throdgrain
Member
RP88 mate sorry but thats just bollocks 
UK vs US Gun Control & Crime Statistics?
- Thread starter Joe Link
- Start date
- Status
MagnumDweeb
Member
A Scot I powerlift with has told me a few tails. He's a big 6'6" of man who does recreational Highland Games competitions. He can do a power curl bastardization of 'Clean' (in reference to Clean and Jerk) with 260lbs.
He lived out towards the northern half no quite in Scotland as he explained (very much an anti-English type he expalned one time) and said by and large it was safe. But when the immigrants started showing up it started going down hill real fast and he had a small legal problem when three guys half his size decided to try and rob him at knife point. He ended up ruining a real nice guitar case (he had a guitar inside it) and guitar.
It's all a matter of perspective as he's explained to me time and time again (sorry can't wrap my head around a society without RKBA), like how in New York City some parts are incredibly dangerous where others are very safe like here in Florida where some parts are incredibly dangerous(like in Orange County, a post was put up about it) where others are very safe even at three in the morning (Seminole County, where all us God-fearing gun-toting rednecks live, go figure).
To another posters bit about perception, us here in the southern part of the 'States' tend to have a misplaced and misconcieved view about England and France (sorry but you get lumped together with us Southern folk) as socialist-coddled, pro-meiocrity, pro-self-enslavement, pro-cowardice type of folk. I realize that's mostly if not all garbage but English folk over here whom I've met firsthand are either hardy folk turned American as they call it or are very fragile small looking folks (and I don't include the Scot in that lot).
Me, I'll keep the murder rates, the muggings, the violence if it means I get to keep my guns. Besides over here in the U.S. it's mostly just drug deales and scum killing one another about 80% of the time, unfortunately that other 20% are good folks who didn't deserve it. Oh and let's not forget how our 'murder rate' or death by firearms is composed also of death be self-defense(both by LEOs and civilians), suicides (which is almost half as I understand it), and the rest are murder or homicide of some fashion.
He lived out towards the northern half no quite in Scotland as he explained (very much an anti-English type he expalned one time) and said by and large it was safe. But when the immigrants started showing up it started going down hill real fast and he had a small legal problem when three guys half his size decided to try and rob him at knife point. He ended up ruining a real nice guitar case (he had a guitar inside it) and guitar.
It's all a matter of perspective as he's explained to me time and time again (sorry can't wrap my head around a society without RKBA), like how in New York City some parts are incredibly dangerous where others are very safe like here in Florida where some parts are incredibly dangerous(like in Orange County, a post was put up about it) where others are very safe even at three in the morning (Seminole County, where all us God-fearing gun-toting rednecks live, go figure).
To another posters bit about perception, us here in the southern part of the 'States' tend to have a misplaced and misconcieved view about England and France (sorry but you get lumped together with us Southern folk) as socialist-coddled, pro-meiocrity, pro-self-enslavement, pro-cowardice type of folk. I realize that's mostly if not all garbage but English folk over here whom I've met firsthand are either hardy folk turned American as they call it or are very fragile small looking folks (and I don't include the Scot in that lot).
Me, I'll keep the murder rates, the muggings, the violence if it means I get to keep my guns. Besides over here in the U.S. it's mostly just drug deales and scum killing one another about 80% of the time, unfortunately that other 20% are good folks who didn't deserve it. Oh and let's not forget how our 'murder rate' or death by firearms is composed also of death be self-defense(both by LEOs and civilians), suicides (which is almost half as I understand it), and the rest are murder or homicide of some fashion.
throdgrain
Member
Actually I was going to try to paitently explain a bit more, but England and France is the final straw.
Im off bye.
Im off bye.
The White Rabbit
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3
Just came across this site whilst discussing gun crime and....wow! By the time I had got 1/2 way down the first page, I was convinced this was all satire and you were all in on the joke.
I then suddenly started to realise it wasn't satire, that you guys are actually having a serious debate. You're confirming a lot of fears here....
OK, background:
Ex forces (RAF Rgt - field infantry unit specialising in airfield defence). I was the squad gunner (GPMG) because I took one look at the SA80 and thought it was ****e - I wanted the big gun. I like guns And explosives. I don't enjoy killing people though (or any form of gratuitous killing), that's just a bit psychotic.
