England: Worst Crime Rate in World

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

I was not speaking on behalf of the NRA, nor did I get the information from the NRA. The statistics came from the UN, and they were printed in a British newspaper.

I'm curious John, how did you stumble accross this statistic buried in an English newspaper?

You seem to be suggesting you weren't directed to it by some other source. Is that the case? Did you really find it yourself?

It doesn't matter how I found it. The fact is, pro-gun organizations had nothing to do with the creation or publication of those statistics.

You're on a witch hunt here, and there are no witches.

[mikkey 0]

You continue to misrepresent the facts and as I said before I do not understand why you do so.

Firstly: You started the thread with "England: Worst Crime Rate in the World"

It has clearly been demonstrated that this statement (and the stats you used) is BS.

Quote

Thus, over three years, it went up 39%! So how is it that I'm the one ignoring facts? Me thinks you have things bass-ackwards.

Well again you are picking a snippet of information to make a false point. The facts are (source official government stats):

The risk of being a victim of crime is now lowest since the BCS began in 1981.
Key findings of the crime survey are;

Domestic burglary down by 7%
Car theft down 12%
Violent crime down by 6%

http://www.direct.gov.uk/Newsroom/NewsArticle/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4019911&chk=ot56Yw

Quote

Provisional figures show that there has been a 15% drop in gun deaths and a 10% drop in the use of guns. Firearm offences overall rose by 3%.

Home Office Minister, Hazel Blears said;

"These are very encouraging figures. We are witnessing the longest sustained fall in crime in living memory with people less likely to be a victim of crime today than since the British Crime Survey started more than 20 years ago.

“Volume crimes such as burglary, robbery and vehicle crime are continuing to drop dramatically.”

you said:

Quote

As for crime in general, guns have nothing to do with things like car theft, so the drops on those other crimes are unrelated and irrelevant to this gun-related focus

But it is you who is using bogus stats to "demonstrate" that tough gun laws increased crime in general - see your initial post.
When it is shown that this is clearly wrong then the 2 things are suddenly not connected.

The stats you are ignoring is that murder by firearm is extremely low in the UK - both in total and as a % of population and it is still falling (15% last year). Compare 70 -80 murders per year by fire arm to the US numbers (as murders per capita).

Now, in regard to the "spike" in fire arm offences in 2002: I am not sure what the reason for that was. But taking the other numbers into account that show a drop in violent crime, the numbers probably are just in regard to people being charged with the possesion of illegal weapons in the wake of a tightening of gun controls. A fire arm offence is:

Quote

The Firearms Act 1968 creates offences of:

Section 1 - Possession of a firearm/dangerous air weapon without a certificate ;
Section 2 - Possession of a shotgun without a certificate ;
Section 3 - Dealing in firearms without registration ;
Section 4 - Shortening or converting a firearm ;
Section 5 - Possession of a prohibited weapon ;
The above offences are subject to certain exceptions :

Section 19 - Carrying a firearm/air weapon in a public place ;
Section 21 - Possession of a firearm by a convicted person ;
Sections 22-25 - Possession by and supply to minors and drunk/insane persons
The Act also creates a number of offences in relation to the making and revocation of certificates, the controlling of transactions in firearms and in respect of police powers - Sections 26, 29, 30, 38-42 and 47-49.

This is the offcial definition of the UK law. Now you probably understand why it these offences increased in the wake of the tightening of gun laws.Nothing to do with being attacked by a person with a fire arm. Comprende??


Also, gun laws in the UK were tightened in 1997 but you continue to ignore the fact that gun ownership in the UK always has been very low and that guns have always been heavily regulated - even before 1997.

So, you and your "supporters" are claiming "victory" when the premise you started the thread with is shown to be false and when the stats show again and again that further claims of yours are false.

Now let me repeat:


The risk of being a victim of crime is now lowest since the BCS began in 1981.

Violent crime down by 6%

10% drop in the use of guns

15% drop in gun deaths

"We are witnessing the longest sustained fall in crime in living memory "

So the poor crime ridden citizens of the UK better abandon their gun laws.

