Low-level nastiness
I think I am bound to accept that guns are a bit of a red herring when it comes to low-level violence in western societies, but I still believe there's a case to be made that suburban American is far gentler than its UK equivalent. Bedd Gelert's reference to the city of Bath in England is interesting. Of course, the UK has areas of privilege and less crime - and the lovely city of Bath is one of them - and yet look at the today.
And there is from earlier in the year.
By the way, Bath is of course very safe for tourists and for most of its inhabitants as well (I don't want to be accused of dissing the city I grew up in!) but every part of the UK appears to suffer from this nastiness.
I see, meanwhile, that one of America's foremost commentators on the right sees England's problems as than the odd city centre stabbing might suggest.
Back in the US, a fair bit of what low-level nastiness there is can be found among Democrats at the moment - and here is on where we are and what the historical precedents (such as they are) suggest about what will happen.
And does not look like terribly good news for the party either - though I wonder whether people rather overstate the strength of their Clinton-Obama allegiances at the moment, in order to psych the opposition, as it were.
Do go to Bath!
Hello, I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
It's race. It'll be Willie Horton, McCain's black baby and all the rest before and since. That's what the 'nastiness' is, from Clinton or RNC operatives.
And no one's going to 'draft gore', Obama's the nominee (much as I love Gore). Scheiber's wrong.
She has a 5% chance, remember?
Justin,
I was a Police Officer in the UK, from 1966 through 1991.
I now live in Atlanta, although I regularly travel back and forth to the UK, and your observations are perfectly correct.
While you do have to be aware and awake wherever you are: the general level of politesse and gentility is much more at evidence in Atlanta.
I carry a gun concealed, and licensed while in Atlanta. I don't advertise it and you'd never know it was there unless I told you.
I wish I could do the same legally in London. Most people in America are happy for me to do so: knowing that I'm one of the good guys and its better to have good guys around when trouble happens.
The miserable grumpiness of the English is getting worse these days: honest, coming from Atlanta to London is like taking a cold shower in Alaska.
brendan
Interestingly, one of the letters to the venerable Bath Chronicle [which has sadly gone weekly, as the effect of the internet makes local daily papers more vulnerable] states that the writer 'feels safer walking in St. Pauls in Bristol than in Bath..'.
Whether that is borne out by the figures is neither here nor there - I guess when it comes to the fear of crime 'perception is reality'.
Look, there are areas of low level violence and high level violence, privaliged, and not so privaliged in all countries, as #6-the name escapeing me at the moment, a British poster very articulately stated in the March 25th blog entry. That having been said, I take your word, Justin, that the higher privaliged US citizen is kinder-if you will-than teir UK counterpart, but that brings us into a completely new and different debate on which nationality's citizens are more polite and kinder, one, that in my experience, tends to bring out the worst in everybody. So I would urge you to tread very carefully indeed when speeking on that subject.
The "Blue Birds in the Sky" article was extreemly interesting indeed to me. I, unlike the author, am quite surprised that more church members/leaders, didn't speek out on the praposle, or at least the ones that did speek out, didn't do so very loudly. And I am especially surprised that the reverond metioned in this piece didn't at least try to nigociate a happy comprimise with the Muslim leader! But that aside, I think the US could learn some serious lessons from the UK on how to accomidate everyone better, and how to not exclude, or offend anyone!! We could start by allowin anyone of "any" faith, or no faith at all, to run for president, something which at this point we won't do, or at least its an extreemly hard battle to fight. Then, perhaps, the Christian right in this country could try-hard tough it may be-to not judge and/or belittle those of other faiths!!! Although the whole "England" tattoo thing was simply rediculous in my opinion!!!
And on a side note, I think we both (US and UK)'s commintators are writing and talking about, and getting involved in each other's domestic affairs too much. Its not really our business, and all it does, if done too much, is cause serious resentments and offence. I think we all should be carefull when saying/writing about each other's problems!
With respect of the "Slouching Towards Denver" piece, I can only say-at any cost I hope not!!! If it comes to that, then what's the point in even fighting a general election campaign? We all know who will win!
According to the linked article by Tony Blankley, *even* Athiests (French ones at that!) fought against the Nazi's - extraordinary ! I would have thought Athiests would have preferred to be conquered by genocidal maniacs?! Thats crazy stuff Justin - thanks for sharing that with the nation .
As for your backtracking on yesterdays ridiculous assertions - perhaps the high mountain Colorado air was still affecting your judgement eh ?
Anyway, i'm all for being open minded and following the evidence - perhaps instead of telling us how you *feel* about an issue, you might instead care to share some statistics on the level/types of crime of the 2 countries and we can then draw our own conclusions - or is that like, too much hard work for a reporter to do, after all its much easier just copying and pasting any old rubbish from different blogs isn't it..........
Of course Democrats are overstating their allegiance to their preferred candidates right now! The vast majority of Democrats will vote for the Democrat, and considering Democrats are registering almost 2:1 to the Republicans, we're in a great position for the general election.
I am an Obama supporter who will definitely vote for Hillary in November if she gets the nomination (not gonna happen, though) and sorry, but I fail to see how record-shattering fundraising, unprecedented voter turnout (roughly triple what Republicans have been able to muster) and stunning Democratic voter registration "isn't terribly good news" for the party.
