Crime Drops 99%!

[Toad]

Allow me to attempt to clarify then.

This is a statement, not a question:

And Curval, it's apparently, about as easy for UK criminals as it was 10 years ago.

It is a statement in response to your:

Curval: No it doesn't extend to crimminals. As a result those crimminals are inded still able to get them, just with significantly more difficulty. This results in a lower gun-crime rate.  

Particularly it's in response to:

crimminals are inded still able to get them, just with significantly more difficulty

It may or may not be without significantly more difficulty. That's unproven either way. What is proven is that firearms and "banned" handgun crimes are in a statiscally significant, clear upward trend. It's also proven that the totals now are as much or greater than they were nearly 10 years ago.

The rest of that post IS clearly directed at Beet; don't see how there could be any confusion about that.

Hope this helps.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad
Clearly, your statement is false. Not surprising, as you have repeated shown you haven't a clue as to what's going on with firearms in your country, historically or otherwise.

They do indeed get their hands on "the real thing" and the trend is that the are getting their hands on more and more of them.

What you said was "criminals can always get guns". And I disagree with that entirely. That's why our gun homicide rate is as low as it is, and is why it represents a small proportion of total homicides, most of which have to be committed with much less efficient methods.

You're pointing to the fact that some crimes/homicides are committed with guns in Britain each year. And I have never disputed that fact. But having pointed this out, you then add words to the effect that "criminals can always get guns". This is false. But I do concede that good though our gun control laws are, they are not perfect, and criminals can sometimes get guns. There's a world of difference between that, and saying that they can always get guns.

As for my sig., it's only fallacious because another calendar year has rolled around. The year being referred to was 2003. Otherwise I agree entirely with Nashwan. It's not fallacious at all. It is fact.

[Toad]

What's clear is that your criminal class can get guns enough to raise your firearms offences very significantly.

After the 1998 Dunblane-generated handgun prohibition your 1999 handgun offences were 3685.  Three years (reports) later, they were at 5549. That's an increase of ~66%.

Overall firearms offences tell the same story. 1999 = 5209, 2003 = 10,248. A near doubling!

Oh, yes indeed.. it seems your criminals can get sufficient access to firearms. Again, your laws did little or nothing.

You sig block simply presents a strawman argument. That's why it's ignored so totally.

It isn't "gun control doesn't work" it's "increasingly restrictive gun laws have not made a statistically significant difference in the firearms homicide rate." (As we've just seen above; in fact, it would seem things have gotten significantly WORSE).

Again, I challenge you to to post the firearms homicide rate for England, Wales and Scotland in "per 100,00" for the last 50 years. (or whatever is available) Let's see what the laws have actually done for you.

Without researching, I'll wager there's very little statistically significant difference in the firearms homicide rate from before Hungerford to now. In fact, I doubt there's little difference between 1950 and now.

[Toad]

Oh, and one other thing about your strawman argument:


Why Britain needs more guns

...Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural factors" are to blame.

A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms...

"not weapons availability"... goodness, the Office of Health Economics figured it out. Surely you will sooner or later.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad
Overall firearms offences tell the same story. 1999 = 5209, 2003 = 10,248. A near doubling!

You're still missing the point. Even if a replica is used, that still counts as a "firearms" offence, and would have been included in your figures.

Again, I challenge you to to post the firearms homicide rate for England, Wales and Scotland in "per 100,00" for the last 50 years. (or whatever is available) Let's see what the laws have actually done for you.

Why stop at England? Why not look at France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Australia, NZ, Japan, Bermuda...... all those countries have MUCH lower gun crime than the US.  

30-all, your serve.

As for your other points - I haven't got time this side of the weekend.

[Curval]

"A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms..."

I wasn't aware that Londoners ever had unrestricted access to firearms.  If you were to listen to lazs it is/was only the gentry that were allowed guns.  

So, what are you saying...New Yorkers like to shoot each other?  WTG on that.  

Ahh...but no...it was "culture" that made New Yorkers shoot each other over that 200 year span (which 200 years btw?).  Is this another veiled attempt to blame minorities or is it just American cowboy style culture we should all emulate?

[Toad]

Curval, before you "go off half cocked" why don't you read the link.

Some of your questions are answered and some are not even addressed. It's a BBC article, btw.

[beet1e]

Interestingly, curval, there was a time when Britain had no firearms laws. There had never been a need in the years before guns were invented. But they started thinking about it in 1911.

There is a report called the Blackwell report that observes that 6 police officers were shot and killed in the years 1908-1912, which is a little over one a year. In most cases, the perpetrators were common street villains. That tally compares with only TWO police officers shot and killed in mainland Britain since 1983 - despite all the new crime problems that did not exist 100 years ago.

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
You're still missing the point. Even if a replica is used, that still counts as a "firearms" offence, and would have been included in your figures.

Nearly all of the replicas are airguns, which is why I used the numbers that EXCLUDE airguns. Additionally, there is a SEPARATE COLUMN in that report for "imitations" which is where the "replica" crimes are counted. So.. once again.. you are simply wrong. The handgun count is for real handguns, up about 66%.

Up 66% years and years after your handgun ban.

Why stop at England? Why not look at France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Australia, NZ, Japan, Bermuda...... all those countries have MUCH lower gun crime than the US.

[/b]

Because it is about England's laws which you so proudly prattle. I challenge to take an objective look at what those laws have accomplished. Let's look at the firearms homicide rate per 100,000 for as many years back as are available.

 

30-all, your serve.

[/b]

No, more like Game, Set, Match - Toad... Again.

As for your other points - I haven't got time this side of the weekend.

Not only do you not have time, you don't have any argument that makes sense.

[Curval]

Originally posted by Toad
Curval, before you "go off half cocked" why don't you read the link.

Some of your questions are answered and some are not even addressed. It's a BBC article, btw.

I was just quoting your quote my friend.  

Yea yea Malcolm's work has ironically been pointed out before.  It's just an extension of our little discussion really, her's, Lott's and many others on both sides of the position's last name merely have more letters after them.  

It may be BBC, but she wrote the article for them.

[Curval]

"There had never been a need in the years before guns were invented."

LOL!

That concept is just completely lost on most Americans.  

Anyway...I did enjoy Toad's little article, but what I REALLY liked about it were the responses right underneath (these were the viewable ones and that's all of them):

With around 30,000 gun deaths a year, I think we should look elsewhere than the US for ideas on this subject. More legally-owned guns means more chances for accidental deaths in the home from guns, more teenagers finding their parents' guns and playing with them, more chances for legal guns to be stolen by criminals to be used by criminals.
R K Bulmer, UK

I'd rather, if my granny were to be mugged, that she had the choice to pull out her purse, or her .45 Magnum. She's a little too old to learn kung-fu, or to run away. She may well hand her purse over anyway, but at least she has the choice. Criminals carry guns anyway, so it's about time the rest of the population had the same choice.
Sid, UK

I can't see the average British citizen wanting to take pot shots at potential muggers, however a right to self defence, not something chewed to incoherence by the lawyers, would do more to restore people's respect for the law than a personal armoury - that and more police to investigate existing crimes.
Andy, UK

I'm an expat living in Texas, where we all as citizens have a right to carry guns. I do not personally carry a weapon, but criminals do not know that. That is a deterrent. I am armed to the teeth at home in my "castle". Criminals have a question they ask themselves when they think about approaching a house out in the country: Is that family armed or not? More than likely they are.
And Barnett, Texas, US

I find this notion ludicrous. We do not need a nation of armed vigilantes (potential or otherwise) to ensure the peace, but rather active citizens who are willing to stand together against crime in their neighborhoods and cooperate with local authorities to apprehend criminals. This is the way to reduce crime. To draw a link between gun ownership and an overall drop in crime in the US is spurious and the article does not have enough evidence to point to a causative relationship between the two.
Sean Aaron

It is clear that the knee jerk reaction after Dunblane has achieved precisely nothing except reduce our chances of any sporting shooting success. The politicians have consistently read this matter wrongly. Perhaps it is time to give the academics a chance?
Alan Preddy, UK

Allowing homeowners to arm themselves will simply encourage potential burglars to arm themselves, and I don't particularly want to get into a gunfight for a colour television.
Mike, UK

This is like saying that raising the speed limit in built-up areas will cut pedestrian deaths since cars will spend less time passing through.
J, UK

Rarely do we get to hear such a flimsy argument based on misused and easily quoted statistics as Prof. Malcolm's. More avaliability of firearms in the UK would bring us more Dunblanes and perhaps a Columbine.
J.Canning, UK

Can you imagine the number of mistakes, accidents, acts of temporary insanity, etc. that would result from having guns freely available? I wonder what the police think of this crazy idea - what policeman would dare to investigate a "domestic quarrel" call, not knowing what firepower he might face?
Gordon, Canada,

More guns in the UK would mean less crime. If crimnals fear the use of firearms by citizens then they will be less likly to committe an offense. People should have the right to own firearms as well as carry them in the UK.
Ian, UK

These are mostly people who live in the UK.

Strangely they don't like Professors from America telling them what they do or don't "need" when it comes to guns.

[Curval]

The rest on the next, and last, viewable page:

As a mother, an expat and most relevantly a resident of Dunblane when Thomas Hamilton took his legally held weapons into our school, this academic is just wrong! I recently spent four weeks ducking and diving my way around my neighbourhood in fear of a sniper. As much as I tried to shelter my eight-year-old, the stress of this experience cannot be measured. Guns have no place in civilised society, find some other solution!
M, Washington,DC, USA

Professor Malcolm isn't saying there'd be fewer shootings (accidental and otherwise) but fewer burglaries, muggings and rapes. This seems unarguably true; the question is whether it's a price worth paying. There is no direct link between civilian gun ownership and crime - the areas of the UK with the highest crime rates are hardly those with the most legally-owned guns. The government should get tough on the causes of crime, not the tools.
Paul Williams, UK

I'm an expat living in Singapore - here there is mandatory death penalty for anyone in possession of a gun. The Police are armed and appear to have a no-nonsense policy. Even with the recent terrorist threats here I've never felt safer. I don't want to live in a country that needs me to carry a gun.
Chris Shaw, Singapore

California has 12m fewer people than the UK but gun crime is 18 times what it is here. The professor's assertions are the kind of empty-headed nonsense that the American gun lobby has been touting for years. The facts and figures tell the true story.
Robert, UK

The stats tell the real story: there are more legal guns in the US and there are more murders. That's all we need to know.
Alex, UK

Perhaps Prof Malcolm should address her comments to the parents of a six-year-old who has just accidentally shot dead her younger brother. This "independent" academic is part of a large and powerful industry determined to continue the trade in weapons that have no purpose other than killing human beings. With this anti-life attitude Americans struggle for my sympathy.
Karl Upston-Hooper, New Zealand

The author compares the mugging rate of London and New York, why didn't she mention the billions of dollars New York has put into hiring more police officers, because this would weaken her argument. If this argument is taken seriously then we have learned nothing from history, in history I mean Columbine High School. Does Britain want its own Columbine?
Kashef, Canada

I have no problem with responsible gun ownership, but lets face it, most people are not responsible enough to own and operate a gun in safety. Gun ownership is not necessary in a society that informs on criminals and helps the police to root out crime in the neighbourhoods.
Greg, Canada

In this country they don't even give the police guns so what hope do we have.
Roger, UK

I'm also an expat living in the US, and I do have guns at home - rifles for deer hunting which I do for food, not sport. That said, I disagree with the commentator, who is clearly unaware of the striking differential in handgun homicides between the US and the UK. There are tens of thousands of these in the US overall, compared to a few dozen in the UK.
Mick, US

[Toad]

Well, do you think I should quote the whole article? Or just the most germane part?

Here are the questions of yours to which I referred:

Ahh...but no...it was "culture" that made New Yorkers shoot each other over that 200 year span (which 200 years btw?). Is this another veiled attempt to blame minorities or is it just American cowboy style culture we should all emulate?

According to the Office of Health Economics in London, yes it is cultural. Now is that a veiled attempt to blame minorities? I don't know; I suspect that since that remark must be taken over 200 years it would not be but you'd have to ask the Office of Health Economics in London to be sure.

You think the OHE is a front for Malcom and Lott? I don't know but this is how they describe themselves on their website:

The Office of Health Economics provides independent research, advisory and consultancy services on policy implications and economic issues within the pharmaceutical, healthcare and biotechnology industries. Its main areas of focus are the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry, healthcare systems – their financing and organisation, and the economics of health technology assessment.

Should you emulate us? Probably not; it wouldn't suit your culture, would it?  Pink shorts on a cowboy?

In a way, there's linkage to that thread on Libertarianism. I think there is an underlying thread of Libertarianism in our culture. I think it why we have the Constitution we have too. Jefferson is viewed as pretty Libertarian by a lot of folks.

TJ: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

Me too. You? Maybe not, I don't know.

[Curval]

"You think the OHE is a front for Malcom and Lott? I don't know but this is how they describe themselves on their website: "

Now someone else is going off half-cocked.

Please, point that little gem out in what I said?

I was just suggesting that the entire gun debate on this board is the same as Lott, Malcolm etc vs. the anti-gun acedemics...but that they (acedmics in general, on both sides) have more letters after their names...such as "MA, Phd" etc.

I have a few though..but just boring old accounting ones...

BA, CA, CPA

[Curval]

TJ: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

All those gun crimes in your country are "inconveniences" of attending too much liberty"?

I'm not so sure TJ would like that suggestion.