I'm British, English to be specific, lived for at least 3 years in 6 different cities in the UK. I lived in Scotland (Aberdeen) for 5 years, my missus is a Scot (Glasgow) and my best mate is a Scot (ex-FFL (the Scots and the French get on well - Auld Alliance and all that), explosives expert. I spend a lot of time in Scotland.
So let's contrast my experience of living here for almost 40 years against what you guys have read or your mate who happens to be Scottish (from where exactly)?
Let's start with "GUN OWNERSHIP, SUICIDE AND HOMICIDE:
AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE"
Martin Killias
But then again, as one poster has pointed out, there are lies, damned lies and statistics, eh?
So let's go by experience. On civvie street, outside the gun clubs, I have never seen a live firearm in the possession of a citizen. I personally know of nobody who has ever shot or involved in any form of gun crime whatsoever (although I have a colourful spectrum of friends and associates including some, errrr, "handy" people).
@Turrican:
Easy - we have less gun crime in the UK, less murder. Let's look at those Interpol stats:
USA: Homicide per 100,000 - 5.70 Firearm Homicide - 3.72 Non-Gun Homicide - 1.98 3 % Households with Guns - 39.0
England / Wales: Homicide per 100,000 - 1.41 Firearm Homicide - 0.11 Non-Gun Homicide - 1.30 % Households with Guns - 4.7 (Yes you can legally own a firearm in the UK, but our licencing is tightly controlled (especially since Dunblaine))
Let me do the maths for you. You have:
8 times the murder rate
34 times the gun murder rate
1.5 times the non-gun murder rate
8.3 times the number of guns
and there's no relation between gun ownership and gun-homicide (at this point, it would be easy to crow, "How do you live like that?", but this time as a sentiment borne out of information) Please can you guys provide some reliable counterstatistics?
@Odd Job (Mr. I Don't Care About the Guns, Just Show Me The Money)
Mmmmm, funny that, isn't it? Then again, I have it on good authority from Dave who I met down the local bar, whose brother once went somewhere for 5 minutes that.... Then again, I was pissed at the time, but it must be true.
D'oh! Wrong!! Then again, Dave says.....
@JImbothefiveth
Someone's been doing some reading - you're dead right, I believe that the Londoner is the most filmed creature on the planet. It's crap, there's no defending it, it is having no serious impact on crime figures and thankfully, finally, councils are acting against it and having police cameras removed in their constituencies. It seems that cameras do nothing for the crime stats.
That's right, more people buying guns leads to less crime, doesn't it? Oh... hang on.... Ah well, so a few niggaz die, at least the gunshop owner gets a swanky car.
@RP88
Yep, correct. Ummm, actually - sources please.
RP m8, there are crimes and there are Crimes. I would much rather someone nicked my car than shot me in the face, I would much rather live in a place where there was a higher likelihood of someone nicking my car than in a place with a vastly (like a factor of 8) higher likelihood to someone blowing my brains out or stabbing me. And that's what you're mainly talking in the UK when it comes to crime in the UK exceeding crime in the US - car crime, you beat us hands down in all the juicy areas.
In order to provide a decent comparative analysis, you also have to understand the factors that go into a crime being recorded. Here's a good paper:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_/ai_19101764
Priceless. Absolutely priceless.
@woodybrighton: *** are you talking about? Are you in the right discussion
@Everyone: He's not British, honestly people, he's FRENCH! Only a FRENCHMAN would talk such nonsense! That's a joke btw.)
@throdgrain: lol, couldn't have put it more succinctly.
MagnumDweeb: Dweeb, your mate is absolutely right. Scotland was a nice, quiet, peace loving nation until the Pakis, ******* and Chinks turned up on their boats and went and ruined everything. The Glaswegians, Aberdonians, Dundonians, etc never committed any crimes before that Koran-loving, un-Christian filth showed up and started killing the nice, red-haired folk (they can fly, you know!). Or could it be that Scotland has the second highest murder rate in Western Europe and yet less ethnic minority heads per capita than her neighbours? Nah, your power-lifting mate from the gym is right. I mean, he's Scottish.... Scotland has never been a violent, racist, sectarian place, has it? Your mate's anti-what?
Then again, I'm a "very fragile, small looking [i.e. not "American"] folk"
Oh, say! can you seeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Jesus H Christ. I'm going back to England now, thanks for the insight into modern America. I'm really pleased I found this place, will always remember (and often quote) it. It's been live a step into Deliverance
I then suddenly started to realise it wasn't satire, that you guys are actually having a serious debate. You're confirming a lot of fears here....
