulu, Seattle, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Grand Canyon, Memphis, Jackson, Houston, Miami.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm sorry, that slipped my mind.

I've lived in five states, cities large and small, and with all due respect, I think your notion that Americans can't appreciate the nature of this country where they live is self-serving, in terms of this discussion. You may as well argue that I could get a great feel for New Zealand by reading about it but never living there. Americans, too, can and do read the same books and reports which seem to have granted you insight ... and have the personal experience to assess the information therein.

[Blind groper]

Thumpa

I am not criticising Americans. As I said before, Americans are just people - no better or worse than any other group of 'just people'.

My criticisms are more to the systems operating in the USA. Strangely, in my reading, including this forum, the most critical comments about things American come from Americans.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I was addressing what you said upthread, that Americans can't appreciate the nature of their own country.

Plenty of Americans, myself included, are critical of aspects of our country. It is sometimes violent here. But it's irritating to see the stereotype of violent America bandied about by someone who would assert that Americans don't even know their own country, especially when the data presented to support the alternative view is so cherry-picked.

I wouldn't deign to tell you about New Zealand based on a perusal of some statistics massaged to my taste coupled with a few visits of admittedly limited scope. It would be nice to see the courtesy returned.

[Blind groper]

I wouldn't deign to tell you about New Zealand based on a perusal of some statistics massaged to my taste coupled with a few visits of admittedly limited scope. It would be nice to see the courtesy returned.

Feel free.
You think I am rough on America?
You wanna see me let go when I get to commenting on the NZ government!

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm not keen on speaking about countries I don't know, so I'll spare you my views on NZ. My point was that hectoring someone else about their native land isn't really polite, especially when your own knowledge is so sketchy. Sorry to put it so plainly, but it didn't seem to be landing, my point.

So far as your views on your own government, those are probably best expressed in the polling booth.

[rab]

I can simplify the economics: Romney will cut taxes, attempt to cut down gubment and add to our debt. Unemployement will stay the same.

I think Romney has a pretty good chance of cutting back on government spending, given his record in Massachusetts. This is an area where his business background would actually be useful, because he'd be better than a politician at identifying areas where money could be used more efficiently.

Getting back on the topic of R-money, I think his business experience would further hurt the U.S. economy where jobs are concerned. Remember, he with his Bain Capital buddies bought businesses, invested other people's money, closed the shops down and put workers out of a job, profited on those investments without losing a dime of his own money, and that's how he made his fortune. Smart yes, but bad for government!

He's going to trim government by putting people out of work. He was caught telling his rich campaign contributors that he wants to eliminate the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. Good-bye jobs, good-bye housing subsidies for the poor working class, including veterans.

He's an empty suit salivating at the prospect of firing people.



Don't get me wrong, I'm not an Obama fan either. He signed a free trade deal with Columbia because, you know, NAFTA was such a huge success for jobs and businesses in the U.S.

I don't care about the stupid spoiler argument---I'M VOTING THIRD PARTY!

[Atheist-Lite]

The UK has a much lower tolerance for crime and the police here must meet targets for crime detection which leads to anything being considered violent. I wouldn't trust the stats that put this country at the top for anything good or bad.