FBI UCR handbook:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/handbook/ucrhandbook04.pdfTo quote from it:
As a general rule, a multiple-offense situation requires classifying each of the offenses occurring and determining which of them are Part I crimes. The Hierarchy Rule requires that when more than one Part I offense is classified, the law enforcement agency must locate the offense that is highest on the hierarchy list and score that offense involved and not the other offense(s) in the multiple-offense situation.
The following scenarios illustrate the proper application of the Hierarchy Rule in reporting a multiple-offense incident.
Two women broke into a new car dealership after closing hours. They took the cash from the dealership’s office safe and two new automobiles from the garage.
Applying the Hierarchy Rule to crime reporting: A Burglary—Forcible Entry (5a), Larceny-theft (6), and a Motor Vehicle Theft (7a) were committed. Following the Hierarchy Rule, only the Burglary—Forcible Entry (5a), the highest of the offenses on the list of Part I offenses, must be scored.
A burglar broke into a home, stole several items, and placed them in a car belonging to the owner of the home. The homeowner returned and surprised the thief, who in turn knocked the owner unconscious by hitting him over the head with a chair. The burglar drove away in the homeowner’s car.
Applying the Hierarchy Rule to crime reporting: A Burglary—Forcible Entry (5a), Larceny-theft (6), Robbery—Other Dangerous Weapon (3c), Aggravated Assault—Other Dangerous Weapon (4d), and Motor Vehicle Theft—Auto (7a) occurred in this situation. After classifying the offenses, the reporting agency must score only one offense—Robbery— Other Dangerous Weapon (3c)—the crime appearing first in the list of Part I offenses.
Still... what do you think that banning guns has accomplished in england nashwan?
Guns haven't been banned. Laws have been tightened further. That hasn't made much difference in the case of rifles and shotguns, but handguns have been moved to class V, which is the same restriction as machine guns, which means they are not commonly available, unlike shotguns and rifles.
The tightening of the law has accomplished little, the previous laws were already adequate. The tightening
may make spree killings harder, but not by much.
The already tight laws were very effective at preventing legally aquirred guns entering the criminal market, due to licencing (which means anyone with a serious criminal record could not legally buy a gun (and those with criminal intent tend to shy away from applying for licences and dealing with the police), registration (which meant legally aquirred guns could not be sold on to the criminal market) and safe storage (which meant criminals could not easily steal guns).
What do you think it would accomplish here?
Depends what you mean by "banning guns".
Registration would prevent legally aquirred guns being sold to criminals, licencing would deter criminals from buying guns legally, safe storage would make it harder for criminals to buy guns.
Criminals in the US aquirre guns that have passed through the legal supply chain to begin with, so tightening the laws would restrict criminal access to guns.
As to the effect of that, handguns are tools for killing people. Armies equip their soldiers with guns, not window frames or knives.
Ok nashwan... the site I showed was for the UN. it is laughable that the UN is right on everything else but this
You think the UN is right on everything? I'd have put you down as one of those people who thought the UN was wrong on everything.
Personally, I'd rather chose the FBI and Home Office, as they are the people that compile the stats.
Even so... england is crime ridden by your estimate.. I would rather take the chance of a meteor hitting me like murder rate per capita than to be victimized by crime with no defense...
And I would rather take my chances with petty crime than be victimised by a criminal with a gun.
If I hear my car alarm go off, I can run out of my house without fear I am going to get shot at. If I hear someone trying to force open one of my windows, I can shout "oi" without having to fear they are going to fire a bullet through the window.
I think I can defend myself pretty well against criminals, because we're both armed to the same level. And I know it's easier to defend against an unarmed man than an armed one, and impossible to defend against a gun without some pretty good body armour. Because the man with the gun might shoot first, and your chance of stopping his bullet with your handgun is not good.
you seem to feel that society will protect you if you dissarm yourselves..
No, I feel that criminals can't attack as well if they are not armed.
that you will somehow be safer
I'll be safer because I'm not likely to get shot. The statistics bear that out, with the US having a much higher murder rate.
we here (including our police) know that the only protection we will get in allmost every case is by ourselves or another citizen.
I know the same here. I just know that having a gun is not a magical defence, and that I am safer if neither of has one than if both of us do.
US policemen are armed. It doesn't stop them being murdered at far higher rates than unarmed British policemen.
Strangely, despite the guns, US police cannot "defend" themselves as well as the unarmed British police. And by a large margin. 57 police officers were murdered in the US last year. 1 was murdered in the UK. In 2003 the figures were 52 and 2, in 2002 56 and 2, in 2001 it was 70 and 1, in 2000 51 and 0. The US has about 5 times the population.
If our police officers are better able to defend themselves without guns than yours with guns, then I think I am better able to defend myselft without guns than you with guns.
I figured if I made some general statements Nashwan would chime in. I never dispute his figures. His sources at times, but never the figures.
The sources are the FBI, the US department of justice and the British Home Office. ie the relevant government bodies that compile the statistics.
thanks wide.... but... did anyone believe the assertions by beet and nashwan that the government was "over reported" in order to... to what? make themselves look like they were doing a bad job? Yeah... that's what governments do...
No. Left wing, authoritarian goverments want to
know everything because it's only by
knowing everything they can
control everything. They can't stand the idea that a pub fight can be dealt with by the participants without the law intervening. The whole point of politicians, and it applies even more to those who believe in big government, is that people are incapable of dealing with things themselves, and government needs to deal with it for them.
From "National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS): an analysis of the impact on recorded crime" explaining the changed crime recording standards:
Statistics have become increasingly important to all areas of public policy. They both serve to highlight and describe the
nature of social problems and also to monitor and inform the policies and practices designed to remedy them.
You only have to live under the rapidly expanding Blair government to understand it seeks to control
everything. They have introduced hundreds of new crime definitions and forced the police to record the most petty incidents that went unreported years ago.
There has another benefit as far as government and the press are concerned. It enables them to frighten people more, which sells newspapers and allows the government to increase laws and control. And if you think that only happens in the UK, look at the feaar being engendered in the US by terrorism (which has, after all, killed as many people in the US in the last 4 years as US criminals kill every 3 months). That's resulted in the patriot act, detention without trial, and a huge increase in government monitoring of the public.
That, sadly, is the nature of government.
