11 old boy kills robber with a .45

[Toad]

I bet there's a whole lot of real smart guys with lots of letters after their names that would like to know as well.  

I bet there are thousands of rabid antis that are desperately searching for the as yet undiscovered plausible explanation.

I don't have the definitive answer for you either.  

At this stage it's the observation of a phenomenom and the postulation of causes.

The observation is clear. After restricting handguns severely, violent crime rose... significantly...  in all three countries.

Causes? I think the ones offered so far lean heavily on individual biases towards firearms.

It will be very interesting to see if this trend continues, won't it?

I'm actually happy that Britain, Australia and Canada have volunteered to do the lab work for us.

[Sox62]

Having stumbled across this link,I had to come back and post this.Interesting read.

London Daily Telegraph

[SirLoin]

Originally posted by Sox62
Having stumbled across this link,I had to come back and post this.Interesting read.

London Daily Telegraph

[batdog]

Errr I'm VERY pro-gun but did this guy just say err write "very litttle burglery in America?" I must live in a different one than he's writing about,lol.

xBAT

[-dead-]

Interesting things Toad forgot to mention about his UK figures:

1) The Centre for Defence Studies at King's College August 2001 report was commissioned by (ie paid for by) the
Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting - a sort of UK NRA.

2) The inconvenient figures for 1992 & 1993 Handgun crime, which could be used to either show a 8.5% or 14% drop in handgun crime respectively, or, more realistically IMHO, no discernable trend other than a steady drop in shotguns used for crimes (there's not enough data yet, if you ask me).

3) The inconvenient bit where they say that the study defines handguns as:
• Revolver;
• Pistol – normally a semi-automatic handgun;
• Disguised firearm – Those that are capable of being discharged with one hand such as the mobile phone gun or the key-fob gun;
• Illegal Conversion – adapted from blank firing or replica revolvers or pistols or, in recent cases, air weapon systems;
• Illegal reactivation - can be either a revolver or a pistol.
• Imitation or replica - can be either a revolver or a pistol.[/B]
• Illegally manufactured – such as those known as zip-guns.

4) The bit (just under the table) where the report says:"Over the last nine years the level of crime involving handguns, as shown in Table 2, has not deviated very far from the average for the full period shown therein. It has in fact shown a remarkable consistency. The small percentage reduction in the use of handguns between 1996 and 1998/9 has not been maintained in 1999/00 and this is particularly noteworthy when one considers that the Firearm (Amendment) Acts of 1997 removed in excess of 160,000 lawfully held handguns from personal possession. The long-term impact that the 1997 legislation is likely to have on the use of handguns in crime cannot be judged with any accuracy at this time but the short-term impact seems to indicate that levels of the unlawful use of handguns may not have been directly linked to their lawful ownership." ie - not enough data to draw any conclusions or link it one way or other.

Full PDFs http://www.foresight-cfs.org.uk/additional/ifuk/index.html

That shocking table in full:

[hyena426]

hehae,,seen them picks of guns,,thought i would post a pick of the only gun i want!!,,,im sure many will be jelous!!,,jk

[Toad]

No, didn't know who sponsored the study. So? Do the numbers conflict significantly with the UN numbers? I think they're pretty close IIRC.

Originally posted by -dead-
2) The inconvenient figures for 1992 & 1993 Handgun crime, which could be used to either show a 8.5% or 14% drop in handgun crime respectively, or, more realistically IMHO, no discernable trend other than a steady drop in shotguns used for crimes (there's not enough data yet, if you ask me).

Thought we were discussing the effect of confiscating the guns... that didn't happen in '92 '93... but it's late and I'm tired so maybe I've missed your point. What, that occasional spikes happen? Still seems a bit more than coincidental that Britain, Australia and Canada ALL had spikes immediately after they confiscated/highly restricted.

The long-term impact that the 1997 legislation is likely to have on the use of handguns in crime cannot be judged with any accuracy at this time but the short-term impact seems to indicate that levels of the unlawful use of handguns may not have been directly linked to their lawful ownership." ie - not enough data to draw any conclusions or link it one way or other.
[/B]

No, I think you need to read that again....

"the short-term impact seems to indicate that levels of the unlawful use of handguns may not have been directly linked to their lawful ownership"

Seems like they're saying the lawful gun owners were never the problem... like most folks with common sense have been saying for years.