We will win in November. Any polls now just show how close it would be with only half of Democrats vs. the Republican - a very weak candidate named John McCain.
One incident of gun crime in the UK makes the headlines whereas in the USA it is common place. We cannot compare our society to that of America which has this in built fascination for guns and use them frequently to commit killings on innocent bystanders in shopping malls and schools
Tony Blankley's piece seems more of a hysterical rant against Islam rather than an analysis of the deep-seated and political problems of England which Justin Webb thinks it is. According to Blankley a request to broadcast the call to prayer from a minaret by loudspeaker in the centre of Oxford is an example of the new barbarism revealing it's menace to civilisation. I might be inclined to agree if Blankley was to equate public celebrations of Christianity with the same creeping menace but somehow I doubt that is how he sees it.
Dear Justin
At 18.31pm on 26th march Eternal Pessimist wrote:-
Completly forgot that your site must also include other subjects apart from the USA elections. Still enjoying it though despite the 502 page that one still visits so often.
Reading your comments and those of your readers, together with 101 world sites that I checked out :- with the recent "under fire" mis-speak from Hillary Clinton it seems all but over. Even Fox news appears at a loss for words.
May I be so bold as to sketch a doomsday scenario on the whole future run of events.
Hillary will announce her departure from the democratic race prior to the future state democrat election at a party where Elton John will play yet another version of Candle in the Wind, [he's already promised to come over and support her campaign]. Hillary promises full support for Obama whose campaign juggernought has defeated hers.
All superdelegates can breath a sigh of relief -She will be offered a top position in the senate.
Her marriage to Bill will survive in an estranged mode because a spouse cannot testify at any process against the other.
BUT HELL HATH NO FURY LIKE A WOMAN SCORNED!
During the Presidential elections, at the last moment information will emerge that paints Obama in such a bad light that Mccain wins! This will appear as though the republicans have unearthed these damning facts.
The republican presidency must then sort out the Iraq, Economy ,Health etc. etc with the population having to swallow the bitter pill of yet another Dubja clone.
With an "I told you so" manner, Hillary will then be asked and accepts to become the democrat front runner for 2012.
The baggage of Bill has been put aside. She has no need of his support and help! She's got Chelsea.
All doubtful deals and dealings in the past will be either out in the open or a subject of loss of memory on her part.
God help America and the rest of the world. I think we all had the Hope that these elections were the start of something realy good for mankind and politics because its outcome is not just about the USA.
Where does one buy a gun???
ps Bath and Bristol- [my old city] are great.
I lived in New Orleans when it had the distinction of the highest murder rate in the country. For a while one news channel marked the (daily) murders with push-pins on a map of the city.
Almost all of them were in a couple dense clusters in the city's housing projects.
I'm not sure I'll buy into Dr. Newport's analysis yet. That is not because I don't trust his research, but that I think it's come too far ahead of the general election; there are many months yet to come. Besides Obama has an uncanny knack for drumming up his poll numbers as he goes into the stretch. In fact, it's starting to happen in Pennsylvania and North Carolina now. I would rather revisit Dr. Newport's analysis closer to the election. I think it would have a greater level of accuracy (and relevance) then. Plus, who knows what the October surprise is going to be; maybe it will be in the Democrats favor again, like 2006. Finally, I tend to agree with Shawn in comment 6 that Democrats will vote for Democrats. However, I think he is making a mistake about assuming that everyone voting in the primaries is a Democrat. A lot of them, including myself, are GDI. I think a lot of Obama's and, for that matter; McCain's success has been reaching out to these voters.
chris kimmings - Don't bother posting on a blog, get that Screen Play Writing under way and I think we may be seeing you at the Oscars by 2010 !! I'm not saying you have an over-active imagination, but it would make a jolly good film.. Although whether it would fall into the 'horror' or 'thriller' genre I will leave others to comment upon..
Ahh, 'Little Englanders' in America now . too! Good thing Tony Blankley wasn't around 230 years ago, he'd probably be "dissing" George Washington and Thomas Jefferson from his bully pulpit in one of the treasonous colonies local Tory parishes. Sound's more like a "deep-seated" sermon than a political analysis. It's a little bit of a leap, to say the least, that the "call to prayer" is a call to "take Europe, take England, take Oxford"; but then again you have to do something to keep the rebellious masses in fearful obedience to their 'ruling class' (he's right about that undemocratic reality, anyway). "New barbarism" and "coming struggle" however, are a little more ominous. This type of apocalyptic hyperbole is all too distressingly familiar from right-wing fearmongers. Oswald Spengler was a little better at it. Unfortunately, the "old barbarism" of Anglo-American imperialism is still with us, so if the "new barbarism" is anything like Abu Ghraib or Fallujah or Jenin or My Lai, etc., etc., etc. that's cause for real concern. But these liberal/conservative Republi-crats have never shown similar aversion to those kinds of barbarous crimes; or of calls by Anglo-American militants to 'take Iraq' 'take India' take 'Vietnam', etc., etc., etc. So fine, we all hope "There'll always be an England" & "And England shall be free" but the rest is rubbish.
