Maybe If They Doubly Ban Guns?

 

image

From the Mail Online

Gun crime soars by 35%

The Government’s latest crime figures were condemned as “truly terrible” by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.

Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed.

Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.

It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.

Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.

But, I thought gun control worked?

About these ads
This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to Maybe If They Doubly Ban Guns?

  1. miked1947 says:

    They would reduce the number of crimes with guns if they outlawed the ban on citizen owning weapons. The ban on weapons is the major cause of the increase of weapons being used to commit crimes. Those places where people are allowed to own weapons for self defense are seeing a reduction in weapon related crime to go along with increased ownership of weapons.

  2. leftinbrooklyn says:

    Prohibition. doesn’t. work.

    My city is of course making me jump through hoops before ownership. But jumping through I am. Would be so much easier to get a firearm illegally.

    • suyts says:

      And, that’s the point. It’s easier for criminals to own guns than it is for you to protect yourself.

    • kelly liddle says:

      “Prohibition. doesn’t. work.”
      So I guess that war on drugs thing can never be won.

      • leftinbrooklyn says:

        Nope. Never.

      • philjourdan says:

        Pretty much. If you go after the source instead of the users, no prohibition will ever work. And if you go after the users, you deprive everyone of liberties and freedom.

        It can work in a totalitarian state. But even then, not completely.

        • gator69 says:

          In countries where drugs have been decriminalized, the usage of all drugs has declined, but the biggest declines come in the usage of hard drugs.

          People will huff paint, drink glass cleaner and inhale propane to get high.

        • leftinbrooklyn says:

          Yes, government will never be able to do it. Not completely, even totalitarian government. Parents have the only shot. But even then, the ‘war’ would never be really over. Same as the past attempt on alcohol. Same as guns.

  3. philjourdan says:

    Put them on Double super secret Probation!

  4. gator69 says:

    “A federal appeals court has struck down a ban on carrying concealed weapons in Illinois — the only state where carrying concealed weapons is entirely illegal.

    The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals announced Tuesday that state lawmakers have 180 days to write a new law that legalizes concealed carry.”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/11/federal-court-strikes-down-illinois-ban-on-carrying-concealed-weapons/#ixzz2En7briV3

    Woohoo!!! I cannot believe this came out of Chicago, or considering their homicide rate, maybe I can.

  5. john s says:

    Violent crime (including gun crime) is a matter of demographics. As britains population changes, so it’s violent crime rises. I for one enjoy their pain after listening to their sanctimonious boasting for the last few decades.

  6. kelly liddle says:

    Firearm related death rate for homicides will still have to go up more than 50 fold to catch up to the US so don’t get too excited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

    Australia the rate has dropped from about .44 to about .16, so to draw any conclusions is silly because there is no correlation.

    • kelly liddle says:

      Another thing that stands out is unitentional deaths by fire arm and US citizens are 7 times more likely to be killed unintentionally in the US than you are deliberately or unintentionally in the UK.

      • kim2ooo says:

        kelly liddle says:
        December 13, 2012 at 6:01 am

        Another thing that stands out is unitentional deaths by fire arm and US citizens are 7 times more likely to be killed unintentionally in the US than you are deliberately or unintentionally in the UK.

        Did you think before posting this? :)

        I guess, you could use this as rational to make this statement as well.

        Another thing that stands out is unintentional deaths by drowning and US citizens are 7 times more likely to be drowned unintentionally in the US than you are deliberately or unintentionally in the UK.

        US Water: 469,495 sq km
        UK Water: 3,230 sq km

    • philjourdan says:

      And yet, Oz is not 0, even with its gun control. Andres Brevick was in a gun free country as well.

      There are a lot of differences between countries and raw comparisons are always a problem if no other factors are taken into account. The problem with the gun debate is that no other factors are ever taken into account.

  7. David says:

    One has to be certain not to conflate homicide with suicide. Also there are vast racial, (really more cultural) differences in the US, with fire arm homicide being about five to eight times more likely in the black communities in the US. In the UK the suicide rate is not that different then in the US; it is just that in the US the means is more likely to be firearms. also the total homicide rate in the UK, 1.2 per 100,000 is about 35% of the total US homicide rate of 4.2 per 100,000 (hardly 50 to one)
    with the Black population in the US having a homcide rate that runs from five to eight times the white population.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FList_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate&ei=pcnJULeDOqjqigL_hoHoCA&usg=AFQjCNEJFCxm5K6oJNfjqb_7dY1yog0AZA&sig2=_Aa8FfVS3QS_gvqLST_wRw

    Thew following warning appeas concerning these statistics…The reliability of underlying national murder rate data may vary.[1] The legal definition of “intentional homicide” differs among countries. Intentional homicide may or may not include infanticide, assisted suicide or euthanasia. Intentional homicide demographics are affected by changes in trauma care, leading to changed lethality of violent assaults, so the intentional homicide rate may not necessarily indicate the overall level of societal violence.[2] They may also be underreported for political reasons.[

  8. David says:

    Real statistics are hard to come by, but the UK may have four times the violent crime per 100,000 as in the US. But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.
    In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people. The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz2Ew6OZRo8
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CFAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-1196941%2FThe-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html&ei=qc7JULvIOMS0iQKvp4CoDQ&usg=AFQjCNEFOEcL-73z_SwicX262OTf8QF0fQ&sig2=04LztdLkc_TzzC5FS9Fz_A

    • philjourdan says:

      “In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people.”

