Trouble in Europe's anti-gun "paradise"

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I've posted them already, but once again I point to stats on:

Burglaries: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ies-per-capita.

Car theft: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...fts-per-capita

Robberies: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ies-per-capita

and Total Crime: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...mes-per-capita

These are UN sourced numbers on numerous nations. Note that LE based crime stats are nor only applicable more to LE reach and willingness to report and not actual prevalence, but is also made further incomparable by the disparity in categorization and reporting methodology in each jurisdiction. However, given the choice between numbers given by an agency as a public release is not, in my mind, as impartial as UN gathered numbers. Given the disparity we have to conclude that one set is more incorrect than the other, and since the primary problem involved is categorical differences and recording techniques which mean more crimes of a higher severity on the books in the US and more crimes of a lower severity in the UK (as evidenced in a previously provided link on my part.) it's fair to say that the incredibly disparate numbers of the individual reports are thus explained and the truth is probably closer if not exactly the far more comparable data between the countries in question (US and UK, but you can check out Aus as well) which would still indicate a rise in UK and a fall in the US compared to the years before. Moreover, your numbers are ridiculously higher than those that I found for previous years, kinda casts both sets into doubt seeing as both are from reliable sources. EDIT: on closer inspection I noticed that each individual country also includes data pulled from its' own agencies representing many, many different sources all weighted against each other. As it is though, it's all kinda gotten mixed around, so I'm going to give my ticker a chance to reboot and come at it fresh later. That said, it's interesting to note that your numbers for the US are the same as mine, but your UK numbers are ridiculously lower than mine despite coming from comparable sources (more than I thought at first)... hmmm, anchovies.... O_O I smell them.

Please for fluffy bunnies' sake READ the responses I post and if you still disagree, at least respond to that post and refrain from asserting the same thing over and over again, 'cuz I'm getting annoyed at having to respond to you over and over again. In short, reference the post you responded to not one page ago for details not herein contained. As much as I'm ready and willing to answer questions frankly, it pisses me off when the very same people who demand those answers, ignore them.

@Raps: I happen to agree wholeheartedly on that point. Although I'd like to know what you think of my suggestion pertaining to your country. It's not that I think Europe should of indeed could benefit from policies that are effective elsewhere, it's just that I don't think that an all-out ban on all but select weapons is really necessary.

[crazylegs]

Wingates - you might like to check that your sources are in fact up to date. If you click on the 'sources' tab for the UK you'll see that the source is from 2002 - a whole 8 years ago - mine are from 18 months ago.

[jackfaire]

Yes the average person trying to wrestle a knife away from someone is just as likely to get stabbed and die trying however someone who is actually trained in HTH not "Oh I took a couple of courses" but actually trained could and would take a knife away from someone that is not trained in HTH combat.

In fact back in the the days of single shot anything bladed weapons and HTH combat were preferred.

These days I would trust someone with a gun if they went through intensive training on how to use it and apply it properly but most of the people that have the patience for that have also spent more time training in HTH so that they could disarm the person without needing to pull out a gun.

Someone who disregards centuries of knowledge on fighting hand to hand including training on fighting an armed person when you yourself are unarmed sounds more like someone that did the bare minimum to get the gun especially when that person thinks that gun is scary cuz hey it's a gun.

Guess what a gun is only scary if you fear for your life.

I don't. And I am a law abiding citizen.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Wingates - you might like to check that your sources are in fact up to date. If you click on the 'sources' tab for the UK you'll see that the source is from 2002 - a whole 8 years ago - mine are from 18 months ago.

If you read them all it uses stats from 1998 - 2008, displaying the most recent. Also there's very heavy critization of the BCS because they cap off their results at 5 per person leaving out millions of crimes.

And Jack, I think I've made it amply clear that anyone CCing is responcible for having some less-lethal alternative available for less-lethal and unarmed situations. However, when it comes right down to it, and innocent people's lives are on the line: what's more effective? dealing with a threat at range, with a gun, or trying to charge them down and engaging in HTH?

I'm not saying it's useless, should be ignored or any of that. I'm saying that when innocent people are at risk of dying, you do what's most likely to save their lives, not the minimum you think you need, the most likely to succeed.