I think it's fairly obvious that intraparty rivalry is being overblown. It's the only story left in this far-too-long primary season, and the media is getting antsy. Yes the noisiest pro-Hillary or pro-Obama partisans make the best news, but I suspect the vast majority of Dems, like myself, would rather vote for a cheese sandwich than McCain come November.
"dissing the city I grew up in" - Come, come Justin! You don't have to adopt US inner-city speech to prove to us how well you have adapted to the United States! With regard to the Hillary-Barack competition, my bet is still on the lady. Consider, it only takes one photo of Obama and the Rev Wright with the latter's remarks shown prominently - without comment - to convince voters that Obama cannot win in November, a not unimportant consideration for all delegates at the Convention. It becomes Party over Personality, and if the Democrats are to have a fighting chance of success, then it has to be "Clinton For President".
So the massively higher weapon-murder ratio in the US has nothing to do with the middle-classes at all, Justin? The guns and knives are only in the ghettoes?
I'm getting the distinct feeling from your blog and The Guardian interview in November that your view is becoming more and more rose-tinted towards the US (the US of right-wing America, it should be said). Of course that's your right but be serious: America is a far more dangerous place to live than Britain, especially when it comes to violence.
#7 Robert Bower: First of all, that's not true!!! Whether local or national, a shooting in a public housing neighborhood of a city such as Baltimore over drugs, or a shooting at a school such as Verginia Tech, they almost always make the news in one way or another!!! You just have to know where to look!! You aren't going to find an LA shooting incodence story in the New York Times!! Second, the shootings that do go unreported in this country are due, news organisations's lazyness aside of course, to the fact that guns, since they are legle in this country, are sadly a factor not surprising many Americans. To know that there may be a gun in possession by someone else isn't surprising to many people here due to the above mentioned legality. Of ourse the inexcusable use of them always is, as I'm sure it is in all countries!!! I know that's an unfair way to treat it, but I would wager that it is part of the reason why some gun crime may be unreported here.
#8: I don't think Brikley was supporting Islam, but rather expressing surprise and concern, that something which was seen as the norm for so long in a city, is suddenly found distasteful by some people to the point where they feel they must change it. The bells aren't :"Christian" per say, and I'm sure that if it were the other way around, like I don't know, the lord's prayer being broadcast, that just as many people would be upset.
What I see going on in both countries is church and state are becoming more and more fused together. In the US its Christianity, while in the UK its Islam. This isn't to say that religion is bad-I, myself, a "Liberal!!" Christian-but there is a reason why people of different religions, both in a country and outside of it, when it was fused with that government, always seemed to be at war.
Secular societys and governments-always!!!
Are you a nasty Briton?
Violence, politeness? What are peole talking about. On Bath, yes, having lived their for two years and watching the local rugby boys decend from the satilite towns and vilages for a good night out, you can find a lot of frustrations being vented in that quaint little towns centre on a friday or saturday night. It can, if you choose to walk past it, be scary. Of the four times I have had someone want to commit an act of violence against my good self, three were in Bath. I grew up in north london, have wandered the streets drunk and bumped into many drunk people, none of which ever wanted to hurt me. When I was 10 I got pushed over in a park, that was the first time and I waited 17 years for the next three.
On comparing England to the USA and people talking about nastiness, are you mad? The USA has unbelievable infant mortality rates, where the health care is good its the best in the world. Where its bad its like the third world. A lot people in the states have no access to or cannot afford what we would call basic health care. Where the medicines you recieve are not based on your need, but your wealth. Now to me thats a kind of violence, thats a nastyness that shouldn't exist in a democracy.
The comments from Britons who have said that some how in the states its not so 'nasty,' haven't lived in town sized trailer parks, or where there is no transport, no investment in businesses to create employmet and where gun shops and the availability of black market guns (a by product of realsing firearms into the public domain)makes it all too easy to vent a frustration in very final way.
Finally thank you to the British police force who as far as I know have always resisted being armed. You remind that there isn't just pockets of sanity in this country but great big dollops of the stuff all over our beautifull nation.
P.S
Some Britons are quite nasty.
I don't understand why you keeping mentioning this doom-laden stuff for the democrats! It seems to me that this primary process, nasty as it may occasionally be, is proving nothing but positive. Not only is it generating fundraising, enthusiasm and newly registered voters, as the poster above says, but it is focusing on Obama much more than before.
Now I love Obama, but I accept that until about mid-February, there had been little detailed scrutiny of his past, his policies and so on from a fawning media. Isn't it better that this process happens now rather than during the campaign so that he is ready to combat things. he knows how to fight the 3am stuff, he gave the best speech on race in a generation in answer ro the Wright problem and so on. When McCain raises those things in Oct, he'll have the arguments ready-sharpened from the primary process. Imagine if the Wright story had not come out untilo early November - his campaign would die an instant death that late in the day.
Seems to me that th Dems' primary is doing exactly what it says on the tin - allowing voters to focus intensely on the strengths and weaknesses of two excellent candidates, who will be better-prepared for the real thing when it happens as a result. In the meantime, all the McCain-Obama and McCain-Clinton polls are utterly meaningless. The candidates haven't even begun to take him on yet! Don't forget that Clinton #1 didn't finish the primaries until June (I think...)
