Originally posted by Toad
"In 1997 around 8% of homicides involved firearms and almost one third a sharp weapon."
A 1997 snapsnot, using Home Office figures, looks something like this:
USA, with overall population of approx 250,000,000, had 7.3 homicides per 100,000. So, US homicides in 1997 = 250,000,000 / 100,000 x 7.3 = 18,250 (approx).
England and Wales, (E&W) with overall population of aprox 50,000,000, had 1.4 homicides per 100,000. So E&W homicides in 1997 = 50,000,000 / 100,000 x 1.4 = 700 (approx). If nearly a third (26% in 2001) of those are by sharp objects, then E&W suffered 180 homicides by sharp objects.
Which means that the US is more than 26 times as murderous as E&W.
Puts things into perspective, doncha think?
I refer you to:
http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/htius.pdf, which states that US homicides are most often committed with guns - and that homicides involving all other weapons have declined.
Approx 22% of US homicides in 1997 were by sharp objects - not too dissimilar to E&W's 26%. Still, it tallies to about 4,100 homicides by sharp instruments. So the ratio of sharp object homicides between USA and E&W in 1997, is 4,100:180.
Let's put that into perspective ... While the USA has approx 5 times the population of E&W:
- there are over 20 times the number of sharp instrument homicides in the USA than there are in E&W. i.e., the US is 4 times as murderous with its sharp objects than E&W.
- there are over 26 times the number of homicides overall in the US, than in E&W, per capita (see above).
Hence the concern. ;)
Tomato