Quote:
Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
Lowest level of crime, true, but skyrocketing GUN CRIME. How long till it is no longer the safest place? Or is gun crime increases three years in a row not important untill it surpases another nation?
|
You're mixing two studies. The claim of a statistical rise in gun crimes you cite are coming from the less reliable source (an unknown source, by the way). The claim that there has actually been a decline in violent crime is coming from the more reliable British Crime Survey--without looking at the survey we are unable to make a claim in regards to the rise or decline of gun crime in respect to its data.
Now, allowing for the rates to be accurate for the sake of your point:
There were 80 gun homicides last year. A three percent increase was a measly ~2.4 more deaths this year for England and Wales.
How many do you think occurred
yesterday in the United States? I already know of two.
Accepting your tenuous link between gun restrictions and subsequent gun-crime levels:
Yes, at the very least, you would have to produce evidence that a heavily controlled region was experiencing a rise in gun crimes above non-controlled regions before you could even begin to argue that control was ineffective.
Finally, examining incidents rather than rates in this case would illustrate the following:
80 gun homicides per year
200 gun "crimes" (we really ought to know how the researchers operationalized "gun crime") per week
[actually, 10,250 per year)
One might be prompted to research whether the absence of guns in the citizens' hands is exposing them to overall gun crimes but
actually reducing their chances of being shot to death.