With most English low-level crime, it's ironic that it's largely seen as an imitation of USA style gang culture. Another case of media shaping the voters, maybe.
But it's also not often acknowledged that a lot of Englsih crime is to do with far-reaching problems. Problems such as the closing down of England's manufacturing and mining industries in the 80s, without much care and planning. These kids that supposedly make England's town centres no-go areas are Thatcher's Grandchildren.
With the election, it would be a great shame if the Democrats blow it, rather than seize their day.
the lovely city of Bath is one of them - and yet look at the headline in the Bath paper today
The headline now seems to be
"Campaigners unite against parking charge rises"
Oh well, back to the priorities of surburban Bath then!
Yes, we are barbarians in the U.S., but we are barabrians who don't have to lock our doors because criminals fear lawfully armed citizens more than they do the police. There is no such thing as an armed victim.
Believe it or not -- When one buys a home in small-town America, it's not uncommon for the keys to have been lost ages ago.
I live in Bristol and am certain that this is thus far and probably will be the one and only news item which connects the City of Bath and the US elections.
You seem a litle obsessed with 'nastiness' in the UK. While that is perfectly justifiable when it comes to the media (even Radio 1's breakfast show is full of nothing but nastiness-a symptom of a greater malaise within the UK media), we in the provinces are doing our best to improve the outlook amongst our less open-minded residents. Please give us some credit!
Okay, havn't read the comments yet, but Justin, your dropping the lead position with links to papers that don't appear to have the headline you expected. Though the links give a perspective of your point, it leaves more to the imagination.
For instance, the comparissons between who the people would vote for if their canidate doesn't make it. This would have to be thwarted due to 'operation chaos' being carried out by the republicans (Rush Limbaugh listeners and the republican informed)
The media Darling right now is Obama and it couldn't be more obvious, as they are rallying against Hillary, Bill and Chelsea at every stop while giving Obama a cake walk. (Justin, I would love you to touch on this)
To return to the point of you not directing the input of comments directly into factual rather than suppostition.
Okay, now I'll read the comments and feel like a fool! Doug
Justin
I feel you are straying away from the pith of the blob and becoming more a soap box for your raison d'tre for being in the US. Which is fine...but defeats the purpose of being North American Editor surely? Yours is to present observations, which you do and well, but straying more and more into personal comments makes you become one of the many US anchors, just endless pathos...not becoming of you.
The way citizens presents themselves should not be confused with the national psyche and its laws and rules.
What you 'feel' like, living in America is your own personal choice.
I enjoy going to America, it is a 'fun' place. But would i wish to live there....on the evidence of all I have seen 'personally' in the US, no. For reasons see above....
Being in the nice and rich suburbs is wonderful, having satyed with freinds in these 'nice' areas. But once away from them, woooaahhhh...watch out.
So i tend to agree with many bloggers that your view is myopic since you are in the "gated areas" of normality coupled with the "hi how'ya doin' today" freindly cheerful greeting by its residence and many cafe's etc.
Just because someone greets me with "hi how'ya doin' " smile..doesn't make it a safer place. Just not 'nasty'.
Some parts of he UK are no longer pleasant, I agree, but it is no way nasty...it has just lost its mannars (in areas); seems to me just copying the US's "what's in it for me" attitude, which has nothing to do with being able to carry a gun too!
Of course the privileged areas in America are in some ways nicer and more pleasant than here, partisan politics and reactionary media lead to a widening gulf between rich and poor, the few and the many, so yes I'm sure the privileged are quite polite, but then they have no need not to be.
'Campaigners unite against parking charge rises' and gun crime? Are we lving on the same planet?
Aah... Justin was brought up in Bath. Suddenly your comments from the other day makes sense! You were raised in the most sedate, safe town in Britain, so naturally you're shocked by the existence of a bit of "low-level nastiness".
Those of us from less genteel locales (ie everywhere else in the UK) are made of sterner stuff. In Bath passersbys stop and look aghast if two people raise their voices to argue in the street. If someone pukes on the pavement, it's the front page of the Bath Chronicle.
I live on the cusp of Twerton, and have yet to experience any drive-by shootings. Fear not: it's perfectly safe to take off your skis, come down the mountain, and pop home for a Sally Lunn bun without slipping on a stab vest first.
Honestly, this debate about which country is safer is ludicrous. Ask me to choose between a nation bristling with firearms (with pockets that are practically war zones) and a country where there are a few binge-drinking hoodies wherever you go and I'll take Britain's "low level nastiness" any day, ta very much.
Brilliant blog, by the way: essential reading.
I would suggest that the American "niceness" being proffered here is illusory.
I moved from the United States to Costa Rica about five years ago, and have found a society that is genuinely friendly, not superficially so as I experienced in the States.
Here, I know where I stand, because Costa Ricans don't much hide it, and most who don't know me will be friendly and helpful by default. By contrast, one American lady that of my acquaintance would always greet me with a smile and a big hug - and then I found out what awful things she had been saying about me behind my back.
