An other year gun crime rises in England

[Food Eater Lad]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/cri...p?story=454186


Gun crime rises to record level with 200 incidents every week
By Jason Bennetto, Crime Correspondent
17 October 2003


Gun crime in England and Wales rose to record levels in the past year, with nearly 200 incidents every week.

There were 10,250 incidents, including 80 murders, involving firearms in the year to April, 276 (about 3 per cent) more than the previous year and double the number recorded five years ago.

Overall crime has dropped in the past few months, Home Office statistics show, but there is a continuing rise in the number of violent offences recorded by the police.

Public alarm over gun crime has been raised in recent months by a spate of high-profile murders, including a seven-year-old girl shot in the back in London and a shopkeeper killed during a robbery in Nottingham. Police and ministers stress, however, that Britain is still one of the safest places in the world, with one of the lowest levels of gun crime. There were 0.15 gun deaths in England and Wales per 100,000 population in the past year, compared with 3.6 per 100,000 in the US.

Two-thirds of the offences in England and Wales involved the firearm being used as a threat, but in about 17 per cent the weapon was fired causing injury. About two out of three firearms offences took place in three police force areas: the Metropolitan; Greater Manchester and West Midlands.

Yesterday's crime figures sent a mixed message on the subject of violence. Offences recorded by police in England and Wales rose by 9 per cent, or 27,800, in the three months from April to June, but the British Crime Survey, which was also published yesterday and is considered to be a more accurate, indicated that violent crime has fallen by 5 per cent in the same period.




My last post on this subject showed that gun crime in England rose 45% two years ago, and 35 % last year. So i guess this rising gun crime trend will prove that gun control is a great success?

[Food Eater Lad]

Prior to enacting any gun control laws, Britain had a very small violent crime rate. In fact, pistol permits were first required in the 1920s as a means of denying weapons to "anarchists and Bolsheviks", who were considered to be dangerous political dissenters. Control of street wasn't even used as a selling point, being; English streets were virtually crime free. Policemen didn't even have to carry firearms. (they do now)
As gun controls have become more stringent, violent street crime has increased.


Is gun control the answer? Not if you compare Britain to Switzerland, where guns are common: Swiss per capita homocide rate is 1.2 per 100,000 pop.

Why the higher rates in the U.S.?
That's something that Moore claimed to be trying to answer in BFC, but never really did.
100 years ago, when the U.S. had virtually no restrictions on private firearms ownership, the homocide rate was 1.2 per 100,000 persons...just like currently in most western European nations. In the past century, we have gone from being primarily a homogeneous agraraian society to becoming urbanized. Most crime occurrs in Urban settings, with some of our large metropolitan areas being home to more people than many countries. Combine that with the rise of the illegal narcotics trade over the past thrity years and you have a crime cauldron in our inner cities.
Also, more criminals equals more crime. Three quarters of our violent crime is committed by repeat felons who have been released from prison.
In the 1960s, the courts and justice sysmtem began to follow an enlightened fad which stressed rehabilitation and release, rather than punishment of criminals.
This resulted in much higher crime rates because of a hard core of criminals
being released into society.
There are many causative factors to explore;
"Bowling for Columbine" mentions none of them.

[Ustwo]

Gun control is one of those bugaboos of the left.

All the facts point in the other direction (Australia is another excellent example) but they still cling to it. I'm not sure why. I think maybe its the core belief of power of the individual vrs the power of the state, though I'm only grasping there.

On a side note I think we will see a lot LESS gun control talk out of the 9 dwarves this year. Many think Gore's anti-gun stance is what cost him the south.

[HarmlessRabbit]

I see nothing useful to discuss here, especially since terms like "the left" are already being thrown around.

If you want to have a discussion, you can dispense with the left-baiting.

[Food Eater Lad]

So you admit that gun control is useless or do you need more proof that nations show a rise in gun crime after gun control has been enacted?

[The_Dude]

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
So you admit that gun control is useless or do you need more proof that nations show a rise in gun crime after gun control has been enacted?

wait, you cant characterize all liberals as being pro-gun control.

i dont think the govt should be regulating this area, except just make sure those heavy weaps stay outta the hands of the public (i dont want some aggies/sooners shellin my dorm!)

[Food Eater Lad]

To be honest, you are the only liberal that i know that is against gun control.

[Ustwo]

Gun controll seems to be one of the core issues of 'the left' but rather then get people all worked up about labels just take what I said and replace 'left' with 'those who wish gun control and the people who vote for them'.

Now we can carry on.

[Peryn]

The problem with gun control is honesty. Those who need to be controlled, simply cant. The good guys are honest, and dont get guns. The bad guys get guns anyway. Now their job is that much easier. The honest american citizen wont have a gun and they will. Regulations of that sort only hurts those that dont need to be controlled anyway. Those that dont get guns when they aren't allowed to wont be a problem. The ones you need to worry about are those who cant be regulated.

I think guns need to be much more commonplace. I know i would rob someone if there was a very good chance they could shoot me back. But i think Responsibility must come with looser gun control laws. I think all High School stundents must undergo a mandatory gun safety course. By Senior year all students must have practice be proficient in the use of a firearm, sort of like a high school exit exam. Gun knowledge, respect, and safety will save more lives than gun control will in my opinion.

[Macheath]

There were 0.15 gun deaths in England and Wales per 100,000 population in the past year, compared with 3.6 per 100,000 in the US.

I don't see how this helps your case. That's 24 times fewer gun deaths in England.

Why the higher rates in the U.S.?
That's something that Moore claimed to be trying to answer in BFC, but never really did.
100 years ago, when the U.S. had virtually no restrictions on private firearms ownership, the homocide rate was 1.2 per 100,000 persons...just like currently in most western European nations. In the past century, we have gone from being primarily a homogeneous agraraian society to becoming urbanized. Most crime occurrs in Urban settings, with some of our large metropolitan areas being home to more people than many countries. Combine that with the rise of the illegal narcotics trade over the past thrity years and you have a crime cauldron in our inner cities.

I'm not convinced of your reasons for the US' high statistics here considering; hey guess what, there are immigrants in England, there are drugs in England and there are inner cities in England. Heck, the English have even had liberal sentencing laws too. The population of Los Angeles County is about 9 million. The population of Greater London is about 7 million.

I'm not convinced by ALL of the anti-gun arguments myself but in this case I don't think you have the answers either.

[lordjeebus]

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
To be honest, you are the only liberal that i know that is against gun control.

I am also a liberal who objects to gun control. I'm sure there are more than two people like us; I see nothing odd about this.

[smooth]

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
[...]but the British Crime Survey, which was also published yesterday and is considered to be a more accurate, indicated that violent crime has fallen by 5 per cent in the same period.
[...]
So i guess this rising gun crime trend will prove that gun control is a great success?

[seretogis]

People who try to compare small European countries to the US are shooting themselves in the foot. Guess what? We're not England. Instead of comparing us to England, take a look at the violent crime rate of our own states which have varying degrees of gun control laws on the books. There's really no need to go outside of the US for proof that gun control simply does not work.

[Kadath]

Originally posted by seretogis
People who try to compare small European countries to the US are shooting themselves in the foot. Guess what? We're not England. Instead of comparing us to England, take a look at the violent crime rate of our own states which have varying degrees of gun control laws on the books. There's really no need to go outside of the US for proof that gun control simply does not work.

"Yeah, uh...I'm going to have to go ahead and sort of disagree with you there." I agree that we can't just compare ourselves to England, but to say that we only need to look at different parts of the US sort of ignores the fact that varying areas of the US are as different from each other than the US is different from England. Surely you can't compare the poorer areas of a major city to, say, quiet New England towns?

Note I'm not even arguing gun control.

[Food Eater Lad]

My only point is that time after time when a place enacts gun control, gun crimes go up, as this article shows.

[captain]

Well, gun control would work but then only the cops and bad guys would have guns. That's why they call them crooks-because they don't obey the law.

The problem with all this gun control is that nasty old Constitution keeps getting in the way. Some would like to pick and choose which parts to follow and let the rest just be ignored.

[Liquor Dealer]

Where I live.... there is a gun, or two or more, in every other vehicle that comes down Main Street. There is a rifle or shotgun, in a rack, in the back window, of half the pickups in town. There is a .357 Magnum under the seat of my SUV. We haven't had a crime, involving a gun (other than some of them being stolen) in years. Guns have nothing to do with crime - they don't cause it, or contribute to it. A gun is a tool, just like a hammer or a wrench - you can kill with any of the three. I guess it really matters where you live as to how you look at this but the argument is inane.

[Darkblack]

(other than some of them being stolen)

And here is the point all of you are missing and always will miss. The guns that are stolen from your houses and trucks are used in crimes through out the country. If you didn't have a gun, the criminals wouldn't have access to guns and there would be a lot less gun violence in America. Yes, there would be black market guns smuggled across the border but think about how much those guns would cost. The everyday gangster that is doing most of the gun crime is not going to be able to afford that gun. He is going to have to use a knife or something less lethal.

Now, I am not saying there should be no guns. In my opinion we would be safer but again that is my opinion. Now, I am for getting rid of handguns. There is no need for them in the hands of non-law enforcement citizens. Not many people will use a shotgun or rifle to do the crimes that normally involve handguns.

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by Darkblack
And here is the point all of you are missing and always will miss. The guns that are stolen from your houses and trucks are used in crimes through out the country. If you didn't have a gun, the criminals wouldn't have access to guns and there would be a lot less gun violence in America. Yes, there would be black market guns smuggled across the border but think about how much those guns would cost. The everyday gangster that is doing most of the gun crime is not going to be able to afford that gun. He is going to have to use a knife or something less lethal.

Now, I am not saying there should be no guns. In my opinion we would be safer but again that is my opinion. Now, I am for getting rid of handguns. There is no need for them in the hands of non-law enforcement citizens. Not many people will use a shotgun or rifle to do the crimes that normally involve handguns.

Handguns are here to stay, you can't wish them away. The average citizen being armed is a great deterent to crime, after all are you going to try to mug someone, steal a purse, carjack, if you know that person has a firearm? Criminals are cowards, and you can't make people peacefull with legislation.

There are a few nations that basicly require you to be armed. Check out their levels of violent crime

[seretogis]

Originally posted by Kadath
"Yeah, uh...I'm going to have to go ahead and sort of disagree with you there." I agree that we can't just compare ourselves to England, but to say that we only need to look at different parts of the US sort of ignores the fact that varying areas of the US are as different from each other than the US is different from England. Surely you can't compare the poorer areas of a major city to, say, quiet New England towns?

Note I'm not even arguing gun control.

First, <3 Office Space references <3

Secondly, while there is a lot of variance as far as population, crime rate, and city policy goes, by and large cities in the US are more comparable to each other than they are to cities of other countries. A quiet New England town is more similar to North Minneapolis than it is to London or Amsterdam, in regards to gun policy.

[Kadath]

Originally posted by seretogis
First, <3 Office Space references <3

You sure know how to make a guy feel good.

Originally posted by seretogis
Secondly, while there is a lot of variance as far as population, crime rate, and city policy goes, by and large cities in the US are more comparable to each other than they are to cities of other countries. A quiet New England town is more similar to North Minneapolis than it is to London or Amsterdam, in regards to gun policy.

Fair. I may have overstated when I said that parts of the US are as different from each other as they are from England. I still think it's a bit of apples and oranges to compare Bedford, NH to Detroit, Michigan.

Finally, the only thing I will say with regard to gun control is that we had, in 2000, 28,663 gun deaths in this county. That's out of 148,209 "unnatural" deaths. Nearly 20% of the deaths are by gun. Cut/pierce deaths are just over 2000. Drowning, 4000. Falls, 14,000(but 13,000 of those are unintentional) Fire, 4000. Machinery, under 700. Gun deaths acount for a HUGE portion of the unnatural deaths in our county. The only thing that beats it is motor vehicles, at close to 47,000, with all but a few hundred unintentional. Guns are used in homicides. They kill people. A lot. On purpose. They are not tools. They are weapons. They kill.

Statistics taken from CDC.

[seretogis]

Originally posted by Kadath
You sure know how to make a guy feel good.

Originally posted by Kadath
Finally, the only thing I will say with regard to gun control is that we had, in 2000, 28,663 gun deaths in this county. That's out of 148,209 "unnatural" deaths. Nearly 20% of the deaths are by gun. Cut/pierce deaths are just over 2000. Drowning, 4000. Falls, 14,000(but 13,000 of those are unintentional) Fire, 4000. Machinery, under 700. Gun deaths acount for a HUGE portion of the unnatural deaths in our county. The only thing that beats it is motor vehicles, at close to 47,000, with all but a few hundred unintentional. Guns are used in homicides. They kill people. A lot. On purpose. They are not tools. They are weapons. They kill.

Statistics taken from CDC.

Well first off I agree with you -- guns are made with the intent to create injury and/or death. I don't think that any responsible legal gun owner would want them to be seen as anything else, and definitely not as toys or "tools" that anyone should use. An interesting thing about statistics, though, is that they can be used to prove anything. How many of those 28,000 gun deaths are suicide? How many are criminals which were killed in self-defense? How many are accidental deaths? Hunting accidents? Ammo reloading accidents? Homicidal clown attacks?

The only statistic that I'm really interested in is how many criminals use legally-acquired firearms to assault or kill innocent citizens. That number is what we should be concerned with lowering, by means of tougher sentences on violent criminals, and enabling the public to help protect itself.

[Food Eater Lad]

Did you know legal assault rifels account for less then .01% of gun deaths but look how the media and the left goes berserk over them.

[onetime2]

Tough to draw conclusions when comparing two different societies. Although we share a lot with the UK in terms of language, customs, history, etc the societies themselves are different. Things like exposure to violence in the media, numbers actively participating in religion, employment, overall crime rates, etc, etc, etc vary considerably from culture to culture. Trying to narrow it down to gun control laws as the primary difference seems a bit of a stretch.

[Darkblack]

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
Did you know legal assault rifels account for less then .01% of gun deaths but look how the media and the left goes berserk over them.

Ever think that maybe the reason they result in less than .01% is because they are illigal?

[seretogis]

Originally posted by Darkblack
Ever think that maybe the reason they result in less than .01% is because they are illigal?

You need to re-read what he said. He wasn't referring to any illegal weapons. By the way, fully automatic weapons are not illegal, they just require more training/certification to own/operate them.

[Darkblack]

Yep, misread what he was saying.

My apologies.

[Food Eater Lad]

Originally posted by onetime2
Tough to draw conclusions when comparing two different societies. Although we share a lot with the UK in terms of language, customs, history, etc the societies themselves are different. Things like exposure to violence in the media, numbers actively participating in religion, employment, overall crime rates, etc, etc, etc vary considerably from culture to culture. Trying to narrow it down to gun control laws as the primary difference seems a bit of a stretch.

I am comparing England pre gun ban to England POST gun ban. Gun Crime has skyrocket since they banned guns, as it does every where after guns are banned.

[SLM3]

Anyone else here think this correlation (gun control) implying causation (crime) is a very weak one? By the same logic, couldn't I imply that lack of gun control is why there are so many gun murders in the US?

Seretogis argues that we need to look at the details sorrounding the statistics being thrown around concerning gun related deaths in America. How come we don't ask the same questions given the 3 percent rise in England this year? Is it really fair that we automatically assume it is because of gun control and that's it? Couldn't there conceivably be a million other reasons that also contributed to the increase?

I'm sorry, but such a seemingly weak connection only leads me to believe that the purpose of this thread has little to do with England's crime problem, but more as a means to advocate gun ownership in the US. Why didn't you just say that?

While you're all here, though, I'd love to ask a question. If mass gun ownership meant a safer society, that would make the US one of the safest nations in the world. How come it isn't?

SLM3

[Food Eater Lad]

How come areas with high gun control such as California and new york then have high crime? While other places with lower gun control have lower crime? Why did Canada's gun homicide rate rise when gun control laws were toughened? Australia's? Englands? Why does gun homicide go up every place AFTER gun control laws are enacted? Why does taking guns away from law abiding people solve gun murders?
I live in NYC and I know of three areas where I could purchase an illegal gun for less than 200 dollars. So who is being stoped by gun control, me or some criminal? The answer is me, a man that has never been arrested for anything other than exceeding the speeding limit ( but man was I eceeding the speeding limit! LOL).
Take all the guns you want away from law abiding people, and the guns that remain are in the hands of the unlawful. All you really did was strip the regular joe of his power to defend his home from an armed invader.

[SLM3]

With stricter gun control, how long do you think that $200 illegal gun would stay at $200?

Why does the US have such a high murder rate?

You still have not proven that gun control increases gun violence. You have to understand that crime simply going up a percentage point or two does not automatically make your argument correct. Perhaps it is because of gun control, but perhaps it's not. You haven't proven anything.


SLM3

[Macheath]

Originally posted by SLM3
With stricter gun control, how long do you think that $200 illegal gun would stay at $200?

Fyi. The average price of an illegal handgun in Sydney, Australia is AUD$2000 (USD$1400).

[Food Eater Lad]

As long as the Russian mafia is shipping them from Eastern Europe, I would assume they are going to be cheep. So what is your point? I guess if we melted all American guns, the factories in Europe and Asia would refurbish the gun market. And then, only criminals would be armed.


PS I notice that no one argued the fact that gun deaths went up after gun controls were passed. So just what are you arguing for? More gun deaths?

[SLM3]

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
PS I notice that no one argued the fact that gun deaths went up after gun controls were passed. So just what are you arguing for? More gun deaths?

I'm not arguing whether they've gone up or not (I haven't seen the stats). Regardless, what I'm wondering is why the went up. Just implying that it's simply because of gun control is far too simple a concept, in my opinion.

I keep asking why the US isn't the safest place in the world, by your logic, and no one will answer that either. Why is the murder rate so high in the US?

SLM3

[Food Eater Lad]

I never said the US was the safest place on earth. Too many people wont let Americans defend themselves, so criminals are having fun in places with low gun control like California, and New York. As a Swis person, a nation were most people are required to have a loaded gun in their house about safty.

[smooth]

PS I notice that no one argued the fact that gun deaths went up after gun controls were passed. So just what are you arguing for? More gun deaths?

What are you talking about? Using your own article:

Police and ministers stress, however, that Britain is still one of the safest places in the world, with one of the lowest levels of gun crime. There were 0.15 gun deaths in England and Wales per 100,000 population in the past year, compared with 3.6 per 100,000 in the US.

[...]

Yesterday's crime figures sent a mixed message on the subject of violence. Offences recorded by police in England and Wales rose by 9 per cent, or 27,800, in the three months from April to June, but the British Crime Survey, which was also published yesterday and is considered to be a more accurate, indicated that violent crime has fallen by 5 per cent in the same period.

[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?

[smooth]

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.

[Food Eater Lad]

The BBC has reported a skyrocking amount of gun crime three years in row. That is not an unknown source.

[smooth]

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
The BBC has reported a skyrocking amount of gun crime three years in row. That is not an unknown source.

The BBC is, at best, a secondary source unless they compiled the statistics themselves. Since we can assume the reporter did not survey officers, compile victim surveys, or conduct any field research, we are left with the question of what his sources were. Whatever they were, the reporter asserted that the British Crime Survey data is considered more reliable than them so it seems odd to use such statistics as the fundamental basis for your argument.

Are you going to respond to the rest of my post?