I find it a very stupid strategy to try to use other countries domestic affairs in trying to make the case against gun control in the US. Focus on the US. If you did deep enough you will find that the facts in most industrialised countries do not support your view (except Switzerland). You will also find that in no country with tough gun laws the population is against the regulations. So why are you hell bend in talking about other countries? Or are you again going to ignore the facts which I have found for you? Care to research things better in the future?

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Ok, here is a bunch of data points that I found on kqed, these prove beyond any shadow of doubt that

I have to say it's amusing to see KQED (public radio for Bay Area) and "proves beyond any shadow of doubt" in the same sentence.

Quote

The point of this post is to prove that if you look on the internet you can find info to support your point of view and write an immotive diatribe to accompany it, you can then bury your head in the sand and ignore all rational argument.

Yes, and this posting of your's is perfect proof. The CDC and Kellerman are terrible sources for data if you're truly interested in a rational argument.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

the stats you used are BS.

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. Same thing with New Zealand (though New Zealand has some urban issues to deal with that are also responsible as much as it's size).

Further more, YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT JUST BECAUSE TWO COUTNRYS' NUMBERS ARE OFF, [B]THAT DOESN NOT MEAN ALL THE NUMBERS LISTED ARE BULL.[/B]

Quote

The risk of being a victim of crime is now lowest since the BCS began in 1981.

Is that so? You should really look at the British Home Office and decide if lower equals acceptable. (simply admitting that the UK has crime problems as well would be good enough)

Quote

# In 2002/03, 27% of the population were the victims of some type of crime.

# This has fallen from a high in 1995 of nearly 40% of the population.

------

# In 2002/03, 4.1% of people experienced a violent incident, approximately half of which resulted in some injury.

4% of Americans have contact with any crime. That percent of the UK has contact with violent crime.

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page54.asp
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page63.asp

Also relevant to this is the fact that violent crime and contact crime are rising slowly in the UK while property crime is shrinking.

Quote

using bogus stats to "demonstrate" that tough gun laws increased crime in general

He never said gun control caused rises in crime. He said gun control doesn't prevent or reduce crime. This is borne out by the UK, where gun control was tightened and crime went up regardless.

Quote

"We are witnessing the longest sustained fall in crime in living memory "

After the most amazing spike in crime in history. Check stats for 1995.

Quote

So the poor crime ridden citizens of the UK better abandon their gun laws.

Never heard John suggest that either. Just don't suggest the US should use the UK as a guide in its crime policies.

Quote

Care to research things better in the future?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and brother let me tell you, if you think John is the kettle, you are certainly the pot.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[jimbarry 0]

Quote

What is wrong with doing business with a communist regime......

Nothing wrong with it at all.

Quote

you seem to have no problem with it when it comes to China.

None at all. After two posts and two responses, you're still under the delusion that the reason the US won't do business with Cuba is simply because it's a communist state. The history and reasons are a lot more complex than that.

[mikkey 0]

You just don't bother to read?

I have given the newest offical numbers from the Uk government for 2004. John was claiming that crime and gun related crime had increased since the UK government increased gun control in 1997. I have clearly demonstrated that this is BS.

So now you want to change the subject. Firstly all numbers show a decrease in crime since 1995 and the latest numbers for 2004 show it continuing and are now at 23 year lows.

So now you are hanging your hat on some stats regarding "contact with crime" and claim that is much higher then in the US and anywhere else. You have no idea how these numbers a collated and how the contact with crime has been defined.

Quote

# In 2002/03, 4.1% of people experienced a violent incident, approximately half of which resulted in some injury.

4% of Americans have contact with any crime. That percent of the UK has contact with violent crime.

So tell me: How are these stats collated? How is "violent" defined? How do you know that the US numbers (source?) are comparable with the UK's? Which collection methods and which definition of "crime" and "Violence" were used?

Quote

He never said gun control caused rises in crime. He said gun control doesn't prevent or reduce crime. This is borne out by the UK, where gun control was tightened and crime went up regardless.

BS - the spike was 1995 - gun control was tightened in 1997 and crime has gone down since. Check the latest numbers. And again :

The risk of being a victim of crime is now lowest since the BCS began in 1981.

Violent crime down by 6%

10% drop in the use of guns

15% drop in gun deaths

And: Do compare murder and assault with a deadly weapon rates per capita between the UK and US.

Quote

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. Same thing with New Zealand (though New Zealand has some urban issues to deal with that are also responsible as much as it's size).

That is so laugable. A high crime rate because of a small population? What knowledge do you have about NZ and Finland? I know both countries very well and they are not crime ridden countries. The stats used to start this thread are BS and remain BS.

You can squirm and try to change the subject. John was trying make a point that suits him with BS information and he has been caught. You can jump up and down as much as you want but it does not change the facts.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

You continue to misrepresent the facts...

To the charge that my subject title is misleading, I point you to the original news story from the London Telegraph. Quote:

"England and Wales have the highest crime rate among the world's leading economies, according to a new report by the United Nations."

Source: The Telegraph

The only thing I'm guilty of is saying "the world" for brevity, instead of "world's leading economies". For any other complaint in this regard, your ire should be directed towards the UN which published the report.

Regarding my statement that gun crime is rising since the confiscation: A quote from England's Home Office (bolding is mine):

"...in the year ending 31 March 2004, there was:

* a 15 per cent reduction in homicides involving firearms
* a 13 per cent reduction in robberies involving firearms

Even so, we have seen an unacceptable rise in gun crime over recent years..."

Source: Home Office

Just because two particular categories of gun crime have gone down, does not mean that gun crime overall isn't up. In fact, the Home Office which tracks these statistics admits that gun crime is up.

As for my argument that "crime" was the justification for confiscation guns, we have this admission:

"The main purpose of firearms legislation has always been to protect public safety... The Government accepts that a firearm’s potential to kill should be a crucial factor in its regulation."

Report: Controls over Firearms (pdf file), Click on "full text", see Page 3, starting at paragraph (a).

As for proof of the rise in gun crime since the confiscation, I offer these Home Office items:

See the 1st attached chart below for the rise in gun crime which occurred in the years following the gun ban.

And the 2nd attached chart is the latest one, going through 2003/2004.

Source: Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003: Supplementary Volume 1: Homicide and Gun Crime (page 26)

All of them show a rise in gun crime since the 1997 ban. I don't see how you can continue to deny this plain fact, in the face of these charts, statements and statistics from England's own Home Office.

All the talk about other types of crime, the low level compared to elsewhere, the cherry-picking of small specifics, etc. is just obfuscation. The fact is, guns were confiscated, and since then gun crime has continued to go up every year.

I've said my piece, and documented it. You've said yours. I'm content at this point to let the readers decide for themselves which view they wish to accept.

I rest my case.

[penniless 0]

Quote

Guns were banned. Gun crime went up. From this I conclude that banning guns doesn't reduce gun crime. You are free to draw your own conclusions.

Great logic. Care to apply it to capital punishment? Good data on that from Illinois - murders went down after the governor stopped executions.

[mikkey 0]

And you continue to mirepresent the facts.

Serious crimes using guns are DOWN. You are saying it yourself for gods sake:

Quote

* a 15 per cent reduction in homicides involving firearms
* a 13 per cent reduction in robberies involving firearms

What you fail to mention from the same site:

Quote

"Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in this country is relatively low – less than half of 1 percent of all crime recorded by the police"

From the same sources you fail to mention:

Quote

Changes in the counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998 affected both the methods of counting
and the coverage for recorded crime and had the effect of inflating the number of crimes recorded. For
some offence groups - homicide, violence against the person endangering life, robbery, and burglary -
there was likely to be little effect on numbers of firearm crimes recorded. However, the changes will have
had more effect on figures for more minor violence and criminal damage. This would have a particular
impact on the number of air weapon crimes recorded.
Similarly, the implementation of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) by police forces on 1
April 2002 will have increased the number of crimes recorded.

and

Quote

Many firearm offences are amongst the less serious categories, for example criminal damage
involving an airgun,

and

Quote

Overall, firearms (including air weapons) were used in 0.41 per cent of all recorded crimes. The
proportion excluding air weapons was 0.17 per cent.

(how does that compare with the US?)

and

Quote

Just over half (57%) of these offences involved air weapons, with 76 per cent
of air weapon offences being crimes of criminal damage, that is crimes against property only.

Quote

Criminal damage made up 46 per cent of recorded crimes where firearms were used (Table 2.01). The vast
majority of crimes (76%) carried out using air weapons were offences of criminal damage (Figure 2.6).

So these terrible "crimes" are kids shooting air guns at property.......

You have been caught spreading BS and you wont admit it. "Real" gun crime is low in the UK.

Crimes are at the lowest for 23 year.

And you should have known that the initial article for the Telegraph was BS. Clearly a case of putting numbers against each other that should not be compared.

And just for you again from the latest stats:

The risk of being a victim of crime is now lowest since the BCS began in 1981.

Violent crime down by 6%

10% drop in the use of guns

15% drop in gun deaths

"We are witnessing the longest sustained fall in crime in living memory "

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[slug 1]

Hi Mikkey

You fell for the JR GC SC trap again

The only way to win a GC debate with these people is to ignor them
As you were

R.I.P.

[crozby 0]

That was a quality post. I can't wait to see the pro-gun response.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Serious crimes using guns are DOWN. You are saying it yourself for gods sake:

Quote

* a 15 per cent reduction in homicides involving firearms
* a 13 per cent reduction in robberies involving firearms

I was talking about gun crime overall, which is up. You're not paying enough attention to what I'm saying, before crying "foul". That was not a misrepresentation. You are cherry-picking only two categories of gun crime, and trying to portray that as the overall scene. It is not. It is great that "serious" gun crime is down, but that doesn't represent the total gun crime picture, which is up.

Quote

What you fail to mention from the same site:

Quote

"Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in this country is relatively low – less than half of 1 percent of all crime recorded by the police"

You're arguing against something I've never said. I never claimed that gun crime wasn't low to start with. But what gun crime there is, is up. The trend is important. According to your way of thinking, supposedly it doesn't matter that gun crime is up, because it was "low" to start with (whatever "low" is interpreted to mean). When any crime goes up, that's a bad thing, regardless of how little of it there was to start with.

Quote

So these terrible "crimes" are kids shooting air guns at property.......

If you look more carefully at the charts I provided, which cover "firearm crime", one of the lines is labeled "weapons excluding airguns". That line represents regular firearms, excluding air guns. And that line is rising. Once again you are jumping to conclusions against things that don't even relate to what I said. Firearm crime, excluding airguns, is up. Look at the charts! Oh, and air gun crimes are rising too.

Quote

You have been caught spreading BS and you wont admit it. "Real" gun crime is low in the UK.

The only BS here is your misinterpretation of the graphs, and your selective presentation of data to try and obfuscate the truth of what I'm saying.

I never denied that gun crime was low. But it is rising. It is the trend in England that is important, when judging the effectiveness of the 1997 gun confiscation. How it compares to other countries is irrelevant. Unless you want to argue that England's gun crime doesn't matter unless and until it reaches the same level of some other country. And I don't know why you would want to do that. You should measure how well you're doing fighting gun crime by comparing with your own statistics from year to year. And it shows your losing the fight.

Quote

10% drop in the use of guns

Thats kind of hard to achieve since gun crime is up according to the sources I cited. Care to tell us where you got that little statistic? I documented my data. How about you doing the same, so that it can be peer-reviewed.

Let's see if we can't agree on a basic fact here:
Is overall gun crime in England rising? "Yes" or "No"?

Forget about all the crime sub-categories, what the level was before, how it compares to the rates in other countries, and all the other distractions. Just answer that one simple question. "Yes" or "No"?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Just answer that one simple question. "Yes" or "No"?

