Joe Link
Member
I always hear about how violent the UK is due to their restriction of firearm ownership, but I'd like to see the report(s) that show this compared to the US. I tried searching, but can't seem to find them. Can someone help me out?
UK vs US Gun Control & Crime Statistics?
- Thread starter Joe Link
- Start date
- Status
woodybrighton
member
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7056245.stm
can't really compare the two UK 58 gun murders out of a population of 60 million
9000 odd offenses some of those would be a crime in the US.
caught with 4 handgun rounds in the states your won't be going to jail here you will for a long time.
Our rights to defend our selfs were removed in 1920 so the UK has been disarmed for nearly 100 years
handguns were banned for all but target shooting years and years ago
can't really compare the two UK 58 gun murders out of a population of 60 million
9000 odd offenses some of those would be a crime in the US.
caught with 4 handgun rounds in the states your won't be going to jail here you will for a long time.
Our rights to defend our selfs were removed in 1920 so the UK has been disarmed for nearly 100 years
handguns were banned for all but target shooting years and years ago
Unfortunately the majority of the populace have either bought into gun control (I mean ban actually), or are apathetic to the cause to such an extent that they may as well declare themselves as having a buy in.
I have lived most of my life in South Africa, a fair bit of it in the UK, and I have spent about 6 months in the US on various trips. The three countries are different: they have different crime rates, different firearms laws and (for me) vastly different career opportunities and standards of living.
You have to weigh all of these variables up before you can decide what the best deal is likely to be for you (and your dependants if you have any).
Much depends on your job and whether you can transfer it. At present that is what rules the USA out of for me. It is never only about guns.
I have lived most of my life in South Africa, a fair bit of it in the UK, and I have spent about 6 months in the US on various trips. The three countries are different: they have different crime rates, different firearms laws and (for me) vastly different career opportunities and standards of living.
You have to weigh all of these variables up before you can decide what the best deal is likely to be for you (and your dependants if you have any).
Much depends on your job and whether you can transfer it. At present that is what rules the USA out of for me. It is never only about guns.
JImbothefiveth
Member
Comparing the U.K's crime rate to America's isn't quite an apple to oranges thing, as they have security cameras all over the place. What we do know, is that crime has gone up since the ban, It was on the rise before that, but it's stiill on the rise, proving the ban hasn't worked. However, gun rights have been shown to reduce crime. IN Texas, the first year after they passed laws allowing CCW,(It usually takes 2 or more years to take full effect.)I believe murders were more than cut in half. So if you want to reduce crime by very large amounts easily, cheaply, and quickly, you allow CCW. It's far more cost-effective than things like increased police patrols, and it's good for the economy, because you have people buying guns.
It is difficult to do a one to one comparison as the methodology of data capture is very different. There is almost no commonality of type of offense, statistical capture, what is and isn't reported etc. For example if an individual is attacked by 4 BG's is it one reported offense or 4?
The one obvious stat is that reported firearms offenses have gone up year on year and increase as restrictions increase......
One of the better documents of stats although with a chunk of BS conclusion attached.
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/libimages/282.pdf
The one obvious stat is that reported firearms offenses have gone up year on year and increase as restrictions increase......
One of the better documents of stats although with a chunk of BS conclusion attached.
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/libimages/282.pdf
woodybrighton
member
can we just put one lie to rest the Ban of handguns HAS NOTHING WHAT SO EVER TO DO WITH CRIME one way or another.
HANDGUNS COULD NOT BE OWNED OR USED FOR SELF DEFENSE OR CARRIED.
they were purely for sport any attempt to do any of the above would have ended in jail
HANDGUNS COULD NOT BE OWNED OR USED FOR SELF DEFENSE OR CARRIED.
they were purely for sport any attempt to do any of the above would have ended in jail
JImbothefiveth
Member
Right, but it's mostly a prevention thing. When guns are present, criminals are afraid of getting shot, so they don't commit crimes.
One of the biggest things I noticed is that according to my reading of English law (though it's a lot harder to find exact text of their laws!), felony assault is only committed if you are successful at killing or seriously injuring someone, or if you injure someone to a lesser degree while intending to commit greater harm.
Thus, if you fail entirely to harm someone, or if you cause minor injury and successfully claim in count "I meant to only wing 'im!", it's some kind of misdemeanor.
Whereas in the USA, you can get convicted of felony assault for any attempt at killing or inflicting grievous bodily injury, no matter how successful, and even for just threatening someone with serious harm, where they take you seriously.
So that difference is going to really lower the English felony assault rate compared to the USA, unless I read the law wrong.
Also, the English government's equivalent of the FBI's UCR only reports convictions for crimes, while the FBI includes all cases where the police believe a crime occurred. Their conviction rate may be slightly higher because of all the cameras, but it still won't be as high as the number of crimes the police believe have been committed, thus England's numbers are under-represented again.
Survey data, on the other hand, shows that England has about twice the violent crime per capita as the USA. The average person probably doesn't understand the differences between various types of assault, so they can probably be directly compared.
Oh, one thing, just for some devil's advocacy (and because it's a legitimate observation), the fact that "crime committed with a handgun" rose right after handguns were banned is meaningless. If violent crime committed with a handgun rose, then you have something, but it's always just "crime committed with a handgun." Well, possession of a handgun is a crime committed with a handgun.
Thus, if you fail entirely to harm someone, or if you cause minor injury and successfully claim in count "I meant to only wing 'im!", it's some kind of misdemeanor.
Whereas in the USA, you can get convicted of felony assault for any attempt at killing or inflicting grievous bodily injury, no matter how successful, and even for just threatening someone with serious harm, where they take you seriously.
So that difference is going to really lower the English felony assault rate compared to the USA, unless I read the law wrong.
Also, the English government's equivalent of the FBI's UCR only reports convictions for crimes, while the FBI includes all cases where the police believe a crime occurred. Their conviction rate may be slightly higher because of all the cameras, but it still won't be as high as the number of crimes the police believe have been committed, thus England's numbers are under-represented again.
Survey data, on the other hand, shows that England has about twice the violent crime per capita as the USA. The average person probably doesn't understand the differences between various types of assault, so they can probably be directly compared.
Oh, one thing, just for some devil's advocacy (and because it's a legitimate observation), the fact that "crime committed with a handgun" rose right after handguns were banned is meaningless. If violent crime committed with a handgun rose, then you have something, but it's always just "crime committed with a handgun." Well, possession of a handgun is a crime committed with a handgun.
UnclePete
Member
One thing you need to understand about gun laws in Britain is that they are overwhelmingly supported by the general population. Mr and Mrs Average think that nobody should have any guns for any reason, and they are fully supported by the media.
Every time there is a school or workplace shooting in the US it is reported with relish on our TV, the tone is always 'look at those crazy Americans, it's bound to happen with all those guns around.'
It is certainly true that the homicide rate is higher in the US, but how much higher could be debated because of different ways of defining the crime. This is not the first time I've heard an American remark on how violent Britain is, although Brits certainly think the same of the US! Who is right may be a matter of damn lies and statistics.
There is no link between the handgun ban and general crime, because criminals are by definition not affected by the law. We see a steady trickle of gang-bangers shooting one another, and their weapon supply cannot be difficult. I regularly return to Britain from France into a small port on the south coast of England, and I have never seen any form of customs check, anybody could have anything in their luggage.
It must be the case that there is going to be some correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths, and we gun-owners need to accept that. There will be suicides; somebody with access to a gun has a ready alternative to going down the hard road with terminal cancer. There will always be cases of people flipping and wiping out their families, everything has risks attached.
If your legislators claim to be making you safer, it is only necessary to ask if they can remove all risks from your life, if they can't then keep your guns.
Every time there is a school or workplace shooting in the US it is reported with relish on our TV, the tone is always 'look at those crazy Americans, it's bound to happen with all those guns around.'
It is certainly true that the homicide rate is higher in the US, but how much higher could be debated because of different ways of defining the crime. This is not the first time I've heard an American remark on how violent Britain is, although Brits certainly think the same of the US! Who is right may be a matter of damn lies and statistics.
There is no link between the handgun ban and general crime, because criminals are by definition not affected by the law. We see a steady trickle of gang-bangers shooting one another, and their weapon supply cannot be difficult. I regularly return to Britain from France into a small port on the south coast of England, and I have never seen any form of customs check, anybody could have anything in their luggage.
It must be the case that there is going to be some correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths, and we gun-owners need to accept that. There will be suicides; somebody with access to a gun has a ready alternative to going down the hard road with terminal cancer. There will always be cases of people flipping and wiping out their families, everything has risks attached.
If your legislators claim to be making you safer, it is only necessary to ask if they can remove all risks from your life, if they can't then keep your guns.
woodybrighton
member
we don't use the term felony in the UK .
most people in the UK have never fired a gun or know anyone who owns a gun.
its very Urban theres NO where in the UK you could just drive to and plink or go hunting with out quite a bit of cash
most people in the UK have never fired a gun or know anyone who owns a gun.
its very Urban theres NO where in the UK you could just drive to and plink or go hunting with out quite a bit of cash
I don't know about hunting in the UK.
For plinking any visitor can come to the Ham and Petersham club in London on the first Sunday of the month and plink (with reduced firearm selection of course).
They have to pay £2 for the day, £1 for the use of the rifle and then pay for ammo and targets. Targets are 10p to 50p depending on the type, and ammo is £3 for 50 .22LR or just under £10 for 50 .38SPL rounds.
On any other day that the club is open for general shooting, visitors may use air weapons and archery equipment, but the police have stipulated that visitors may only discharge firearms at the club on the first Sunday of the month.
For plinking any visitor can come to the Ham and Petersham club in London on the first Sunday of the month and plink (with reduced firearm selection of course).
They have to pay £2 for the day, £1 for the use of the rifle and then pay for ammo and targets. Targets are 10p to 50p depending on the type, and ammo is £3 for 50 .22LR or just under £10 for 50 .38SPL rounds.
On any other day that the club is open for general shooting, visitors may use air weapons and archery equipment, but the police have stipulated that visitors may only discharge firearms at the club on the first Sunday of the month.
throdgrain
Member
Inner cities, particularly London, are quite violent places. Some of you might not like this, but they are inhabited by HUGE numbers of immigrants. The vast majority of violent crime is committed by first or second generation immigrants. Just like Los Angeles , only not on anything like the scale.
Outside the big cities life is very peaceful really, just like it is in your country no doubt. I have never seen a gun in public, pre or post handgun ban, and I've lived here 44 years As a previous poster said, the vast, VAST majority of the UK public dont like guns, and are backed by the Media 100%, who dont like guns either. This does make life rather difficult for people like me, who do
There's a huge amount of BS spouted, particularly by the media. Over here we're told that the U.S is packed full of fat rather stupid people who know nothing about the world and go around killing each other with guns. Over there you get told I expect that in the UK there's loads and loads of crime, it's not safe to go out your front door unless you are a member of the aristocracy, all who have Rolls Royces and crowns
Niether of the above is true.
Outside the big cities life is very peaceful really, just like it is in your country no doubt. I have never seen a gun in public, pre or post handgun ban, and I've lived here 44 years
As a previous poster said, the vast, VAST majority of the UK public dont like guns, and are backed by the Media 100%, who dont like guns either. This does make life rather difficult for people like me, who do There's a huge amount of BS spouted, particularly by the media. Over here we're told that the U.S is packed full of fat rather stupid people who know nothing about the world and go around killing each other with guns. Over there you get told I expect that in the UK there's loads and loads of crime, it's not safe to go out your front door unless you are a member of the aristocracy, all who have Rolls Royces and crowns
Niether of the above is true.
Last edited:
Tom Fury
Member
I keep telling them...
The solution to knife crime is gun ownership, but they won't have it.
I think Britain is a much more angry, violent society than America; even without guns; can we get past this one lie? It's not about the guns; it's the anger.
And I believe the British capacity for hypocrisy is bottomless.
TF
The solution to knife crime is gun ownership, but they won't have it.
I think Britain is a much more angry, violent society than America; even without guns; can we get past this one lie? It's not about the guns; it's the anger.
And I believe the British capacity for hypocrisy is bottomless.
TF
woodybrighton
member
most of the knife crime that gets in the papers is teenagers stabbing other teenagers not even the most rabid rktba advocate I suggest would be keen on arming gang bangers or wannabe gang bangers
there was a rifle range in brighton I think its closed down or possibly just doesn't take new members got so paranoid of journalists trying to join so they could have pics taken with lethal weapons
there was a rifle range in brighton I think its closed down or possibly just doesn't take new members got so paranoid of journalists trying to join so they could have pics taken with lethal weapons
Webbj0219
Member
From what I understand the Police in England dont carry firearms. I could be wrong. That would make me as a private citizen feel more comfortable about not carrying. Its different when the police carry and we cant. Its asking us to put alot of faith in the police to carry out justice.
woodybrighton
member
specialist units carry guns not completely the same as swat.
not sure where you got the stats on accidental shootings maybe true may not be or might be like our gun murder rate meaningless population of 60 odd million less than 100 deaths by guns
NI northan ireland handguns are still legal and some personal protection weapons are still issued to people considered at risk. the goverment pays for your ccw :but thats only because there are bad people out to get you. you don't get a choice what you get issued.
the goverment could issue you a personal protection weapon if they considered you at risk but it would have to be an extreme threat and under those circumstance I'd rather have the close protection team
not sure where you got the stats on accidental shootings maybe true may not be or might be like our gun murder rate meaningless population of 60 odd million less than 100 deaths by guns
NI northan ireland handguns are still legal and some personal protection weapons are still issued to people considered at risk. the goverment pays for your ccw :but thats only because there are bad people out to get you
. you don't get a choice what you get issued.the goverment could issue you a personal protection weapon if they considered you at risk but it would have to be an extreme threat and under those circumstance I'd rather have the close protection team
throdgrain
Member
Proof of this please ? A link?
Yes a link would be interesting.
Used to have some links, from one time when I tried to convince a very delusional Englishman of that figure. When he started claiming that England, as a whole, had a population of no more than 500,000, and that there is no way in hell that England could possibly have approximately 50,000,000 people, I gave up.
Anyway...
Quick internet search, this is the first thing that came up for the USA.
http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html
In 2005, 776 people were killed due to unintentional firearms discharge. Call it 300 million people in 2005, and that's 0.2587 incidents per 100,000 population.
That reminds me, the FBI usually reports per-capita figures in per 100,000 population, while the English report in per 1,000 population, which makes the figures even more skewed, if someone is only paying attention to one of the numbers. Given the average grasp of statistics...
Anyway, I'm still looking for one for England. The English government hates publishing statistics that are easy to find. I once spent 3 whole days trying to find the homicide rate in England. I'll edit a link in when I find something.
Statistics.gov.uk apparently only distinguishes between suicides and "undetermined intentions" where firearm deaths are concerned. I know I saw a source which had actual accidental deaths due to firearm discharge. Still looking.
The total deaths caused by firearms in some capacity was about 0.36 per 100,000 for 2005, though. It may have been a different year I was looking at, way back when.
I'm probably going to have to give up. The deaths due to firearm discharges with "unknown intentions" was 10 in 2005, or 0.02 per 100,000. The actual rate of death due to accidental firearms discharge (W32-W34) are not reported anywhere.
Anyway...
Quick internet search, this is the first thing that came up for the USA.
http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html
In 2005, 776 people were killed due to unintentional firearms discharge. Call it 300 million people in 2005, and that's 0.2587 incidents per 100,000 population.
That reminds me, the FBI usually reports per-capita figures in per 100,000 population, while the English report in per 1,000 population, which makes the figures even more skewed, if someone is only paying attention to one of the numbers. Given the average grasp of statistics...
Anyway, I'm still looking for one for England. The English government hates publishing statistics that are easy to find. I once spent 3 whole days trying to find the homicide rate in England. I'll edit a link in when I find something.
Statistics.gov.uk apparently only distinguishes between suicides and "undetermined intentions" where firearm deaths are concerned. I know I saw a source which had actual accidental deaths due to firearm discharge. Still looking.
The total deaths caused by firearms in some capacity was about 0.36 per 100,000 for 2005, though. It may have been a different year I was looking at, way back when.
I'm probably going to have to give up. The deaths due to firearm discharges with "unknown intentions" was 10 in 2005, or 0.02 per 100,000. The actual rate of death due to accidental firearms discharge (W32-W34) are not reported anywhere.
Last edited:
It is far more complicated than just the guns.
In England you have much less freedom. Citizens are viewed as less capable of making serious decisions on thier own, and only the authorities are capable of making many of them.
You have a far more socialist system. The type of competition in society compared to the US is as a result different.
Those who have it the worst in England have thier medical, food, and other concerns taken care of by government in ways that make any social programs in the US pale by comparison. They of course are payed for with much higher taxes.
So those commiting crimes are more often those who enjoy a criminal lifestyle rather than those victimizing others merely for personal gain. In the US we have a large number of both. Your average thug will rob the local market. Yet in England the government will rob productive citizens with high taxes, and enable that criminal to purchase whatever they want from the local market.
So they don't 'need' to rob the store.
The statistics are hard to go into.
In England young offenders' crimes are often not even recorded in released statistics. Since it is such age groups commiting a large amount of the violent crime, that vhastly skews the results.
We are not robots. We are not running the nation like a business (well most of us, I cannot speak for Bush and friends.)
Statistics are only part of the picture. Lifestyle, freedom, and liberty are more important than any statistics.
Would slightly better statistics be worth living in prison? What if we turned our societies into prisons, with cameras, and checkpoints everywhere. With far fewer freedoms and rights, got rid of pesky things like search and siezure limits, rights to privacy, etc etc
If every move of every person was documented and watched. If there was massive taxes to pay for vhast increases in government, like all the security and social programs necessary in such a society. Why not just have everyone have an internal personal taser surgicly implanted in case the authorities need to subdue them, avoiding violent standoffs or confrontations.
Most vehicles in the city could be outlawed, after all public transit is available. That would cut down on pollution, traffic accidents etc
Could do away with freedom of speech, call books statement etc that questioned the form of government "hate speech" that are an illegal criminal offense. That should greatly cut down on things published that incite any problems, or do not meet our definition of acceptable logic.
If such a society had better statistics would that make it superior? If it had lower crime. Nobody going hungry. Virtualy no murders. All crime solved. Few accidents. On and on. Would it be better?
If such a society is proven to have far better statistics should we slowly begin to emulate it and aspire to be more like it?
Or would the loss of the freedoms and liberties that make life worth living be worse than the best statistics?
In England you have much less freedom. Citizens are viewed as less capable of making serious decisions on thier own, and only the authorities are capable of making many of them.
You have a far more socialist system. The type of competition in society compared to the US is as a result different.
Those who have it the worst in England have thier medical, food, and other concerns taken care of by government in ways that make any social programs in the US pale by comparison. They of course are payed for with much higher taxes.
So those commiting crimes are more often those who enjoy a criminal lifestyle rather than those victimizing others merely for personal gain. In the US we have a large number of both. Your average thug will rob the local market. Yet in England the government will rob productive citizens with high taxes, and enable that criminal to purchase whatever they want from the local market.
So they don't 'need' to rob the store.
The statistics are hard to go into.
In England young offenders' crimes are often not even recorded in released statistics. Since it is such age groups commiting a large amount of the violent crime, that vhastly skews the results.
We are not robots. We are not running the nation like a business (well most of us, I cannot speak for Bush and friends.)
Statistics are only part of the picture. Lifestyle, freedom, and liberty are more important than any statistics.
Would slightly better statistics be worth living in prison? What if we turned our societies into prisons, with cameras, and checkpoints everywhere. With far fewer freedoms and rights, got rid of pesky things like search and siezure limits, rights to privacy, etc etc
If every move of every person was documented and watched. If there was massive taxes to pay for vhast increases in government, like all the security and social programs necessary in such a society. Why not just have everyone have an internal personal taser surgicly implanted in case the authorities need to subdue them, avoiding violent standoffs or confrontations.
Most vehicles in the city could be outlawed, after all public transit is available. That would cut down on pollution, traffic accidents etc
Could do away with freedom of speech, call books statement etc that questioned the form of government "hate speech" that are an illegal criminal offense. That should greatly cut down on things published that incite any problems, or do not meet our definition of acceptable logic.
If such a society had better statistics would that make it superior? If it had lower crime. Nobody going hungry. Virtualy no murders. All crime solved. Few accidents. On and on. Would it be better?
If such a society is proven to have far better statistics should we slowly begin to emulate it and aspire to be more like it?
Or would the loss of the freedoms and liberties that make life worth living be worse than the best statistics?
that won't matter, because their statistics and our statistics are very comparable in terms of murder. But, England's general crime rate exceeds our rate by a fair margin, regardless about guns or what have you.
So in reality, nothing about the socialized lifestyle justifies the cost of freedoms - at least not there.
So in reality, nothing about the socialized lifestyle justifies the cost of freedoms - at least not there.
woodybrighton
member
Not sure I agree with you there.
We are very different society's for one thing the UK is much smaller it would fit into one of your states several times over. It is also much more ancient our New forest was created in 1070AD
my state school what you call public school could trace its history back to 1600 as rev William Parkers school for poor boys.
You going to value freedom and liberty when you have the option of clearing off over the horizon and carving a living from the wilderness which was still an option in the 1800s.
Making sure society works becomes more important when getting the hell out is not an option and it takes less than a day by rail to get anyway. So a central goverment is much more practical
We are very different society's for one thing the UK is much smaller it would fit into one of your states several times over. It is also much more ancient our New forest was created in 1070AD
my state school what you call public school could trace its history back to 1600 as rev William Parkers school for poor boys.
You going to value freedom and liberty when you have the option of clearing off over the horizon and carving a living from the wilderness which was still an option in the 1800s.
Making sure society works becomes more important when getting the hell out is not an option and it takes less than a day by rail to get anyway. So a central goverment is much more practical
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked