London: Gun Victims Treble

[mnealtx 0]

Tony - thanks for the info.

I'd read (somewhere - can't find it now) that "hot" burglaries (where the occupants are home) have gone up since the passing of the ban. If that is actually the case (I don't have stats) it seems that would be another unfortunate effect of the ban.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

News:

GUN VICTIMS TREBLE

THE number of people hurt or killed in firearms incidents in London rose to a record high of 1,221 last year, it has emerged.

Home Secretary John Reid admitted the figure has more than trebled since Tony Blair came to power in 1997, when 401 people in the capital were shot. The new toll includes 38 deaths.

Last night, the increase sparked demands for action. Liberal Democrat home affairs spokeswoman Lynne Featherstone said: "Many of these guns are being shipped in illegally from overseas.

Source: Sunday Mirror

According to kallend, those Brits must not be storing their firearms responsibly, or otherwise these thugs wouldn't be getting their hands on guns. Um, no, wait, the citizens of England are not allowed to have handguns any more. So that would mean that, even though there aren't any unsafely stored firearms in citizen's homes, that the criminals are still finding ways to get guns anyway! And that, in turn, would mean that oppressive home gun storage requirements are going to be ineffective at stopping criminals from getting guns. Say it ain't so!

Even on an island nation, with an almost total gun ban, gun crime victims still tripled over the last 10 years in their capital city.

Hey, I've got an idea: Maybe it's not the presence of guns that causes gun crime. Maybe it's the presence of... criminals!

Perhaps they should try locking the criminals up with long sentences, instead of confiscating guns from the law-abiding. That's just a crazy little idea of mine.

I'm glad you posted this, its an interesting post on a day in the UK where everyone in London is hearing about how 26 youngsters have been killed this year by gun and just as importantly by knife. Your post is however incorrect in saying that there is an almost total gun ban which is simply not correct. I know dozens of people who own firearms, everything from .22 semi automatic longs to 7.62 Druganovs including .45 long barrel revolvers with fixed forearm rests.
However, you are correct when you say that the problem is not the leagal firearms or their owners but the fact that there is a criminal culture of violence. If you take the guns away the criminal youth just stab you with a knife. I don't belive that long custodial sentaences alone is the answer seeing as even the DP doesn't deter criminals in the US. Stong border protection and investment into policing. Returning the Police to a force rather than a touchy feely 'Service' would be a move in the right direction. I know cops who tell me that the police don't go after these people because they are so violent that they would target the police who have no protection from these thugs in their and their families lives. The Police are scared and the government is without balls. The ineffective liberal PC tree hugging crowd have brought this country to the very brink of social collapse.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

The current numbers are fairly bad-ish, but when compared to what they could be if more people were armed - I shudder to think.

Um, more people were armed before 1997 - that's the year when the guns were confiscated. That's when the gun shootings were three times less than they are now. So quit shuddering and face reality: guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens bears no relationship to the amount of gun crime.

you are correct but your argument is contrdictory. You argue that criminals are the problem not the legal firearms (which I agree with) however, you also seem to use this as an argument to scrap gun controls. In which case you would make firarms even more widely available in a society which has a violent culture. So you'd be arming the criminals. Also you keep mentioning the period before the gun ban without realising that handguns still had to be locked away in gun cabnets and it was still illegal to carry the firearm for self protection.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[mnealtx 0]

Well said

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[philh 0]

Anyone that actaully lives in the UK knows the Sunday Mirror is a pathetic tabloiad known for its sensationalism. Its always better to go the official statistics and check them out for yourself:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf

If you look at the number of homicide victims by shooting in 1995 it was 55 in 2006 it was 39.

These are the stats for England and Wales, populaition 53 million.

Now look at the figues for the USA which you can find on the CDC web site;

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

There were 11,250 firearm homicdes in 2004. Lets adjust the numbers down for population. The USA has 6 times the population of the England and Wales that would give a number of 1875 comapred with 39. I think that doesnt really back up your thesis of a failing anti gun policy here.

[shropshire 0]

Hi Mike,

That may be the case (I don't have the data at hand) but a lot of other things have changed in the country since '97 (higher drug use, more people coming in from abroad etc...), so it's too difficult to positively equate one statistic with a single root cause.

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

[mnealtx 0]

You were doing all right until the obligatory "your numbers are worse so don't tell us what to do" part of the post.

Wasn't there something a while back about the Home Office reporting numbers that were a bit...."fudged"? If I recall correctly, it was something along the lines that only crimes that they got a conviction for were counted.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Hi Mike,

That may be the case (I don't have the data at hand) but a lot of other things have changed in the country since '97 (higher drug use, more people coming in from abroad etc...), so it's too difficult to positively equate one statistic with a single root cause.

Agreed - it seems like some (on both sides) try, however. I count myself in that statement (at least to a point), as well, as I believe in people having the means to defend themselves against violence.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[shropshire 0]

<>

Probably. it's way more news worthy than the hundreds of Road deaths or old folk that die because they can't heat their homes each year.

Violent crime has always been a problem, especially in inner city areas.

Would arming the police or public gun ownership solve the problem? No not in my opinion. Because it's typcially not Joe public that is being shot on the main streets of Britain. It's typcially behind the scenes and by the time that the police have arrived the trouble has moved on.

Is it an indication that society is breaking down in the U.K? - I don't believe so.

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

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

Oh, but the Brits get so offended when someone points out that their gun laws don't work. So the only response they can make is one like that. And it implies, of course, that as long as their gunshot rate isn't as bad as Houston, then all is still good in London. In other words, they'll just stick their head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich, and ignore the fact that their gun ban is ineffective, and gun crime is skyrocketing. The fact that gunshot victims tripled in just 10 years is not a big deal - not to worry! As long as there is someplace in America that is worse, then they don't care!

Yawn. John, why don't you get yourself some new strawmen for Christmas? The old ones are a bit frayed around the edges.
Cheers.

[shropshire 0]

I would agree, if I thought that there was a problem. But I actually don't think that there is sufficientlyto warrant being armed.
In fact, I would suggest that it is more likely to cause more problems than could be solved. More weapons would, I suggest, lead to faster inappropriate escalation.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

More weapons would, I suggest, lead to faster inappropriate escalation.

People with concealed carry licenses tend to go MUCH further to avoid/defuse possible conflict situations than people 'going bare', in my (admittedly limited) experience. The weapon is viewed as the absolute last resort, not the first.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[shropshire 0]

I would hope that that would be the case here too but I don't think that it's worth the risk for a [current;y] very low level risk.

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

[1969912 0]

Quote

<>

Probably. it's way more news worthy than the hundreds of Road deaths or old folk that die because they can't heat their homes each year.

Violent crime has always been a problem, especially in inner city areas.

Would arming the police or public gun ownership solve the problem? No not in my opinion. Because it's typcially not Joe public that is being shot on the main streets of Britain. It's typcially behind the scenes and by the time that the police have arrived the trouble has moved on.

Is it an indication that society is breaking down in the U.K? - I don't believe so.

Yeah, it's clear there's no gun violence crisis in the UK. No general crime crisis either.

Comparing the two nations regarding guns/crime just doesn't work. There are too many cultural and demographic differences, plus our histories of gun ownership and gun laws are too different.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[warpedskydiver 0]

Well the mere fact that the USA has a bigger slice of the dregs of the human race, we of course shall always have these problems.

In the end the abhorrent behavior that most anti gun and gun rights advocates despise will become mainstream and so prevalent that all will be victims, some by choice, and some by circumstance.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

More weapons would, I suggest, lead to faster inappropriate escalation.

People with concealed carry licenses tend to go MUCH further to avoid/defuse possible conflict situations than people 'going bare', in my (admittedly limited) experience. The weapon is viewed as the absolute last resort, not the first.

I am assuming that your experience is based in the States? You have to remember that in the UK generally people don't grow up with firearms and our culture is very different. What may work there might not work here.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[warpedskydiver 0]

OK then let' switch that to razor blades in the soles of boots, and molotov cocktails.

[philh 0]

Pardon me for actually bringing some data to the debate. Do you have any data other than "if I recall correctly, it was something along the lines that only crimes that they got a conviction for were counted." ? A source might be helpful.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Well the mere fact that the USA has a bigger slice of the dregs of the human race, we of course shall always have these problems.

In the end the abhorrent behavior that most anti gun and gun rights advocates despise will become mainstream and so prevalent that all will be victims, some by choice, and some by circumstance.

Yep, there are too many people here that are just worthless bags of shit (how they got that way is for another thread). The dirtbags are the real problem (assuming there's really a problem), not the guns. Guns were here long before the proliferation of dirtbags went nonlinear. The root causes of criminality should be the focus of efforts to solve any perceived problem.

But is there really a gun violence crisis in the US? I'm not convinced (that's not to say violence/killing is acceptable, because it's not) there is. Considering the cultures/demographics/history/freedom of this country, perhaps we're doing ok.

After the flaming dies down, I'll explain.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

More weapons would, I suggest, lead to faster inappropriate escalation.

People with concealed carry licenses tend to go MUCH further to avoid/defuse possible conflict situations than people 'going bare', in my (admittedly limited) experience. The weapon is viewed as the absolute last resort, not the first.

I am assuming that your experience is based in the States? You have to remember that in the UK generally people don't grow up with firearms and our culture is very different. What may work there might not work here.

Yes, based on behavior in the States. I do recall that folks in the UK generally don't grow up around firearms, but I can only speak from the experience that I have.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Pardon me for actually bringing some data to the debate. Do you have any data other than "if I recall correctly, it was something along the lines that only crimes that they got a conviction for were counted." ? A source might be helpful.

Your source, pg 11 (footnote 1):

Quote

These figures do not account for all homicides committed by mentally disturbed people, as offences with an apparent
motive (e.g. during a quarrel, or a gang-related killing) are included under the respective circumstance. Higher overall
totals for homicides committed by mentally disturbed people are quoted elsewhere, e.g. the National Confidential Inquiry
into Suicide and Homicide by People with Mental Illness (Appleby, 2006).

So, someone twists off and kills someone and it's not counted in the homicide stats?

Your source, pg 14, (footnote 3):

Quote

Homicides initially recorded relate to offences recorded by the police. If all suspects for a homicide are subsequently acquitted or convicted for lesser offences, then the homicide is no longer included in the currently recorded total. Currently recorded figures for the latest year are subject to downward revisions in the future as further court outcomes come to light.

So, if they can't find a suspect, it's no longer counted as a homicide.

Nice way to fudge the numbers, eh?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[nigel99 572]

I think Skyrad has made a good point about the UK side of things, and besides not growing up around guns it would appear that there are less "legal" outlets for gun fan's anyway. Space is at a premium and I don't know how many shooting ranges exist across the UK but I doubt there are many. I guess there is the pheasant hunting crowd but that is a small minority.

As people speculate about the gun ban - I assume it was brought in to address a growing problem and therefore you can't tell if it worked or not (would we have 10x the gun-crime without it?).

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

As people speculate about the gun ban - I assume it was brought in to address a growing problem and therefore you can't tell if it worked or not (would we have 10x the gun-crime without it?).

You assume wrong, thus falling for one of JohnRich's favourite dishonest tactics.
Here is one of a myriad of sources of information on what the gun ban was actually brought in for and what it was always meant to address

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre

Cheers,

Vale

[nigel99 572]

Quote

However because the Hungerford massacre also involved a legal gun owner killing with his legally held guns, public feeling had turned against private gun ownership, allowing a much more restrictive ban on handguns to pass.

No I am aware that the Dunblane massacre was the trigger for action it does not necessarily mean that gun crime was not rising and hence the politicians felt that action was needed. I find this whole debate pretty rhetorical anyway as most people here don't want guns - the ban is in place and lifting it will not suddenly make anybody any happier so why bother. I would rather my tax didn't go to removing a law that few people care about. If the NRA in the US wants to foot the bill for UK parliament to overturn the ban then I am fine with it otherwise lets give the coppers their 0.5% pay rise instead.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[philh 0]

Ok so lets add Applebys data in:


The Inquiry investigated 249 cases of
homicide by currentor recentpatients,
occurring between April 1999 and
December 2003,9% of all homicides
occurring in England Wales during this
period. This figure translates into 52
patienthomicides per year.
Our data show no clear evidence for
either a rise or a fall in the number of
homicides by people with mental illness. "

This hardly changes the cocnlusions.