OK, background:
Ex forces (RAF Rgt - field infantry unit specialising in airfield defence). I was the squad gunner (GPMG) because I took one look at the SA80 and thought it was ****e - I wanted the big gun. I like guns And explosives. I don't enjoy killing people though (or any form of gratuitous killing), that's just a bit psychotic.
I'm British, English to be specific, lived for at least 3 years in 6 different cities in the UK. I lived in Scotland (Aberdeen) for 5 years, my missus is a Scot (Glasgow) and my best mate is a Scot (ex-FFL (the Scots and the French get on well - Auld Alliance and all that), explosives expert. I spend a lot of time in Scotland.
So let's contrast my experience of living here for almost 40 years against what you guys have read or your mate who happens to be Scottish (from where exactly)?
Let's start with "GUN OWNERSHIP, SUICIDE AND HOMICIDE:
AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE"
Martin Killias
But then again, as one poster has pointed out, there are lies, damned lies and statistics, eh?
So let's go by experience. On civvie street, outside the gun clubs, I have never seen a live firearm in the possession of a citizen. I personally know of nobody who has ever shot or involved in any form of gun crime whatsoever (although I have a colourful spectrum of friends and associates including some, errrr, "handy" people).
@Turrican:
Easy - we have less gun crime in the UK, less murder. Let's look at those Interpol stats:
USA: Homicide per 100,000 - 5.70 Firearm Homicide - 3.72 Non-Gun Homicide - 1.98 3 % Households with Guns - 39.0
England / Wales: Homicide per 100,000 - 1.41 Firearm Homicide - 0.11 Non-Gun Homicide - 1.30 % Households with Guns - 4.7 (Yes you can legally own a firearm in the UK, but our licencing is tightly controlled (especially since Dunblaine))
Let me do the maths for you. You have:
8 times the murder rate
34 times the gun murder rate
1.5 times the non-gun murder rate
8.3 times the number of guns
and there's no relation between gun ownership and gun-homicide (at this point, it would be easy to crow, "How do you live like that?", but this time as a sentiment borne out of information) Please can you guys provide some reliable counterstatistics?
@Odd Job (Mr. I Don't Care About the Guns, Just Show Me The Money)
Mmmmm, funny that, isn't it? Then again, I have it on good authority from Dave who I met down the local bar, whose brother once went somewhere for 5 minutes that.... Then again, I was pissed at the time, but it must be true.
D'oh! Wrong!! Then again, Dave says.....
@JImbothefiveth
Someone's been doing some reading - you're dead right, I believe that the Londoner is the most filmed creature on the planet. It's crap, there's no defending it, it is having no serious impact on crime figures and thankfully, finally, councils are acting against it and having police cameras removed in their constituencies. It seems that cameras do nothing for the crime stats.
That's right, more people buying guns leads to less crime, doesn't it? Oh... hang on.... Ah well, so a few niggaz die, at least the gunshop owner gets a swanky car.
@RP88
Yep, correct. Ummm, actually - sources please.
RP m8, there are crimes and there are Crimes. I would much rather someone nicked my car than shot me in the face, I would much rather live in a place where there was a higher likelihood of someone nicking my car than in a place with a vastly (like a factor of 8) higher likelihood to someone blowing my brains out or stabbing me. And that's what you're mainly talking in the UK when it comes to crime in the UK exceeding crime in the US - car crime, you beat us hands down in all the juicy areas.
In order to provide a decent comparative analysis, you also have to understand the factors that go into a crime being recorded. Here's a good paper:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_/ai_19101764
Priceless. Absolutely priceless.
@woodybrighton: *** are you talking about? Are you in the right discussion
@Everyone: He's not British, honestly people, he's FRENCH! Only a FRENCHMAN would talk such nonsense! That's a joke btw.)
@throdgrain: lol, couldn't have put it more succinctly.
MagnumDweeb: Dweeb, your mate is absolutely right. Scotland was a nice, quiet, peace loving nation until the Pakis, ******* and Chinks turned up on their boats and went and ruined everything. The Glaswegians, Aberdonians, Dundonians, etc never committed any crimes before that Koran-loving, un-Christian filth showed up and started killing the nice, red-haired folk (they can fly, you know!). Or could it be that Scotland has the second highest murder rate in Western Europe and yet less ethnic minority heads per capita than her neighbours? Nah, your power-lifting mate from the gym is right. I mean, he's Scottish.... Scotland has never been a violent, racist, sectarian place, has it? Your mate's anti-what?