[Nyoibo]

The problem with those links (apart from them all being to the burglaries one ) is reading the fine print there

SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

Also using that site, murders with firearms per capita, the US is number 8 on that list, the UK, dead last (pardon the pun)

[Wingates_Hellsing]

The problem with those links (apart from them all being to the burglaries one ) is reading the fine print there



Also using that site, murders with firearms per capita, the US is number 8 on that list, the UK, dead last (pardon the pun)

And yet with comparable homicide rates in general. What tells me is that more guns means more guns used, but not more murders. There's also the fact that we've always had guns and most restrictions are relatively new. That's just the way the US is, our bad guys (the professional ones) tend to have guns. Since gun bans don't seem to do anything to keep weapons out of their hands unless they're caught with them that means the adage that outlawing guns means only outlaws will have guns is basically true.

Also, once again, if you click on the individual countries you'll see that their numbers include their own sources which range through the 90's and 2000's as late as 2008. The breakdown pages I linked too only list the UN survey because that's the only one that covers all of them and it's out of date because they aren't done that often.

Even if the rates have dropped as dramatically as the BCS's questionable practices imply, that still means that the situation of strict gun control didn't stop the violent crime from spiking, and damn would that be one hell of a spike. Even if the extreme disparity over a period of a few years is, in fact true, nothing about the availability of firearms changed all that much within that time. Correlation doesn't imply causation, but this isn't even correlating.

[jackfaire]

However, when it comes right down to it, and innocent people's lives are on the line: what's more effective? dealing with a threat at range, with a gun, or trying to charge them down and engaging in HTH?

Depends on the situation in the parking garage scenario the latter would be as shooting someone who has a knife because they are coming towards you when you have the training to easily disarm them without getting wounded yourself is the equivalent of just shooting an unarmed person because they are threatening to hit someone.

Unless they are holding a hostage in which case shooting is the most effective way of ending the threat.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Depends on the situation in the parking garage scenario the latter would be as shooting someone who has a knife because they are coming towards you when you have the training to easily disarm them without getting wounded yourself is the equivalent of just shooting an unarmed person because they are threatening to hit someone.

Unless they are holding a hostage in which case shooting is the most effective way of ending the threat.

Not really. The law in most jurisdictions is pretty clear on the fact that when faces with deadly force, you may use deadly force. Personally, I'd reckon that it's easier to learn and execute the shooting of a such armed attacker than it is to learn how to disarm them reliably. And even if you're assuming that the person has both the HTH mastery to reliably disarm even skilled opponents who know how to retain weapons and the skill to draw, aim and fire until threat ends, I still think that the gunfire poses less of a risk to the victim than the HTH engagement.

Naturally all the factors at play mean that what's most effective and even what constitutes success can change. However, especially when it's not your life on the line, it's your duty as well as your right to use the most effective course of action available. If that's HTH, cool. If that's shooting them, also cool. But I don't think it's unreasonable to say that most situations are going to end up being 'shoot them'.

As I said earlier, priorities also come in to play. What I gather from your statements implies that yours would place the best ending possible for everyone involved including the aggressor above or at least closer to what's the safest compared to mine which place what's safest for everyone but the aggressor above the health of the aggressor.

[jackfaire]

The issue with that philosophy is that if I had been carrying a gun at the time and pulled my gun as the first option and shot my friend. The guy she tried to stab would have been killed she would have also have been dead and it wouldn't have solved anything.

Whereas stopping her before she reached him and disarming her was effective and no one got hurt. Hell the guy was so drunk he didn't even realize that she had really been going to stab him and he laughed.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Like I said, different situations warrant different responses.

[ditchdj]

Here's a good piece on this......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UySthtM9y1Y

[Rapscallion]

What about it?

Rapscallion

[Gravekeeper]

Aww, I feel left out as a Canadian so far. What about us? <sniff>

As for your insane knife wielding parking lot scenario. Um....pull your your cell phone, run away and call the cops? The people actually trained for this? If he's far enough away for you to pull a firearm, he's far enough away for you to disengage entirely. Or is he also the Terminator and about to chase you down the street at full sprint?

I'm quite content in Canada without the need to worry that every jackass around me might be packing a firearm. And they are jackasses. Most Americans I hear on the forefront of the Zardos Gun Is Good bandwagon are people I would never trust with a firearm. To be bluntly honest, the last thing I would want as a bystander in one of these magical Gun Hero scenarios is crossfire.

That Nationmaster site doesn't seem to have any statistics that aren't at least 10 years old. And when you flick it over to per capita Murders with Firearms, the UK is even lower then Canada for fark sakes. >.>

And our method of conflict resolution is a mixture of sternly written letters and pulling your jersey over your head.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Aww, I feel left out as a Canadian so far. What about us? <sniff>

As for your insane knife wielding parking lot scenario. Um....pull your your cell phone, run away and call the cops? The people actually trained for this? If he's far enough away for you to pull a firearm, he's far enough away for you to disengage entirely. Or is he also the Terminator and about to chase you down the street at full sprint?