      They love their football.

    • DirkH says:

      They love to punch each other’s lights out after the pub. It’s really bizarre. Stems from the days when their pubs all had to close at the same time so they tried to get as drunk as possible in limited time, then all met each other when thrown onto the street.

      Nothing to do with gun crime.

  9. gator69 says:

    I’ll choose to not disarm myself, thankyou for offering…

    “In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

    Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

    In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
    Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
    Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

    Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

    Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
    During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
    Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
    Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
    At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
    Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.”

    The safest country has automatic weapons in every house…

    • kelly liddle says:

      Switzerland is interesting and all that but their gun ownership has nothing to do with the crime rate. It seems pro-gun people are cherry picking in the extreme and remind me of some climate scientists. It is very clear that gun ownership is not the primary factor in crime. Take another look at my link and you will see Singapore is far safer than Switzerland and these countries are far more comparable based on size. To compare Switzerland with the US how does that work? Can just pick any old OECD country and their figures will be better than the US. I like homicide because the reporting rate will be almost 100%, other statistics will differ and reporting rates vary largely.

      To David I have not confused suicide with anything. I only mentioned homocide by firearm and talking of the US how often you actually kill yourselves or another by accident.

      • gator69 says:

        Yes Kelly, you are absolutely right.

        The Swiss are not human, and their guns shoot daisies!

        There is no educating a fool. :lol:

        • kelly liddle says:

          Every OECD country has better statistics than the US. Singaporeans are not human now hey? They have strict gun laws and lower homicide rates than Switzerland. There is no correlation. Seems your DC examiner is lying unless. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/214.full.pdf On the chart puts firearm homicide at .44 in Australia.

          “Overall firearm mortality rates are five to six times higher in HI and UMI countries in the
          Americas (12.72) than in Europe (2.17), or Oceania (2.57) and 95 times higher
          than in Asia (0.13).”

          Homicide rates in Australia are clearly going down http://aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/341-360/tandi359/view%20paper.html See fig 1 which is the raw data not adjusted for population.

        • gator69 says:

          The first study you cite is from 1998 and admits it uses incomplete data.

          The second study you cite states that assaults and rapes are on the increase.

          The Swiss have fully automatic weapons in every home and are safer than any of the countries you cite.

          There are 3 kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

          Swiss + automatic weapons = peace

          Aus + gun ban = more rapes and assaults

          I’m sorry you cannot reason.

  10. kelly liddle says:

    “The second study you cite states that assaults and rapes are on the increase.”
    It does not state that, that is reported rates. Rape rates are problematic because it is likely more to do with reporting.

    Singapore is more safe than Switzerland and that is a fact. Singapore .3 and Switzerland .7 homicide rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate . I am helping your argument actually because I am not claiming that guns are a primary factor some here are. If you aim is to stop gun restrictions then the claim that has to be made is that there is no or not sufficient evidence to suggest that an increase in gun ownership leads to higher crime rates. If you make the claim that more guns makes it more safe then you will lose the argument because that claim is false in the context of national laws. It is a valid point however in the case of the US to say that a State law restricting guns may increase crime by making the restricted area or State more vulnerable to criminals who can access guns no problem in another state.

    • leftinbrooklyn says:

      All I know is, I never really wanted a gun until I felt my government might seriously threaten my right to own one. If that does come to pass, then I’ll add to the US crime statistics, as I’ll become an illegal gun owner.

    • gator69 says:

      Kelly, Singapore is a police state.

      “The rule of law has long gone. The courts selectively choose their victims. When those who further it’s business interests, such as Lee Kuan Yew cronies, foreign bank managers and multi national tycoons are either not prosecuted at all or on the rare occasions when they are, are given small fines and let off. There are far too many examples in the state controlled press and need not be re-stated here.

      The Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on. Rights such as free speech, assembly, right to due process, right to a fair trial are all simply ignored.

      The police are given free reign to stop and search anyone they want without the need to show reasonable cause. Anyone walking peacefully along the streets are liable to be asked for identification and if they resist, liable for immediate arrest. Not wanting to lose face, the police will make sure that charges are indeed filed and a conviction is secured.

      Racial profiling by police is not merely allowed, it is encouraged. Anyone anytime, anywhere can be asked to identify himself without any reasonable cause whatsoever, and if found unsatisfactory, liable to arrest. The Indian population that congregate at Little India Singapore are subject to repeated searches and questioning. Together with Singapore citizens, anyone can be stopped anytime for questioning.”