Then again, I'm a "very fragile, small looking [i.e. not "American"] folk"
Oh, say! can you seeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Jesus H Christ. I'm going back to England now, thanks for the insight into modern America. I'm really pleased I found this place, will always remember (and often quote) it. It's been live a step into Deliverance
Last edited:
The White Rabbit
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3
Uh oh, you could be right about satire...
Seen this?
http://markmaynard.com/index.php/2008/03/27/the_pure_evil_of_barack_obama
Some of the replies had me in fits.
Banned? Right now, I'd take that as a good sign
Edit: I added a few extra words in the bit you quote to try and bring out the satire...
Seen this?
http://markmaynard.com/index.php/2008/03/27/the_pure_evil_of_barack_obama
Some of the replies had me in fits.
Banned? Right now, I'd take that as a good sign
Edit: I added a few extra words in the bit you quote to try and bring out the satire...
clevland11
Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 29
The White Rabbit
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3
You're only 31 years out of date there m8... Remember Regan? Keep up.
Next.
Next.
Ricky B
Member
The most reliable crime statistic IMO is the murder rate. This is the least likely to be subject to differing interpretations and the most likely to be recorded as a crime statistic. And it's also the most serious crime.
One source I found is NationMaster.com. According to that site,
UNITED KINGDOM > Murders per 100,000 population: 1.4
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/uk-united-kingdom/cri-crime&all=1
For the US, I used the 2006 FBI crime statistics. According to the FBI:
UNITED STATES > Murders per 100,000 population: 5.7
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html
Approximately 68% of the US murders are by firearms (10,177/14,990)
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html
I find it quite credible that the murder rate in UK is lower than in the US. The interesting point to me is that if all the US firearms murders were eliminated and not replaced in any way by murder by other means (an unlikely assumption), the murder rate in the US would still be higher than the murder rate in the UK.
What is not so clear from the national statistics is that it depends on where you live.
The 2005 murder rate for San Jose, CA, the 10th largest city in the US by population, is 2.9 per 100,000 (including its suburbs along with San Jose, it's 2.3). For Midland, TX is 1.0 per 100,000 (obviously, they must not allow guns in Texas).
Here is a link if you want to look up other US cities: http://www.statestats.com/cit05r.pdf
The areas with the highest murder rates tend to be gritty, industrial cities with large minority populations at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder.
What is also not so clear from the national statistics is that it depends on what your race is.
The victims of murder in the US are disproportionately black. Roughly 50% of the victims are black, though blacks compose only about 1/8 of the population of the US. More blacks are murder victims than whites. I'm not talking about victims per 100,000 of population. I'm talking about absolute numbers (7,421 black victims vs. 6,956 white victims). A tiny percentage of victims are other races. The murder rate of black victims is more than 8 times higher than for whites (and probably even higher than that ratio for Asians).
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_01.html
Thus, murders per 100,000 population of white people (who make up 81.1% of the US population) is 2.9. And a significant number of those victims may be Latino immigrants.
So, the bottom line is that the US does have a higher firearms murder rate and a higher overall murder rate than the UK. But the murder rate for persons of English descent who are not living in D.C. or a gritty industrial city is not all that much higher than for an Englishman living in England.
One source I found is NationMaster.com. According to that site,
UNITED KINGDOM > Murders per 100,000 population: 1.4
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/uk-united-kingdom/cri-crime&all=1
For the US, I used the 2006 FBI crime statistics. According to the FBI:
UNITED STATES > Murders per 100,000 population: 5.7
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html
Approximately 68% of the US murders are by firearms (10,177/14,990)
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html
I find it quite credible that the murder rate in UK is lower than in the US. The interesting point to me is that if all the US firearms murders were eliminated and not replaced in any way by murder by other means (an unlikely assumption), the murder rate in the US would still be higher than the murder rate in the UK.
What is not so clear from the national statistics is that it depends on where you live.
The 2005 murder rate for San Jose, CA, the 10th largest city in the US by population, is 2.9 per 100,000 (including its suburbs along with San Jose, it's 2.3). For Midland, TX is 1.0 per 100,000 (obviously, they must not allow guns in Texas).
Here is a link if you want to look up other US cities: http://www.statestats.com/cit05r.pdf
The areas with the highest murder rates tend to be gritty, industrial cities with large minority populations at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder.
What is also not so clear from the national statistics is that it depends on what your race is.
The victims of murder in the US are disproportionately black. Roughly 50% of the victims are black, though blacks compose only about 1/8 of the population of the US. More blacks are murder victims than whites. I'm not talking about victims per 100,000 of population. I'm talking about absolute numbers (7,421 black victims vs. 6,956 white victims). A tiny percentage of victims are other races. The murder rate of black victims is more than 8 times higher than for whites (and probably even higher than that ratio for Asians).
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_01.html
Thus, murders per 100,000 population of white people (who make up 81.1% of the US population) is 2.9. And a significant number of those victims may be Latino immigrants.
So, the bottom line is that the US does have a higher firearms murder rate and a higher overall murder rate than the UK. But the murder rate for persons of English descent who are not living in D.C. or a gritty industrial city is not all that much higher than for an Englishman living in England.
Last edited:
woodybrighton
member
Cheers for that the UK has had two mass killings with firearms in the last 100 years. both led to an unfair and draconian crack down on legally held weapons.
There were what 6 last year in the states?
theres no dangerous wildlife left in the UK, apart from the scots that is and there mostly kept behind a wall
While I'd like a local range less than a days travel away and the right to own a semi auto rifle or pistol. The fact I can't also means a lot of muppets can't and school or mall shootings aren't on the agenda.
There were what 6 last year in the states?
theres no dangerous wildlife left in the UK, apart from the scots that is
and there mostly kept behind a wallWhile I'd like a local range less than a days travel away and the right to own a semi auto rifle or pistol. The fact I can't also means a lot of muppets can't and school or mall shootings aren't on the agenda.
woodybrighton
member
socialist and labour 
oh dear me
oh dear me
withdrawn34
Member.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2008
- Messages
- 529
I would agree with Zoogster; a lot of crime here is brought on by poverty. It is not increased by having a lot of (legal) guns in an area, although that does discourage potential criminals.
Back on topic -- from what I've read, it seems that the difference between the United States and Great Britain has more to do with different laws relating to self defense and different attitudes toward personal responsibility and self reliance, than it does with guns. For a good analysis and overview of the history, read Guns and Violence by Joyce Lee Malcolm.
For anyone who has an interest in how disarmament happened in the UK, I suggest you read this detailed account:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html
Whilst we do have far less crime committed with firearms, our violent crime & theft/robbery rates are indeed significantly higher than the US, or any other Western nation for that matter.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html
Whilst we do have far less crime committed with firearms, our violent crime & theft/robbery rates are indeed significantly higher than the US, or any other Western nation for that matter.
Last edited:
TooTaxed
Member
I participated in an interview with 20 prison inmates convicted of crimes involving guns. The purpose of the interview was to determine what gun control laws should be passed to reduce crime. (Note: this has been done several times. One major study of nearly 2,000 convicts in ten federal penitentiaries across the United States was conducted in the 1980's...do your internet searches.)
The results amazed the interviewing group, who, except for me, were strongly anti-gun. Some of what we found:
1. The criminals got their guns from other criminals by trade or purchase. None got them from liceensed dealers or gunshows. Why? Because they couldn't pass the required background checks and it would be stupid to attract attention by trying. Seven had stolen their guns from the police.
2. In selecting victims, they avoid targets they think may have guns and look instead for easy victims. Why? Not only do they not want the possibility of getting shot, they don't want guns fired as that draws attention and police. And, seven of the convicts had been held for the police by armed victims.
3. The same goes for burglaries...if the household is likely to have guns, they go to one who won't. Only two of the 20 had gotten their guns in burglaries...although more had incidently found guns during burglaries, they sold them along with the other burglarized items...they preferred the money, and they already had guns.
4. The criminals aren't affected by restrictive gun laws, and, in fact, favor more restrictions. Why? Fewer potential victims will have guns, meaning many more easy targets.
5. The police are not a strong deterrant to crime...except where they happen to be The first thing a criminal does when about to "do his thing" is to make sure no police or armed guards are in in area. If so, he goes elsewhere..."and does his thing."
6. None preferred assault weapons. Why? They are large, bulky, draw attention, and make a lot of attention-gathering noise. They prefer handguns of the same type the police use...small, easy to conceal.
As the results were not what this anti-gun group wanted, the study was not publicized, and was essentially buried by the (California) city government that had set up the interview.
