0
JohnRich

England: Worst Crime Rate in World

Recommended Posts

Quote

You've got a chart with a line that goes up on it; I've lived in both countries. Why don't we both just get 'em out and measure them?



The problem you're having interpreting what I said is that you are insisting on comparing England with America. I've already acknowledged that America has more gun crime. That's not the issue.

What we're talking about is the effect of the gun ban in England. So set aside the comparision with America for a moment. You don't measure the effectiveness of a law in one country, by comparing it to another country. No, you compare by looking at the statistics both before and after the law was passed, within the country in which it was passed.

What effect did banning guns have on gun crime in England? None. Gun crime in England has gone up since guns were confiscated in 1997.

Quote

Just so I'm clear though: you're saying that if gun laws in the UK were removed, citizens of the UK would have *less* chance of getting shot?



No, I think gun crime would have gone up either way. Gun crime is up because of the growing criminal subculture in England. Not because some law-abiding citizens own guns and keep them in their homes. Guns don't cause crime - culture does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think that, in general, there will always be an upward trend in gun violence. Seeing the curve on that graph pointing upwards is really no surprise.



Nope. Here in America, with more guns than ever in circulation, gun crime has been dropping for 12 years, and we are at a level not seen since the 1970's. Your theory is false.

Quote

if a more efficient way of killing people was invented, even if the use of it was made illegal, there are people who would spend the time and money to circumvent the law and obtain it.



Criminals will always get guns on the black market. Passing laws doesn't stop that.

Quote

Same with guns: banning them reduces the amount in circulation, and makes them become rare, and thus they become expensive for the average criminal to obtain


"The number of firearms required to satisfy the crime market is minute, and these are supplied no matter what controls are instituted... There is no case, either in the history of this country or in the experience of other countries, in which controls can be shown to have restricted the flow of weapons to criminals or in any way reduced armed crime."
- Metropolitan Police Superintendent, Colin Greenwood, West Yorkshire, England, 1996.

Quote

my feeling is that the ban has kept that rate from rising faster than it has.



Using that, you can justify any law for anything. Even if it doesn't provide the desired effect, you can just claim: "It would have been worse otherwise!" That's silly. If you're going to deny people their property and gun rights, you sure as hell ought to be able to prove that the confiscation was actually effective at achieving its desired goal.

It has failed miserably. The end result is that the people were denied their property and gun rights, for nothing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

IMO people in the US don't carry guns to protect themselves from gun violence or any other type, but just because they can and they want to its a power trip.



Please read some of the stories at this link of armed citizens who have used their guns to protect themselves from criminal attack.

The KABR's "Operation Self Defense" files:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/opsd/

Quote

A private citizen discharging his weapon or gun in response to a crime is the last thing a responsiable person wants to do.



That is correct, but doesn't mean that it isn't often necessary, and the absolute correct thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Do you really want to go someplace where you think you might need a gun



You cannot predict where those places are. It could be in your own neighborhood, or in your own home. If we could simply avoid certain places to avoid crime, then everyone would do it, and there wouldn't be any crime. And you might have to go certain places, to get to work, for example. The problem is, the criminals can find you, no matter where you go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

IMO people in the US don't carry guns to protect themselves from gun violence or any other type, but just because they can and they want to its a power trip.



So I guess you think people exercising their right to free speech are just on a power trip? And people exercising their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures (telling the cops no) are just on a power trip? And people exercising their right to freedom of assembly, they're just on a power trip?

Or is it people exercising only the rights you don't think they should have that are "on a power trip?"
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

IMO people in the US don't carry guns to protect themselves from gun violence or any other type, but just because they can and they want to its a power trip.



So I guess you think people exercising their right to free speech are just on a power trip? And people exercising their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures (telling the cops no) are just on a power trip? And people exercising their right to freedom of assembly, they're just on a power trip?

Or is it people exercising only the rights you don't think they should have that are "on a power trip?"



Hi kennedy

Sorry but you can "guess" whatever you want to, right or wrong keep on guessing:DB|no point in saying that you guessed right or wrong is there?

I'm "guessing" that you not beating your domestic partner anymore. Since you not a real policeman yet.

The Chief of Police of Tacoma lived in the same town as I do and he murdered his wife and commited suicide in front of his little kids in the parking lot of a strip mall where we shop.

The acting chief of police only stayed in office for one day before she was relieved due to prior knowledge and assisting the police chief in harressing his wife.

Some outsiders were requeted to review what happened and why. One of the experts was a person with experience in domestic abuse by police officers.