That isn't niceness, it is meanness. And it can't be described any other way other than perhaps charitably as two-faced politeness. Unfortunately, in the case of Americans, it is also common, if not the rule. That is why I now prefer the company of Costa Ricans. With them, at least I know where I stand.
We have lived in Charlotte, US now for 5 years. I've never seen any hint of trouble ever going out in middle class area's. Stuff happens here, shootings etc but in the part of town you can avoid. I used to be shocked by guns now I'd consider getting one for the protection of my family. Saying that I leave my car unlocked at night. I read the ´óÏó´«Ã½ everyday and am shocked by the unecessary violence that happens for no reason. Maybe that is the reason why I fear having to bring my kids up in the UK if it does not work in the US. As middle class working people we can afford to be in the right part of town with good education and facilities. I don't want my kids to be educated in a comprehensive school either. Guns do deter and yes I agree US society, even with Guns, seems much less extreme.
#18 Joe BArt: "Some Britons are quite nasty."
Yeah such as yourself! Infant mortality at unbelieveable hights? Please clarify, so that I may start a campaign to lower it!! Town sized tralor parks? Where? And yu mean to tell me that you know of no such shanty town(s) in any other country in the world? Either in the UK or somewhere else?
Ugg!!! I sware to God!!! I give up!!! It seems no matter how much I try to explain and clarify the rules on US gun culture, the fact that legle owners at least must undergo extensive background checks and hold a special permit to own one, the fact that gun crime is done here, as it is in any country, by illeagle owners, and most importantly, the fact that though murder rate is much higher due to a much larger population in the US and that we're not all arragant, ignorant barbarians, it never gets through to anybody!!! People still go on thinking all sourts of horible unkind things of Americans!! And you no what, I don't care anymore!! People will think what they're going to think no matter how much they see something to disprove their conseptions!!
You know what-to those people-you're right!! You're better than us in every sense of the word!! You have better lower crime levels, better health care, standard of living, happyness, foreign policy-and I'm being sincere (and jealous)-not sarcastic!! But nevertheless its not too kind to shove these facts down other's throats. If I were better at something than someone else, I certainly wouldn't brag about it or insult them in a very suttle, yet just as biting way.
Justin, for your own sake please drop this idea of crime being easier to avoid in the US.
Whether it is true or not is not the point.
You are assuming that all of your readers actually live outside of those 'problem areas'. Do you not have aspirations to engage people from all walks of life with your reporting?
What is a young black kid in Harlem supposed to think reading your blog - that he is someone you and your readers think it is important to protect themselves from?
These areas are not so easy to avoid if you happen to live in one.
How much of the apparent differences between suburban America and the UK is down to geography? The American suburbs tend to be highly disporate, with travel between places mainly by car. With less people walking down the streets, surely there are less opportunities for the chance encounters that can result in muggings or other violence?
Justin,
I do not envy you.
Whenever you report on what you see and experience in the US (which is generally the way it actually is) you get blasted from comments from the UK on how wrong you are/biased you must be/way too assimilated to be objective.
Seems to me that those outside the US have pre-conceived notions of how it is to be American and live in America. And when those pre-conceived notions are debunked by those who actually live IN the US, it's nothing but outrage and indignation---how dare anyone inside the US possibly know more about the US than those who live outside the US (snarl, humph and grunt!!) Justin, you must have balls of steel and grit. But carry on, please, with the hope that those outside the US just might---someday---realize their notions were ridiculously wrong.
And about the "unbelievable infant mortality rate" from post#18, I'd like to see some statistics to prove that statement (unless the poster is counting the number of abortions performed here on a daily basis, although I doubt it).
The reason why there is more "low-level nastiness" in the UK is because of the social geography. For whatever reason, people of all classes and incomes end up living cheek-by-jowl in big cities like London.
Thus, people with nice accents and even nicer jobs in the media and in academia have to live down the road from proverbial Tracey and Dave.
For Britons in America to complain about this is to highlight their own snobbishness.
I must say Justin, I have been reading your last two articles on gun crime with great surprise at your sudden madness. I certainly think you have gone 'native', you have been living in the US far too long! I am a University student, and I would be in great dispair if guns were licenced in the UK, I would not want to see what happenned in Virginia Tech to be repeated in my University.
The UK is fine as it is, it obviously has a level of violence in certain urban areas, but with effective policing and gun/knife controls, these current problems can be overcome.
Thank you Justin, but no thanks, you can keep your guns, on your side of the Atlantic!
True, many democrats would probably slowly move back to whoever gets the nomination and I can see the numbers of Clinton's supporters who will vote for McCain if Obama is nominated go down to single digits before November. Nevertheless, if this drags on until August, there might not be enough time for all wounds to heal.
But there might be plenty of time, in the end. We may not even need to wait until June. There is a good chance Obama will win more than half of the elected delegates by May 6/7 or May 13th. At that point he will officially have won that count and the following primaries will only be about the size of his win.
On that day superdelegates will officially know that siding with Clinton might mean overturning the elected delegates result.
I think we should brace for a potentially win-clinching chunk of superdelegates going Obama's way on or around that day.
I guess some diehards in the UK refuse to believe living in the US ain't that bad ( it's actually pretty good), even when favorable comments about it come from ´óÏó´«Ã½ reporters.True believers in denial!
Most Violent Country in Developed World
Scotland is the most violent country in the developed world (United Nations Survey 2005),.....
Just add the UK's burglary rate of triple the US....
British people have been indoctrinated with a view of Britain at great variance from the truth.
The principal difference between the US and UK is that the UK is more violent...and only the bad guys have guns.
Englands problem is remarkably straightforward to define : English people are not involved in the running of England.
Political apathy can be taken too far, as the English must slowly be realising.
You can not compare crimes per square mile between Britain and America, does the author not realise that there is a considerable difference in density of population. The totals speak for themselves, even adjusting for population difference there is about 1000% more violent crime in US, but neighbourhoods in US are more segregated on social/economic lines that in UK so the vast majority of this crime occurs in very small areas and even a city block can make all the difference.
UK citizen - presently living in North Carolina.
Crime will contiue to escalate in the U.K. until the judiciary come up with effective penalties. Forget about ASBO"s , they are a joke dreamed up by people wearing "rose tinted spectacles". Bring back the flogging for rape and violent crimes, and the hangmans noose for those who hold other peoples lives in contempt.People should be allowed to be armed in their own homes for self protection. A thief or home invader would think twice about coming into someone's home uninvited if there were a chance that homeowner was armed.
Lisa's comments about people's pre-conceived notions about America are right on the mark. I'm constantly amazed about how people outside the US are so willing to sit in judgment on the US, yet are so ignorant, yes, ignorant, about what life is really like over here. Of course, I'm just an American myself; non-Americans natually know more about America than I do. Of course, a great many of them actually want America to be bad in every, single way. Oh yeah, I've never been a victim of a crime, nor has anyone I know.
United Nations Survey of Developed Worlds Most Violent Nations.
And the winner is:-
1. Scotland
2. England & Wales
Forget drunken youths...what about the really sober professionals burgling your home!
Justin,
I believe the nastiness you describe in European suburbs has very little to do with guns or no guns, in fact I don't equate that nastiness with burglaries per se but rather with a general feeling of insecurity on the streets. I think that the way cities are developed or have developed might have something to do with it. In many European cities, the "suburbs" traditionally were the homes of people with higher unemployment, etc. and the city centers were exclusive to the wealthy. So you have this ring around cities that is more dangerous than the center as a whole. Many U.S. cities have areas like this right in the center rather than the suburbs.
In addition, might space itself not have something to do with it? The U.S. is so much more vast and it is much easier for people to avoid certain areas often giving a false picture of reality.
Speaking of nastiness and manners, I believe that generally Americans are very nice, warm people, but so are the British that I've met. Very nice and generous people. Of course, those were middle-class Britons. The upper-class British I've met have been quite condescending along the lines of telling us right out that America has no culture and no history. They were also just rude in general.
I commend you for making the distinction between local experience and national statistics - my experience of Denver leads me to say we need more, more, more gun regulation -
also may I draw your attention to an article from today's Seattle Times, "AK-47s are turning up more in US" read that if you want to shiver your timbers...I do appreciate your column very much...many thanks
What seems bizarre is Justin's talk about low level nastiness pervading the UK. Maybe the altitude was getting to him on the slopes. Personally, I have never suffered from crime living in the UK or travelling in the USA. Not even in Baltimore ...
Having said that, the per-thousand homicide rate in the USA is more than double the that in the UK, or anywhere else in Europe. The incarceration rate is 5-8 times higher than in other developed countries. Still pretty safe on average of course, but Justin's gut feelings are wide of the mark.
For those arguing about the US mortality rates as being 3rd world, see below*:
US (infant mortality, per 1000) = 7.0
UK = 5.0
France = 4.0
Canada = 5.0
Bangladesh = 54.0
Philippines = 25.0
Ethiopia = 109.0
Zimbabwe = 60.0
Equatorial Guinea = 123.0
Iraq = 102.0
Kenya = 78.0
Lesotho = 102.0
Mongolia = 39.0
Brazil = 28.0
Peru = 25.0
Japan = 3.0
So clearly the US is not as bas as some make out, not by a long shot.
(*
However, those who love stats and love the play and bend them, one can say the US has a mortality rate 40% greater than the UK….but this is meaningless since the rate is very low, as noted above.
Ah, OK, now I understand what you mean by low-level nastiness. The reason for the difference is quite simple. In America, the criminal gangs are too busy with drugs, prostitution, guns, and alcohol to be bothered with setting the odd apartment fire or randomly stabbing people. It's simply a reflection of American culture in general, which is money-centric. Bluntly speaking, low-level nastiness for its own sake does not make business sense. No, I'm not joking.
Tony Blankley (like his old boss Newt Gingrich) hasn't got a clue about the reality of America, much less England. How many times must his type be trounced in elections before people stop listening to him?
Once people realize how old and outdated McCain and his policies are, they will be ready for any alternative. The Democrats will be fine. I support Obama and think Hillary's psychotic but I would still prefer her to any Republican. Domest issues will dominate the election; everyone is tired of hearing about the hopeless mess in Iraq.
Your Correspondant who claimed Scotland to be the most violent Nation in The World has obviously never been here.All sensible statistics suggest it to be one of the least vioelent in the Western World.In quoting the crazy survery he did, he neglected to mention our very low murder rate.I have always considered murder to be fairly violent !
You must understand something about Americans. Americans are not intellectual nor educated about other nations and insists they are superior. As a native American, my culture, language, and indigenous customs are constantly challenged. Where there is a huge amount of wealth in the US, there is also excessive poverty. Americans do not believe there ever was or is an aboriginal society that still exists. For many Americans, natives are only real on objects like coins, statues, names on everything from automobiles to sports mascots, this way, it shadows their so-called "superior society". If it is so superior, why have they created a penal society that locks up almost half of their population in prisons? Because they need a part of society unable to vote or participate in free elections. If America is "the best nation on earth," as it is ingrained in them since conception, why do they subject natives to communist principles by controlling everything they do? Natives pay more taxes than their white brothers and serve patriotically, partly for economic reasons and being natural warriors. Americans think Native people here are figments of their imagination. They think every tribe has casinos and we all recieve checks every month and therefore, Natives live off of welfare. In truth, American Indians are the most demonized people on both national levels and local levels. We are hated by all groups because Whites, African Americans, Asians, and Latino people all believe your culture is not of the earth, but of McDonalds and Wal-Mart, like thiers. I have to tell you that people in the UK might not seem hospitable, but America is only about profit and theft. What kind of nation elects a man like George W. Bush, who can't even speak in public without embarrassing himself and his nation. America has simply evolved backwards into a backwoods hillbilly with a mean punch! And if you don't pack a gun, your not American. America was only paradise before it got infected by this proud bastard culture called American. Another point, if America is named after Amerigo Vespucci, he is credited for "discoverying the mainland", why do Americans still have a holiday honoring the much controversial Columbus? And another thing, indigenous languages taught at the University of Oklahoma are regarded and credited as "foreign languages", mine included. Oklahoma's license plates put the words, Native Oklahoma, yet the state "DEMANDS" natives to pay on every dollar they make just for being native, how is this not communism being overregulated. Ask Americans how much they know about their indian natives here and you'll never get a real answer, you'll get a typical emotional, theocratic answer.
Justin,
You may well be right that "low-level nastiness" is more prevalent here than in the US, I'm in no position to judge; however, I would rather focus on what can be done about it.
Your ´óÏó´«Ã½ colleague Richard Bilton presented an interesting 'Panorama' recently, where an Ann Glover in Leicester led a community against drug dealers and crime and turned a terrible estate into a safe and prosperous one. It took years but they did it.
I would imagine any society needs people like this who try and make towns and cities better places to live in.
#46 How they manage to do these surveys is beyond me - I lived in London for 6 years - and it was a damn sight more violent and scary than my home town in Scotland.
The reason why burglaries are less in the U.S. as compared to Britain is partly due to the number of handguns. Criminals perform a certain risk analysis when commiting crimes. If the risk is low and the reward is high, then more than likely the crook is going to at least attempt to commit the crime. If the criminal lives or works in an area where he knows a large number of the populace owns guns, then his criminal calculus kicks in and weighs the risk vs. reward question. If he feels he needs to steal something, he will most likely move on to an area where there is a less of a chance of meeting a homeowner with a gun. The flip side of this is that criminals evolve. They learn what works and what doesn't work. If they feel they are going to enter a house where the home owner is also a gun owner, he may arm himself or attack more violently in an effort to control the situation (self preservation).
Another problem with the handgun question is gun trafficking. Many states have strict laws on gun ownership. New York for example, has very tough anti-gun legislation. This gives rise to gun trafficking. The risk vs. reward calculus would determine that gun trafficking is a very attractive venture. Why? Guns are the tools of the trade in violent crimes. When a state passes tough gun laws, it doesn't really stop criminals. To pass a law to bring a criminal in line with the rest of society just simply defies logic. They are criminals and not law abiding citizens. In fact, the stricter the anti-gun laws, the greater the risk, and that equates to higher illegal gun prices. In Georgia, one can purchase a gun relatively easily for $300. In NY, that same gun could sell for $1,000 or more. The traffickers are not hurt by anti-gun laws, these laws increase their profit margins. In the criminal's mind, the risk is very much worth the reward. In NY, there is a higher burglary rate. Why? Because the burglars are most likely armed and the victim is not. There goes that risk analysis again. If the gun ownership vs. burglary rate theory is to hold any water, one must look at the number of reports where the criminal was in possession of a weapon and where the victim was unarmed.
Infant mortality is reckoned differently in various countries. In the US, unlike many countries, a live newborn that dies shortly after birth is never-the-less counted as a death. This is not the case in many countries, and therefore statistics of infant mortality appear more favorable in such places.
Another infant mortality rate comparison that may be of some interest:
USA: 7.0 per 1000
Cuba: 5.0 per 1000
Ah, but, but, but... in evil, totalitarian communist Cuba, infants aren't even allowed the freedom to die!
