Gun control in UK - A Total Failure

[crazylegs]

The stats I found explain it differently.....

Can you find the originals?

An interesting thought for you.

Armed Robbery is considered as such if the offender merely states that they have a weapon. Even if no weapon is used because it was stated that one is present it is classed as armed robbery (and show in your stats for gun crime). Do the stats also class gun crime as possesion of ammunition? Do they class gun crime as breach of firearms licence (such as failing to secure weapons held legally)? Do the stats include converting decomissioned weapons to fire live rounds (which has always been illegal)?

So many questions and no answers.

In addition the stats for being shot will include crossbows. (as my original links show)

Suddenly it's not so crystal clear is it? Oh and where are the stats for pre 99/98?

[Rapscallion]

The stats I found explain it differently.....



From.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6960431.stm

Yeah, overall, it's down so far this year. BUT, after adopting strict gun control laws gun crime actually went up. Same as over here. That's one reason why many states are relaxing those laws on gun ownership.

You finally found some statistics. Good.

From reading what has gone on in this thread, I've found out that guns used - even in a non pointy-shooty way - count in the UK for gun crime statistics. For example, pistol whipping counts. Also, as Slytovhand points out, more actual potential offences have been created by the new laws, so you would expect to have increased the number of offences. I remember in another thread someone saying an extreme way to reduce drug crime would be to decriminalise drugs, to which I pointed out that the main way that would be effective would be because drugs would no longer be illegal, and therefore no crime would be committed. The opposite is true.

I, too, would like a breakdown of these figures.

But at the same time, the trend in gun crime overall has been going down.

From the same article you linked to. Slyt? The BBC news website is generally one of the fairest out there in terms of accurate reporting. It doesn't tend to the extremes of commercial media.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...7_07_crime.pdf is something linked to on the page - I think this is the source data we're looking for. The juicy stuff starts on page 77.

Yup, pistol whipping type offences are included, whether it was intended to be used as a pointy-shooty threat or not. Nearly a quarter of those figures you show are actually involving imitation weapons, and I'd have to ask Crazylegs here, but I'm fairly certain that there are new laws regarding possession of imitation weapons that came in during the last year or five. Ah, a quick search reveals it was 2003 that legal limitations came in.

Looks like they were toughened up in 2006 - "The Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 makes it an offence to manufacture, import or sell realistic imitation guns unless they are made available for specific reasons contained in the legislation."

Yup - two more laws came into operation that effectively speak for nearly a quarter of current figures, things that weren't illegal six years ago, and those graphs don't even include figures from last year as I believe they're still being collated.

There are some gaping holes in your argument here, and I note that you're not even making an argument. You're just linking things that you think will prove your point, letting others put their claims forward.

Can you prove that laxer gun laws will decrease the gun crime rates? That seems to be the logical progression from your claim.

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

Armed Robbery is considered as such if the offender merely states that they have a weapon.

Blimey - interesting to know. Looks like we were posting at the same time.

I found the original data on that page - linked it in my post. It doesn't really break the data down that far.

Rapscallion

[ditchdj]

Can you prove that laxer gun laws will decrease the gun crime rates? That seems to be the logical progression from your claim.

Worked in Kennesaw, Georgia.

http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime....nesaw&state=GA

Kennesaw has a city ordinance requiring residents to own a firearm. Although the law isn't enforced, and I'm NOT in favor of the government requiring anyone to own one as much as requiring everyone NOT to own one, it IS enough to deter a lot of crime.

[Rapscallion]

We're talking statistics. What were the statistics before and after? When did the law come into effect? I'd also need more than one place to convince me. Different areas of the US have different general crime rates - DC was mentioned previously as being a high crime rate area regardless of gun laws.

Interesting.

Crazylegs worked out that the rate of risk of homicide by firearm in the US is about one in 26,000. Kennesaw has about 25,000 population and .... drum roll please ... one homicide (figures were from 2003). It's not recorded whether this is by firearm or not.

According to the Wikipedia page (which points how the pro-gun lobby love to cite it as an example), the burglary rate has remained unchanged, despite every household being required to own and maintain a gun (unless they conscientously object or are too poor, or are lunatics etc, no figures on these provided), so it's certainly not a deterrent to that.

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

Also noticed that Kennesaw is noted by its Wikipedia page as being highly desirable - "
The city of Kennesaw was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation's "10 best towns for families". The article appears in the magazine's August 2007 edition. The publication announced the results of its search to identify the best communities across the country that combine big-city opportunities with suburban charm, a blend of affordable housing, good jobs, top-rated public schools (part of the Cobb County School District), wide-open spaces, and a lot less stress."

I think it's rather likely that crime rates there, as a generally far more contented society, were below national average before the law being passed in 1982. Care to provide any proof?

As a side note, I live on a council estate in Yorkshire. During summer last year, we had a widely reported knifing on the estate. I've mentioned about the chavviness of the locals on a number of occasions.

I suspect enacting such a law as Kennesaw has on my estate would result in young idiots finding some excuse to shoot each other, plus anyone going by as a mark of bravery. I'd really not want to try and prove that. Body armour really isn't slimming.

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

Worked in Kennesaw, Georgia.

You provide no statistics comparing the crime rate before and after the gun law. For all we know, they've gone up.

Incidentally, I could probably name about a dozen UK cities of the same size with lower crime rates than that, and much stricter gun laws.

You would need to show that the crime rates went down significantly after the introduction of the duty-to-carry laws, and that nothing else changed during the same time period that could contribute to crime rate fluctuations.

It's easy to mislead and be misled by statistics. Frankly, I don't find them particularly compelling on either side of this debate, because crime is such a complicated issue. Poverty rates, education, and demographics probably play a larger role than gun laws.

[ExiledV20]

Since 9/11 I don't plan on relying on the government to guarantee me and my family's safety and security. There's no way in hell you can stop this kind of trash from spilling over the border.

Sure there is!
It merely requires 30 foot concrete ditches surmounted by 20 feet high concrete walls with machine gun nests every so-many yards and a good 50 feet of mines between the ditch and the border.
People might object, but frankly, it worked VERY well for East Germany.

All in California, a "Gun Free, I mean, Unarmed Victims Zone"

Que?
Dude, there are more guns and survivalists in California than there are here in Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi combined. One reason is due to the population; the 2nd is that contrary to popular belief a HUGE proportion of the population there are rural rednecks.

When are people going to learn? You do not reason with these vile people. There are no social programs to save them. You do not make laws to stop these people. You must remove these people from society. If not before, immediately when it starts.

So you claim that people are completely stuck in their ways, are unable to reform, are unable to change...and so the only answer is liquidation.
Wow, you almost committed a Godwin there.

Soon the gene pool thins of the scum and society is clean again. But no, it's the gun owners that are the problem.

The gene pool has never been free of scum. As a matter of fact, scum either makes up 90% of the population or is the 10% in charge.

Society has NEVER been clean.

And really, I'm failing to see why the guns in CA, TX, or any other state of the USA has anything to do with the UNITED KINGDOM, which has DIFFERENT RIGHTS, LAWS, and PRECEDENTS.

Worked in Kennesaw, Georgia.

http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime....nesaw&state=GA

Kennesaw has a city ordinance requiring residents to own a firearm. Although the law isn't enforced, and I'm NOT in favor of the government requiring anyone to own one as much as requiring everyone NOT to own one, it IS enough to deter a lot of crime.

As a resident of Metro Atlanta and having actually LIVED in Kennesaw, GA, you'll find that the crime rate was NOT lowered over time by the gun ban. As a matter of fact, it remained constant. See here:

Crime rates were NOT lowered in comparison to Morton Hill.

[ditchdj]

Crime WAS lowered...

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...7/223955.shtml

-----Now people keep telling me WHY when someone attacks me or my family in my own home I should just be a victim and call 911 and NOT have a weapon and fight back.

[Boozy]

Your source, Newsmax.com, is not a reputable news organization, and doesn't even claim to be. It consists mostly of opinion pieces by right-wing commentators, most notably the bat-shit crazy Ann Coulter. It was founded by a group of conservative investors.

As for your last question, I actually don't have a problem with people owning shotguns for home protection. I do have a problem with handguns, and especially right-to-carry laws.

[protege]

Now people keep telling me WHY when someone attacks me or my family in my own home I should just be a victim and call 911 and NOT have a weapon and fight back.

I'm one of those people who chooses *not* to be a victim.

Back in '94, my grandmother was in a serious auto accident. Serious enough, to land her in the hospital. Shortly after that, it was reported in one of the newspapers. I was in college then, but staying at her house. Late one night, someone tried to break in

I heard something on the porch, trying to force the front door open. Now, I don't scare easily. Whoever it was, took off and ran towards the highway when the lights came on. To say that I was pissed was an understatement--I grabbed a pitchfork...and went after the son of a bitch

Unfortunately, I ended up losing him somewhere in the shadows. But, the message was clear--someone *was* living in the home, and they *would* come after you. It seems someone was looking for an easy score. They probably read the newspaper, and thought that since no car was visible (I'd parked in the garage that night), they could just walk in and take whatever. I'm sure I not only ruined their plans, but made them shit their pants

Either way, I never had a problem after that night

Getting back on topic here, we can't really compare the crime rate of the UK versus that of the US. Too many variables to consider.

[ditchdj]

Argh all right here's some MORE sources.....

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=55288

http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

[Evandril]

'Tis interesting, and I can see that happening in some *American* cities...but I still don't see the same things happening in the UK. Different people, different culture.

[Rapscallion]

Argh all right here's some MORE sources.....

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=55288

http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

More sources the same as before. They're not giving the source data for crimes several years before and after, and they're also not talking about the UK situation, which is what you originally proposed.

Rapscallion

[crazylegs]

-----Now people keep telling me WHY when someone attacks me or my family in my own home I should just be a victim and call 911 and NOT have a weapon and fight back.

Show me where in the UK (which is where this thread is all about isn't it?) that I cannot defend myself?

Oh, that's right you can't. I can use whatever is reasonable force (upto and including killing someone) in the circumstances in the defence of myself, I don't need a firearm to do that thanks.