Or maybe the person bleeding out doesn't have 15-20+ minutes to wait for the cops and then paramedics? The division between your average cop and your average CC holder is all too often just legal authority, if not in the favor of the cc holder as an enthusiast in terms of skill and a legal right to self-defense. You don't have to be a cop to be competent with a weapon any more than you have to be a government carpenter to be competent with a hammer. No one's saying you can't disengage ever, or that it's to be ignored by everyone. In that instance, for the sake of the wounded man if not the public at large, I'd engage. If the criminal ends up dead or runs away, I can call 911 and help the injured person until they arrive. CC is not a replacement for cops, it's a supplement.

I'm quite content in Canada without the need to worry that every jackass around me might be packing a firearm. And they are jackasses. Most Americans I hear on the forefront of the Zardos Gun Is Good bandwagon are people I would never trust with a firearm. To be bluntly honest, the last thing I would want as a bystander in one of these magical Gun Hero scenarios is crossfire.

Typical gunfights last for seconds, the chance of getting hit by a stray round is astronomic compared to getting hit by a deliberate round fired by a psycho. The risk of the increased volume of fire is dwarfed by the risk eliminated by it. To say nothing of the fact that a competent shooter (as in, the kind we're talking about) is more than capable of identifying whether or not they have a clear shot, if not, attain a clear shot, take it, and that's that. Your assumption that people in general aren't to be trusted with firearms in inapplicable as we're talking about a slender fraction of the population, who take proficiency seriously, and have secured training by-and-large. That strawman is looking pretty beat up, give him a break and come fight with me a moment, if you will.

That Nationmaster site doesn't seem to have any statistics that aren't at least 10 years old. And when you flick it over to per capita Murders with Firearms, the UK is even lower then Canada for fark sakes. >.>

And our method of conflict resolution is a mixture of sternly written letters and pulling your jersey over your head.

As I've said A) they include later figures for the individual countries, B) even if they're old they still correlate opposite of the gun control claims C) no one said being a victim is likely, the point of preparedness is readiness for the unlikely and D) I don't give a damn if you use a firearm or your bare hands, murder is murder and theft is theft, it's overall numbers that matter.

And you can go right along calling the cops and being polite, though you fail to realize that CCers also call the cops and are polite. More power to you if that's what you prefer. But if someone (even, *gasp*, a non-american!!!) wants to stand up for themselves if need be, and equip themselves to do so, I don't see it as anyone's right to stop them. By all means, give 'em a once-over to make sure they're doing it right, but unless you're qualified to make that decision, don't make that decision.

And this is just an aside, why does everyone liken CC to drawing a gun as a unilateral result? Believe it or not, we aren't all redneck hicks who can't use more than one brain cell, most people in general aren't like that. The cc community includes people of every stripe imaginable, and we make it our business to make sure that we know that we're doing. Which is made more difficult when the government at the behest of those who disagree with us ban the very things that are the right tool along with those that aren't for no reason (small-frame handguns, compact rifles and shotguns, frangible ammunition, expanding ammunition, all of which were specifically designed for use in close quarters and most for the purpose of defense) because 'all guns are bad'. Lot's of people said that CC would lead to gunfights in the streets, and it hasn't happened, at all. Moreover, it's also been shown that if one must resist or submit and cannot run or get help, resisting is better and it's better to be armed. The grand majority of stopped crimes are done without even drawing the gun, and most drawn guns aren't fired. Even when they're fired they stand to do as much if not more good than bad, so there's more reason to help people do it than stop them.

You sit there and tell me that we're unreasonable with no example, incompetent with no evidence and making broad assumptions based on nothing, when the very premise of you're position is exactly that. I don't begrudge you wanting to leave armed conflict resolution to the experts and those trained by them, but it's many things including incorrect to assume that only the police are experts or trained by experts ( to say nothing of the assumption that ALL of them are) even if they all were rambo, they're minutes or even hours away. If you're problem is also minutes or hours away, that's alright, but it almost never is. The police can't always be there, but you, by definition, are.

[Gravekeeper]

Or maybe the person bleeding out doesn't have 15-20+ minutes to wait for the cops and then paramedics?

Honestly, he probably doesn't have 5 minutes to wait for Gun Hero either.

The division between your average cop and your average CC holder is all too often just legal authority.