So why confiscate if the lawful owners aren't the problems and there's no direct link between unlawful use and lawful ownership?

[Gman]

Interesting thread, with people being very respectful of each other.  Nice to see.

Re SA-80/Lee Enfield:  My best friend is in 2 Para (he's Canadian also, just thought it would be more fun in an actual Parachute regiment than the PPCLI here).  He loathes his issue weapon.  To the point of carrying it in his ruck and packing confiscated arms while in Macedonia.  A UK General was sacked over trying to get it replaced he told me, and there has been quite a brewhaha over this rifle.

For a Canadian outlook, in 2000 there was 843 deaths from firearms.  751 were suicides.  There was over 300,000 violent crimes, and our property crimes are 1.5 % higher than the USA at the moment.  I agree with Thrawn, people with guns kill people (or, more precisely, the bullets do).  However, who is it that is being killed?  Take into consideration that of the less than 100 deaths that were not suicides, in all likelyhood a sizeable percentage in 2000 were Police shootings.  The Gary Mauser report from UBC stated that civilians used guns up to 60,000 times in a 3 year period for self defence, whether it be from animals or people.

My old man is a 30 year cop, and x president of the Canadian Police Association.  Here is some of the stats he gave me:

40% of Police officers are shot with either their own firearm, or that of another officer.  12% of shots fired by officers strike their intended target.

I'm not saying the police should be disarmed, but for people to feel it's reasonable for the cops to carry and bear arms, but not for the populace at large, something seems amiss to me.  Since the cops are not on every corner, and have no legal obligation to protect individual joe blow's, why not allow the populace to take care of this on their own, if they so choose.

Our gov't wants the people in Canada to believe that the guns are the root of all crime and problems, and that fighting back is NEVER an acceptable option.  Granted, some controls are needed, and I'm all for individual licencing here, and proper training and safe storage.  

Since bill C68 came into effect here,  violent crimes have increased significantly.  :\


If this 11 year old had shot this intruder here in Canada, someone would have been charged with improper storage of a firearm, in addition to manslaughter or worse.  It may have been dropped or plead out, but the charges would have been made.  Folks up here aren't very able to defend themselves, partially through our attitude, and partially due to legislation removing the means.

As for the USA having more deaths per 100,000 by firearms than Canada, that stat is likely fairly accurate.  However, look where the deaths mainly occur.  States with CCW and friendly law enforcement outlook on civilian ownership/use have far lower rates than Canada as a whole.  States, and in particular cities such as LA, Chicago, and New York have by far and away the highest rate of crime commited with firearms, while having the strictest rules.  Less guns in law abidding civilian hands, more crime, or so it seems to me.

Gun confiscation up here is just around the corner, give them 2 years and it'll be just like Australia.  So before all the Canadian anti-gun people start chearing hurray, take note.  The Aussies paid for the gun grab with a hike on income tax.  If I have to give away my guns (well, more of them, since 2 had to be turned in already), at least I'll know that the anti-gunners will be paying me for them.

[Nashwan]

"Offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used:


United Kingdom (Great Britain only)

1997 = 14,424

1998-99 = 15,784

1999-00 = 18,719"
Looks like it jumped after confiscation, doesn't it? Same trend in Australia. Similar in Canada after their new restricitions. Yes, I think it is related.

Still seems a bit more than coincidental that Britain, Australia and Canada ALL had spikes immediately after they confiscated/highly restricted.

There is a slightly different picture if you look at detailed statistics:

Firearms used in crime
Year  Handgun Shotgun other airgun
1996  3347      933      1783    7813
1997  2648      580      1676    7506
1998  2636      565      1702    7902
1999  2687      642      1880    8665
2000  3685      693      2465   10103
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/5001-t3-3.htm

Handgun crime went down during the year of the handgun ban, and remained well below the pre ban levels for 3 years. Only in the last year has handgun crime risen to pre ban levels.

The actual "immediate increase" was in airgun crime, and it's not hard to see why:
Armed Police Raid 11th Birthday Apr 10 2001

The Journal
 
Roland Hopper will never forget his 11th birthday party - after an armed police team arrested him as he cut his cake.

Officers stormed the birthday bash and arrested Roland after he was seen playing with his new pellet gun.

He had been playing with 12 friends at his home in Red House, Sunderland, as he celebrated his big day. But as he showed off the new pellet gun his mother had bought him, armed police surrounded the house.

The quiet street was sealed off as two armed response patrol cars and a riot van surrounded the house.

Two officers wearing bulletproof vests stormed in and demanded to know where the weapon was.

Mum Andrea Davies, 29, said: "He had all his pals round and was having a brilliant time with them.

"It should have been the best day of the year for him, he had been looking forward to it for weeks.

"The police burst in just as he was cutting his cake. He had blown out his candles and everyone was standing around waiting to give him three cheers. The two policemen who came in didn't seem to be armed but they said they were with the armed response unit.

"I looked outside and the place was crawling with them. I just couldn't take it in.

"Instead of getting a round of applause as he cut his cake Roly ended up being walked out of the house in tears by the police in front of all the neighbours.

"It was so humiliating for us, I don't know whether Roly will ever be able to forget it.

"Birthday parties are so important when you are a kid and you could hardly imagine a worse one.

"I could understand the police reaction if someone had been in danger but they weren't.

"Roland went into the back yard with a few of his friends to show them his new gun. But someone must have seen them with it and assumed the worst.

"They were firing at a target against a shed and were pointing in the opposite direction to the nearest houses.

"Then the next thing we know there were two police officers running into the house demanding to know where the weapon was. I was pretty shocked. I just wanted to know what was going on.

"We looked out of the window and they were swarming around like storm troopers in bulletproof vests.

"I couldn't believe how over-the-top they went. And on top of everything else they confiscated the gun. Roland was in tears."

Roland was questioned for two hours in connection with criminal damage after allegations that a pellet hit the window of a neighbouring house.

But Andrew denied that any damage had been caused to a neighbour's house, adding that the gun did not have sufficient power or range to cause the breakage complained of.

He was bailed to report to police on April 28, and the Ł39.99 air gun was confiscated.

Sgt Paul Henry of Northumbria Police said: "We can confirm that there was a suspected firearms incident on Saturday.

"Whenever it is believed that firearms are involved there are certain procedures that must be followed."

Roland, a pupil at Hylton Red House Primary, was arrested and taken to a police station. The other youngsters were sent home in tears as the birthday party came to abrupt end.

Roland said: "It was the worst birthday party I've ever had."
http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100local/page.cfm?objectid=11018615&method=full

That is registered as a firearms crime in the statistics.

Given the media/political/police hysteria over guns in the UK, I'd take even the last years rise in firearm crime with a pinch of salt.

However, even the last year's rise can be put into perspective when you compare handgun crimes over the last decade:
1989 1983
1993 4237
1996 3347 (last year before ban)
99-00 3685

Now, I wouldn't claim the handgun ban had more than a very marginal effect on gun crime in the UK, because legally held handguns were held in too small numbers anyway. But it really does seem the pro-gun lobby are clutching at straws trying to make out that banning guns is responsible for a rise in gun crime.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Toad

Thought we were discussing the effect of confiscating the guns... that didn't happen in '92 '93... but it's late and I'm tired so maybe I've missed your point. What that occasional spikes happen?

Exactly - Gun Crime rose a huge amount in 92 and was highest (out of these figures) in 93 - and without the aid of tighter gun legislation. So it's just possible that the same mechanism may be at work in the 1999-2000 data. There isn't enough data to work it out.

As to the nice para under the table - you read that first bit again:
Over the last nine years the level of crime involving handguns, as shown in Table 2, has not deviated very far from the average for the full period shown therein. It has in fact shown a remarkable consistency. The small percentage reduction in the use of handguns between 1996 and 1998/9 has not been maintained in 1999/00...
Now it seems to me to say that Handgun crime has stayed pretty much the same, legislation or no. There was a small percentage reduction after the legislation, then a rise - which may or may not have anything to do with it - but the figures do not say.

Here's some interpretations of the rise:
1. Legal owners of guns do not commit crimes using guns, and criminals are now much less scared to commit crimes with guns because of the lack of deterrent.
[cultural note: in the UK? Where guns had to be kept unloaded in a locked cabinet that was checked by the police?!?]
2. Since owning a handgun is now a crime, there would be more crime dealing with handguns - as you can be done for both armed robbery & illegal possession of a handgun.*
3. As shotguns & handguns are even less easy to get hold of, people use replicas more - and handgun replicas are cheapest - so handgun crime figures (which include replicas under the category of handguns) soar.**
4. Gun enthusiasts no longer have legal outlets for their gun fetish, so they sign up as gangsters in order to get some trigger time, and then go nuts - gun crime rates soar.

