Without checking stats, I'll bet that the total of knifed + shot in the "last year" is essentially unchanged from previous years. In other words, the gun ban didn't significantly decrease the total number of homicides. Rather, there was a change in modality with roughly equal numbers. Nashwan, you seem to have easy access to official stats... is that about right?
The homicide figures in Britiain tend to jump around a lot, simply because there are relatively few. A statitician could probably use the proper words to explain it, but basically when numbers are low, you see large percentage flucuations.
As an example, the stabbing deaths in 2002/03 were 272, up 10 from 2001/02, but up 58 from 2000/01. However, if you go back to the early 90s, you have 219 in 92, 182 in 93, then back up to 231 in 94, 243 in 95, 197 in 96, etc.
Shooting deaths bounce around in a similar manner, 52 in 92, 73 in 93, 46 in 98/99, 98 in 01/02, 80 in 02/03, 70 in 03/04 iirc.
In other words, the gun ban didn't significantly decrease the total number of homicides.
Of course not. The gun "ban" was applied to a country that already had very strict firearms controls, that were working perfectly well.
It's rather like saying reducing the speed limit would not have any effect on fatal accidents, and using as an example a country that had gone from a 10 mph limit to a 5 mph limit. It doesn't tell you anything about what would happen going from no limit to a 50 mph limit.
Britain had strict gun laws that worked very well at stopping legally aquired guns falling into the hands of criminals. As those laws were almost 100% effective anyway, tightening them didn't make a difference.
That doesn't tell you anything about what would happen in a country like the US, where laws do nothing to prevent legally aquired guns falling into criminal's hands.
Also, if knife homicides increased 35% in five years, what was the increase or decrease in gun homicides in that same period?
Just to illustrate how much the percentages jump around, gun murders last year were up 52% on 5 years ago, 32% on 6 years ago, 14% on 4 years ago. (And down 1.5% on a decade ago)
The best illustration of the large percentage jumps is strangulation. It went up 166% in 01/02 from the previous year, then went back down 47% the next year.
As you sort of dodged the question last time, can I ask it again straight out?
1. Do you believe all methods of killing are equally effective, in particular do you think a knife is as effective a way of killing as a gun, in most circumstances? (Not under certain conditions, but on average)
2. Do you believe that making people use less effective ways of killing, ie making killing harder, will lead to less murders, or not?
To take it to it's logical conclusion, and to use Archie Bunker's example, do you think if the only way to murder someone was to push them out of a window, there would be as many murders in the US as there currently are?
It seems to me a gun is an efficient tool for killing people. In the US, it's the most efficient tool that's readily available and easy to use.
It also seems to me if you want to get more work done, you use the most efficient tool.
The only real argument, it seem to me, is if gun control results in less guns in the hands of criminals.
Arguing that guns are not the easiest way to kill people seems silly. Lazs has guns for self defence, he's not proposing to push criminals out of a window, hit them with a baseball paddle, or stab them.
