An Article about homicides in Britain


PDA






MicroBalrog
June 20, 2003, 03:57 PM
Homicide
Dateline: 3rd December 1996 - Author: Johnny

According to figures used by the UK Government Research Development and Statistics Directorate in its submission to the Cullen Inquiry, Scotland has twice the homicide rate of England and Wales (16.3 vs. 6.7 in Table A.2 of Annex G to the Home Office submission to the Cullen Inquiry).

At first this seems astonishing, and surely should lead to questions in Parliament and an investigation as to why one area of the UK should have such a different rate than the other. After all, we sent the Army to Northern Ireland. Don't worry though if you live in Scotland, you can relax - the homicide figures are "adjusted". Like most other UK Government statistics, they are at best a ball-park figure on a good day and with a following wind. Here's why...

After the suspension of the death penalty for murder in 1965, the homicide rate in the UK continued to rise, and rise quite sharply. Serendipitously enough, it was soon after that when the Home Office decided to start adjusting the homicide figures for England and Wales... Previously, the headline statistics for homicide were those compiled from police submissions according to their initial inquiries. When the Coroner's court sits, some deaths previously tagged homicide will be recorded as something else, such as suicide or manslaughter, according to further evidence or the result of court actions against persons. After the adjustment regime was instituted, the homicide figures were revised according to these judgments - i.e. downwards. This had not happened prior to 1965, and so the homicide figures prior to 1965 will be artificially inflated compared to those post-1965 (and the method of recording had previously been altered in 1959, rendering 1959-65 figures non-comparable with pre-1959).

Scotland of course has a completely different legal system to England and Wales and a totally different system of recording crime (and definition of homicide), so its figures simply cannot be compared with those of England and Wales. Likewise, it's ridiculous to compare the England and Wales figures with those of the USA, since the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics inflate homicide figures by recording any death that isn't clearly natural causes, suicide or "act of god" as a homicide (including of course, justifiable homicide).

The classic comparison is that of USA and Japan, where Japan's homicide rate is tiny in comparison to the USA. However, if you combine the deaths due to suicide with the deaths due to homicide the mortality figures for the USA and Japan become the same owing to Japan's extremely high suicide rate. This demonstrates a statistical artifact caused by differential categorisation in superficially identical data-sampling methodologies (and it's such a common basic flaw in disparate data-sets that errors of analysis caused by this are invariably deliberate rather than incompetence). In Japan, what in America would be called a "murder-suicide" is listed as "suicide." The commonest scenario is that of when a despairing husband/father takes his own life and also kills his wife and children (presumably having concluded since life is too terrible for him it must also be such for his loved ones). The Japanese would record all the deaths as "suicide" whilst the Americans would record one "suicide" plus x number of "murder" victims. It's a sad fact that if you become a victim of homicide you are most likely to be murdered (or suicided depending where you live) by a relative or close friend.

Indeed, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Governments certainly know about propaganda. Particularly the British Government. Hitler was so enthused about British propaganda techniques he apportioned a large part of "Mein Kampf" to eulogising them. They're still doing him proud today.

http://www.dvc.org.uk/~johnny/sketches/homicide.html

John Pate is THE MAN!

If you enjoyed reading about "An Article about homicides in Britain" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
agricola
June 20, 2003, 05:36 PM
roflmao - even for the usual claptrap this is rather easy to challenge.

actually a comparison is quite easy to make, since the Home Office statistics for homcides contain all the relevant data:

http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/5001-04.htm

obvious suicides are recorded as suicides (and never make it into the statistics), homicides that later turn out to not be are recorded separately, as table 4.1 shows. Homicides include manslaughter and infanticide as well as murders.

Orthonym
June 20, 2003, 06:40 PM
Lies, damned lies, statistics, and anti-gun statistics. As Mr. Clemens said about something else, "This is un-American. It is un-English. It is completely irregular. It is, in fact, FRENCH!"

agricola
June 21, 2003, 01:30 AM
its hardly anti-gun statistics, unless you count this desperate attempt to discredit the difference between the murder rate of the US and England and Wales as "pro-gun" and its abject failure to withstand even cursory inspection as "anti-gun"

Orthonym
June 21, 2003, 01:42 AM
I think I hit myself on the knee with that little rubber hammer.:o

rrader
June 22, 2003, 06:39 AM
Agricola:

its hardly anti-gun statistics, unless you count this desperate attempt to discredit the difference between the murder rate of the US and England and Wales as "pro-gun" and its abject failure to withstand even cursory inspection as "anti-gun


You have missed the point here completely.

Do the statistics quoted in the article happen to indicate anything about a massive increase in violent crime and in gun crime in the UK over the past 5 years? Do they hint at any correlation between that massive increase and the actions of the low and retrograde legal system in the UK in denying law abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves against armed thugs?

agricola
June 22, 2003, 02:15 PM
rrader,

youre playing catchup here. in summary (read the TFL threads on the UK for the detail):

* there is no link between the 1997 Ban and a rise in violent crime - since the early 1950s there has been no issue of firearms licences for self defence. for that theory (i wont call it "your theory" because you are parrotting it) to work you would have to have had firearms held for self defence before that and a removal of these arms after the ban. that was not the case, clearly.

* the rise in firearms crime is also paralleled by a similar rise at the start of the 1990's in the same type of offences. the reason for that rise is not clear (one suspects its linked to an economic downturn though it could equally be linked to the start of disputes over control of new drug markets) but it is not parallelled by any ban.