*Before you laugh at that one - look at the table attached (from the same study), which seems to show very little increase in firearm robberies - certainly not close to 40% (yes I know it's not the whole story - I just can't bothered to check all of them - it's merely a daft hypothesis).

**That would explain the gun crime table up top nicely

Who knows which if any of these is correct - the figures can be used to support any of them.
As far as I see it, this pro gun report didn't really come up with any significant data one way or the other - merely the foggy assertion that their customer was probably right, surprise, surprise (although earlier on in the same report they trash these same government figures as being too inaccurate to draw any solid conclusions from).
The end result of these gun studies is much the same as the drug studies - all the pro-drugs or pro-guns studies have pro-drugs or pro-guns findings, and all the anti-drugs or anti-guns studies have anti-drugs or anti-guns studies (surprise, surprise).
A further interesting parallel with the pro-drugs lobby is that most people only want to legalize the weapons they like. So for example - the NRA is much less pro people who want to own their own grenades, landmines, nerve gas, cluster bombs, nuclear or biological weaponry - they only go as far as AP rounds & fully automatic... which is strange, considering "the right to bear arms" ammendment doesn't specify what sort of arms - surely all arms should be legal, including NBC suit stuff [Actually I'm guessing on that one - but I have yet to see Chuck Heston try to push this bumper sticker: Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people].
But, I digress. I would reckon confiscating guns will have very little short term effect, and at best a mild long-term effect. Violent crime existed long before guns, but guns DO make violent crime much more easy and accessible, and are therefore desirable to have if you want to do a violent crime. Without a gun, murder is a lot more tricky - with a gun it's the familar point & click interface.

[Toad]

IIRC, the gun confiscation in Britain took place during the '97-'98 time frame? After the law was passed?


Here's a few of the "high notes" from the 2000 International Crime Victims Survey.

Key-findings from the 2000 international Crime Victims Survey

"The International Crime Victimisation Survey (ICVS) is the most far-reaching programme of fully standardised sample surveys looking at householders’ experience of crime in different countries. The first ICVS took place in 1989, the second in 1992,
the third in 1996 and the fourth in 2000. Surveys have been carried out in 24 industrialised countries since 1989, and in 46 cities in developing countries and countries in transition. This report deals with seventeen industrialised countries which took
part in the 2000 ICVS.....

Car-related crime

— The risk of having a car stolen was highest in England and Wales (2.6% of owners had a theft), Australia (2.1%), and France (1.9%). Japan, Switzerland, Catalonia, the USA, Finland, and the Netherlands show risks of 0.5% or less.

Motorcycle theft
— Highest risks of motorcycle and moped theft were in Denmark and England and Wales (4% of owners were victimised).

Burglary
— The proportion of households who had a completed or attempted burglary was highest in Australia (7%), England and Wales (5%), Canada, Denmark and Belgium (all 4%).

Theft of personal property
— Thefts of personal property will be heterogeneous in nature, but the highest risks were in Australia, Sweden, and Poland (about 5%-6% of people were victimised).

Contact crime
— An overall measure of contact crime was taken as robbery, assaults with force, and sexual assaults (against women only). The highest risks were in Australia, England and Wales, Canada, Scotland and Finland: over 3% were victims.

Robbery
— Robbery was comparatively uncommon in all countries. Risks were highest in 1999 in Poland (1.8%), England and Wales, and Australia (both 1.2%). By far the lowest risks were in Japan and Northern Ireland (0.1%).

Sexual incidents
-Women in Sweden, Finland, Australia and England and Wales were most at risk of sexual assault.

Assaults and threats
— Taking all countries together, 3.5% were victims once or more of assaults orthreats in 1999. Risks were highest in Australia, Scotland, England and Wales (about 6%) and Canada (5%).

We corrected the victimisation rates for crime seriousness to see how countries fared on a crime count taking seriousness into account. It did not greatly alter the ‘burden of crime’ picture from other measures. Australia, England and Wales, the Netherlands and Sweden still remain most pressured by crime.

Trends in crime
— The picture in North America differs from that in Europe. Crime levels are lower than in 1988.

In the three European countries with four ICVS measures (England and Wales, Finland, and the Netherlands), crime levels are still higher than in 1988.

Compared to 1991, risks also fell more in North America than in five of the seven European countries showing falls."


Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmmmm".

[Toad]

Victimisation rates - The Charts and Graphs

Slow loading, but here's the bar graphs for the various categories they looked at.

[Nashwan]

I agree, you are far more likely to be attacked in Britain.

However, fewer attacks result in far more murders in America.

Now, what could account for a far higher proportion of robberies leading to murder in America?

[Toad]

Obviously, Nashwan, we look at this issue in completely different ways.

You seem to be looking at it as saying "more guns = more murders". Possibly so.

However, the English, Australian and Canadian  experiments can also be read as "Restrict lawful firearms ownership = MORE violent crime".

I'm looking at it from a different side........

What do law-abiding gun owners have to do with reducing the rate of violent crime and/or murders?

Apparently, nothing at all.

Because when England and Australia confiscated the firearms of law-abiding gun owners and Canada imposed stronger restrictions on law-abiding gun owners... their rates of violent crime and/or murder went UP.

It may well be that the larger number of firearms in the US leads to more murders....... however, it also would appear from the example set by England, Australia and Canada that confiscating the firearms of law-abiding gun owners or further restricting firearms of the law-abiding US gun owners would make it WORSE.

Now, what could account for a far higher proportion of robberies leading to murder in America?

The nature of US criminals contrasted to the nature of English/Australian/Canadian criminals? Can it be that our criminals place a lesser value on taking life than yours do? Can it be that ours are more brutal than yours? Can it be that movies do have an effect on behavior? I'm sorry.. I don't have the absolute answer for you.

Whatever you pick, it still appears that ownership of firearms by the law-abiding part of the populace has nothing to do with "a far higher proportion of robberies leading to murder in America."

Just as confiscation of the firearms of a law-abiding citizen has nothing to do with making the overall populace less subject to violent crime. In fact, (again) it appears that confiscation may very well have the opposite effect.

[-dead-]

Things that make me go "hmmm"

Using Toads new figures -
Check out Japan's violent crime figures - very low. Japan has one of the lowest per capita firearm ownership rates in the world, and some of the most restrictive legislation. Japanese Gun Law  
So - Low gun ownership & highly restrictive gun laws = very little violent crime

"Restrict lawful firearms ownership = MORE violent crime" scores No points in Japan

Now check out Finland's crime figures: also very low (although contact (ie violent) crime is high). Finland has a higher per capita gun ownership than the US, and gun legislation that while tighter than the US, is much less restrictive than Japan or the UK. Finnish Gun Law
So - High gun ownership & mild restrictions on gun ownership = very little crime, but high violent crime

"Restrict lawful firearms ownership = MORE violent crime" scores very few points in Finland either.

This seems to me to show that gun ownership rates and gun legislation bear very little relation with levels of violent crime, when we compare countries. In some countries with low gun ownership violent crime is very low, in others it's high. The same applies to countries with high gun ownership. Likewise with gun laws. Score nothing for either the pro-gun or anti-gun lobby.

As to the burglary, car theft, motorcycle theft rates - well I fear the relevance here is mostly perceptual: I would have thought most criminals would just wait until the owners weren't there/asleep, so whether the owner or the criminal has a gun or not is fairly irrelevant. (See AKDejaVu's tragic Acura tale, and tell me how his owning gun would have prevented his Acura being stolen.)

The only thing that appears to be directly related is more guns owned = more gun deaths, but many of those deaths are suicides, and so that relationship is both obvious to the point of redundancy, and useless in a pro/anti gun argument. Certainly no one can accurately say how many of the suicides would not be suicides if they didn't have a gun.
So being pro or anti guns is really only opinion based - there are no hard facts, just statistics - no black & white, just shades of grey, no simple answers, just opinions (surprise surprise ).

My own opinion is that - along with grenades, electric rotary cannons, nerve gas, howitzers, anthrax, nuclear weapons, land mines, cluster bombs, jet aircraft and karaoke machines - people are IMO on average too stupid, evil to each other and irresponsible to justify their being able to own something as dangerous as a gun.
Strangely enough, none of the figures on violent crime (with or without guns) provided so far have succeeded in doing anything but strengthening that opinion...

PS -  Surely the "is it the movies" hypothesis would only be viable if one were either to ignore the evidence & assume people in Australia, Canada & the UK don't ever see any US TV shows or movies, or one were to assume that only Americans are gullible enough to have their behaviour affected by movies. Shome mistake, shurely?