Ustwo, you claimed that "I have a better chance of being violently assaulted in London than I do in Chicago."
You then started talking about New York. New York is not Chicago.
I'm aware that recently New York has had a huge downswing in crime, while London has had a huge upswing.
However, for the life of me, I cannot find a
single god damn article comparing London crime rates post-2002 to America's...
Ok found one at the bottom of page 2 of the google search for "london crime rate 2005".
Robbery: About 1.3 / 1000
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/to...3=0&sub=0&v=24
BCS (uniform definition of violent crime)
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page63.asp
Non-uniform definition of violent crime, reflecting police reporting changes:
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page66.asp
As an aside, 41% of English "violent crime" involves no injury to the victim. (the page 66 link)
See:
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page107.asp
for how they changed how crimes are counted in the late 90s.
New York:
which is 3.76 burglaries per 1000.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/blog/archives/2005/02/
London:
3.5 burglaries per 1000.
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/to...3=0&sub=0&v=24
Strangely, the article I found for New York burglaries claims London has 14+ burglaries per 1000.
Possibly the trick is people are choosing a very narrow region for London (the most dense area), and a wide one for New York, when they want to prove that London is unsafe?
Because I am having problems finding statistics that agree with the high numbers quoted in "London is less safe than New York" articles when I start probing in primary sources.