The criteria for CC permits in the US ranges from being identical to what you have to pass just to *own* a weapon in Canada, all the way down to "Cus I wanna".

Sorry, that does not compare to police training.

If not in the favor of the cc holder as an enthusiast in terms of skill and a legal right to self-defense.

No, "I like guns" doesn't compare to "I have 12-15 months worth of academy and field training for exactly this kind of situation".

It is not a matter of weapon proficiency. *I* could shoot Mr Stabby. That is not the question. The question is how best to handle the situation, when and how do I apply lethal force and do I have any right to be applying lethal force to begin with seeing as I am a civilian. A police officer is trained to use lethal force as the *last* option, not the first. They also have non-lethal tools and training in how to defuse and secure a situation without loss of life. It is unlikely Gun Hero has these things too.

Typical gunfights last for seconds, the chance of getting hit by a stray round is astronomic compared to getting hit by a deliberate round fired by a psycho.

"Typical gunfights"? That's a red flag term to begin with. Do you have some study you could point me towards that times the average length of urban firefights? =p I've seen police shoot outs before, and "seconds" is not always the case. Never mind miraculous pin point aim of all parties involved that only strikes their target. Try Googling "Bystander shot" to see just how competence is involved.

Hell, half the time its the police picking off bystanders by accident. And they do have the training.

I'm also not sure what straw man you're referring too. Gun laws in the states vary pretty wildly from reasonable to rather loose depending on the state. So this well trained, competent gun enthusiast with pinpoint aim you speak of is kind of a best case scenario.

If that's what you consider yourself, great. But you are not everyone. And I don't trust everyone with a firearm. Simple as that. The probability of an error in judgment or aim is too much for my liking.

Also, if it is the overall numbers that matter, then per capita murder rate ranking on that website, regardless of weapon are United States #24, Canada #44, UK #46.

It is true the UK tops you for burglaries and car theft. However, both crimes do not imply a confrontation between owner and perpetrator. Only the possibility of one. Now, if you look at Robberies per capita, UK vs US is 1.57 vs 1.38 per 1000. Even if you attribute that to gun ownership, that's a pretty slim marginal gain.

The US also leads the 3 in assaults, so its not helping there any either. You also have around twice as much rape as the UK per capita.

So I fail to see any correlation between gun ownership and crime rates decreasing. Poverty, substance abuse and lack of education are going to have a bigger effect on crime rates than how many people are armed in a given area.

Stupidity doesn't stop because you point a gun at it.

The cc community includes people of every stripe imaginable, and we make it our business to make sure that we know that we're doing.

Of course it does, that's kind of my point. You may be trained, competent and be able to handle the parkade scenario. Great. But we're talking law of averages here. If you are the average, half of CC holders are worse then you. That's a problem.

I'm not trying to advocate a ban on all firearms, period. I just don't think civvies should be wandering around with them in public. Because, again, law of averages. For every Gun Hero that resolves the parkade scenario there will be a Gun Zero who misses him, gets his gun taken away and gets everyone in said scenario shot several times.

The whole reason I live in civilization is so I *don't* have to arm myself when I leave the house.

On a side note, handguns are particularly restricted here as they are the easiest to abuse. "Personal defense" aside. Its easier to own a long gun. And yes, I have fired guns before and am trained in their handling. But I don't *own* one nor do I have any want nor need too. Carrying a deadly weapon with me at all times because something statistically improbable MIGHT happen is kind of silly, to be honest.

If we're going to work from that assumption, I should wear a helmet, life jacket and kevlar vest at all times too. You know, just in case.

You sit there and tell me that we're unreasonable with no example, incompetent with no evidence and making broad assumption based on nothing, when the very premise of you're position is exactly that.

You're reading way more into my post then I actually posted, me thinks. Never mind the rock tossing glass house issue.

I don't begrudge you wanting to leave armed conflict resolution to the experts and those trained by them, but it's many things including incorrect to assume that only the police are experts or trained experts ( to say nothing of the assumption that ALL of them are)

Again, if you consider yourself a qualified expert, that's great. I'd be glad to have you around if shit actually went south. But the fact of the matter is, that even if you are the average, there is still that other half who has guns too. Whom I do not want any where near me, regardless of scenario. >.>

Yes, you're not all red neck gun toting hicks. But there are quite enough of you that are red neck gun toting hicks too. Thus is the problem. And they're the ones out dribbling around in front of the camera with an assault rifle because they think da guberment is gettin' all uppity and may take their gunz away.

There's a reason the stereotype exists.