* the "rise" in gun crime is more likely attributed to a change in the counting rules carried out by the home office between 1997 and 1998. this is shown by comparisons between the most affected categories pre- and post-ban.

* separate rises in "street crime" date from 2000-1 and 2001-2 and not from 1997 or 1997-8. these rises were attributed to a massive and tempoary shift in Police from suburban patrolling (especially in London) to anti-terrorist duties. these are ongoing, albeit at a much reduced level, and the numbers of street crimes reported has fallen, in some cases on an individual borough by 43-50%.

seeker_two
June 23, 2003, 10:05 AM
rrader: You really are playing catch-up here...

agricola & his "statistics" have been thoroughly discredited on this forum before. And, like the MMM's, he still sticks to them.

Just wanted you to know...

MicroBalrog
June 23, 2003, 10:55 AM
Two words for you, agricola: Colin Greenwood.:D

agricola
June 23, 2003, 10:59 AM
the same Colin Greenwood that said the bans have had no effect on gun crime?

seeker: where have those statistics been discredited? aside from "well, the home office lies (or so i have been told) therefore they MUST be wrong"

from Greenwood:

"The British Government seeks to make the most of the confusion caused by its change of statistical recording methods claiming that the ban on handguns may have had some small effect. Some commentators have claimed. that the use of handguns in crime has increased by some staggering amount from the moment that handguns were banned. Neither claim is true. The ban on handguns has been a total irrelevance and underlying crime trends have continued unchanged now that only outlaws have guns."

http://www.pierrelemieux.org/greenwood-citizen.html

Ledbetter
June 23, 2003, 03:31 PM
"Now that only outlaws have guns."

You see, that's a bad thing. Really. There's no legitimate social purpose behind that public policy. All it does is make the subjects dependent on an ever-less-capable government to protect them.

Might as well add that only outlaws employ lethal self-defense. Jailed anyone for defending his home yet Ag? Looking forward to it?

:barf:

rrader
June 24, 2003, 01:51 AM
seeker_two:

rrader: You really are playing catch-up here..agricola & his "statistics" have been thoroughly discredited on this forum before. And, like the MMM's, he still sticks to them.

Yes I have seen, LOL.

It's kind of sad and really beyond the point of being worth responding to.

Anyone with an internet connection can access the UK Home Office's website and examine the crime statistics and trace the appalling increase in violent crime of all types over the past 6+ years.

And these are the Labor Governments OWN statistics.

The UK started to slide the minute Maggie walked the plank.

agricola
June 24, 2003, 05:43 AM
rrader,

lets see them then. your contention is that post 1997 the crime rate for violent crime has span out of control - which is not supported by the facts, which is why you havent provided them. or do you think Colin Greenwood is wrong?

here is the website you need to access criminal statistics:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pubsintro1.html

rrader
June 24, 2003, 09:23 PM
Agricola:

rrader, lets see them then. your contention is that post 1997 the crime rate for violent crime has span out of control - which is not supported by the facts, which is why you havent provided them. or do you think Colin Greenwood is wrong?
here is the website you need to access criminal statistics:

I had the HO's URL already as I indicated in my previous post. I hesitate to respond to your post, as you won't admit the truth and most people here therefore automatically discount what you have to say, but in any event here's one example from the HO's webpage:

Table 6.05 Robbery Offences

Year..... Number
1991..... 45,323
1992..... 52,894
1993..... 57,845
1994..... 60,007
1995..... 68,074
1996..... 74,035
1997..... 63,072
1998..... 62,652
1999..... 66,172
2000..... 66,835
2001..... 95,154
2002..... 121,375


There were of course reporting changes made in '98-'99 and '99-2000 which had the effect of inflating the numbers by somewhere between 1-3% as explained elsewhere in the HO's webpage.

The percentage change from 2001-2002 is +28%

To Americans, who thankfully have become used to sharply falling levels of crime in recent years, a 28% increase in a serious crime such as robbery over the course of one year is appalling.

The HO's website shows similar increases in other catagories of serious crime, including a tripling of the number of offenses committed with handguns since 1991.

Gun confiscation in the UK after Dunblane (Sp?) contributed to these increases in my opinion. And even if not, the rendering of the law abiding citizens of the UK defenseless in the face of these skyrocketing levels of crime is a violation of basic human rights.

Any legal system which would render it's citizens defenseless under these circumstances is a low and retrograde system of laws worthy only of contempt.

Other aspects of the UK are admirable of course, it's not all bad.

Thumper
June 24, 2003, 09:30 PM
But rrader, it's because of the cellphones, din'cha know?

rrader
June 24, 2003, 09:36 PM
Thumper:

Cell Phones... L:D M:D A:D O:D!

agricola
June 25, 2003, 04:37 AM
rrader,

nice try - but there were no handguns held for self-defence before 1997, and those that were legally held and could have been used would more likely have affected the burglary statistics rather than robbery. for your theory to work, the stats would have to skyrocket from 1997, which they dont; therefore there must be an alternative cause (or causes) for the rise. Put simply, your theory is wrong.

thumper's ignorance of the problem tries to disguise an important fact. almost 50% of robberies and theft-snatch offences now involve the sole theft of a mobile phone - the situation is getting better now, but the security of handsets was appalling and they were easily sold on or retained by the perps with little chance of recovery.

mass ownership of mobile phones has provided a surge in crime of that kind, but i guess that is beyond some peoples comprehension.

