England: Gun Crime still Rising

[vortexring 0]

Fair enough mate - but I suspect without the ban, guns would be more readily available, hence gun crime would rise. It's only a general opinion I have.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

kallend: "So how do you account for the rise in violent crime in the USA over the last 18 months?"

Ladies and gentlemen:

This is a lesson in how kallend plays games with you in order to try and fool you into believing that guns are responsible for violent crime.

Please take a look at the chart on the web page, below, from the Bureau of Justice Statistics:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm

Now, having viewed that, look again at kallend's original statement, quoted above.

What kallend wants you to focus upon is that teensy little up-tick in the graph lines in the last year. And based upon that tiny little variation in a very long downward trend, he wants you to believe that gun ownership is responsible for that.

And all the while, he ignores the larger trend that has been happening since 1993, in which violent crime dropped significantly for 13 years previously, to a low level that hasn't been seen in over 30 years!

The funny thing about this is that kallend doesn't bother to explain how violent crime managed to drop every year for over a decade, even while all those guns were still around...

Let this be your education for how to be wary about interpreting kallend's messages in the future.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If the gun ban had no +ve or -ve affect on gun crime, but it almost certainly put guns out of the way of almost everyone (criminals excluded) so the chance of accidents from privately owned guns must have gone away, So on balance the ban would appear to be +ve.

Sure. And if we banned skydiving we could have a +ve affect upon parachuting accidents.

The question is, are you willing to trade away your freedoms, for a little more safety from accidents?

I prefer the freedom of being able to choose for myself how much risk I want to accept in my lifestyle. I don't want the government dictating that to me.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I suspect without the ban, guns would be more readily available, hence gun crime would rise.

You're ignoring the whole thrust of this thread. You did ban guns, and gun crime has gone up anyway. Thus proving that criminals will get all the guns they want regardless. So the gun ban was a wasted effort, which accomplished nothing over than to deprive many citizens of their property and their sport. Your theory sounds nice, but has never been proven true anywhere that it has been tried. And the example of England is just another data point in that proof.

[shropshire 0]

I understand your point but (for me at least - selfish, I know) not being allowed to have something that I've never had does not feel like an impact upon my freedom.

The skydiving analogy does not fit too well, as we're unlikely to (in the main) hurt or kill 3rd parties.

Cars on the other hand, would have made a better point.

Regards,

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

gun control is a history of failure to achieve the desired results

John, what was the desired result of the 1997 legislation?

[NCclimber 0]

Do any of these links give an overall picture of gun related crime? Like for the last 20 years (10 years w/ guns & 10 years w/out)?

I ask because some the headlines in the OP look like cherry picked stats.

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

I suspect without the ban, guns would be more readily available, hence gun crime would rise.

You're ignoring the whole thrust of this thread. You did ban guns, and gun crime has gone up anyway. Thus proving that criminals will get all the guns they want regardless. So the gun ban was a wasted effort, which accomplished nothing over than to deprive many citizens of their property and their sport. Your theory sounds nice, but has never been proven true anywhere that it has been tried. And the example of England is just another data point in that proof.

How can you know for sure it was a wasted effort? This is an assumption you're making. So in that sense I'm not ignoring what your saying - I'm trying to point out an area you're giving little regard.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[kallend 2,106]

Get real, JR.

A 4.8% increase in homicides and 4.5% increase in robberies for the entire US of A is NOT "teeny weensy". It's one hell of a lot of additional dead people and robbed people.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I understand your point but (for me at least - selfish, I know) not being allowed to have something that I've never had does not feel like an impact upon my freedom.

with that comment, the skydiving analogy becomes pertinent again

or the car one (better I agree). I am sure people that don't drive cars would LOVE to ban all cars as it would eliminate traffic deaths - but how do the car owners feel about it?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Get real, JR.

A 4.8% increase in homicides and 4.5% increase in robberies for the entire US of A is NOT "teeny weensy". It's one hell of a lot of additional dead people and robbed people.

Maybe as a stand alone statistic. But considering Total Violent Crime had fallen every year from it's high in 1993 to a record year low in 2002... and then made a new low in 2004, the rise in 2005 is not that significant... especially considering it's the 3rd lowest year in recent history.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I'm pretty sure that Kuwait is better off than it was prior to our intervention. It's still a fucked up country, but they seem to like it that way.

And Iraq and Afganistan are a really nice places to live!!!!!

You said *every* time - I'm giving you a clear counterexample.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Get real, JR.

A 4.8% increase in homicides and 4.5% increase in robberies for the entire US of A is NOT "teeny weensy". It's one hell of a lot of additional dead people and robbed people.

Maybe as a stand alone statistic. But considering Total Violent Crime had fallen every year from it's high in 1993 to a record year low in 2002... and then made a new low in 2004, the rise in 2005 is not that significant... especially considering it's the 3rd lowest year in recent history.

OK, lets compare long term on a statistic that is almost always reported correctly and consistently between different countries (according to the FBI):

What is the rate of firearm homicides (homicides per 100,000 population) in the US compared to the UK over the last 2 years, 5 years, 10 years?

Ditto for the rate of accidental firearms deaths?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I understand your point but (for me at least - selfish, I know) not being allowed to have something that I've never had does not feel like an impact upon my freedom.

The skydiving analogy does not fit too well, as we're unlikely to (in the main) hurt or kill 3rd parties.

so banning other risky sports that you don't participate in currently wouldn't bother you much either?

I think in the case of the 97 ban, you had almost no gun rights anyway, so it was just closing the barn door after the fire burned out the walls and roof.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Get real, JR.

