Gun control in UK - A Total Failure

[Slytovhand]

Well said Crazy,

As well - the hypothetical situation lacks one essential piece of information. In Australia (and I'm pretty sure the UK), we never had the 'right' to carry and conceal a weapon at any time (well - not in the last century or more...). I will also point out that most of those actually effected by the ban weren't going on about how unsafe they now felt... they were talking about their sport...a point which I've already addressed (we won medals in shooting!).

That video propaganda might be all well and good for US, but for down here and the UK, it's a bit of a laugh - if it weren't taken so seriously!

Just last night, a ?57 year old man was shot dead in Geelong, Victoria. It made the news. Did it cause a big uproar? Nope. Why not? Because he was a gang member on another gang's turf. What did cause an uproar was that shootings still happen, and civilians can get hurt in them... the sort of civilian you are proposing to pull out their Smith and Wesson, or Colt, or Glock, or even AK, and join in....

Shootings are incredibly rare. So too are armed holdups. Even rarer are armed holdups where someone is shot and killed. Having a service station attendant pull a gun on a shotgun weilding robber is a recipe for disaster.

And the ban on guns in Oz and UK has NOT created a massive increase in crime, now that criminals feel 'safer' holding someone up... Your argument just does not hold water...

[Greenday]

Shootings are incredibly rare. So too are armed holdups.

A couple statistics brought up in my Forensic Chemistry class...

• 68% of all criminal homocides in the US involve the use of guns
• 20% of aggravated assaults in the US involve the use of guns
• 40% of robberies in the US involve the use of guns
• 7% of rapes in the US involve guns (usually just knives or threats of physical violence)

Our last lecture was on firearms. Probably one of the most interesting lectures so far.

Not really so rare, are they?

[Pedersen]

A couple statistics brought up in my Forensic Chemistry class...

I think it was Mark Twain who said "There's lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Not really so rare, are they?

If you're going to use statistics, I'll ask you to define "rare", please.


Are you comparing it to the total number of crimes in which the use of a gun gives the criminal a strong advantage over the victim? (that list would seem like a yes) Are you comparing it to the total number of violent crimes? Are you comparing it to the total number of crimes in which a law was broken that you happen to agree with? Are you comparing it to all crimes, regardless of your personal feelings on the law? Are you comparing it to all people doing things both legal and illegal on any given day?

Also, please define the region: Are you limiting this to a single cell block for violent offenders in a high security prison (guns can be found here, they're just harder)? Are you comparing it to any prison? A given city block, city region, city, county, state, country, group of countries, any hand picked grouping of regions which would artificially inflate (or deflate) those statistics, or the whole world?

Also, please define "involved": Was the criminal pointing to a nearby gun, was found with a gun on his person, wielded the gun during the commission of the crime, made the victim believe that a gun was present where none was to be found, intimated that failure to comply with current demands would result in future shooting even though no gun was currently present nor even intimated?

Finally, any citations which show the study that was performed and the methodology of the study would be most appreciated.

All of those factors can be used to weight the study the way the author wants the results to come out, plus a few more (did the author limit himself to a specific time of criminal-victim interaction, such as black on white, male on female, etc).

It's easy to throw out numbers and make them seem absolutely huge. When the numbers are put into actual context, they rarely are. And, if memory serves, the inability to comprehend statistics (and how they are used to manipulate us) is called Dyscalculia, or something very similar.

[Greenday]

Based on what my teacher said:

Total number of crimes committed where a gun was used to commit the crime as a percentage of all crimes of that category.

It's America. The entire country.

A gun was used to commit a crime. If it isn't proved a gun is used, you can't be charged with it.

As for citations, as I said, it was info given to us by my Forensic Chemistry teacher. This is a special teacher brought in by the PA State Police to teach this class. He's been in the Forensics field for over 30 years. I think that'd qualify him to be an expert on this stuff. He's not racist, he's not sexist. You couldn't ask for a more impartial guy.

As far as statistics go, yes, I know statistics can be made to look like anything. My undergrad and future career depend on statistics. Part of my job during the summer depends on statistics. But you can't tell me that 68% and 40% are insignificant percentages. Especially 68%.

But, for kicks, I'll find another source...