I agree with Richard Berry. Suburban America is generally very safe, but why is that more important than how safe the rest of the country is? I live in an urban area in the Northeast, and it is appalling how many children and other innocent bystanders are killed by gun violence. Without guns, there would still be violence in poor neighborhoods, but at least it would be non-lethal more often and there wouldn't be unintended victims like children.
And I'm extremely skeptical that guns are the reason for fewer home invasions or why the suburbs feel so safe. The neighborhoods where you would most expect a break-in are the same ones where there are the most guns (although probably not legally owned, for the most part). If I were going to break in to a typical suburban home, I would never expect the people inside to own a gun. Why own a gun for protection when there is no crime in your neighborhood to begin with? If you live in a wealthy suburb, no one who lives around you has any reason rob someone's house or steal a car, and the local police force is not already handling a ton of serious cases.
Conversely, poor people who might actually have something to gain from crime are concentrated in inner cities which are a far distance from the suburbs. With inadequate public transportation (especially to the suburbs) and no car (which most people who live in ghettos do not have), it is very difficult to get out to more wealthy areas, and why bother when your crime will only stand out more?
Also, it seems to me that most violence in the U.S. revolves around drug traffic, which is the lifeblood of gangs. I would think home robberies are far less lucrative, although I know they do happen. I wonder how the U.S. compares to Britain in the prevalence of criminal drug traffic.
And even if guns do deter crime when they are more available, doesn't that still hurt the people who are the most vulnerable, who wouldn't necessarily try to defend their home with a gun because they don't have the mindset or can't afford one or don't know how to use one? What I'm saying is, maybe a society with a lot of guns is great if you're a macho army veteran with some cash to spare, but it puts everyone else at a greater disadvantage.
The main reason American suburbs feel safer places to walk around in than British ones, is that American housing is far more segregated, rich from poor, white from black.
Not unusual in the UK at the moment, most right wing commentators like to talk about "perceived" levels of crime, all methods of crime recording in the UK have shown that crime, including violent crime, has fallen over the last 10 years by about 40%. While in the 18 years prior to this crime went up by 100%, this is something that is not mentioned too much as it does not meet most commentators views. A good place to look is
As a French citizen currently living in UK, but having spend in the USA, I would say the low level nastiness is worse in the US if you are willing to live in or even just enter the numerous no-go area.
That exactly why Guilani got noted when he started his drive to eradicate low level crime in New-York.
In my view the difference in petty crime is more likely to be due to difference in urban area design.
In the US, most affluent or middle-class people live in isolated suburbs. Poor lives in inner city that becomes no-go area at night.
Compare that with life in the UK, where the most affluent area in London are in the city centre (Chelsea, Kensington, ...) and a much greater social mixity (often bad area are one street away from very expensive one). It means that in the US outsider are more likely to be spotted and reported. Petty, unplanned, spur of the moment, opportunist burglary is less likely in the US. That explain why crime is more organised along territory.
Because of that difference in structure and social interaction, petty crime affects disproportionnaly poor people.
Those people tend to less report crime they are victim of due to a combination of distrust of the police, no insurance (so no reason to report), fear of being reported to the Immmegration Service.
I don’t think there is much point in arguing about which society is safer, as this seems to be largely a matter of perception. I can say that I have lived in both the U.S. and the U.K. (as well as several other countries) and have always felt much safer in Britain. Yes, the U.S. suburbs are probably more gentle than many suburbs in Europe but this is because, as others have pointed out, American suburbs are generally comprised of middle-class and wealthy residents, whereas suburban areas in Europe are generally made up of poorer, crime-ridden areas. Perhaps a better comparison would be to contrast U.K. and European suburbs with American inner-city areas. It’s rather silly for someone living in a prosperous, middle-class U.S. suburb to contend that he knows everything there is to know about that country, as millions of Americans live a very different reality in neighbourhoods plagued with gun violence and drugs.
In any case, I have never felt so threatened and unsafe as I have in the U.S., not even in supposedly dangerous places like Mexico City. In the U.S., I am always conscious of the fact that just about anyone may be armed. Furthermore, there is no denying that the murder rate in American cities is far higher than anywhere else in the developed world, and even higher than many places in the developing world (the CIA’s own statistics support this). The U.S. is a society that glorifies guns and war unlike any other developed society, and this tension is always just below the surface.
It may sound wierd but it has always seemed almost quaint to me that a murder in the U.K gets national press. Murders happen everyday in some US cities and by no means do people care about a murder that did not happen in thier "backyard." The violence in U.S cities is way more intense than anywhere in the UK or most of europe. The worst US cities , Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore, and other depressed urban areas have neighborhoods that are so bad they look like war zones. My point is this. Guns most certainly account for the violence in the U.S and I could never see the U.K getting anywhere near the U.S in the violence statistic. Finally regarding the level of violence. The age of many violent offenders is alarmingly low. Adolescent offenders are common in the US as young as 13. I hardly think they are running sophisticated drug cartels. At most they are low level street thugs who are quick to violence and both perpetrator and victims in a society that is very violent. I still think that the US has a lot to learn from Western Europe, ie. how to behave like civil adults.