The results amazed the interviewing group, who, except for me, were strongly anti-gun. Some of what we found:
1. The criminals got their guns from other criminals by trade or purchase. None got them from liceensed dealers or gunshows. Why? Because they couldn't pass the required background checks and it would be stupid to attract attention by trying. Seven had stolen their guns from the police.
2. In selecting victims, they avoid targets they think may have guns and look instead for easy victims. Why? Not only do they not want the possibility of getting shot, they don't want guns fired as that draws attention and police. And, seven of the convicts had been held for the police by armed victims.
3. The same goes for burglaries...if the household is likely to have guns, they go to one who won't. Only two of the 20 had gotten their guns in burglaries...although more had incidently found guns during burglaries, they sold them along with the other burglarized items...they preferred the money, and they already had guns.
4. The criminals aren't affected by restrictive gun laws, and, in fact, favor more restrictions. Why? Fewer potential victims will have guns, meaning many more easy targets.
5. The police are not a strong deterrant to crime...except where they happen to be The first thing a criminal does when about to "do his thing" is to make sure no police or armed guards are in in area. If so, he goes elsewhere..."and does his thing."
6. None preferred assault weapons. Why? They are large, bulky, draw attention, and make a lot of attention-gathering noise. They prefer handguns of the same type the police use...small, easy to conceal.
As the results were not what this anti-gun group wanted, the study was not publicized, and was essentially buried by the (California) city government that had set up the interview.
White Rabbit, do you believe that firearm homicides in the UK have decreased since the various bans?
Some would say that I am a bit of a conspiracy theorist but as far as crime statistics go I think they can be doctored. Any statistic can be doctored. It makes politicians look good to the public. If a mayor of a city starts out with high crime stats and can get the stats down by doing whatever adding more police, gun control, etc. It makes him or her look like they are doing a good job which gets them re elected. Re elction is really what it is all about. Whether they really achieved that is anyones guess. How can one person really know that crime is down? Not sure myself. Sure there are things that you cannot hide or change like school and mall shootings. They are just to big of a news story but everything else I think can be changed and made to be what they are really not if someone was inclined to do so. By the way, I have been in the US Army for 14 years and lived all over the US and the world including Europe which we all know has tight gun control. I have never seen a violent crime personally anywhere I have been. So the fact that you have never seen anything is meaningless. It only means what it says. "You" have never seen anything. So what, I havent either thank God.
That is just my opinion. I have nothing to back it up with only the fact that politicians are mostly crooked and will do anything to get re elected, and to me that would include fixing some crime statistics. I dont have the time to search the internet looking at stats that can really go either way depending on who is doing them. Everyone has an agenda and for the common person it is real hard to tell what is true and what is not. That goes for any issue.
Personally for me it is not about the statics. It is about being an American. Holding on to the freedoms like the right to bear arms that are most important and you can't get that in a statistic. I could go to a mall and get gunned down by some crazy kid, but I am not willing to give my rights up as an American for security that the government promises to give me. That is what it is really about. We could argue this all day long and go back and forth. Whether the UK is safer or the US is safer. It means nothing to me. Personally I don't care how safe anyone is in the UK or anywhere else for that matter because of their gun control laws or lack thereof. It is a matter of principle and to me and it is our history as Americans whether there is two mall shootings in six years or two in 100. It makes no difference. It is called freedom and in my opinion we as Americans are headed down the wrong path when we trade security for freedom.
If you guys like it in the UK that is great. Stay there and you will have your security and gun control laws. You can look at statistics while you are there and feel good about being there. If that is what you want that is great. It is different in the US as you probably already know and telling everyone how safe and great the UK is will most likely not cause anyone to change their minds on this forum. That is just the way it is. I am not speaking for everyone on this forum but I was raised this way. I was brought up as a freedom loving American and I am proud of that. Freedom that includes the right to bear arms. If we wanted to be like the UK then we would have not fought Britain in the Revolutionary War. I think there are things that set us apart from the "world". The right to bear arms is one of those main differences and that is very important to a great deal of Americans and gun control statics will not change that feeling. Not for me anyway.
You can remeber and quote all that to every person you meet. I hope you do but I doubt it will change anything in the UK or the US. I guess it boils down to whether freedom or security is more important to you.
Wow, I just realized that this thread is kind of old. Well, I already did all that typing so I will post anyway.
That is just my opinion. I have nothing to back it up with only the fact that politicians are mostly crooked and will do anything to get re elected, and to me that would include fixing some crime statistics. I dont have the time to search the internet looking at stats that can really go either way depending on who is doing them. Everyone has an agenda and for the common person it is real hard to tell what is true and what is not. That goes for any issue.