She reviewed the Tacoma PD's records and found that reported domestic abuse by police was less than 1%. The expert stated in the real word the incidence of domestic violence is higher in the PD than in the general population.:o

The chief used his work gun and one of the questions asked after the fact was when he was stressing out the day before the incident why the city manager/human resources didn't ask for his gun.
Wanna "Guess" why?

If you want to you can "Guess" if I'm blowing smoke or you can google it for your own info. The chief's name was David Brahme (Sp?)and his wife's name was Crystal. The local paper is the Tacoma tribune.


Guess who:P
R.I.P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


They are the internationally accepted crimes rates of industrial nations.

Yes, Russia's numbers are FUBAR. No one argues that. You should understand that Finland DOES have a high crime rate because it has a small population. Each crime "counts more" in small populations when you are counting per 100,000... .



Bbbbbbbbhhhuuuuullllsssshhiitt.... Excuse me... :P

That is probably the all time low of this whole "same old people arguing about same old shit" -thread.

Soo... I guess, because we (Finland) have such a small population, also e.g. our birth rate is higher, since "each birth counts more" :P .

A little hint for you: saying that some parts of the study are reliable while others are not is also... Tsadaa... BS!

Oh, and if you want to belief that Finland has one of the highest crime rates of the world, because "the study said so" - be my guest. I assure you, that you are way off though.... You are welcome to visit Finland - I'll be your free tour guide! :)
I have learned my lesson about the whole gun control thing - it's a domestic thing, so e.g. I don't judge etc. your system, values, or beliefs (I used to - I was a dumbass). That said, I would suggest that (ok, this is just my opinion here) taking up UK, as an example, into a US gun debate (which, as I said, should be strictly domestic issue) - when these two countries clearly have such a different starting point, is just... a bit weird...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


It has failed miserably.



John; one more time. It is not possible to point to crimes involving illegally held firearms as an indication of the effectiveness of the 1997 legislation.

The 1997 legislation was not intended to have any material effect on the rate of crimes carries out with illegally held firearms. Thus pointing to those figures, jumping up and down and shouting "SEE" while frothing at the mouth has absolutely no meaning.

Since the 1997 legislation did not purport to have any affect on criminals, saying that criminals have not been effected shows us nothing at all about the effectiveness of the legislation.

It’s like saying “the use of an AAD on the reserve has had no effect on main canopy malfunctions” – of course it has had no effect; it was never intended to have any effect.

Go take a look at Hansard. Educate yourself as to what the 1997 legislation actually hoped to achieve. Don’t use newspaper reports or pressure group websites as a primary resource – go look at what actually came out of the horse’s mouth. Only once you have educated yourself as to what was hoped to be achieved can you say with any degree of certainty whether or not the legislation achieved it or not. As it is you appear to have got the wrong end of the stick entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Gun crime is up because of the growing criminal subculture in England.



Phew! Exactly! So its not up because we do not own guns as deterrents to other gun-toting crims. So what exactly is the point of us owning them - self defence? is that not going to antagonise these criminals further - gang culture springs to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


So what exactly is the point of us owning them - self defence? is that not going to antagonise these criminals further - gang culture springs to mind.



It's been pretty well established here in the US that criminals prefer to stay safe, and avoid targets that might fight back. They're not too proud to move on to easier pastures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It's been pretty well established here in the US that criminals prefer to stay safe, and avoid targets that might fight back. They're not too proud to move on to easier pastures.



I don't think that alone is enough to make England as a nation to buy guns, put bigger locks on our doors and close ourselves off. We're just not that paranoid about some AIDs infected, crack addicted psycho storming into our homes and killing us all. OK so it happens, but so do car accidents, will you only get in a car that has airbags?

------------------------------------------------------
May Contain Nut traces......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

It's been pretty well established here in the US that criminals prefer to stay safe, and avoid targets that might fight back. They're not too proud to move on to easier pastures.



I don't think that alone is enough to make England as a nation to buy guns, put bigger locks on our doors and close ourselves off. We're just not that paranoid about some AIDs infected, crack addicted psycho storming into our homes and killing us all. OK so it happens, but so do car accidents, will you only get in a car that has airbags?



If I buy a car, and airbags are an option, I'm certainly getting them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I don't think that alone is enough to make England as a nation to buy guns, put bigger locks on our doors and close ourselves off. We're just not that paranoid about some AIDs infected, crack addicted psycho storming into our homes and killing us all. OK so it happens, but so do car accidents, will you only get in a car that has airbags?



I didn't suggest it as a cure all, merely responding to Tilly's thought that criminals would feel a need to go after folks that had the temerity to defend themselves.

