throdgrain
Member
Can you supply me them statistics please?
UK has higher violent crime rate than USA?
- Thread starter Onward Allusion
- Start date
- Status
Bernie Lomax
Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2010
- Messages
- 173
throdgrain
Member
Do you have any from, say, a more neutral source ? 
I'm not disbeleiving you, it just helps me in my arguements with anti-gun people over here
I'm not disbeleiving you, it just helps me in my arguements with anti-gun people over here
Bernie Lomax
Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2010
- Messages
- 173
The sources cited in that article seem pretty neutral to me.
mortablunt
Member
^ It's not like I picked them from a pro gun or anti gun site.
throdgrain
Member
The article is froma website called Second Amendment. It may not seem strange to you, but my arguing opponants would just laugh at such a reference. Same as they would a quote from the Daily Mail by the way. I wouldnt always recommend that paper, they just make stuff up sometimes. I recall they were spouting on about an Islamic jihad to do with blowing up one of your cities, and showing a picture painted with the statue of liberty all broken. Turned about to be a trailer for a computer game...
What I like is figures from the BBC, people like that, that STILL show my point, and cant be argued with as they are my opponents point of reference ...
What I like is figures from the BBC, people like that, that STILL show my point, and cant be argued with as they are my opponents point of reference ...
Bernie Lomax
Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2010
- Messages
- 173
Look at the references at the bottom of the page. Would they laugh at them?
Carl N. Brown
Member
The point of comparison should not be US v UK, but UK before gun control v UK after gun control.
UK after gun control has more gun crime, an emerging criminial gun subculture, and more violent non-gun crime, than UK before gun control.
UK after gun control has more gun crime, an emerging criminial gun subculture, and more violent non-gun crime, than UK before gun control.
Finprof
Member
Wall Street Journal editorial page article
In yesterday's Wall Street Journal editorial page there appears an article written by an Englishman explaining how there has been a de facto curfew on the elderly for several years. The elderly cannot leave their homes after dark for fear of violence, even in small rural towns. The article itself is neither pro-gun nor anti-gun. It is mostly anti-lenient sentencing and provides several examples of light sentences given for robbing and murdering elderly victims.
It reads as if "A Clockwork Orange" is standard procedure.
One anecdote: A woman got into an argument with a man inside a retail store. The woman called her boy friend to take care of the man with whom she was arguing. The boyfriend entered the store and beat to death a different man whom he mistook for the man with whom she was arguing. The murderer got 30 months. He didn't mean to kill THAT man.
Here is a link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs=article
In yesterday's Wall Street Journal editorial page there appears an article written by an Englishman explaining how there has been a de facto curfew on the elderly for several years. The elderly cannot leave their homes after dark for fear of violence, even in small rural towns. The article itself is neither pro-gun nor anti-gun. It is mostly anti-lenient sentencing and provides several examples of light sentences given for robbing and murdering elderly victims.
It reads as if "A Clockwork Orange" is standard procedure.
One anecdote: A woman got into an argument with a man inside a retail store. The woman called her boy friend to take care of the man with whom she was arguing. The boyfriend entered the store and beat to death a different man whom he mistook for the man with whom she was arguing. The murderer got 30 months. He didn't mean to kill THAT man.
Here is a link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs=article
Last edited:
Yes, Americans kill each other far more often than residents of the UK do. We always have. Yet over the last two decades our homicide rates have been on a converging path - the UK's creeping up, and ours dropping significantly. The ratio between the US and the UK has been as high as 10:1. In 2008 it was about 2.5:1. Per capita violent crime? Scotland is the highest among "industrialized nations." England & Wales ranks #2. The US? I think we're fifth or sixth.*English person speaking here*
I dont don't know if per capita there is more violence here than in the USA, but it wouldnt suprise me.
Also, it is a fact that, also per capita, you guys kill each other far more than we do.
"Home invasion" ( a very American term) type crime here is pretty rare, however mugging in the cities I beleive is less rare, also fighting in pubs is MUCH more prevalent than anywhere I ever heard of.
Maybe we just like a fight
//edit
As others have noted, the thing that UK's gun control shows is that "gun control" is what politicians do instead of something. Each iteration of "commonsense" legislation has been passed with the promise of making people safer, yet violent crime - including homicide - keeps going UP there. Whereas here, with the spread of "shall-issue" concealed-carry legislation, at least 4 million new firearms added to the pool of privately-owned firearms each and every year, little to no licensing or registration in most jurisdictions, our violent crime rates - including homicide - have been trending DOWN.
Yes, we have a lot of guns. Yes, there are a lot of homicides committed with those guns. But we kill each other without guns at a rate higher than the UK does by all means. We always have.
But the trend indicates we won't always.
Of course, that might change with the way that the government keeps manipulating the crime statistics.
In short, "gun control" doesn't work as a mechanism to reduce violent crime. Based on the evidence, it actually seems to be counter-productive.
throdgrain
Member
I agree with this - although for different reasons than you might think.
We've often had this discussion on this forum, most American shooters seem to think that before the banning of handguns Great Britain was a safer nation because we had our guns to protect us. This is wrong. Fact is, hardly any of us had handguns anyway, it only affected a small minority like me. That's why the goverments could push through the legislation so easily - there was no-one to fight against it really. In your country you're lucky enough to have lots and lots of gun owners, and that is your strength. Also remember that if you applied for a licence for a gun in this country citing self-defence as a reason you would have your application declined anyway. It's not a valid reason, apparently
Would that stop me putting a round or two of buckshot in the face of a bad guy coming up my stairs in the middle of the night? Nope. But I wouldnt be suprised if I went to prison for it. And lost my licence too, of course.