A 4.8% increase in homicides and 4.5% increase in robberies for the entire US of A is NOT "teeny weensy". It's one hell of a lot of additional dead people and robbed people.

Maybe as a stand alone statistic. But considering Total Violent Crime had fallen every year from it's high in 1993 to a record year low in 2002... and then made a new low in 2004, the rise in 2005 is not that significant... especially considering it's the 3rd lowest year in recent history.

OK, lets compare long term on a statistic that is almost always reported correctly and consistently between different countries (according to the FBI):

What is the rate of firearm homicides (homicides per 100,000 population) in the US compared to the UK over the last 2 years, 5 years, 10 years?

Ditto for the rate of accidental firearms deaths?

And while we're at it, let's compare the number times private citizens used guns to defend themselves against criminals, for those time periods.

Nice try.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Get real, JR.

A 4.8% increase in homicides and 4.5% increase in robberies for the entire US of A is NOT "teeny weensy". It's one hell of a lot of additional dead people and robbed people.

Maybe as a stand alone statistic. But considering Total Violent Crime had fallen every year from it's high in 1993 to a record year low in 2002... and then made a new low in 2004, the rise in 2005 is not that significant... especially considering it's the 3rd lowest year in recent history.

OK, lets compare long term on a statistic that is almost always reported correctly and consistently between different countries (according to the FBI):

What is the rate of firearm homicides (homicides per 100,000 population) in the US compared to the UK over the last 2 years, 5 years, 10 years?

Ditto for the rate of accidental firearms deaths?

And while we're at it, let's compare the number times private citizens used guns to defend themselves against criminals, for those time periods.

Nice try.

Are you saying that violent crime would be EVEN HIGHER in the USA without guns? Not even John Rich claims that!

Besides, whose data would you use?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

And while we're at it, let's compare the number times private citizens used guns to defend themselves against criminals, for those time periods.

Nice try.

Are you saying that violent crime would be EVEN HIGHER in the USA without guns? Not even John Rich claims that!

Besides, whose data would you use?

I was just countering one tangential sidebar with another.

[shropshire 0]

As I I had not interest in owning a gun, loosing the Right is rather a moot point - dont you think?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And while we're at it, let's compare the number times private citizens used guns to defend themselves against criminals, for those time periods.

Nice try.

Are you saying that violent crime would be EVEN HIGHER in the USA without guns? Not even John Rich claims that!

Besides, whose data would you use?

I was just countering one tangential sidebar with another.

Well, since you have no actual data, it's about all you could do.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

As I I had not interest in owning a gun, loosing the Right is rather a moot point - dont you think?

No. There's a pretty strong causal relationship between new restrictions on gun ownership and an increase in confrontational crimes (mugging, home invasions, etc.)

As a non-gun-owner, you're less likely to be the victim of such crimes when the criminals fear getting shot.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I understand your point but (for me at least - selfish, I know) not being allowed to have something that I've never had does not feel like an impact upon my freedom.

If you want other people to respect your choices, you have to respect theirs.

"In Germany, they first came for the communists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.

Then, they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. 

Then they came for the Catholics.

I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,

and there was no one left to speak up."


- Reverend Martin Niemoller, German Lutheran pastor arrested

by the Gestapo, 1937, a decorated U-Boat skipper during WWI.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

How can you know for sure it was a wasted effort? This is an assumption you're making. So in that sense I'm not ignoring what your saying - I'm trying to point out an area you're giving little regard.

Guns were banned to reduce gun crime.

Gun crime has continued to escalate anyway.

If that is your idea of proven success, then I don't think I can have a reasonable discussion with you.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

As I I had not interest in owning a gun, loosing the Right is rather a moot point - dont you think?

If one were to care only about their own selfish personal interests.

If one were altruistic, however, they would care about everyone's rights, even those who choose to be different from themself.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Get real, JR.

Quote, from me to you, in a previous message;

"And all the while, he ignores the larger trend that has been happening since 1993, in which violent crime dropped significantly for 13 years previously, to a low level that hasn't been seen in over 30 years!

The funny thing about this is that kallend doesn't bother to explain how violent crime managed to drop every year for over a decade, even while all those guns were still around..."

You skipped right over that part with your flippant response.

If the presence of guns causes violent crime, then please explain how this phenomenon could occur. Defend your pet theory with something more than "get real".

[Red_Skydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

I suspect without the ban, guns would be more readily available, hence gun crime would rise.

You're ignoring the whole thrust of this thread. You did ban guns, and gun crime has gone up anyway. Thus proving that criminals will get all the guns they want regardless. So the gun ban was a wasted effort, which accomplished nothing over than to deprive many citizens of their property and their sport. Your theory sounds nice, but has never been proven true anywhere that it has been tried. And the example of England is just another data point in that proof.

The ban you refer to was for a specific reason and was a result of a particular crime - you know this as we've discussed it before but you continually choose to ignore it. Why? The ban wasn't a wasted effort as to my knowledge a similar incident hasn't happend since.

For your information even before the ban it was not possible for anyone owning a gun to use it against another person to defend their property so we have not been deprived of the right to defend ourselves.
Our legal system and culture is different over here. What works for you doesn't necessarily work in any other country.

Yes it is obvious that if a criminal wants to obtain a gun today they can, anything is possible no matter what laws are introduced. That doesn't mean we all want to rush out and buy our own weapons though. I don't want one and to my knowledge I don't know anyone who does. The only person bothered about the fact guns are banned is you John and it doesn't affect you so why do you keep bringing it up?