Ah, the death knell of a bleeding heart's arguments.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Continuing to speak with you is a waste of my time. At least when I disagree with most people they are able to accept palin facts when faced with them. (spinning or minimizing happens a lot, but at least they acknowlegde the facts)

Your version of events and reality as reported by the British Home Office are two starkly different stories. I wish John the best of luck. I know you don't need it because in your world everyone else is wrong, not you.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mikkey 0]

Somebody gave me the good advice to ignore you (see above) and yes I should.

You are all over the place...

Lets start with your initial post - the one that started the thread: BS

Then you were on about how this was connected to the UK gun laws: BS

Then you have been repeatedly saying that gun crime is up in the UK and it is not.

1) Overall gun crime is very low and that comes from the long standing control of guns. 1997 did NOT introduce gun control it just tightened it. So your assertion that 1997 was the start of gun control is BS.

2) Gun crimes using fire arms to rob people to kill people etc. are down! The only increases you see is kids stuff like using an airgun to shoot at property and use of replica guns. You want to use this in a GC debate? Give me a break.

3) You also repeatedly choose to ignore that all statistical sources at government sites make a big point that statistical methods and collection criteria have been changed which led to an ARTIFICIAL increase in minor offences.

4) A large part of the so called "gun crimes" you say have increased are the use of replica guns. In the last year the amount of "offences" using a replica gun (i.e. not a real gun) - increased by 35%.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1404.pdf

You know why people use replica guns ? Because they can't get hold of real guns due to the strict GC laws! Those GC laws are terrible... So you want to count crimes using toy guns..

4)

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


10% drop in the use of guns

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Thats kind of hard to achieve since gun crime is up according to the sources I cited

Well the look again at the link with the updated information I gave you. http://www.direct.gov.uk/Newsroom/NewsArticle/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4019911&chk=ot56Yw

"Provisional figures show that there has been a 15% drop in gun deaths and a 10% drop in the use of guns. Firearm offences overall rose by 3%"

and "There were 4,910 offences where handguns were used, a decrease of 570 offences or 10 per
cent compared to the year ending June 2003. Imitation weapons were used in 2,560 offences,
an increase of 660 offences or 35 per cent."

The reason this is possible is because the Brits are counting the use of a piece of painted soap as a fire arm offence - comprende?

So lets summarize:

- You posted a dubious articel that claimed the UK to be the leading crime country in the world and YOU connected it to gun laws.
- You made assertions that crime and especially gun crimes are up and up.
- You finally concluded that this was the case because of gun control., i.e. gun control - crime and violence increases.

You have been called on all of these:

- The UK has some of the lowest rates of murder, assault, robbery etc. with a fire arm in the world. Know why? Guess.
- Crime in general and violent crime using guns is falling and at a 23 year low.

And how do you refute all this? Because minor offences including the use of air guns to shoot at property and the use of replica guns has increased. And as even your sources tell you the increase might just be caused by changes in collection and statistical methods. Duh!

Go home Homer.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[slug 1]

Mikkey

Go home. I guess we'll see who blinks first

Don't matter the dude got to get on his platform in SC with a exciting thread tittle and it got 1400 hit's not bad for what is.

Might want to hit the NRA websight for the next thread.

R.i.P.

[Kennedy 0]

If he bothered to pay attention he'd have noticed that the statistics John quoted specifically exempted airguns, toys, and replicas.

I suppose I could admonish you to actually read before siding up and condemning people, again, but I doubt you'd listen either, huh?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mikkey 0]

The numbers for "non-air guns" include replica weapons which showed large increases and skewed the numbers substantially. Check the facts. And use 2004 numbers which are available not 2002. Also again read the notes regarding change to reporting methods.

The fact is that claims were made that do not stand up in regard to gun control.
You don't want me to again repeat the key findings of the 2004 crime stats in the UK?

I said early on in this thread that is unwise to start dragging other countries into the US gun control discussion. You can continue to bitch and moan but the fact is that the UK can not be used to make your point in regard to GC in the US. What you do in the US is up to you but dont try to drag other countries into it.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[slug 1]

Quote

If he bothered to pay attention he'd have noticed that the statistics John quoted specifically exempted airguns, toys, and replicas.

I suppose I could admonish you to actually read before siding up and condemning people, again, but I doubt you'd listen either, huh?

Hi Kennedy

There's been 117 post up to yours Why confuse the issue with the facts The tittle and author of the thread was was enough to know what was going on. I'm not getting paid to read this crap

You and JR have a well known track record on gun control. We don't have any unrealistic expectations that you wouldn't agree with JR if he said 2 plus 2 was 3.

What was the purpose of this thread in your opinion?

to change anyone's opinion about GC?

to try and get sucker some brits to debate GC issues

A debateing exercise in general.

Sorry I won't play that game, Feel free to complain to a moderator.

R.I.P.

[rhys 0]

However I'm not surprised you omitted this given and the lengths you apear go to to twist any statistic to support your your attitude towards the UK gun laws.

Quote

yeah and what are the stats on murders in the different countries?, who is killing thier brothers and sisters! oh thats right michael moore tried to point that one out and everyone thinks he is an idiot apparently.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

• Quote

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"England: Worst Crime Rate in World"

Another good reason why Scotland is better.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[crozby 0]

Quote

If he bothered to pay attention he'd have noticed that the statistics John quoted specifically exempted airguns, toys, and replicas.

Kennedy

I've taken the time to look at the UK government reports and it seems to me the following conclusions can be drawn from them:

1. Gun crime involving handguns is down.

2. Gun crime involving replicas and airguns is up.

Perhaps the recent introduction of a mandatory 5 year jail sentence for being in posession of a handgun is having an effect.

If so, perhaps the solution is to extend the 5 year jail term to include replicas and to further restrict the use of air guns.

I wouldn't advocate gun control like this in the USA, but what do you think about applying it to the UK?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

"England: Worst Crime Rate in World"

Another good reason why Scotland is better.

It's descendants, too.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

I'm a big supporter of harsh punishments for violent offenders, and a supporter of minimum sentences.

Here in the US a thing called Project Exile was designed to lock up real gun criminals (not BS administrative issues). The final idea was summed up as "Use a gun in a crime, get an additional five years, FEDERAL." They started this system in Richmond, Virginia when it had the worst murder rate in the US. A few years later they weren't even on the radar.

Locking up real criminals is the best way to lower the crime rate.

(as to your idea for restricting bb guns, well, I don't see the real threat in one, but if it's getting to be a problem, it has to be taken care of. Personally, I'd think sentences for using knives would be a higher priority in the UK, but it's your house.)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[KidWicked 0]

I'm not replying to any particular post, but - as an ex Brit who now lives in the US, all the statistics in this argument are moot to me.

Growing up in a rough inner city in England, it was inconceivable to me and my peers that we would ever be shot, or encounter any situation with a gun. Stabbed or "glassed" with a broken glass? - sure. Shot? - not in a million years. In England, you can go out at night and you are very, VERY unlikely to be killed in a fight, robbery, whatever. I don't have any particular statistics to back that up, it's just a feeling that I think most people in England and the UK feel - ask people who've lived in both places.

In the US, that feeling just doesn't exist. And if that feeling *didn't* exist, then people wouldn't carry guns for self defense.

What's the crucial difference? There just aren't that many guns in England, comparitvely speaking. Less guns equals less chance you will be shot - that logic seems inescapable to me. Sure, someone could still kill you with a knife or a baseball bat or something, but it takes a lot more commitment to repeatedly knife someone or bash their skull in than to just pull a trigger, and a peice of wood doesn't have the "cool" factor that street punks and gangsters are attracted to.

If the NRA drop loaded 500,000 guns into the UK I guarantee that the climate (that feeling of the unlikelyness that you'll be killed) would change radically. It would feel way more dangerous knowing that you couldn't fight someone off with your bare hands.

The UK is clearly safer with a gun ban (or however you want to describe the legislation), based on my experience living in both countries for several years.

My 2 cents...

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."