Sergeant Bob
June 25, 2003, 07:51 AM
Why don't they just ban cellphones!! Crime problems solved!!;)

Mk VII
June 25, 2003, 10:51 AM
American contributors to these often bad-tempered discussions are anxious to prove that 'Gun control hasn't worked, therefore it should be abandoned'. The response of most politicians and police here would normally be 'Gun control hasn't worked, therefore what we need is more of it'. The strategy of British gun owners is, therefore, to point out that legal guns (and their owners) were and are quite irrelevant to the recent increases in gun crime. Gun control advocates, when taxed with the view that the pistol ban has not reduced crime, reply, 'Well, we never thought it would. That wasn't the point of it.' This wasn't what they said at the time of course. ACPO's submission to the Cullen Enquiry said [I am paraphrasing from memory somewhat] 'we cannot identify any changes to the current system of firearms control that would achieve any significant increase in public safety. Practically everything in the way of tweaking the system that could be done has already been tried. Since doing nothing is not an option politically then a complete ban it will have to be.'
As probably the only one around here who did actually own several pistols and was on the club scene at the time I can state with confidence that pistol ownership never was any significant deterrent to crime as virtually no criminals ever reckoned they might be confronted by an armed victim in the first place. Self-defence was not a subject which was much, if ever, discussed around the table. If you were meeting your legal obligations you would have gun and ammo locked up and inaccessible in separate locations so you would have no chance of getting to it in any useful timescale anyway. On journeys to and from the club I never carried the gun loaded -partly because most of them were unsuited to concealed carry and I would have had to buy multiple holsters, but mostly because I never rated the risk sufficiently high to be worth worrying about. I might occasionally have a speedloader in the pocket, if I could be bothered.

rrader
June 26, 2003, 03:25 PM
Agricola:

The statistice I quoted are for robbery of the person, homes, and business, i.e., for cases where force or the threat of force was used against the individual. The statistics don't include simple theft if that is what you were implying.

As for cell phones, the statistics indicate only that cell phones were taken along with other property and cash in 2/5ths of these robberies. The huge increase in robberies can't be accounted for by a rash of snatch-and-grab thefts of cell phones from teenagers waiting for a school bus.

In fact it appears weapons were brandished and victims injured in around 1/3 of these robberies.

The post-Dunblane mania for victim disarmament in the UK is a contributing factor in this rise in crime. The absence of handguns carried by civilians obviates an important deterrant to crime of all types. No other weapon is as uniquely suited to the defense of the individual.


From the BBC 1/14/2003

HEADLINE: GUN CRIME SOARS BY 35%

Table: RECORDED CRIME RISES
Overall crime: 9.3%
Gun crime: 35%
Robbery: 14.5%
Domestic burglary: 7.9%
Drug offences: 12.3%
Sexual offences: 18.2%
Source: Home Office

"Gun crime has risen by 35% in a year, new Home Office figures show.

There were 9,974 incidents involving firearms in the 12 months to April 2002 - a rise from 7,362 over the previous year.

That represents an average of 27 offences involving firearms every day in England and Wales, with guns fired in nearly a quarter of cases.

Overall crime in the year to September was up 9.3%, with domestic burglary up 7.9%, drugs offences up 12.3% and sex offences up 18.2%.

The statistics come after the government this week announced a crackdown on gun crime with a series of plans to tighten firearms law.

The latest gun crime figures are more than double the 4,903 firearms incidents recorded in 1997 when Labour first took power

The biggest increases are in the large metropolitan areas.

Robbery was up 13% on the adjusted figures

The biggest increases are in the large metropolitan areas.

That was followed on Wednesday by plans to ban anyone carrying a replica or air weapon in a public place without a good reason, as well as new age limits.

Opposition parties have accused ministers of mounting a snap response to the New Year shooting in Birmingham in which two teenage girls died.

There are worries about replica guns being reactivated

Conservative shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin dubbed the new recorded crime figures "truly terrible".

Mr Letwin said: "The only word for this is failure.

"The government's response of knee-jerk reactions and initiatives is not working and confused signals on sentences for burglary will not help either."

Speaking on Radio Five Live, Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith said some inner city areas were almost "lawless" following the growth of a gangs and guns culture."

agricola
June 26, 2003, 06:12 PM
rrader,

you dont get it. victims were not disarmed by the 1997 ban - they had already been disarmed; the ban was just the final touch. read Greenwood, or MKVII's post.

the reasons for the rises are as stated; they do not include a rise as the result of disarmed victims.

Boats
June 26, 2003, 06:58 PM
The elephant in the English living room that no one will talk openly about is immigration, not how totally disarmed and pusillanimous the law-abiding populace has become.

They yak endlessly about the benefits of the latter whilst the former is politically correctly murdering their culture. H.G. Wells' The Time Machine was prescient about the Eloi as the Time Traveler himself never physically moved from London in the novel and eventually encountered them in the future.

Looks like Wells was merely wrong about how many years de-evolution really takes. :evil:

rrader
June 26, 2003, 07:06 PM
Agricola:

You just don't get it.

It doesn't really matter when the people of the UK lost their ability to defend themselves.

They are currently disarmed. The effect of an armed citizenry is a deterrent to crime. That brake is presently absent and is a contributing factor to the skyrocketing levels of violent crime in the UK.

Any legal system that would do this to a law abiding citizenry is a low and retrograde system.

agricola
June 26, 2003, 08:16 PM
rrader,

so you admit your theory, which you stated as:

"Do the statistics quoted in the article happen to indicate anything about a massive increase in violent crime and in gun crime in the UK over the past 5 years? Do they hint at any correlation between that massive increase and the actions of the low and retrograde legal system in the UK in denying law abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves against armed thugs?"

is wrong?

boats,

you are talking nonsense. stop reading the Mail please.

rrader
June 26, 2003, 11:09 PM
Agricola:

I think you are missing the point again.

