NCclimber 0 #101 January 29, 2007 Quote I guess THIS has helped. Spin it however you like, US homicide rates are far far higher than any in Western Europe, Canada, or Australia and most of them are with guns. And then there's THIS from the FBI for 2005, and This for the first six months of 2006. Spin? I'm addressing consistent longer term trends, while seem intent on focussing on the last year or so. How do those findings you cite compare to the same data for the last decade? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nick 0 #102 January 29, 2007 John posts links to reports that refute his own statements, even refutes the title of the thread that he started. A more accurate title would have been "England: Some Gun Crime Still Rising, but Overall it's Falling" Nick Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #103 January 29, 2007 Your UK crime stats are VERY wrong. UK violent crime rates had a high in 1995 and are now at the lowest levels ever on record. See the following charts: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=57901;guest=23169916 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=57900;guest=23169916 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=57899;guest=23169916 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #104 January 29, 2007 Quote Your UK crime stats are VERY wrong. UK violent crime rates had a high in 1995 and are now at the lowest levels ever on record. See the following charts: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=57901;guest=23169916 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=57900;guest=23169916 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=57899;guest=23169916 Are you talking about this? Quote the homicide rate in England and Wales climbed to an all-time high in 2000. Since then it has remained above the pre-2000 all-time high. In other words, the post 2000 low is greater than the pre-2000 high If so, how about posting the "correct" homicide rates for the years '95-05, instead posting a bunch of pretty pictures that say nothing about the homicide rates. Next time, make sure you understand what I wrote before telling me I'm wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #105 January 29, 2007 Quote Quote I guess THIS has helped. Spin it however you like, US homicide rates are far far higher than any in Western Europe, Canada, or Australia and most of them are with guns. And then there's THIS from the FBI for 2005, and This for the first six months of 2006. Spin? I'm addressing consistent longer term trends, while seem intent on focussing on the last year or so. How do those findings you cite compare to the same data for the last decade? The US homicide rate has been above the UK rate for the last decade, the last 2 decades, the last 3 decades, the last 4 decades, and the last 5 decades. Most US homicides are with guns. Most of the gun homicides are with handguns. If you EXCLUDE gun homicides, US and UK homicide rates are fairly similar. Is that OK for long-term data?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #106 January 29, 2007 Don't cherry pick - you cited US violent crime stats and compaired them to UK homicide rates. I merely put your argument in context by providing the counterpoint UK violent crime stats - you brought them up afterall. Besides the homicide stats you cited from P14 of the HOSB don't back up your claim that the homicide rate is still higher than it was in 2000. The peak came in 01/02, (if you discount the Shipman murders which didn't actually occur in 03/04 in any event and are something of an anomaly to say the least). The thrust of your, (now deleted), citation is that last years homicide rate is the lowest since 2000 and is likely to drop further as a result of pending cases coming to court. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #107 January 29, 2007 I noticed you deleted your last post, which was also full of errors. LOL I posted changes in the homicide rates for both countries for comparable periods. Quote Besides the homicide stats you cited from P14 of the HOSB don't back up your claim that the homicide rate is still higher than it was in 2000. It's about reading comprehension. I really cracked up at your jumping on me for cherry picking and then want to discount major factors that hurt your case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #108 January 29, 2007 You deleted your post and inserted a new one. I simply deleted mine answering your deleted post and instead addressed your new one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #109 January 29, 2007 Quote You deleted your post and inserted a new one. I simply deleted mine answering your deleted post and instead addressed your new one. you mean the post you removed didn't contain faulty claims about my posts and the link I provided? I could have sworn it went on about total homicides and proprtionate population (even though my numbers were based on per capita figures). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #110 January 29, 2007 Quote Your UK crime stats are VERY wrong. I'm still waiting for you to prove this claim. Or perhaps you were the one who was wrong??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Peter_Phile 0 #111 January 29, 2007 If the British gun laws stops only 1 person from getting and using a gun who would have got hold of a gun if we had the liberal gun laws of the USA, then i'm glad and think it's worth while we'll never stop everybody who wants to get a gun and use it to rob/kill, but that doesn't mean you should stop trying how about we abolish speeding laws on the grounds we can't stop everybody from speeding? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #112 January 29, 2007 Quote how about we abolish speeding laws on the grounds we can't stop everybody from speeding? but, if outlawing cars can just "stop 1 person from getting a car and speeding"........ ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #113 January 29, 2007 Quote If the British gun laws stops only 1 person from getting and using a gun who would have got hold of a gun if we had the liberal gun laws of the USA, then i'm glad and think it's worth while we'll never stop everybody who wants to get a gun and use it to rob/kill, but that doesn't mean you should stop trying how about we abolish speeding laws on the grounds we can't stop everybody from speeding? In America, about 15,000 people are murdered each year with guns. About 40,000 people are killed in accidents involving private motor vehicles. About 20,000 of those accidents involved alcohol. Eliminating private motor vehicles (people can just live close to work or take the bus) and alcohol would save more lives than eliminating guns. Should we do that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #114 January 29, 2007 Quote In America, about 15,000 people are murdered each year with guns. About 40,000 people are killed in accidents involving private motor vehicles. I think if you compare time spent shooting and time spent driving and look at the number based on time spent doing the activity, you would be better off banning the guns... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #115 January 29, 2007 What about drive by shootings? Do I ban the guns or the cars? Or just dealers that give away free guns with every car purchase? ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #116 January 29, 2007 Quote I think if you compare time spent shooting and time spent driving and look at the number based on time spent doing the activity, you would be better off banning the guns... I've hardly ever heard a more nonsensical abuse of statistics... First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #117 January 29, 2007 Quote I've hardly ever heard a more nonsensical abuse of statistics... It makes about as much sense as trying to compare the absolute numbers as an apples to apples comparison. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #118 January 29, 2007 You mean how you said "homicide rate in England and Wales climbed to an all-time high in 2000" when in actual fact the high came in 03/04, a high which was generated by the addition of 30 years of Shipman murders being included in the stats for that one year. If you discount the Shipman murders you have an all time high in 01/02. So you were totally right when you said the all time high was in 2000?? Or how about your claim that the homicide rate today is still higher than in 2000? When in fact it's lower than it was in 2000/2001 and is likely to fall further than the current stats show because of ongoing court cases (as people are found not guilty etc). This is before you take into account people killed in the terrorist bombings attacks of 7/7, (hardly a normal criminal act - you didn't take 9/11 into account in the US stats did you?), you get a rate lower than 2000 "all-time high" you claim to be able to substantiate, a rate which reaches back into the 90's for a comparison. And why only take homicide rates into account? Why not also include violent crime stats as you did for you US? Violent crime rates are supposedly linked to gun possession aren't they? Why else bring them up for the US? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #119 January 29, 2007 Quote You mean how you said "homicide rate in England and Wales climbed to an all-time high in 2000" when in actual fact the high came in 03/04, a high which was generated by the addition of 30 years of Shipman murders being included in the stats for that one year. If you discount the Shipman murders you have an all time high in 01/02. So you were totally right when you said the all time high was in 2000?? It was an all-time high at the time. Quote Or how about your claim that the homicide rate today is still higher than in 2000? I didn't say that. It's about reading comprehension. Quote And why only take homicide rates into account? Why not also include violent crime stats as you did for you US? Violent crime rates are supposedly linked to gun possession aren't they? Why else bring them up for the US? The Total Violent Crime figure was in response to Kallends claim about it rising last year. Then I brought up US homicide figures and compared them to the UK figures. your response was to simply tell me I was wrong and link a bunch of graphs that didn't address my figures. Good show, mate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Peter_Phile 0 #120 January 29, 2007 Quote Quote If the British gun laws stops only 1 person from getting and using a gun who would have got hold of a gun if we had the liberal gun laws of the USA, then i'm glad and think it's worth while we'll never stop everybody who wants to get a gun and use it to rob/kill, but that doesn't mean you should stop trying how about we abolish speeding laws on the grounds we can't stop everybody from speeding? In America, about 15,000 people are murdered each year with guns. About 40,000 people are killed in accidents involving private motor vehicles. About 20,000 of those accidents involved alcohol. Eliminating private motor vehicles (people can just live close to work or take the bus) and alcohol would save more lives than eliminating guns. Should we do that? we have to do something to try and stop guns being used to kill innocent people, and our government brought these hand gun laws in to try and stop them from falling into the hands of the wrong people. we would rather take the guns away from everybody if it stops just one falling in to the hands of somebody who would use it to kill an innocent person. to us (and our government) it a price worth paying to stop the gun enthusiasts having guns to keep a few of the guns (even just one gun) from falling in to the wrong hands. we dont get all arsey like american gun fans do, we just think its a price worth paying. the average american gun fan seems to think it's a price worth paying for a few guns to get in to the wrong hands and potentially get used to kill innocent people...just as long as they get to keep their guns we dont have a gun culture over here, the average brit doesn't want to own a gun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoop 0 #121 January 29, 2007 Quote we dont have a gun culture over here, the average brit doesn't want to own a gun. True. Plus those that really want to still can, just not any kind of pistol, semi auto over .22 or fully auto anything (if my memory serves me correctly) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DZJ 0 #122 January 29, 2007 A friend of a friend of mine (a historical reenactor) owns fully automatic weapons (even some pretty heavy stuff like MG42's) on a Section V licence, (and AFAIK they aren't permanently blank-firing adapted either) but I understand they're almost impossible to get. Lots of hoops to jump through. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #123 January 30, 2007 Quote we have to do something to try and stop guns being used to kill innocent people, and our government brought these hand gun laws in to try and stop them from falling into the hands of the wrong people. we would rather take the guns away from everybody if it stops just one falling in to the hands of somebody who would use it to kill an innocent person. to us (and our government) it a price worth paying to stop the gun enthusiasts having guns to keep a few of the guns (even just one gun) from falling in to the wrong hands. "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would subject innocent person to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for the unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments,Italian criminologist, 1764. "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were once our countrymen." - Samuel Adams Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #124 January 30, 2007 Quote If the British gun laws stops only 1 person from getting and using a gun who would have got hold of a gun if we had the liberal gun laws of the USA, then i'm glad and think it's worth while we'll never stop everybody who wants to get a gun and use it to rob/kill, but that doesn't mean you should stop trying how about we abolish speeding laws on the grounds we can't stop everybody from speeding? And what then about the one person who is a victom of a gun crime because laws did not allow them to have one to protect themselves??? Same logic apply?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Peter_Phile 0 #125 January 30, 2007 Quote Quote we have to do something to try and stop guns being used to kill innocent people, and our government brought these hand gun laws in to try and stop them from falling into the hands of the wrong people. we would rather take the guns away from everybody if it stops just one falling in to the hands of somebody who would use it to kill an innocent person. to us (and our government) it a price worth paying to stop the gun enthusiasts having guns to keep a few of the guns (even just one gun) from falling in to the wrong hands. "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would subject innocent person to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for the unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments,Italian criminologist, 1764. "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were once our countrymen." - Samuel Adams i can't be arsed reading all that, what does it mean in less than 20 words? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