The gun laws in our country are a joke.
However, whenever I post in threads such as this there's always a few people that post without seeming to read the whole thread, and take my words as an implied criticism of your country, which is wrong.
Anyway. The thread is about something else. As I said, I wouldnt be suprised at all that we have more violent crime over here than in the US, and I'm afraid yes, you do have a huge amount more murders than we do. You can take whatever results you like from that, as I said earlier, I think over here we get drunk and fight a lot...
As far as the last point of the quote I used, yes, gun crime is rising here, but I dont think it's because hand guns were banned. It's just because there is more crime, more immigrants, more gangs etc etc. But this is all the more reason to reinstate the handgun law, but this time to allow for selfdefence.
The country, and the world in general, gets more dangerous, and you should be able to defend yourself.
I concur with this. Gun ownership has never been very high in the UK, but violent crime back before say, 1954 was miniscule.
It was made "not valid" with the 1953 "Prevention of Crime" act.
It didn't prevent anything.
No, all you have to do is claim that the shotgun went off accidentally. It worked for this guy. I guess unlocking your gun safe, retrieving your shotgun, unlocking the ammo cabinet, retrieving some shells, loading your shotgun, pointing your shotgun at the intruder and putting your finger on the trigger(s) is reasonable in a home-invasion situation, but deliberately pulling those triggers is an act of murder or attempted murder.
But if the gun goes off accidentally . . .
Not just the gun laws.
throdgrain
Member
on the other hand - Tony Martin
But anyway, thanks for you kind comments about my country. I wonder why most of the world has a poor impression of yours - perhaps its because of comments like that.
But anyway, thanks for you kind comments about my country. I wonder why most of the world has a poor impression of yours - perhaps its because of comments like that.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Colin Greenwood, Superintendent, West Yorkshire Metropolitan Police,
writing in 1972 about the effects of half a century of UK gun control
from the 1920 Firearms Act to the 1968 Firearms Act.
Colin Greenwood, "Firearms Control", (Routledge & Kegan
Paul, London, 1972):
''Restricting Handguns'', ed. by Don B. Kates, North River Press, 1979,
includes extensive extracts from Colin Greenwood on pages 33 through 55.
writing in 1972 about the effects of half a century of UK gun control
from the 1920 Firearms Act to the 1968 Firearms Act.
Colin Greenwood, "Firearms Control", (Routledge & Kegan
Paul, London, 1972):
''Restricting Handguns'', ed. by Don B. Kates, North River Press, 1979,
includes extensive extracts from Colin Greenwood on pages 33 through 55.
throdgrain
Member
Fair enough - my misunderstanding no doubt, no harm done.
Dr_B
member
Statistics may be criticized as being open to manipulation and interpretation. But data are data, and they do not lie. Statistical analysis on the other hand, can be twisted by those who want to misinterpret the data.
People see what they want to see in order to keep themselves comfortable and not have to change their views. My opinion, after having lived in Canada for several years and visited the UK, is that many people in both of those countries desperately want to believe they are better than Americans. One aspect of that is believing they are less violent.
People are people. People do bad things.
People see what they want to see in order to keep themselves comfortable and not have to change their views. My opinion, after having lived in Canada for several years and visited the UK, is that many people in both of those countries desperately want to believe they are better than Americans. One aspect of that is believing they are less violent.
People are people. People do bad things.
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
When the content goes from discussion of the data regarding race and homicides and changes to an attempt to draw a causal relationship to a stereotypical culture.
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
A complex system of socioeconomic factors.
Pointing fingers at BET or MTV or FOX doesn't perpetuate the culture that they promote, they're only the more obvious expression of them. Take them away and the underlying culture will keep churning as they had before their existence.
Ah. But the data indicates that causal relationship. Young, urban black males kill and are killed at six times the average rate. They are a tiny segment of the population, yet are a huge chunk of the victim pool.
Why is that, if not culture?
mortablunt
Member
^ An unintended consequence of an economic ghetto. If you run the numbers on what those men can make doing legit jobs full time and then having to take care of themselves and a family, you will see that it is impossible. You make about $10-20K a year doing the jobs normally available to them. Conversely, for selling a bag of crack, you can get a whole week's wages in 45 minutes.
Bernie Lomax
Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2010
- Messages
- 173
So you blame economic deprivation, eh? Why don't you check out the poverty rate and and gun violence rate of West Virginia, then get back to me.
throdgrain
Member
We have pretty much the same situation over here. The increase in gun violence, and gangs, is situated hugely in the inner city areas with a large black population. As I said earlier we have had huge riots recently, which are nothing more than opportunistic criminality. All of these have, again, been in largely black areas.
So much so that there is a school of thought that even the remaining white people are turning to a "black" outlook.
What this man is saying is actually true in my opinion, but of course our politically correct government and do-gooders cant admit it ...
Then you have the very well-educated Mr Starkey quoting Enoch Powells Rivers of Blood speech that got him thrown out of his political party, made a national racist hate figure but in the end, was proven unarguably right!
If you have a minute or two have a read of those links, particularly the Rivers Of Blood speech, I think it gives you a bloody good insight into the situation over here.
So much so that there is a school of thought that even the remaining white people are turning to a "black" outlook.
What this man is saying is actually true in my opinion, but of course our politically correct government and do-gooders cant admit it ...
Then you have the very well-educated Mr Starkey quoting Enoch Powells Rivers of Blood speech that got him thrown out of his political party, made a national racist hate figure but in the end, was proven unarguably right!
If you have a minute or two have a read of those links, particularly the Rivers Of Blood speech, I think it gives you a bloody good insight into the situation over here.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked