School shooting

[Nashwan]

Well, it's easy to make apple and orange comparisons. Urbanization is extremely different between the US and UK. Once you get past London, there is virtually no comparison. This has already been covered by me in previous threads, but here's a population density refresher:

London 7,074,265
Birmingham 1,020,589
Leeds 726,939
Glasgow 616,430
Sheffield 530,375
Bradford 483,422
Liverpool 467,995
Edinburgh 448,850
Manchester 430,818
Bristol 399,633

As a comparison:

New York 8,214,426 2
Los Angeles 3,849,368 3
Chicago 2,873,326 4
Houston 2144491
Phoenix 1,512,986 6
Philadelphia 1448396
San Antonio 1296682
San Diego 1256951
Dallas 1232940
San Jose 929,936

Sorry, I don't see the difference. Remember the US has just over 5 times the population, so would of course have more large cities. But the UK has 2 cities of over 1 million, to fit the US should have 10. It actually has 9.

Remember we are talking per capita murder rates. (and this doesn't explain how London, which is huge even by US standards, and has a massive immigrant problem, has such a low murder rate (less than half the US average, and far less than any big US city)

The UK actually has a higher percentage of its population living in an urban area than the US, 89% vs 80%.

Pretty much what I had in mind though. Especially since, if you look at the top 39 cities (most major cities have gang problems, as do some rural areas) you find that all have a per capita homicide rate far higher than the national average of 5 / 1000000 (about 50 / 100000 to 7 /100000) What's not covered that even in these cities we are talking about a few select neighborhoods where most of that crime is committed. This indicates (as is common sense to anyone who actually lives here) that firearm crime is not a broadly national problem.

If you take out the worst 5 states, the US still has a very high murder rate compared to the average of the rest of the first world (immigrants and all). And that's against the average elsewhere. The UK would have a much lower rate if you ignored London, Manchester etc, France if you ingored Paris and Marseilles....

Then there is news coverage like this in the UK:

    quote:Senior police officers have been warning for several months that a growing number of teenagers in big cities are becoming involved in gun crime.
    The age of victims and suspects has fallen over the past three years as the availability of firearms in some cities has risen. Liverpool and Manchester are the cities where illegal guns are most readily available, with criminals claiming that some weapons are being smuggled from Ireland. Sawn-off shotguns are now being sold for as little as £50, and handguns for £150.

    Despite a ban on handguns introduced in 1997 after 16 children and their teacher were shot dead in the Dunblane massacre the previous year, their use in crimes has almost doubled to reach 4,671 in 2005-06. Official figures show that although Britain has some of the toughest anti-gun laws in the world, firearm use in crime has risen steadily. This year eight young people have been killed in gun attacks: six in London and one each in Manchester and Liverpool.

    “Illegal firearms have become increasingly accessible to younger offenders who appear more likely to use these firearms recklessly,” a report on gun crime commissioned by the Home Office cautioned last year.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle2317307.ece

Well, look at the figures the article is getting hysterical over: "This year eight young people have been killed in gun attacks"

Compare that with the US where about 20 young people are killed in gun attacks a week.

As I pointed out earlier, "firearms" crimes are any crimes involving something that looks like a gun. In their more honest moments, even the Met Police admit that the vast majority of such incidents do not involve real firearms.

That's why the number of people getting shot and killed has been going down, not up (58 last year, less than the early 90s despite the massive increase in immigration).

As to price of guns, the price for shotguns is about right, as they have much less strict controls, and criminals don't like them (too hard to conceal). New proper handguns, according to a home office study, start at £1000 ($2000) and go up from there, £150 was the cheapest reported price for a handgun that had been used in a crime (and of course carries the risk of whoever gets caught with it being charged with murder).

Cheap replicas and blank firers, converted to fire either 22 LR or blanks with ball bearings attached, start at about £500 ($1000)

Per capita homicide in Manchester eclipses that of Washington DC, as I recall.

Per capita homicide in Manchester is about 2.2 per 100,000 people, far lower than the US average, let alone the worst in the US.

There is some statistic out there about one tiny part of Manchester and its murder rate, but comparing areas with tiny populations is silly, because 1 or 2 incidents distorts the figures. (The "city" of Cumberland Gap in the US has a murder rate of 1000 per 100,000 people, nearly 200 times the US average)

And then there is this bit, which shows a similar "who's the firearm criminal? link to the US pattern:
Serious gun crime is concentrated in particular parts of England; internationally, the country has a low death rate from guns

And this very USA like pattern:

    quote:Mr Hogan-Howe said that youths were being protected by a wall of silence, and he demanded a new law to compel the public to give information about gun crime. He said that action must be taken to break down the power base of families involved in gun crime. “Families who do nothing to stop their children’s involvement in gun crime put society at risk and could find themselves identifying their child in the morgue,” he said.

That is of course true all over the western world. Crime, especially violent crime, is concentrated in cities.

The crime is, by and large, not coming from legal gun owners. It's coming from criminals killing other criminals.

Well, if they are murdering people then by definition they cannot be legal gun owners. But the point in the US is that criminals have easy access to firearms because they steal them off legal owners.

That's not an option in the UK, because there are very few handguns in circulation, so most criminals have to make do without a gun (which is why we get an average of just over 1 person shot dead per week, whereas the US gets 30+ per day).

Apparently a lot of those "replicas" have been modified to go "bang."

That's certainly the main type of "firearm" in circulation amongst criminals, but the Met police are talking about things that are not firearms. A modified replica is a firearm.

Nothing remotely suggests that people like me are a problem, yet the regulations are heavily focused on people like me.

The point is that if you have easy access to guns, so does everyone else.

You cannot have millions of guns in private hands and expect criminals will obey the laws and not get hold of them. If criminals obeyed laws, they wouldn't be criminals.

[Charon]

Sorry, I don't see the difference. Remember the US has just over 5 times the population, so would of course have more large cities. But the UK has 2 cities of over 1 million, to fit the US should have 10. It actually has 9.

Remember we are talking per capita murder rates. (and this doesn't explain how London, which is huge even by US standards, and has a massive immigrant problem, has such a low murder rate (less than half the US average, and far less than any big US city)

The UK actually has a higher percentage of its population living in an urban area than the US, 89% vs 80%.

That was only part of the deal. The other part are the very dissimilar crime patterns historically as that European study on the spread of US style violent criminal gangs covers. Urbanization is a factor, the gangs strive in that environment. As the USA Today article pointed out, 70 - 90 percent of the homicide problem is criminal on criminal (mostly gang related or wanna be gang related). There is a wealth of individual city statistics that support this.

Why did the UK have a lower crime rate than the US when your average gentleman could go into a shop, buy a pistol and put it in his coat pocket and walk the streets easier than you could in the US?

I would also like to see the breakdown on population densities and how an urban areas is defined. The UK has a greater (notably greater) population density. This is skewed, I imagine, in that we have some huge states with very limited urban areas where you can drive for miles (10s to hundreds even) without crossing through an "urban" area (small town). Anecdotally, I noticed that shortly after I left London I was already in the "quaint village" environment. I can drive 70 miles outside of Chicago and still be in communities with populations of 60,000. On the East Coast, you tend to run into major cities within such a radius. Similar on the West.

If you take out the worst 5 states, the US still has a very high murder rate compared to the average of the rest of the first world (immigrants and all). And that's against the average elsewhere. The UK would have a much lower rate if you ignored London, Manchester etc, France if you ingored Paris and Marseilles....

What is the real, individual risk of that "high murder rate?" Is there any real world, daily life difference between say 5/100000 and 2/100000. There are numerous daily activities that are far more risky that we don't give a second thought. The carnage from alcohol is enormously greater. Especially since, as a non-criminal my risk is about 10 - 30 percent of that gross figure. However, should such a rare event happen I at least have some opportunity to defend myself and my family.

Well, look at the figures the article is getting hysterical over: "This year eight young people have been killed in gun attacks"

Compare that with the US where about 20 young people are killed in gun attacks a week.

As I pointed out earlier, "firearms" crimes are any crimes involving something that looks like a gun. In their more honest moments, even the Met Police admit that the vast majority of such incidents do not involve real firearms.

That's why the number of people getting shot and killed has been going down, not up (58 last year, less than the early 90s despite the massive increase in immigration).

There does seem to be a range of statistics:

From 2002: GUN crime has almost trebled in London during the past year and is soaring in other British cities, according to Home Office figures obtained by The Telegraph. Police chiefs fear that Britain is witnessing the kind of cocaine-fuelled violence that burst upon American cities in the 1980s. Cocaine, particularly from Jamaica, now floods into Britain, while the availability of weapons - many of them from eastern Europe - is also increasing. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/24/nguns24.xml

From 2003:  Gun crime has risen by 35% in a year, new Home Office figures show. There were 9,974 incidents involving firearms in the 12 months to April 2002 - a rise from 7,362 over the previous year. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2640817.stm

Now they are talking about gun crime. And, I never really saw a difference between being robbed at gunpoint or knife point, or killed by either. But, since in the US most (vastly most) firearm homicide involves one criminal killing another the broader impact of gun crime has some meaning since it's more likely to impact the innocent. There does seem to be an increase (dramatic) in violence in general in the UK including home invasions that makes the US look positively safe, per capita. The type of crime non criminals are likley to experience as the victim.

And there is this disturbing bit:

From 2007: THE government was accused yesterday of covering up the full extent of the gun crime epidemic sweeping Britain, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries had risen more than fourfold since 1998.
The Home Office figures - which exclude crimes involving air weapons - show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06. That means that more than 10 people are injured or killed in a gun attack every day.
This weekend the Tories said the figures challenged claims by Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, that gun crime was falling. David Davis, the shadow home secretary, tells her in a letter today that the “staggering findings” show her claims that gun crime has fallen are “inaccurate and misleading”...

But in his letter to Smith, released today, Davis said these claims were contradicted by figures “buried” in a Home Office statistical bulletin, published ear-lier this year. “[Here] we find the most revealing indication of the true gun-re-lated violence sweeping Britain. Gun-related killings and injuries (excluding air weapons) have increased over fourfold since 1998,” he wrote.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece

Not unusual, politicians play the same game here to show how "effective" their policies are. Daley in Chicago recently did much the same.

As to price of guns, the price for shotguns is about right, as they have much less strict controls, and criminals don't like them (too hard to conceal). New proper handguns, according to a home office study, start at £1000 ($2000) and go up from there, £150 was the cheapest reported price for a handgun that had been used in a crime (and of course carries the risk of whoever gets caught with it being charged with murder).

Cheap replicas and blank firers, converted to fire either 22 LR or blanks with ball bearings attached, start at about £500 ($1000)

Then there is this from BBC:

One interviewee claimed to have earned £52,000 in one week from gun crime.

Home Office research disclosed extraordinary details about the lives of firearm-toting criminals, including their fear of getting caught with a gun which a previous owner had used in a crime.

In response to their findings, the university researchers said the authorities needed to do more to tackle the conversion of imitation guns into live-firing weapons.

The study found that imitation weapons could be bought for less than £100.

Sawn-off shotguns, which are often used by serious armed robbers and favoured for their "significant intimidatory value", could be bought for between £50 and £200, the report said.

Automatic weapons such as machine guns could carry a price tag of £4,000, although the cheapest went for just £800.

Handguns were cheaper if they had already been used in a crime, costing from £150, but a  new 9mm model could cost between £1,000 and £1,400. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/6180559.stm

About in line with US retail prices, though fully automatic weapons are far more expensive in the US.

The point is that if you have easy access to guns, so does everyone else.

I will readily admit, and have in the past, that it is easier for criminals to get access to guns in the US. So what? During the Regan crack down on Marijuana in the mid 1980s it was difficult to find that drug for 12 to 18 months. Then alternative sources of supply readily developed.

Explain how the wholesale availability of cocaine and other illegal drugs that are banned throughout the US, every country on our border and in many cases are not prone to domestic production in the US climate. These drugs have been banned for over 3 decades or more. And yet, they are as available as ever. How will banning firearms prevent criminals from gaining access to firearms if they feel they need them? Seems to be trending that way in the UK now. How would you prevent this when you can't readily impact the importation of tons of illegal drugs that are easier to detect using dogs, etc?

Why was homicide lower in the UK compared to the US (or even the UK today)  before there was any gun control regulation? Why do virtually all of the UK news reports and that study I linked cite the rise of violent (US Style) street gangs as the source of UK gun violence?

Why is there so much more homicide in highly regulated countries like Mexico (x3 the homicide rate) and Russia (x6 the homicide rate) than in the Cowboy land of the US? http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/rk0405/

You can blame the tool, but that won't solve the problem. Politicians like blaming tools vs. people. The media finds tools to be a very PC subject to address. Activists similarly like to blame tools vs people. But when someone can easily kill another for flashing the wrong gang sign or for a pair of sports shoes you have a far bigger problem than the fact he used a gun to do it.

Charon

[Charon]

Here's a sad perspective from some UK/Commonwealth firearm owners on seeing their rights evaporate. These are the people ultimately impacted by regulation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I

Charon

[McFarland]

Originally posted by Charon
I just spent a few days in Eastern Tennessee in the suburbs of a mid-sized town (for the state) where legal gun ownership is far higher than Chicago or New York or LA (per capita and in total, I would believe). Where you could see the occasional sign peppered with shotgun pellets (cringed a bit on the whole "know your target and what lies beyond" thing). And yet, the doors were not locked of a day or night, people home or otherwise.

Sorry you had to come during a drought, East Tennessee is usually the "greenest state in the land of the free". What town were you in? Hope you had a good time, we do our best to be hospitable.

As for the signs, we don't shoot the signs without knowing what is behind them. Nothing to worry about there. Guns are a way of life here, we know they are only as dangerous as the guy holding them, and are only a tool. They are the best tool to have in a self defence situation, quick and efficient at stopping an enemy in his tracks. They are a neccesary item of life, and we are safe as long as we have them.

As for the "arsenal" of weapons the kid had, those aren't weapons. The kids around here shoot those at each other every day, no deaths or even injuries yet.

[Toad]

If you even need to put a face to Laz' argument about women being more than eager to trade freedom for (false) security, the woman preaching at &:51 in that report is it.

[Nashwan]

Why did the UK have a lower crime rate than the US when your average gentleman could go into a shop, buy a pistol and put it in his coat pocket and walk the streets easier than you could in the US?

I don't think it did.

Historical crime rates are a problem because recording and reporting crime was a bit haphazard. But the murder rates in the UK and US at the start of the 20th century were similar. Britain began controlling handgun sales early in the 20th century.

I would also like to see the breakdown on population densities and how an urban areas is defined. The UK has a greater (notably greater) population density. This is skewed, I imagine, in that we have some huge states with very limited urban areas where you can drive for miles (10s to hundreds even) without crossing through an "urban" area (small town). Anecdotally, I noticed that shortly after I left London I was already in the "quaint village" environment.

Depends which direction you leave London. Go west and you enter Slough, population about 120,000. Straight after Slough is Maidenhead, with a population of about 60,000, then Reading, with about 200,000.

Or try Manchester. You list it as having a population of about 450,000, but that's just Manchester itself. It's part of one large urban area including Salford, Bolton, Rochdale, Trafford, Oldham, Stockport etc that has a population of over 2.5 million.



You can see Greater Manchester there, but also Warrington (pop 200,000) and Liverpool, which has about 1 million people, including the Wirral and St Helens.

What is the real, individual risk of that "high murder rate?" Is there any real world, daily life difference between say 5/100000 and 2/100000.

The actual numbers are 5.6 and 1.4 per 100,000, I think.

How much difference? Well, the US has about 300,000,000 people, so the "extra" murders, the difference between 1.4 and 5.6 is about 12,500 people.

How much difference does 12,500 extra murders a year make? I suspect it's a lot, if you are one of the 12,500, or the friend or relative of one of them.

From 2002: GUN crime has almost trebled in London during the past year and is soaring in other British cities, according to Home Office figures obtained by The Telegraph. Police chiefs fear that Britain is witnessing the kind of cocaine-fuelled violence that burst upon American cities in the 1980s. Cocaine, particularly from Jamaica, now floods into Britain, while the availability of weapons - many of them from eastern Europe - is also increasing. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai.../24/nguns24.xml

From 2003: Gun crime has risen by 35% in a year, new Home Office figures show. There were 9,974 incidents involving firearms in the 12 months to April 2002 - a rise from 7,362 over the previous year. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2640817.stm

Now they are talking about gun crime.

Yes, but that includes replicas and other things that look like guns.

You have to understand that the vast majority of what the police refer to as guns are incapable of killing.

Similarly, gun "injuries" include cases of shock or stress caused by the presence of the "firearm", and cases where the "firearm" or other weapon was used as a blunt instrument.

The one figure they cannot fudge is the number of people killed with firearms, and that was 56 in the 12 months to this June (the latest figures were released today), exactly the same as in 1992 (56 in 92, 74 in 93, 66 in 94, 70 in 95)

The Home Office figures - which exclude crimes involving air weapons - show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06. That means that more than 10 people are injured or killed in a gun attack every day.

There were 49 people killed with firearms in 98/99, 56 in 06/07. As I said, that's the one statistic they can't fudge. They can't record a death as anything but, but they can say someone who has seen a gun is "shocked" or "stressed" and record them as "injured".

If real gun crime had really increased to such an extent, you would see 3 real, unfudgeable statistics increase. You would see a rise in the number of people getting shot dead, you would see a rise in the number of police getting shot and killed, and you would see a rise in the number of people getting shot by the police.

There hasn't been a rise in any of those hard statistics.

About in line with US retail prices,

A new 9mm handgun costs at least $2000 in the US? I find that hard to believe.

Explain how the wholesale availability of cocaine and other illegal drugs that are banned throughout the US, every country on our border and in many cases are not prone to domestic production in the US climate. These drugs have been banned for over 3 decades or more. And yet, they are as available as ever. How will banning firearms prevent criminals from gaining access to firearms if they feel they need them?

Cost.

Smuggle a kilo of hard drugs in to the US and you generate $50,000 or more in profit.

Who's going to buy a handgun for $50,000?

Some guns will always be available. Handguns in the UK are part of the drugs scene, with drug gangs needing them to control their territories. As such, any gang will have access to a firearm or two. Even if it costs them thousands to smuggle them in, it's just a cost of doing business.

But those guns are rare, not brought out unless needed to deal with rivals, and don't end up being used to rob people in the streets, break in to houses, rob late night shops, etc.

And, I never really saw a difference between being robbed at gunpoint or knife point, or killed by either.

Looking at the data from the FBI, robberies with firearms are far more likely to end up with a dead victim than robberies with knives.

There does seem to be an increase (dramatic) in violence in general in the UK

Oh, the police recorded violence crimes have been soaring, since the police now record even shouting as a "violent crime". In fact, from the police point of view, the more minor the "crime" they solve, the better. The Home Office monitor how many crimes they "solve", and if they solve a really minor offence, they can get the credit without having to prepare a case for court. The ideal thing for the police nowadays is to find two people arguing, write it up as two crimes of violence, tell the "perpetrators" not to do it again, and record two violent crimes, solved by "other means".

Real violence, though, has been falling since the 90s.

including home invasions that makes the US look positively safe, per capita.

Only I can't see much difference in the number of "home invasions" between the UK and US, especially when you take all the robberies in people's homes that are recorded in the US.

Malcolm of Lott or Kleck has some bogus statistic out there that "home invasions" hardly ever happen in the US, but the NCVS shows a very different picture.

Why was homicide lower in the UK compared to the US (or even the UK today) before there was any gun control regulation?

It wasn't. US and UK homicide rates were pretty close in the early years of the 20th century. Britain passed an act requiring a licence for handguns in 1903, about the same time the murder rate started to climb in the US.

Why is there so much more homicide in highly regulated countries like Mexico (x3 the homicide rate) and Russia (x6 the homicide rate) than in the Cowboy land of the US?

Because they are not highly regulated. They are third world countries with very lax policing, massive corruption and organised crime.

You can blame the tool, but that won't solve the problem. Politicians like blaming tools vs. people. The media finds tools to be a very PC subject to address. Activists similarly like to blame tools vs people. But when someone can easily kill another for flashing the wrong gang sign or for a pair of sports shoes you have a far bigger problem than the fact he used a gun to do it.

Or when someone who has a problem at work or school can go back with a gun.

You've basically got 3 options. Say 12,500 extra people getting murdered a year is a price well worth paying for you to be able to have a gun, control guns, or control people.

But understand something. Gun control, or people control, does not involve them controlling other people, or other people's guns. There is no practical way to restrict just some people, short of putting them in prison, and the US already has a truly massive prison population.

[lazs2]

nashwan.. I will make it simple for you...  what gun law that you passed has prevented anyone from killing another?

You admit that (at least) anyone can get a shotgun... certainly a criminal can without to much trouble.. it can be sawed off to pistol length and in your horrible weather.. even a long one could be hid in a trenchcoat.

So why doesn't it happen?   what gun law prevents it?   What gun law have you passed that decreased crime?   If I wanted to do a school shooting in england... how many could I kill with a sawed off shotgun or two and a pocket full of ammo?   10?  30?  who would stop me?   do you think the shotgun would be more or less effective than a handgun?

What law in your country makes sure that this could not happen?

lazs

[lazs2]

and nashwan.. I have watched you do this for years... if we point out that there was no more crime in your country when you could have guns you say that it only looks that way because it was reported differently back then but you can't say how much the real difference is.. only that it is in your favor.

If we point out that your gun crime is rising despite your idiotic and immoral gun laws.. you say that the way it is defined has been changed and that you can't count that data...

If we say your country is nothing like ours you say the census is different..

Seems to me that you can't say anything about your country... you even mentioning data from such a country as yours that changes the rules all the time is worthless...

Fact is.. the data is what it is... gun crime is on the rise.. normal citizens are the victims and not one gun law you have ever passed has decreased crime... you have citizens hiding under their beds while the burglars ransack the place.. you have smash and grab and law of the strongest arm...

No thanks

Your crime will get more not less as you become less english speaking, lilly white, protestant.  

You can change the way you report the stats all you want but the people are seeing through it.

lazs

[Charon]

Historical crime rates are a problem because recording and reporting crime was a bit haphazard. But the murder rates in the UK and US at the start
of the 20th century were similar. Britain began controlling handgun sales early in the 20th century.

Frankly, they are quite similar now -- in real life terms -- but, I can find the following positions that say different. What are your sources? I can find plenty that disagree with your position.

When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2656875.stm

Here are a bunch of charts from 1981 - 1996: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/crpr.htm

More support from this book "Violence In America" (look at Chapter 3 & 4) : http://books.google.com/books?id=9GF6nJuW5XcC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=murder+rates+england+historic&source=web&ots=S1_NvOJEXO&sig=hVgdhRwJuORqMdn5j4Z0SCVHM5o#PPA82,M1

That noted conservative think tank Harvard published this piece: Harvard Journal Study of Worldwide Data Obliterates Notion that Gun Ownership Correlates with Violence
...For example, handguns are outlawed in Luxembourg, and gun ownership extremely rare, yet its murder rate is nine times greater than in Germany, which has one of the highest gun ownership rates in Europe.  As another example, Hungary's murder rate is nearly three times higher than nearby Austria's, but Austria's gun ownership rate is over eight times higher than Hungary's.  "Norway," they note, "has far and away Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate.  The Netherlands," in contrast, "has the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe (1.9%) ... yet the Dutch gun murder rate is higher than the Norwegian." http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/Gun-Ownership.htm

And, as I have read, the earliest UK gun control measures were due to a fear of anarchists and communists more than a perceived criminal problem.

The actual numbers are 5.6 and 1.4 per 100,000, I think.

How much difference? Well, the US has about 300,000,000 people, so the "extra" murders, the difference between 1.4 and 5.6 is about 12,500 people.

How much difference does 12,500 extra murders a year make? I suspect it's a lot, if you are one of the 12,500, or the friend or relative of one of them.

Got me there. Didn't see enough difference really in the long run between 5 and 5.6 and 1.4 and 2 - per 100,000 people. But 12,500 deaths is A LOT. More in fact, than we have firearm homicides each year in the US:

All homicides
Number of deaths: 16,611
Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.7

Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,250
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.8


But yes, each death is a tragedy to the family and society, at least for the 10-30 percent of non-criminals killed. However, it is far less of a tragedy than the toll alcohol takes on society, not only in the US but in Europe.

Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States (1) and is associated with multiple adverse health consequences, including liver cirrhosis, various cancers, unintentional injuries, and violence. To analyze alcohol-related health impacts, CDC estimated the number of alcohol-attributable deaths (AADs) and years of potential life lost (YPLLs) in the United States during 2001. This report summarizes the results of that analysis, which indicated that approximately 75,766 AADs and 2.3 million YPLLs, or approximately 30 years of life lost on average per AAD, were attributable to excessive alcohol use in 2001. These results emphasize the importance of adopting effective strategies* to reduce excessive drinking, including increasing alcohol excise taxes and screening for alcohol misuse in clinical settings. http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm

Alcohol is SO destructive that it is practically CRIMINAL to be distracted by firearm violence. I'm sure, for the good of society using the same per capita approach, you  would have to agree.

If real gun crime had really increased to such an extent, you would see 3 real, unfudgeable statistics increase. You would see a rise in the number of people getting shot dead, you would see a rise in the number of police getting shot and killed, and you would see a rise in the number of people getting shot by the police.

No, I think home invasions, etc. are viable in this case given the likelihood that the home owner is unarmed (but they you only have to be bigger, or have more of your buddies for that to work anyway).

But those guns are rare, not brought out unless needed to deal with rivals, and don't end up being used to rob people in the streets, break in to houses, rob late night shops, etc.

As noted above, take away guns from the good people and you just have to be bigger or stronger to force your will. I have lived in safe suburbs, and an average Chicago neighborhood and have traveled through below average neighborhoods. I have been afraid of being mugged at times (and was mugged once with no firearms involved). I was not particularly afraid of being shot in a mugging since statistically that is not common or not really necessary for most violent predators and an unarmed victim.

Or when someone who has a problem at work or school can go back with a gun.

You've basically got 3 options. Say 12,500 extra people getting murdered a year is a price well worth paying for you to be able to have a gun, control guns, or control people.

But understand something. Gun control, or people control, does not involve them controlling other people, or other people's guns. There is no practical way to restrict just some people, short of putting them in prison, and the US already has a truly massive prison population.

Fortunately such events are very rare -- 10-30 percent of all homicide at best. As noted, with a total homicide rate of about 17000 (WARNING GENERIC FIGURE USED!) out of 300 million the 12,500 "extra deaths" is a bit unlikley. However, somewhere between 100,000 and 2.5 million times per year a firearm is used in self defense (to include brandishing the gun without shots fired) according to 13 individual studies.

A Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. estimated 1.5 million defensive gun uses annually. There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (an anti gun group), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. So, even using the most biased low ball figure (I believe that only counts "shots fired,") firearms are used to defend a citizen far more than they are used to kill a citizen. Using the DOJ figures, they are used at least 3 times more often in defense than in the commission of a general firearm crime).
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm


The reality I experience every day as an American is simple.

At no point do I fear gun violence as an actual, real fear.  Statistically, I am far more at risk from alcohol than firearms. Similarly, even if I lived in the worst neighborhood in America (and didn't stand out as an outsider target) my personal risk from a firearm death would be marginal, at best. The overwhelming majority of people in even the worst neighborhoods do not die from a gunshot wound. In fact, they tend to be at higher risk for heart disease, alcohol and tobacco so that itself balances the total mortality risk.

So, yes. The ability to provide a safety switch to the government and potential tyranny, and the ability to provide for my personal defense and the ability to enjoy a safe, disciplined hobby are worth the cost of firearms, especially since there are even greater Ills we have no interest in suppressing.

Charon

[Nashwan]

nashwan.. I will make it simple for you... what gun law that you passed has prevented anyone from killing another?

The various firearms acts.

It is of course hard to prove the negative that someone wasn't killed, who would otherwise have been, but Marcus Sarjeant is one definite example.

You admit that (at least) anyone can get a shotgun... certainly a criminal can without to much trouble.. it can be sawed off to pistol length and in your horrible weather.. even a long one could be hid in a trenchcoat.

A sawn off shotgun is still not concealable in most situations. People tend to take their coats off indoors, which leaves the man with the long coat and rigid posture looking a bit odd, to say the least.

So why doesn't it happen?

Because criminals want small concealable handguns. That's true in the US as well, where they have a range of weapons available. (the weapon of choice is the handgun, not AK47 with bayonet attachment, extended magazine etc. ie handguns not assault weapons)

If I wanted to do a school shooting in england... how many could I kill with a sawed off shotgun or two and a pocket full of ammo?

Probably none, because you be more likely to get spotted entering the building. You would also be vulnerable when stopping to reload, would have a poor effective range, and the kids could run faster than you could fire.

do you think the shotgun would be more or less effective than a handgun?

A lot less effective.

What law in your country makes sure that this could not happen?

The firearms acts mean you have to have a licence, which means a cooling off period, and deters nutters and criminals. Even criminals are not going to sell a shotgun to someone they don't know, or someone who they think wants it for a massacre.

and nashwan.. I have watched you do this for years... if we point out that there was no more crime in your country when you could have guns you say that it only looks that way because it was reported differently back then but you can't say how much the real difference is.. only that it is in your favor.

No, I am saying the 19th century and earlier had very different policing standards, and you cannot compare.

If we point out that your gun crime is rising despite your idiotic and immoral gun laws.. you say that the way it is defined has been changed and that you can't count that data...

Which is true. Broadly speaking, police recorded crime has been rising, whilst the survey based BCS has been falling. The police are recording more crime, the public are experiencing less.

Seems to me that you can't say anything about your country... you even mentioning data from such a country as yours that changes the rules all the time is worthless...

No, you can say plenty. Just don't look for the truth in headlines. Headlines are distorted to provide a good story.

No one ever sold a newspaper by saying "Crime down slightly". You sell newspapers by finding some crime, the more serious the better, that you can portray as rising. Whether or not its true, or whether there are particular circumstances, doesn't really matter much.

Fact is.. the data is what it is... gun crime is on the rise..

If you understand that "gun" includes "toy gun", "air gun", "replica gun", etc, then yes.

What you or I would regard as a gun, something that shoots bullets with sufficient force to kill, no.

You can change the way you report the stats all you want but the people are seeing through it.

Well, if they hadn't changed the stats then things would be a lot clearer, I agree. But if you actually look at the basic stats, then the position is clear.

[lazs2]

nashwan...  you have never seen a sawn off shotgun I presume.   It is indeed very concealable.

Not to mention that I know I could get a handgun in your country in a week if I wanted.

No.. you are simply wrong and won't admit it... no law you have passed stops people from killing others with the most deadly close range gun there is... the shotgun.

my proof would have to be that historicaly you never killed many even when you had handguns available.. you don't kill with sawed off shotguns because you never killed with any gun...regardless of the law.

What law have you passed that would keep someone from being able to get a shotgun easily and sawing it off in 10 minutes and taking it to a school and shooting kids...  

I will make it simple for you... it would be harder to conceal one of those compact umbrellas than a sawn off shotgun.. you can reduce the length to less than a foot.   The smallest woman could conceal one and get it into a school.

Your kids would be slaughtered... just like ours... because... just like ours... they would be helpless to resist.  

in several of our shootings short barreled shotguns were concealed and used... not even sever cut down but legal 18" ones.

There is no reason for it not to happen in your country but.. so far it hasn't.

Don't you get it?  apples and oranges... not the same countries and not the same people...  There is no law that you have that prevents a school shooting.

In fact... I would say that it would be much easier in your country.   Yep... I stick with that... for at least the first few... it would be much easier.  no metal detectors or armed police in the school.

lazs

[Nashwan]

Frankly, they are quite similar now -- in real life terms -- but, I can find the following positions that say different. What are your sources? I can find plenty that disagree with your position.

Sources for what?

When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2656875.stm

Handguns were certainly rare in the UK in the late 19th century, although there was approx one policeman shot and killed per year at the time.

As to the rates converging, the US rate certainly fell throughout the 90s, from 9.8 per 100,000 in 1991 to 5.5 in 2000. But the US rate has been static or slightly upwards since, coming in at 5.5, 5.6 or 5.7 per year.

As to the UK rate, 2002 was remarkable in that a public inquiry into Harold Shipman concluded he had murdered several hundred elderly patients over decades. All those murders were recorded in 2002. Apart from that, the UK rate has been in the 1.4 - 1.5 range for the best part of a decade.

Alcohol is SO destructive that it is practically CRIMINAL to be distracted by firearm violence. I'm sure, for the good of society using the same per capita approach, you would have to agree.

Firstly, alcohol affects mainly those who chose to use it, rarely innocent bystanders. Secondly, alcohol has health benefits for those who use it in moderation, and thirdly, the birth rate would go through the floor without alcohol

Seriously, though, if someone wants to drink themselves to death, that is their choice. If firearms were only used in suicides, then there wouldn't be much cause to restrict access to them.

As noted above, take away guns from the good people and you just have to be bigger or stronger to force your will.

And equip a burglar with a gun and he doesn't have to be bigger or stronger.

The idea that people can protect themselves or their families with guns is a fantasy, I'm afraid. Borne out by the figures (about 200 criminals shot dead by the public, 12,000 people shot dead by criminals), by the number of policemen murdered with guns (50+ in the US per year, where the police are all armed, about 0.5 per lear in the UK where the police are almost never armed).

If the secret service couldn't stop the Kennedys or Reagan getting shot, what chance does a member of the public have?

In very rare cases guns enable a member of the public to defend themselves. In a great many cases, guns enable criminals to rob, rape and murder.

I was not particularly afraid of being shot in a mugging since statistically that is not common or not really necessary for most violent predators and an unarmed victim.

So you would rather be unarmed facing an armed robber?

Fortunately such events are very rare -- 10-30 percent of all homicide at best. As noted, with a total homicide rate of about 17000 (WARNING GENERIC FIGURE USED!) out of 300 million the 12,500 "extra deaths" is a bit unlikley.

No need for the warning, that's remarkably accurate. According to the FBI 17,034 people were murdered in the US last year.

I'd say somewhere above 10,000 extra deaths is in the right ballpark.

As I said, not many in the grand scheme of things, but certainly a major impact for those affected.

However, somewhere between 100,000 and 2.5 million times per year a firearm is used in self defense (to include brandishing the gun without shots fired) according to 13 individual studies.

The only figure I've seen that stands any scrutiny was in the order of 100,000 in the high crime mid 90s. At a time when there were over 1 million crimes committed with firearms a year.

A Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. estimated 1.5 million defensive gun uses annually. There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (an anti gun group), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. So, even using the most biased low ball figure (I believe that only counts "shots fired,")

The 108,000 figure comes from face to face interviews. The higher figures all come from telephoning people at random and asking them if they'd used a gun to defend thesmelves.

The same method, telephoning at random and asking questions, results in similar figures for numbers of Americans kidnapped by aliens a year.

Any reputable pollster will tell you that if you ask people if they have carried out some heroic or meritorius deed, some will lie. If you ask people how much money they donate to charity, if they cheat on their wives, if they served as navy SEALs etc, some will lie. Not many, but some.

The figure of 2 - 3 million DGUs means about 1 percent of those telephoned at random reported a DGU. Think 1 percent of people will lie?

There's a check on those figures, too. Kleck (or was it Lott?) reported that citizens shot at, and hit, over 200,000 criminals. Yet the FBI records something like 200 criminals shot and killed by citizens.

200,000 people shot cannot possibly lead to 200 people killed.

So, even using the most biased low ball figure (I believe that only counts "shots fired,")

I believe the DOJ study came up with approx 100,000 DGUs in total, not just in which shots were fired.

firearms are used to defend a citizen far more than they are used to kill a citizen.

You are not comparing like with like. The number of DGUs should be compared with the number of crimes in which a firearm was used, and in the mid 90s, when these studies were done, I believe it was over 1 million such crimes.

We also know that criminals shot and killed some 12,000 people last year, and citizens shot and killed about 200.

So guns are used to commit crimes about 10 times more often than they are used to stop crimes, and criminals kill with guns about 60 times more often than citizens kill criminals with guns.

At no point do I fear gun violence as an actual, real fear. Statistically, I am far more at risk from alcohol than firearms. Similarly, even if I lived in the worst neighborhood in America (and didn't stand out as an outsider target) my personal risk from a firearm death would be marginal, at best. The overwhelming majority of people in even the worst neighborhoods do not die from a gunshot wound. In fact, they tend to be at higher risk for heart disease, alcohol and tobacco so that itself balances the total mortality risk.

Yes, the risk is quite small. The number killed is pretty high, though. It still amounts to thousands killed, and tens of thousands losing friends and relatives, every year.

So, yes. The ability to provide a safety switch to the government and potential tyranny, and the ability to provide for my personal defense and the ability to enjoy a safe, disciplined hobby are worth the cost of firearms, especially since there are even greater Ills we have no interest in suppressing.

I think they are both illusory benefits. I can't think of a government overthrown with sporting guns in modern times, and the fact that US policemen, all armed, get murdered at 20 times the rate of British policemen shows that your chances of defending yourself are much better if neither side has guns, rather than both having them.

[BiGBMAW]

NAsh/....

You said ..Shotgun is allot less effective then a handgun?

WOW!!!

Clueless dolt come to mind on that statement..maybe you meant the other way around

Laz was not talking about a 4-10 gauge either..even though that would mangle you up just as much maybe more then your typical pistol

[Maverick]

nashwan,

You lost all credibility when you made this statement.

"Firstly, alcohol affects mainly those who chose to use it, rarely innocent bystanders."

There are quite a few folks who are assaulted by drunks, hit by drunk drivers and other problems due to people who can't handle alcohol.

[Nashwan]

You said ..Shotgun is allot less effective then a handgun?

WOW!!!

Clueless dolt come to mind on that statement..maybe you meant the other way around

No, I meant what I said. A sawn off shotgun is a lot less effective than a semi auto pistol for mass killings. Not as concealable, low capacity, too long to reload, poor range.

Oh, and bulky ammunition.

Offhand, can you name the mass shootings carried out with sawn off shotguns? I can name several where handguns were used, but can't think of any with sawn offs.

Surely if they are more effective than handguns, then some spree killers will have realised that, and used them successfully to kill large numbers of people?

"Firstly, alcohol affects mainly those who chose to use it, rarely innocent bystanders."

There are quite a few folks who are assaulted by drunks, hit by drunk drivers and other problems due to people who can't handle alcohol.

Well, there are about 500,000 people who are the victims of firearms crime in the US. 12,000 plus are murdered with firearms.

There are lots of statistics for alcohol related deaths, but nearly all such deaths are of the person who consumed the alcohol.