As for air bags, I'd be quite happy to get a car without them. I actually wear my seat belt when I'm in a car, so I don't need a giant bomb designed for the dumbasses who won't buckle up. Or I'm on a motorcycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The Chief of Police of Tacoma...and he murdered his wife...
The chief used his work gun...



Do you believe that someone who wants to commit murder will be prevented from doing so by the simple absence of a readily available gun?

This is the same principle put forth for gun purchase waiting periods.

From "Point Blank, Guns and Violence in America", Gary Kleck, pp. 333-335:

"For a killing to have been prevented by a waiting period, a number of conditions must have existed. (1) The killer used a gun that was the only gun that he owned, (2) The killer purchased the gun from a source that could realistically be expected to comply with waiting period regulations, (3) The gun was purchased within a span of time before the crime equal to or less than the waiting period minimum, i.e. 3 days, (4) The killer would not have repeated the act or waited until after the waiting period elapsed, i.e. the act was a one-time only incident rather than the product of some on-going relationship accompanied by repeated, serious assaults...

"A 1982 survey of Florida prison system inmates found that of 342
felons who had committed handgun homicides, only 3 (.9%) had owned only one handgun, had purchased it from a retail dealer, and had donemso within 3 days of the killing. (Mannelli 1982, pp. 7-8) Thus, fewer than 1 in 100 handgun killings were even hypothetically preventable through a 3-day waiting period...

"However, for a number of reasons, even this extremely small number overstates the fraction of gun killings that were potentially
preventable... about .37% of handgun killers bought their only
handgun from a retail source within 3 days of the killing... about
1 in 200 handgun killings were potentially preventable by a 7-day
waiting period.

"...even this figure still exaggerates the violence-preventative
potential of waiting periods, because it fails to take into account
four possibilities. First... some of the few killers who otherwise
seemed "preventable" either also owned a long gun or could have
acquired one... Second, some of those who were successfully denied a gun might still have killed with a different kind of weapon. Third, many of the killers had ongoing relationships with their victims, prior confrontations with them, and continuing reasons to attack them long after any waiting period... Fourth, some of the few otherwise "preventable" killers could have obtained guns through other channels, besides retail purchase, that most criminals use...

"This suggests that is highly unlikely that waiting periods, by
themselves, could prevent even as many as 1 in 200 gun killings.
Although criminal records checks may have beneficial effects, the
waiting periods that often accompany them are probably superfluous."

* * *

In other words, your police chief would have just found some other way to commit the murder, or used another gun he already owned, or purchased another gun somewhere, or just waited until later when he got his gun back, or...

Banning guns does not remove the desire nor the means to commit murder.

Genesis 4:8
"And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him."

Cain slew Abel in the world's first-ever murder, and that was long before guns were invented. The Bible doesn't tell us how he did it, but he must have used a stick or a rock. Ya' gonna' ban sticks and rocks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Cain slew Abel in the world's first-ever murder, and that was long before guns were invented. The Bible doesn't tell us how he did it, but he must have used a stick or a rock. Ya' gonna' ban sticks and rocks?



My God man. And to think for a while I actually made the effort to read and understand your posts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Oh, and if you want to belief that Finland has one of the highest crime rates of the world, because "the study said so" - be my guest. I assure you, that you are way off though...



"* Percent of Finns who were a victim of a crime in 1999: 19%
* Average % of residents of industrialized countries that were a victim of a crime in 1999: 21%"

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonindex/finland.shtml

"Assault victims: 2.1% (1999) [6th of 21]
Murders: 148 (2000) [43rd of 63]
Rape victims: 1.1% (1999) [3rd of 21]
Robberies: 2,600 (2000) [40th of 64]"

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/fi/Crime

"International perspectives.
"The four sweeps of the International Crime Victims Survey (1989, 1992, 1996 and 2000) have shown Finland to have a relatively low overall victimisation rate... the only exceptions concern assault and sexual violence, in respect of which the rate in Finland is higher than the average for Western European countries."

http://www.om.fi/optula/uploads/cqfi3usm2zbtb.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The 1997 legislation was not intended to have any material effect on the rate of crimes carries out with illegally held firearms.


"The greatest danger of bombs is in the explosion of stupidity that they provoke."
- Octave Mirbeau (1850-1917), French journalist, author.

"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it."
- William Burroughs (b. 1914), U.S. author.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Gun crime is up because of the growing criminal subculture in England.



Phew! Exactly! So its not up because we do not own guns as deterrents to other gun-toting crims. So what exactly is the point of us owning them - self defence? is that not going to antagonise these criminals further - gang culture springs to mind.



Self-defense and sport. If somone isn't a criminal, there is no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to own guns for these purposes.

Gun ownership doesn't antagonize criminals, it does the exact opposite - it discourages them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Cain slew Abel in the world's first-ever murder, and that was long before guns were invented. The Bible doesn't tell us how he did it, but he must have used a stick or a rock. Ya' gonna' ban sticks and rocks?



My God man. And to think for a while I actually made the effort to read and understand your posts...



What don't you understand about that message?

The theme here is this: Trying to remove weapons from a society does not stop or reduce murders. I think that biblical example applies to that theme.

Thank you for reading and trying to understand my point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Do you believe that someone who wants to commit murder will be prevented from doing so by the simple absence of a readily available gun?



Good point JR, I mean the sniper in Washington could have bought the city to a standstill and killed all those people at random by running up to them and beating them to death with sticks couldn't he.

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

As for air bags, I'd be quite happy to get a car without them. I actually wear my seat belt when I'm in a car, so I don't need a giant bomb designed for the dumbasses who won't buckle up. Or I'm on a motorcycle.



Hehe yeah, I think here in England were the no airbag, no seatbelt type when it comes to home and personal security. ;)

------------------------------------------------------
May Contain Nut traces......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At the end of the day, the VAST majority of people in England do not want or feel like they have to own a gun. Part of the reason is that we are simply not as paranoid a nation as the U.S.

Sure I agree with the fact that if someone tries to mug you if is gonna do the situation good if the victim has a gun but you can drastically reduce the possibility of ever being in a situation like that by not going to dodgy areas etc. Hey shit happens but i'm not gonna live my life looking over my shoulder 24/7 and sleeping with a gun under my pillow just in case some nutcase comes into my house. That's no way to live your life IMO. There are far more constructive ways to spend my energies. If someone breaks into my house i'll hit em with a bar or throw some heavy shit at them.

Someone tried to mug me in Liverpool a few years back, was too drunk and it was too dark to know if he had a knife or any kind of a weapon so I just kicked him in the balls and broke his nose (then ran off like a girl but I don't talk about that bit ;))

Like I said shit happens but I refuse to live my life in a state of permanent fear and paranoia just in case so IMHO the government can do what the hell they want regarding gun laws and taking my "right to bear arms", they can stick em up their arses for all I care.

Peace

------------------------------------------------------
May Contain Nut traces......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


As for air bags, I'd be quite happy to get a car without them. I actually wear my seat belt when I'm in a car, so I don't need a giant bomb designed for the dumbasses who won't buckle up. Or I'm on a motorcycle.



So when you park your car into the car in front of you at 50Kmph and your seat belt stops you, what is there then to protect you when the front end of your car is compresssed in the impact and smashed through your face... maybe then when you are removing you teeth and face from your dashboard, you might wish you had a "bomb" designed for "dumbasses" :S:S:S:S:S
-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


As for air bags, I'd be quite happy to get a car without them. I actually wear my seat belt when I'm in a car, so I don't need a giant bomb designed for the dumbasses who won't buckle up. Or I'm on a motorcycle.



So when you park your car into the car in front of you at 50Kmph and your seat belt stops you, what is there then to protect you when the front end of your car is compresssed in the impact and smashed through your face... maybe then when you are removing you teeth and face from your dashboard, you might wish you had a "bomb" designed for "dumbasses" :S:S:S:S:S



To help you along with this, let's be clear about US standards for airbags. They are designed to protect an unbelted, 175lb driver. That requires more a more powerful airbag, one that does in fact break forearms and noses all by itself. They can kill small women and children, and have. All for a marginal decrease in fatality rates over the seat belt by itself.
For billions of dollars spent.

And it goes without saying that I ride without seat belts or airbags on the boxer. Though maybe it's worth noting there is a nutcase in the UK trying to design and mandate an airbag for motorcycles. Hopefully it won't be the same sort of monstrousity found when the US NHTSA tried to engineer a "safe motorcycle."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hey shit happens but i'm not gonna live my life looking over my shoulder 24/7 and sleeping with a gun under my pillow just in case some nutcase comes into my house. That's no way to live your life IMO. There are far more constructive ways to spend my energies



Dave, your words rely on an assumption that those who carry weapons do so in a state of fear. It's not an option in California, but I don't believe it feels any different than carrying a wallet or a cellphone. Or having emergency supplies of water or food in case of an earthquake.

In general I find having more options gives me more peace of mind, not the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0