Crime has increased markedly in the UK since 1997, ie., since the post-Dunblane mania for weapons control began. I won't limit that characterization to gun control since there have been reports of tradesmen who've defended themselves with screwdrivers and hammers from their work tool boxes being prosecuted for illegal posession of a weapon.

The natural check that an armed populace has on crime is now, since Dunblane, absent to a greater extent than ever before in the UK. Witness the mania over controlling replica and toy guns. And the crime rate is skyrocketing, for example a 35% increase in gun crime in one year. If that happened in the US there would be National Guard troops patrolling city neighborhoods and we would be discussing Posse Comitatus here on the High Road forum.

No I haven't modified any "theory." To have one I would have to pay far more attention the the UK than I have any real interest in doing. A casual read of the BBC (and the Home Office's statistical abstracts :D ) is enough.

Boats
June 26, 2003, 11:53 PM
boats,

you are talking nonsense. stop reading the Mail please.


Hey agricola!

Is the above an implicit denial of the burgeoning black-on-black gun crime phenomenon in England?

I am not a racist, I am just repeating an observation that is inconveniently impolite to make even here--that some of the most egregious examples of gun violence seem to revolve around the hip-hop/drug culture scene while deluded liberals everywhere seek to punish everyone else for it.

A good fraction of the 8-10,000 or so gun homicides that we "suffer" every year are young men who will only be missed by their mothers who remember them from their pre-cretinous days. These "victims" are overrepresented by racial minorities. Go figure that one out without mentioning race/culture as a contributing factor will ya? Impovershment alone would argue that more poor whites would be in the mix of criminal gun homicides here in the US were such violence race neutral.:rolleyes:

agricola
June 27, 2003, 05:41 AM
rrader,

well, if you cant listen to those in the know, i guess you'll just have to wallow in your own ignorance. by "those in the know", i dont mean me, rather people like markVII and Greenwood, who were actually involved in the whole thing. were you a pistol shooter in the UK pre-1997? THERE WAS NO "CHECK" ON CRIME PROVIDED BY AN ARMED POPULACE BEFORE THE GUN BAN.

boats,

why is it that a black man shooting a black man is automatically described by the press as gangsta-shooting and blamed on "culture", whereas a white man shooting a white man is reported without such baggage? its the same phenomenon as chinese men attacking other chinese men always being the work of the triads.

Tamara
June 27, 2003, 05:48 AM
Crime has increased markedly in the UK since 1997, ie., since the post-Dunblane mania for weapons control began.

Correlation does not equal causation. People were simply not using firearms for self-defence in the UK before 1997. Rather than take the "See, people couldn't defend themselves any more, so crime went up!" stance, perhaps you could angle more towards the "See, all the legitimately-owned guns were taken away, yet crime still went up!" stance that is closer to the truth.

MicroBalrog
June 27, 2003, 06:12 AM
In fact, crime has increased in Britain since 1920 - when gun control first took the offensive. (Joyce Lee Malcolm)

agricola
June 27, 2003, 06:19 AM
crime has increased everywhere since 1920.

MicroBalrog
June 27, 2003, 06:39 AM
You are partially correct. However, in Britain, crime has been increasing almost steadily , with jumps after each major gun law. In America, crime has been falling for the last 10 years. It has also been falling in a lot of other countries - should I list some?

rrader
June 27, 2003, 08:09 AM
Agricola:

well, if you cant listen to those in the know, i guess you'll just have to wallow in your own ignorance

And you can wallow in your childish frustration over your lack of progress in convincing anyone of the correctness of your viewpoint.

agricola
June 27, 2003, 08:12 AM
rrader,

dont listen to me. listen to mkVII, colin greenwood, and tamara:

People were simply not using firearms for self-defence in the UK before 1997.

rrader
June 27, 2003, 08:20 AM
Tamara:

Correlation does not equal causation. People were simply not using firearms for self-defence in the UK before 1997. Rather than take the "See, people couldn't defend themselves any more, so crime went up!" stance, perhaps you could angle more towards the "See, all the legitimately-owned guns were taken away, yet crime still went up!" stance that is closer to the truth.

The British have had severe restrictions of firearms ownership since at least 1920, true. But the climate today, since 1997, since Dunblane, is extraordinary. There is a mania, no other way to describe it, for victim disarmament that hasn't existed before.

It isn't objectively impossible to prove a correlation between the lack of a firearm and the commission of a crime. Every time a woman shoots dead a rapist she saves, on average five others, from being raped by the same offender.

The data doesn't exist for the UK because they haven't had any basic right to keep and bear arms in almost 90 years.

MicroBalrog
June 27, 2003, 08:20 AM
agricola: You are correct in your statement, that
the 1997 handgun ban is not in itself a factor for increasing violent crime

however, the more important statement is that


The anti-self-defense attitude of the Brith Government, promoted for over 80 years. is increasingly a contributing factor

rrader
June 27, 2003, 08:31 AM
Agricola:

dont listen to me. listen to mkVII, colin greenwood, and tamara:

For the fourth and final time; the presence of firearms serves as a deterrent to crime. The crime rate in the UK would not be soaring as it is if folks there were allowed to carry concealed weapons and keep firearms in the home with no mindless restrictions. It's that simple.

Folks in the UK haven't had ready access to firearms for self-defense since 1920 or 1937, fine, then there is no statistical data showing that the presence of firearms would fail to deter crime.

Maybe arming the law abiding citizens of the UK should be tried as an anti-crime experiment, along with minimum mandatory sentencing, zero-tolerance policing, immigration reform, booting out the extremist hard-left labor government, etc...

agricola
June 27, 2003, 09:03 AM
rrader,

the presence of firearms serves as a deterrent to crime

it doesnt, and a direct comparison between the UK and the US cannot be ascribed to that belief. The most you could say is that the presence of firearms may serve as a deterrent to some crime. there are far more compelling causes for a difference between the UK and the US - differences in sentencing, a more urbanized UK society, cultural differences, differences in wealth, the geographical size of the UK and so on. Comparing the pre-1920 UK with post-1997 UK is also idiotic because of the massive social and technological change, especially to the working class, that has happened in the intervening period. The two cannot be compared.

the fact that you describe the current Labour administration as "hard-left" shows how deeply ignorant you are of the UK and its history. This is the most rightwing government we have had since the 79-83 Thatcher administration - even the Tories have more "socialist" policies than Blair.


microbalrog,

see above. you'd be more correct in stating that "the anti-firearms" policies of successive UK governments: there has been no change in the legal status of self defence.

Tamara
June 27, 2003, 10:59 AM
Every time a woman shoots dead a rapist she saves, on average five others, from being raped by the same offender.

I doubt a woman has shot a rapist dead in England in the last twenty years. Even before Dunblane, there was no CCW. There were no pistols kept in the home for self-defence. "Self-defence" was not a valid reason to be issued a firearms certificate.

If you want to think that the draconian laws imposed after Dunblane kept women from driving down to the firearms club and checking out their IPSC racegun to zap Mr. Baddie, then, well, go right ahead.

When we state a fact, we help our case: "Despite some of the strictest firearms controls on the planet passed after the Dunblane Massacre, gun crime has continued to increase in the UK, showing that the only people affected by these controls are those least likely to commit crimes."

When we make misstatements, we look foolish and hurt our case: "The laws passed after the Dunblane Massacre have caused the crime rate to skyrocket because there's no longer any deterrent effect to criminals." (When there wasn't any deterrent effect before Dunblane, either.)

ACP230
June 27, 2003, 11:02 AM
I used to have a certain respect for the British.
Agricola and his ilk have taken care of that.

Bog
June 27, 2003, 11:12 AM
Guns have really ceased to be a factor in the steadily climbing UK crime problem.

The main problems are laws and attitudes that punish those who wish to control their own lives, and defend their own territory. "A Man's Home is his Castle" is a dead concept in the UK, where if someone injures themselves breaking into your home, they can sue you for damages.

It seems as though the pressure to change these silly laws is increasing, thankfully, and with a bit of luck it won't be too long before someone who's broken into one's home can be thumped properly without fear of legal comeback. As the situation stands, it's a lot easier and lifestyle-conducive to just kill an intruder and get rid of the body than it is to hope that one's definition of "Reasonable Force" is the same as the judge's.

Hm. Now there's a thought.... ;)

rrader
June 27, 2003, 05:03 PM
Agricola:

Quack quack quack The most you could say is that the presence of firearms may serve as a deterrent to some crime. there are far more compelling causes for a difference between the UK and the US - differences in sentencing, a more urbanized UK society, cultural differences, differences in wealth, the geographical size of the UK and so on. Comparing the pre-1920 UK with post-1997 UK is also idiotic because of the massive social and technological change, especially to the working class, that has happened in the intervening period. The two cannot be compared.

When did I compare pre 1920 to post 1997 UK crime statistics? You're setting up a strawman and knocking it down.

Glad to see you finally admit the presence of firearms serves as a deterrent to crime. Too bad the extreme hard-left socialists in the Labor Government don't see it that way.

Tories more socialist than labor? Tony more conservative than Maggie?
Thanks, I needed a laugh today.

agricola
June 27, 2003, 05:10 PM
rrader,

thats the logical end to the argument that you were proceeding along when you said Folks in the UK haven't had ready access to firearms for self-defense since 1920 or 1937.

Then you completely misquote me, add duck noises to the post, and repeat your absurd statement about the New Labour party being "hard left". Is there any UK poster that agrees with that statement?

rrader
June 27, 2003, 05:12 PM
Tamara:

I doubt a woman has shot a rapist dead in England in the last twenty years. Even before Dunblane, there was no CCW. There were no pistols kept in the home for self-defence. "Self-defence" was not a valid reason to be issued a firearms certificate.

I am aware of the severe restrictions placed on firearms ownership in the UK prior to Dunblane. My folks would always come back from there amazed at it. I never stated that handgun ownership was common in the UK prior to Dunblane.

The point I am making is that the absence of firearms in the hands of the law abiding citizens of the UK is a contributing factor to the astonishing runup in crime there since Dunblane, as is the cult like mania of the Labor government since Dunblane to render the law abiding citizens of the UK defenseless in all respects.

By anology, a tractor trailer driving along a level stretch of interstate will not show any problems with its brakes, once the conditions change however, once it starts down a steep grade, the absence of brakes becomes apparent.

OK, so the folks in the UK haven't had access to brakes since 1920 or 1937, now they are hurtling down a mountainside with the brake pedal pressed all the way to the floor and they are still picking up speed.

MicroBalrog
June 27, 2003, 05:13 PM
Agricola: Do you agree that access to firearms and the right to defend oneself were steadily decreasing in the last 80 years or so?

rrader
June 27, 2003, 05:17 PM
ACP320:

I used to have a certain respect for the British. Agricola and his ilk have taken care of that.

Given the support that the British have given to the US since 9/11 I still have a great deal of respect for them. Even the far out leftists in the labor government.

The argument over gun control in the UK is a side issue. They are free to choose their own path. I don't lose any sleep over UK gun control laws.

Amazing how some (Agricola) can delude themselves however.

agricola
June 27, 2003, 06:30 PM
rrader,

Amazing how some (Agricola) can delude themselves however.

coming from someone who has been told, not only by myself, but also by MkVII and one of the Grand Pooh-Bahs of both TFL and THR that they are wholly wrong about their belief, and yet they continue to restate that same belief, that is praise indeed.

Have you ever been to the UK rrader?

agricola
June 27, 2003, 06:33 PM
microbalrog,

yes (obviously) and no.

Bog
June 27, 2003, 09:00 PM
Ag, old stick.

I went for a Beer Metabolising Walk the other Friday, and the Garda I walked with were good enough to demo their baton and gascan for me - in fact, Nice Mr. Garda gave me his baton to demo how light it was.

I don't see the UK LEOs as my enemy. Their job is a bastich, it is. And they are friendly, nice people, who don't see six-foot-four-inches of beardy-weirdy as a threat, they see it as someone to give their extensable baton to, and say "See? Got no swinging weight!"

I parted company with the wish that these gentlemen would not have occasion to use their hardware. I can't blame the cops. They try hard, and are Good People.

Just let's change the defence-punishing laws, OK?

Check six.

Bog

rrader
June 27, 2003, 10:59 PM
Agricola:

AFLAK! AFLAAAAK!

Anybody got any duck food?

agricola
June 28, 2003, 05:27 AM
rrader,

maybe you should go back to school before you can debate with people who know what they are talking about?

MicroBalrog
June 28, 2003, 05:50 AM
microbalrog,

yes (obviously) and no.



Please prove the latter statement. How are guns not a deterrent to violent crime, in particular "street crime"?

agricola
June 28, 2003, 06:06 AM
microbalrog,

thats not what you asked. you said:

Agricola: Do you agree that access to firearms and the right to defend oneself were steadily decreasing in the last 80 years or so?

As you've asked the question though, IMHO the value in having a firearm for self defence has to be balanced against the far increased likelyhood that the criminal is going to be armed as well. In the US context, as I have stated many times, possession of a firearm for self-defence is justified for the above reason. In the UK, implementing a CCW system and dismantling the Firearms Act would have the sole effect of arming each and every perp who wanted one, which would make CCW be a neccesity because each and every law-abiding person would have to go out and arm themselves for protection.

Its fairly clear from studies of seized weapons that the supply of firearms to the "underworld" is running at a very low level, with DIY guns being the firearms of choice. Of course, if someone wants a gun then, providing they know the right people, then they can get one, but that is a world apart from being able to pick one up from the corner shop.

The "statistical" 2A standpoint on the UK then assumes that crime would fall (except murders of course which would skyrocket). However, if the lack of firearms for self defence isnt the reason, or even a major reason, for the rise in crime - increased drug use, urbanization or poverty being more likely, then we would have just turned our country into Moscow or DC for no reason (other than to make the septics feel better about themselves). :D

Of course, the absolutist 2A position would not bother about such pesky things as facts, because it would be wrong to deny the God-given right to have a gun. :rolleyes:

In any case, the decision is moot. There is no public groundswell of opinion behind RKBA, and so the current system isnt likely to change any time soon.

MicroBalrog
June 28, 2003, 06:23 AM
The "statistical" 2A standpoint on the UK then assumes that crime would fall (except murders of course which would skyrocket). However, if the lack of firearms for self defence isnt the reason, or even a major reason, for the rise in crime - increased drug use, urbanization or poverty being more likely, then we would have just turned our country into Moscow or DC for no reason (other than to make the septics feel better about themselves).


Well, given the fact that the number of murders actually FALLs when more guns are available (Moldavia, Estonia, Lithuania, USA CCW laws), I think you're wrong. Oh, and did you read my recent editorial?

MicroBalrog
June 28, 2003, 06:24 AM
Its fairly clear from studies of seized weapons that the supply of firearms to the "underworld" is running at a very low level, with DIY guns being the firearms of choice. Of course, if someone wants a gun then, providing they know the right people, then they can get one, but that is a world apart from being able to pick one up from the corner shop.

According to the reliable Home Office, one out of three british criminals has a gun.

But the point is moot - USSR had lots of murders, and most of them where committed without guns (most often by thugs ganging up on victims).

agricola
June 28, 2003, 06:34 AM
i'd be interested in seeing that study, given that armed crime forms 0.2% of overall crime, and 10% of robberies.

Tamara
June 28, 2003, 11:06 AM
turned our country into Moscow or DC for no reason

Just for the record, DC has gun laws that are as strict or stricter than the UK's. (Fat lot of good it seems to do them, however. :uhoh: )

MicroBalrog
June 28, 2003, 11:23 AM
Tamara - so did moscow. Up until 1997, only hunters and sportsmen could have guns in Russia, then they extended it (shotguns only) to everybody else who gets a license. First prize goes to anybody who guesses what that did to the burglary rate.:D

rrader
June 28, 2003, 03:15 PM
Agricola:

rrader,maybe you should go back to school before you can debate with people who know what they are talking about?

How many guns do you own?

You live in a society that denies the basic human right to self defense with firearms and one that bases it draconian firearms laws on nothing more than a profound hoplophobia.

Any knowledge of the proper role that firearms play in a free society would be historical at best for you, a citizen of the UK.

I live in a state, Virginia, with ready access to firearms and which respects a person's right to keep and bear arms for self defense. I own firearms, I doubt that you do, I can see the evidence all around me of their worth, you cant. I spent this morning at the range, I doubt that you did.

Take your own advice. Educate your own self.

agricola
June 28, 2003, 03:20 PM
What, no more duck noises?

So your "expertise" on the UK stems from living in a state more than a thousand miles from there, in a different country, under different laws, enjoying different freedoms. It seems that you have no idea what the UK is like, even on a basic level.

I concede I have no idea about range matters or what-pistol is best, which is why I steer clear of those debates. Since your ignorance has been shown up here, maybe you should stick to the range and leave the debates about the UK to those who actually know something?

Giant
June 29, 2003, 02:25 AM
Quote:

"I concede I have no idea about range matters or what-pistol is best, which is why I steer clear of those debates. Since your ignorance has been shown up here, maybe you should stick to the range and leave the debates about the UK to those who actually know something?"

I submit that the above quote was not written by "our" agricola, he would never utter the words that a fellow board member was ignorant, with ignorance defined as the state of being ignorant. However, had the "true" agricola made that statement an apology would be in order.

Not to worry though, the "true" agricola will arrive momentarily and explain that what was written meant ignorance of things UK, although that was not the way it was written or meant.

As one who has looked in on these debates and on occasion participated I have concluded one must be very precise when debating with agricola, for he has in my opinion a creative way of parsing statements or questions. A response by agricola to a question asked by MicroBalrog in this thread demonstrates what I have observed.

MicroBalrog asked of agricola: "Do you agree that access to firearms and the right to defend oneself were steadily decreasing in the last 80 years or so?" The reply from agricola was: "microbalrog, yes (obviously) and no."

agricola was able to say no to the second part of the question because of the time span of 80 years or so and the word steadily that had been included in the question. The fact is the right to defend oneself in the UK has declined in the past 80 years but, perhaps not steadily - Certainly though the right to defend oneself in the UK has declined during the past ten years.

You might say that was a very tiny hook to hang ones argument upon. With agricola though, any tiny hook will do, for in my opinion he will insist on a debate of a historical event, or current event that you include the exact date, year, month, day, day of the week, time of day, hour, minute, and second! Haven't got that, sorry, you are wrong, end of debate.

In a debate with agricola on gun control and statistics in the UK, he has convinced himself that his opinion is right and correct. Nothing will convince him otherwise, ever! That is the reason I will not debate the man, it is a waste of time and effort.

Giant

agricola
June 29, 2003, 01:51 PM
giant,

for a start, rrader is clearly ignorant of what is happening in the UK; he has been pointed in the correct direction, not only by me, but also by MkVII and Tamara, as well as Colin Greenwood (indirectly, of course). you also make the same mistake when you write "Certainly though the right to defend oneself in the UK has declined during the past ten years".

It is ignorance when, after two pages and probably a year's worth of debates along similar lines, people like you and rrader come out with the same tired (and wrong) argument over and over again. This isnt a "tiny hook" - its the fact that disproves the theory, prevalent amongst the less-well educated on this issue, that the 1997 ban on handguns disarmed the UK populace. It didnt -those people, using your rationale, were already disarmed. The reason why one is unbending on this issue is because it is correct. Its not a theory, it is a fact.

Read MkVII's post again:

American contributors to these often bad-tempered discussions are anxious to prove that 'Gun control hasn't worked, therefore it should be abandoned'. The response of most politicians and police here would normally be 'Gun control hasn't worked, therefore what we need is more of it'. The strategy of British gun owners is, therefore, to point out that legal guns (and their owners) were and are quite irrelevant to the recent increases in gun crime. Gun control advocates, when taxed with the view that the pistol ban has not reduced crime, reply, 'Well, we never thought it would. That wasn't the point of it.' This wasn't what they said at the time of course. ACPO's submission to the Cullen Enquiry said [I am paraphrasing from memory somewhat] 'we cannot identify any changes to the current system of firearms control that would achieve any significant increase in public safety. Practically everything in the way of tweaking the system that could be done has already been tried. Since doing nothing is not an option politically then a complete ban it will have to be.'
As probably the only one around here who did actually own several pistols and was on the club scene at the time I can state with confidence that pistol ownership never was any significant deterrent to crime as virtually no criminals ever reckoned they might be confronted by an armed victim in the first place. Self-defence was not a subject which was much, if ever, discussed around the table. If you were meeting your legal obligations you would have gun and ammo locked up and inaccessible in separate locations so you would have no chance of getting to it in any useful timescale anyway. On journeys to and from the club I never carried the gun loaded -partly because most of them were unsuited to concealed carry and I would have had to buy multiple holsters, but mostly because I never rated the risk sufficiently high to be worth worrying about. I might occasionally have a speedloader in the pocket, if I could be bothered.

it seems that rrader hasnt even been to the UK. what is your experience of firearms ownership or legislation in the UK? thats why i dont pontificate on things about which i'm ignorant (aside from one post on TFL, and that was more a learning-experience).

MicroBalrog
June 29, 2003, 02:33 PM
Agricola: IIRC my claim about every third criminal being armed is either from the BBC or the Telegraph. Trouble looking it up. Sorry. Terribly sorry.:banghead:

T.Stahl
June 29, 2003, 03:05 PM
Hmm, after reading another thread related to Great Britain I have several questions:

a) I understand and accept that - in the near past - there was no way ordinary citizens in GB were allowed to carry handguns for personal protection outside their homes. But how about other tools for self defense? Were CS/CN/OC sprays, knives, ASPs, ... ever legal to own or even carry?

d) What am I actually allowed to carry in GB that could help me to defend myself?

c) Why does the rate of gun-related crime rise steadily in GB, while in Germany (which is just across the Channel and MUCH closer than the USA) gun-related crime is steadily decreasing, despite ever stricter gun-laws in GB?

d) Why do I feel so much safer here in Germany, where I'm not only allowed to own guns and keep them ready for self-defense in my home, but even to carry any of the items mentioned under a)?

agricola
June 29, 2003, 03:44 PM
t.stahl,

a) CS and similar is a no-no. The rest (excepted items like balisong and some others) are legal to own and carry on private property (with the consent of the owner) but illegal to carry in public "without good reason" - this has been held to include self defence in some cases, but not in others.

b) see above. In general, where there is no actual definable "reason" for self-defence (the absence of an expected threat), nothing.

c) partially, because more laws = more offences. The rise in killings and shootings is probably down to disputes over crack cocaine and the control of that trade, as well as smaller disputes over heroin and ecstacy trade control.

d) probably because its your home. I feel safe in the UK for the same reason.

agricola
June 29, 2003, 03:46 PM
microbalrog,

i'd doubt that figure because, if the US shows anything, its that when criminals have access to firearms they usually use them.

MicroBalrog
June 29, 2003, 03:49 PM
In the US, 68% of all violent cirme is commited without firearms - even though the legal system there defines "used a gun during commission of crime" as "had a gun within one mile of himself during commission of crime".

T.Stahl
June 29, 2003, 05:29 PM
Hello agricola,

ad a) CS/CN/OC spray is illegal to own, knives and ASPs are illegal to carry in public. Strange, in Germany there is absolutely no problem with ordinary citizens carrying such self-defense tools. :confused:

ad b) That means, should I ever visit GB again, I'd have to leave my hotel room completely defenceless, because no criminal sent me any proof that he'll rob me on the way to/from the pub? What if I'd wear my heavy hiking boots instead of light shoes, because they'll allow me to kick harder? Would I be allowed to carry a hiking stick without having a bad knee or a Surefire though the streets are lit?
Or would carrying a mobile phone be reason enough to make carrying my Glock legal? I mean, aren't most of the street robberies about mobile phones? :D

ad c) It is just as illegal for a criminal in GB to possess a gun as it is for a criminal in Germany. Is there more crime in GB or are there just more laws to break?

ad d) No, it's because I'm allowed to be armed and prepared to defend myself. In Great Britain, what can I do to protect myself against burglars? Which of the items on my bedside table would a burglar fear most? The mobile phone, the OC spray, or my 9mm Glock?

TheEgg
June 30, 2003, 03:55 PM
Agricola --

Of course, the absolutist 2A position would not bother about such pesky things as facts, because it would be wrong to deny the God-given right to have a gun.

Absolutist 2nd Amendment person here -- no, it is not a God-given right to have a gun, it is a God given right to defend my own life against those who would take it. As a practical person, since a concealed handgun is usually the most effective TOOL to preserve my right to life, that is what I chose to carry.

Giant
July 2, 2003, 01:28 AM
Quote from agricola to Giant:

"it seems that rrader hasnt even been to the UK. what is your experience of firearms ownership or legislation in the UK? thats why i dont pontificate on things about which i'm ignorant (aside from one post on TFL, and that was more a learning-experience)."

Another quote from agricola, in this thread.

"The "statistical" 2A standpoint on the UK then assumes that crime would fall (except murders of course which would skyrocket). However, if the lack of firearms for self defence isnt the reason, or even a major reason, for the rise in crime - increased drug use, urbanization or poverty being more likely, then we would have just turned our country into Moscow or DC for no reason (other than to make the septics feel better about themselves)."

agricola, I have little knowledge of life in London, or the UK. BTW, by UK, do you mean all of it? Down under and Canada, too! (g) Just as I know not as much as I would like to about England, I dare say you are in a similar state, regarding DC. Pontification aside, what is in question here are the statistics published by our respective governments, not whether my undies are boxers or briefs, or their degree of twisting and bunching.

The crime stats show England has a problem, where criminals have firearms and they are using them to kill people, those being killed are not all drug peddlers or junkies. English gun control is not working, it is not common disarmed citizens who are going about killing with guns. Those doing the killings are criminals armed with guns. Trust me on this, the high crime rate is because criminals have the guns! Criminals don't obey laws, that is why they are called criminals. Criminals will never ever turn in their guns, the po po in England will never ever be able to prevent criminals from procuring guns, the criminals will smuggle guns or manufacture guns.
Just a thought.

This thread gets old with me though, I would much rather participate in another thread, where I could learn or understand more about why folk like yourself are so antigun. I do respect your tenacity, we just don't agree!

I suppose my first query would be; if you were being attacked by a hand gun wielding criminal who was pointing said hand gun at you and shouting "yer time has come!" how would you avoid being killed?

This has been really fun, but the thread seems to have digressed from the original, or first post.

Giant

Leatherneck
July 2, 2003, 10:36 AM
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

TC
TFL Survivor

Giant
July 2, 2003, 07:51 PM
Quote from Leatherneck:

"PSSST: Giant:
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"

Leatherneck, thanks I needed that!:D

Looks like this thread has died a natural death, time to be off in search of logic and reason

Giant

If you enjoyed reading about "An Article about homicides in Britain" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!