      Now, once again.

      Swiss + automatic weapons = peace

      Aus + gun ban = more rapes and assaults

      I’m sorry you cannot reason.

      • kelly liddle says:

        Despite all this Australia and England are much more safe than US. It is not a primary factor and with Australia and England you can’t make any argument about us being police states as the US is the most police state oriented out of the 3. Switzerland controls their population and has conscription taking away all of ones liberties even if it is only for a time it is still state control. If the US introduced compulsory military service this I believe could have a big impact. This focus on the collective probably keeps gun crime fairly low along with everyone knowing that almost every male is trained in the use of a weapon.

        • gator69 says:

          “In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

          Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

          In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
          Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
          Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

          Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

          Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
          During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
          Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
          Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
          At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
          Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.”

          The safest country has automatic weapons in every house…

        • kelly liddle says:

          Gator I read it the first time. To get to your homicide rate we have to increase 5 fold. I can’t see this all of a sudden happening. Is your argument that Australia would be even more safe if we had relaxed gun laws? Your quote which I consider correct is this “Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime.” I take that position. What is your position?

        • philjourdan says:

          I think you missed some posts. What the data showed is that gun violence is greatest in the US, but in at least the UK – violence is greater or equal to the US. Ergo, your conclusion is wrong.

        • kelly liddle says:

          Phil
          A pub brawl is different to homicide. To me life comes above all else. Even an armed robbery is not as bad as killing someone. Of course violent crime in general is a problem but if it is lifetaking then the significance is substantially more in my opinion and it is also the best measurement as even an armed robbery may not get reported if people think nothing will be done and there is no real point.

        • philjourdan says:

          Kelly, I did not define pub brawls or homicides (and homicides are not always murders). I stated violence. Why? Because you used the term. So whether it is a pub fight over Manchester United versus Queen’s Park Rangers, or a street brawl between the Jets and the Sharks, it is still violence. Period.

        • kelly liddle says:

          Phil
          In my scan of my comments I could not find me using the word violence except in a quote. David did use the term though. If talking about this subject I think homicide is the only number that will be highly reliable and as I said most important to me anyway.

        • philjourdan says:

          You are correct – apparently I transferred his use of the word to your comment. However, I will again direct you to a side bar I made earlier. Not all homicides are murder. Homicides are not a good indication as they are not always illegal or unjustified. Perhaps the difference between the “homicide” rate and the “murder” rate are negligible. However, the acts are significantly different (all murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murders).

          Also, I disagree with your basic premise. The difference between battery and homicide is not in the intent, but in the outcome. The intent is the same. So the better measure is in the violence statistics.

  11. gator69 says:

    “What is your position?”

    Kelly, my position is locked, loaded and still relatively free, no thanks to folks like you. You really give yourself away when you advocate a police state as a solution.

    As I have said before, you are a waste of my time.

    Now, once again.

    Swiss + automatic weapons = peace

    Aus + gun ban = more rapes and assaults

    I’m sorry that you cannot reason.

    • kelly liddle says:

      More reported rapes and assaults and could be more who knows. Who says I advocate a police state? You advocate a collectivist state using the same reasoning.

      I haven’t advocated anything. All I have done is point out that weapon ownership or lack of is not a primary cause of violent crime and that is fact.

      • gator69 says:

        Now who is comparing apples and oranges? ;)

        Let’s talk Switzerland, all day.

        You like to talk about Singapore. Go there. Live there.

        col·lec·tiv·ism (k-lkt-vzm)
        n.
        The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.

        Nope. Not me.

        Keep you hands off my rights Kelly. Advocate in your own back yard.

        • kelly liddle says:

          Ok maybe my term was not correct. Whatever you call conscription for the good of the collective or the total nation. Total loss of Liberty for a time which includes weapons training. As I stated this probably has something to do with the low homicide rate. This in not the case in the US, are you advocating national service? It is just as oppressive as Singapore but in a different way and Little India in Singapore has foreigners in it not Singaporeans. Yes it could be simular to Nevada in US.

          I am not advocating anything. LOL I am only having discussions with you and others.

  12. gator69 says:

    Actually the idea of a year of service is a good one. It doesn’t have to be military service.

    One of the main issues we have in America is that there are so many citizens with no skin in the game, and yet still have the right to vote.

    So Singapore was just you spewing BS.

    Got it.

  13. Pingback: The Automatic Arguments From These Events | suyts space

  14. cdquarles says:

    Kelly, you mentioned OECD statistics. OECD statistics are by design made to have the US look bad. International vital statistics simply cannot be compared apples to apples. The various definitions used by each country preclude it. Personally, I think that the US statistics are the most honest and open because our definitions tend to be more inclusive. Also, the US is not a monoculture nor ethnically monolithic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s