Personally for me it is not about the statics. It is about being an American. Holding on to the freedoms like the right to bear arms that are most important and you can't get that in a statistic. I could go to a mall and get gunned down by some crazy kid, but I am not willing to give my rights up as an American for security that the government promises to give me. That is what it is really about. We could argue this all day long and go back and forth. Whether the UK is safer or the US is safer. It means nothing to me. Personally I don't care how safe anyone is in the UK or anywhere else for that matter because of their gun control laws or lack thereof. It is a matter of principle and to me and it is our history as Americans whether there is two mall shootings in six years or two in 100. It makes no difference. It is called freedom and in my opinion we as Americans are headed down the wrong path when we trade security for freedom.
If you guys like it in the UK that is great. Stay there and you will have your security and gun control laws. You can look at statistics while you are there and feel good about being there. If that is what you want that is great. It is different in the US as you probably already know and telling everyone how safe and great the UK is will most likely not cause anyone to change their minds on this forum. That is just the way it is. I am not speaking for everyone on this forum but I was raised this way. I was brought up as a freedom loving American and I am proud of that. Freedom that includes the right to bear arms. If we wanted to be like the UK then we would have not fought Britain in the Revolutionary War. I think there are things that set us apart from the "world". The right to bear arms is one of those main differences and that is very important to a great deal of Americans and gun control statics will not change that feeling. Not for me anyway.
You can remeber and quote all that to every person you meet. I hope you do but I doubt it will change anything in the UK or the US. I guess it boils down to whether freedom or security is more important to you.
Wow, I just realized that this thread is kind of old. Well, I already did all that typing so I will post anyway.
Phil Lee
Member
There are significant differences in crime categorization, counting rules and official statistical methodologies used by governments. Using reported data without attempting to compensate for these differences will not provide meaningful comparisons country to country, although trends within a country might be determined if their government does change the rules over a period of comparison. One good discussion of crime counting differences is found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_rate
New Zeeland publishes an overview of international comparisons of crime here:
http://www.courts.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2002/intl-comparisons-crime/index.html
Different crime reporting methods are described here:
http://www.courts.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2002/intl-comparisons-crime/section-2.html
and more discussion of counting rules and the issues arising from different rules may be found here:
http://www.courts.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2002/intl-comparisons-crime/section-7.html
A comparison accounting for the differences between the US and UK crime counting and reporting methods was published by the The US Bureau of Justice Statistics and may be viewed at:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cjusew96.pdf
The US Bureau of Justice Statistics has a web page of links for International Justice Statistics sources for various countries:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ijs.htm
Except for murder, the UK violent crime was far higher than US violent crime.
In the area of murder, analyses typically use FBI homicide reports, but the FBI reports initial police determinations which tend to undercount civilian defensive shootings and overcount murders by about 12%. In UK reporting, murder counts are continually revised over time with initial police reports being modified as courts or prosecutors make evaluations. Just this difference alone could alter a typical 6 to 1 ratio of US murders to UK murders to a 5 to one ratio for comparisons.
Note, no one publishes crime data using demographically similar populations (accounting for differences in racial populations, age distributions and migrant populations --especially illegals) to make a comparison between the US and UK. However, it is possible to examine crime in selected states having a large percentage of the population with ethnic origions from Europe. Those states have similar murder rates to the UK but much lower levels of other violent crimes. So, if the question is whether gun control creates greater public safety, the evidence that the UK's gun control policies provide more safety doesn't exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_rate
New Zeeland publishes an overview of international comparisons of crime here:
http://www.courts.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2002/intl-comparisons-crime/index.html
Different crime reporting methods are described here:
http://www.courts.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2002/intl-comparisons-crime/section-2.html
and more discussion of counting rules and the issues arising from different rules may be found here:
http://www.courts.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2002/intl-comparisons-crime/section-7.html
A comparison accounting for the differences between the US and UK crime counting and reporting methods was published by the The US Bureau of Justice Statistics and may be viewed at:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cjusew96.pdf
The US Bureau of Justice Statistics has a web page of links for International Justice Statistics sources for various countries:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ijs.htm
Except for murder, the UK violent crime was far higher than US violent crime.