In 2006, about 68% of all murders, 42% of all robberies, and 22% of all aggravated assaults that were reported to the police were committed with a firearm. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm)

[Rapscallion]

Based on what my teacher said:

Total number of crimes committed where a gun was used to commit the crime as a percentage of all crimes of that category.

It's America. The entire country.

Please provide similar figures for the UK. Please also bear in mind the difference in gun laws between the US and UK. Let's have a proper comparison.

Rapscallion

[crazylegs]

Some more statistics, again from the Home Office, Page 20 (pdf)

Murders by shooting (UK figures)
1996: 47
1997: 58
'97/'98: 52
'98/'99: 46
'99/'00: 61
'00/'01: 72
'01/'02: 97
'02/'03: 75
'03/'04: 67
'04/'05: 70
'05/'06: 49
'06/'07: 59

The population of the UK is 60,975,000, which means by my maths the chances of being murded by a firearm are currently 1 in 1,033,474(ish).

These figures aren't reresentitive of anything, they're not out of every 100,000 of head of population. The figures are the TOTAL figures for homicide by shooting throughout all of England and Wales (I haven't been able to find Scotlands figures yet).

One thing I forgot to mention.

Total Homicide, just in case you're about to mention that other ways of killing you have increased because you cannot defend yourself with a firearm...
1996: 586
1997: 609
'97/'98: 608
'98/'99: 646
'99/'00: 675
'00/'01: 772
'01/'02: 805
'02/'03: 953
'03/'04: 776
'04'/05: 782
'05/'06: 725
'06/'07: 734

Year '05/'06 includes 52 victims of the 7 July London bombings
Year '03/'04 includes 20 cockle pickers who drowned in Morcombe Bay
Year '02/'03 includes 172 victims of Dr. Harold Shipman (due to a quirk of statistics the offence affects the year when it is reported, not when it occured)
Year '00/'01 includes 58 Chinese nationals who collectively suffocated in a lorry en route into the UK

[Boozy]

Now compare those stats with those Greenday provided from the US.

How can one still claim that gun control in the UK is a "total failure"?

[crazylegs]

I've done a little more digging.

Using the information from the following websites (and a lot of maths)

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_05.html
http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonl...dsInOneVar.cfm

I have found out that that the rate of Homicide by firearm risk in the USA is 1 in 26,455 (approx.). I have come to this figure by doing the following.

Using the second website I found the percentage of muders in each state (DC and Florida did not supply data for 2005 [the most recent year] so they have been excluded from all further calculations as they would skew the data).

Using the percentages I then used this information to calculate how many murders were commited by firearm (total murders divided by one hundred then multiplied by given percentage rate). These were then added to give a total figure.

I then used the population information from this website and divided the total rate gained above by the population data contained within.

Now compare this with the figures supplied from the UK. For a fair comparison I shall use 05/06 (nine months '05, three months '06, figures now follow financial years...), where the risk of firearms murder was 1 in 1,244,387(approx.)

This means that for every 1 murder using a firearm in the UK there are *47* comparable murders in the USA

[ditchdj]

Your argument is nothing more than scaremongering I'm afraid.

Oh yeah? If you know someone that's been through the justice system and they had a gun, ask them how much impact gun control laws had on them (or still do).

[Rapscallion]

Oh yeah? If you know someone that's been through the justice system and they had a gun, ask them how much impact gun control laws had on them (or still do).

So, ignoring the other points, right? Such as the three links I pointed out where only one of them probably had illegally held weapons?

I have quite a number of friends/acquaintances/colleagues. How many have been through the justice system with regards to crime they committed with premeditation? None that I know of. We're talking about quite a number of people. Over a hundred colleagues, about a dozen to a score of decent chums outside of that, and maybe a few dozen acquaintances. There's the odd speeding/crashing/driving without due care and attention thing, but that's not gun crime.

I don't doubt that illegally held weapons still exist and can be obtained by those acting outside the law, but that wasn't what you said. You said that gun control in the UK was a failure. Crazyleg did the footwork you didn't do to show that it's actually not a failure.

Rapscallion

[crazylegs]

Oh yeah? If you know someone that's been through the justice system and they had a gun, ask them how much impact gun control laws had on them (or still do).

Thing is, I don't. That's the point, Armed offences are so ridiculously rare in the UK (as I've laboriously pointed out) that I know of not one person who has been the victim of this type of offence.

Not one person at my current job has been a victim (AFAIK), and I know about 100-200 people there, No person at my previous job (40-50 people over 18 months across two stores) No person at my first job (200-300, spread over 7 years at three stores). That's a grand total of (max) 550 people. I can recall at no point that they stated that an aquintence/relative/friend had either been looking down the muzzle of a weapon nor that they had a firearms/shotgun cert. and had gone though the system. Because this type of crime is so rare.

I think the point you're trying to make is that criminals (by their very definition) break laws so why bother having them? Well fine, lets wipe out any law you disagree with, lets make it legal for you to bash your partners ex because you think (s)he's a bit of a prat. Hey, it makes sense to you right? How about lynchings for rapists, it's a horrific crime so string 'em up!

Actually I don't agree at all with the above paragraph, but what it does do is show how ridiculous your assertation is when you compare it to other crimes, yes you may disagree with it, yes you can use very emotive language but in answer to the threads title "Gun Control in the UK - A Total Failure" I can prove that gun control in the UK is actually a sucess, and a very good one at that.

[Slytovhand]

Firstly - I'd just like to say that my comment on 'rare' was based on the stats for Australia - not the US. I was also impying the UK as well - thanks Crazy for the stats (I'd love to see you do the same for Aus.....)

Also, certainly for down here, there is another stat that ought to be taken into account - where the murder was done to another criminal. Down here, there has been a bit of gang warfare. There have also been a couple of murder/suicides due to a depressed ecomony. And also, another stat where the gun handler was shown to have a mental disability.

Doing all those stats brings us back towards the important one - how many crimes which include violence have been perpetrated by knowing, cognizant individuals with the intention to harm a civilian. Now we're heading into some serious 'rare' territory!

And thus - compare those stats as a 'before' and 'after' the 'ban' snapshot. Has it made any difference at all in this country??? Not a dot!

(btw - yes, I've known 3 ppl who were involved in an armed robbery. One had it shoved in her face (apparently) and she freaked during a self-defence class many years later, when a fake one was shoved in her face again). The other 2... meh! No - seriously - that was their response! Didn't phase them. Assailant basically said "I've got a gun, here it is, hand over the money". Done. What's a much bigger fear and threat is a syringe.. heard a few of those stories!)

[ditchdj]

It's a failure in the fact that these laws get passed because people believe that gun control reduces crime. So far nobody has been able to show concrete proof that this is true. In fact, gun crime actually went up AFTER gun bans were in place in many places, particularly Washington DC.

[Rapscallion]

I think it's of note that the deaths by shooting referred to by Crazylegs show that they were going up until the height of 01/02, and after that the trend appears to be going down. I just checked it in Open Office Calc, and when I created a graph that's indeed what it did (attached as a JPG). I don't know exactly when the gun laws came in, but I think that's pretty significant.

What proof would satisfy you?

You cite Washington DC - please provide similar figures over the years as Crazylegs did to support your assertion (several years to either side to prove it's not just a handy blip you're taking statistical advantage of). I'd just like to add that Washington DC's figures are not really something I would accept as proof of the UK's failure or otherwise for gun control legislation.

So, nobody's been able to show concrete proof that it works? Again, I ask what proof would satisfy you. What proof have you that laxer gun control decreases death by firearms?

Rapscallion

[AdminAssistant]

In fact, gun crime actually went up AFTER gun bans were in place in many places, particularly Washington DC.

Which relates to England...how, exactly??

DC has a lot of crime, period. Because, like a lot of the big cities in the US, there are a lot of very poor, uneducated people who can't get jobs, they wind up in gangs, and you have a lot of crime. Same story in St. Louis, Memphis, Little Rock, and ESPECIALLY Kansas City (these are the cities I've had exposure to). Most of these places also have crap public school systems. The cycle continues.

Gun crime probably would've gone up regardless of the ban. NYC right now has one of the lowest murder rates per capita, so they're doing something right - whatever it is.

But you really can't compare American situations to British ones. The cultures are incredibly different.