In the area of murder, analyses typically use FBI homicide reports, but the FBI reports initial police determinations which tend to undercount civilian defensive shootings and overcount murders by about 12%. In UK reporting, murder counts are continually revised over time with initial police reports being modified as courts or prosecutors make evaluations. Just this difference alone could alter a typical 6 to 1 ratio of US murders to UK murders to a 5 to one ratio for comparisons.
Note, no one publishes crime data using demographically similar populations (accounting for differences in racial populations, age distributions and migrant populations --especially illegals) to make a comparison between the US and UK. However, it is possible to examine crime in selected states having a large percentage of the population with ethnic origions from Europe. Those states have similar murder rates to the UK but much lower levels of other violent crimes. So, if the question is whether gun control creates greater public safety, the evidence that the UK's gun control policies provide more safety doesn't exist.
The proper way to compare USA and UK gun crime rates would be to tally the total gun HOMICIDES(not suicides) in each nation...and DIVIDE THAT NUMBER BY THE TOTAL NUMBER OF LEGAL GUNS IN EACH NATION.
Since the gun laws are so different in UK and USA, I think it only fair to only consider homicides and ignore all other gun crimes.
Anyone think USA's gun-homicide rate will be higher than UK's? Nope, me either. But they are both going to be pretty low rates, I suspect.
Since the gun laws are so different in UK and USA, I think it only fair to only consider homicides and ignore all other gun crimes.
Anyone think USA's gun-homicide rate will be higher than UK's? Nope, me either. But they are both going to be pretty low rates, I suspect.
Ricky B
Member
The "proper" way? That's one way, but calculating homcides per guns leads to the conclusion that more guns lead to more homicides.
Last edited:
eflatminor
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2006
- Messages
- 421
You're asking the wrong question
The 2nd is not about defending yourself against a single bad guy, it's about preventing a president, a coup leader, or a tyrant from turning our standing army against the people. That's why we're armed.
If you have any doubt that a country could do such a thing, ask my German/Jewish family that used to live near Munich. Oh wait, except for a few that came to America, you can't because they were disarmed and murdered by the German government. It has happened time and time again and it always requires a disarmed populace, which is why we can't let that happen here.
The 2nd is not about defending yourself against a single bad guy, it's about preventing a president, a coup leader, or a tyrant from turning our standing army against the people. That's why we're armed.
If you have any doubt that a country could do such a thing, ask my German/Jewish family that used to live near Munich. Oh wait, except for a few that came to America, you can't because they were disarmed and murdered by the German government. It has happened time and time again and it always requires a disarmed populace, which is why we can't let that happen here.
Last edited:
woodybrighton
member
the homicide by gun in the last 10 years has varied between 49 and 97 in a population of 60 million.
somehow I doubt you can twist us stats to anywhere that level
2006 latest reports 50 dead by gun
766 all homicides with 7% caused by the 7/11 bombing
somehow I doubt you can twist us stats to anywhere that level
2006 latest reports 50 dead by gun
766 all homicides with 7% caused by the 7/11 bombing
You aren't thinking clearly.
Divide that number by the total number of LEGAL guns. Then do the same for USA. Again, the total number is irrelevant. Just as the total number of car accidents is irrelevant. You need to divide the accidents by the number of cars to get a meaningful metric.
Actually, to really be persnickety, I could try to add up the total number of vehicle miles driven for the auto accident stat. And for the homicide stat, add up the total number of bullets fired in a legal manner by all legal guns in the whole country.
And all this is just to make a fair comparison. The stats are still going to be of questionable utility unless your goal is to prove who's stats are superior. That shouldn't be the goal here, imo. The goal should be to measure quality of life and level of freedom/oppression then use that measurement to help better understand how to make improvements. THAT would be the most useful goal, but also extremely difficult to quantify and draw a conclusion.
Divide that number by the total number of LEGAL guns. Then do the same for USA. Again, the total number is irrelevant. Just as the total number of car accidents is irrelevant. You need to divide the accidents by the number of cars to get a meaningful metric.
Actually, to really be persnickety, I could try to add up the total number of vehicle miles driven for the auto accident stat. And for the homicide stat, add up the total number of bullets fired in a legal manner by all legal guns in the whole country.
And all this is just to make a fair comparison. The stats are still going to be of questionable utility unless your goal is to prove who's stats are superior. That shouldn't be the goal here, imo. The goal should be to measure quality of life and level of freedom/oppression then use that measurement to help better understand how to make improvements. THAT would be the most useful goal, but also extremely difficult to quantify and draw a conclusion.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked