England: Violent Crime

[JohnRich 4]

News:

Government figures 'missing' two million violent crimes

An extra two million violent crimes a year are committed in Britain than previously thought because of a bizarre distortion in the Government's flagship crime figures, it was claimed yesterday.

A former Home Office research expert said that across all types of crime, three million offences a year are excluded from the British Crime Survey (BCS).

The poll caps the number of times a victim can be targeted by an offender at five incidents a year...

Violent crime is 82 per cent higher at 4.4 million offences compared with 2.4 million in the BCS, the survey claims...

Source: The Independent

This is for some of the people here who insist that the crime survey is the most accurate measurement available, trumping police actual crime statistics.

That has been a long debate here, because actual crime stats have showed violence going up, while the crime survey has showed crime going down. Thus, the folks that think the gun ban was a great idea, loved the crime survey, claiming that it supports their idea that the gun ban is at least partially responsible for the lower crime rates.

And now this story comes along and bursts their gun-control love-bubble. Darn, what a shame!

[434 2]

I see you like to bash england in your reports, and you do not contribute with your own opinion! Anyway we like to pic news about American, so I guess it is just fear!

Here you have an norwegian newspaper to find some more news to pic, enjoy, and I looking foreward to hear some more from you!

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/

It is not fear when all we have do discuss is only englis news and american!

It is another reason for the edit, and it is that norway have been the best country to live in compare to UN standards the last five years, and Canada have been second (I think). There must be something you can pick, and make dirty about norway, before we get to cocky! Give it to us, we are the next step away from comunist standards with our socialist government! excuse for my language, im to lazy to make spell checks

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I see you like to bash england in your reports, and you do not contribute with your own opinion!

I'm not bashing England - I'm bashing the government crime statisticians for arbitrarily excluding a great many violent crimes from their reports.

I think my personal opinion on that is quite clear, from my comments, to anyone who has followed my postings in "gun" threads here. Look around; I'm not shy about letting people know how I feel.

[christelsabine 1]

Dear Jesus JohnRich, welcome to the world of freedom at the other side of the pond - looks like a dèja vu ..(at least for me. If you do not understand what I mean, pls let me know)

I see you constantly keep on searching for - well, for what? Do you really feel better just to find out that perhaps "Violent Crime" is not handmade in the US??

Dear, that'll only eat your energy - spare your energy for hugging your kids, your grand kids - just enjoy life, JohnRich

Cya, Christel
(leaving to hug my kiddies, my cats, all of my beloved ones and feeling happy to be living in peace and freedom...)

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[mr2mk1g 10]

Gun control has virtually nothing to do with violent crime in England. You've previously admitted that yourself John, so I have no idea why you insist on repeating the argument so often. You're simply setting up a straw man to knock down and it's obvious.
It was no more legal to carry firearms, of any description, in England before 1997 than it is now. Given the vast proportion of violent incidents are street crime, the fact that in 1997 you could keep a rifle locked in a safe in your home while now you may not simply cannot have any great influence on overall levels of violent crime.

In any event, the 1997 legislation was never intended to have any impact on common or garden violent crime. Anyone who suggests otherwise is either a moron, exceedingly poorly informed, or pedaling an agenda of some form.

With respect to the validity of using the BCS over police recorded crime stats; as previously stated, the greatest problem with using police recorded crime stats are the massive changes over the past 25 years to the crimes which are counted within police figures through measures such as the NCRS. As a result, it's absolutely impossible to use police stats to track statistical change across the years.

Despite the faults of the BCS, it's the only data available to track trends in crime by virtue of the fact that its recording criteria have remained unchanged since its inception. Whatever problems there are today with the way in which the BCS collects its data, they were there in 1981, they were there in 1997 and they are still there today – that's the very strength of the BCS. The distortive effects of any problems with the system will have always been there; as such, when tracking trends their impact is next to meaningless.

For a snapshot of actual crime levels they may well have an impact, but then seeing as the number of violent crime incidents estimated by the BCS is massively greater than the number of police recorded crime incidents, I wouldn't have thought that mattered a great deal in the scale of things.

No one says the BCS is perfect, it's just it's much better at tracking change than the ever changing methodology behind police recorded crime statistics can ever be.

[mnealtx 0]

From the 2004/05 BSC:

Quote

The 2004/05 BCS shows that 46 per cent of all violent incidents were not reported to the
police. When asked why the incident was not reported, 45 per cent of victims said that the
incident was too trivial, there was no loss or the police would/could not do anything.

Quote

• Firearms (including air weapons) were reported to have been used in 22,789 recorded crimes
in 2004/05. This is five per cent down on the previous year, and the first fall since 1997.
• The overall fall masks a big increase in imitation weapon offences, up 55 per cent to 3,333. In
contrast, air weapon offences fell by 14 per cent to 11,825. Handgun offences fell 15 per cent
to 4,347.
• Less than three per cent of firearm crimes resulted in a serious or fatal injury in 2004/05.
They numbered 631 crimes, five per cent fewer than in 2003/04. Within this total, there were
78 homicides involving firearms in 2004/05, up from 68 the previous year. Nine per cent of all
homicides in 2004/05 involved firearms (see chapter 2 for a full breakdown of homicides).
• The number of firearm crimes involving any type of injury has more than doubled in the six
years to 2004/05: from 2,378 to 5,358. The largest rise was seen in crimes involving non-air
weapons.
• Weapons (excluding air weapons) were fired in 44 per cent of firearm crimes. Handguns were
fired in 13 per cent of the offences where they were involved, and shotguns in 34 per cent.

Ouch!

Stats I would like to see are the numbers/rate of "hot" burglaries - in a society that does not have the option of concealed carry in public, I would think that hot burglaries would show the greatest rise if the means to protect oneself in the home was no longer available.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 18]

If what you have, and are getting, with cameras and everything else that is going on is called freedom? We don't want that over here

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Gun control has virtually nothing to do with violent crime in England.

Quote

You nailed it in the very first sentense. Controlling guns has made no difference. Hence, the only good it has done is removed a tool, for the non-criminals, to defend themselves

BRILLIANT!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

[trigger 0]

Quote

Stats I would like to see are the numbers/rate of "hot" burglaries - in a society that does not have the option of concealed carry in public, I would think that hot burglaries would show the greatest rise if the means to protect oneself in the home was no longer available.

Are you mad...you obviously dont have a clue

.CHOP WOOD COLLECT WATER.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Controlling guns has made no difference.

That's the point. The 1997 ban was not supposed to make any difference. That was not the reason behind the legislation.

[trigger 0]

Pre 1997 it wasn't exactly easy to own a gun..and it was only a minority of people who did,not for personal protection tho as the gun had to be locked in a wall mounted cabinet and the ammunition kept in a seperate locked cabinet.
Dunblane completly changed my view on guns and gun ownership and although illegally held guns will always exist it is extrmely unlikely for someone to be involved in a gun related incident unless they subscribe to those circles predominately gangs/drug dealing.

.CHOP WOOD COLLECT WATER.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Controlling guns has made no difference.

That's the point. The 1997 ban was not supposed to make any difference. That was not the reason behind the legislation.

Please understand one thing. My opinions are based on a US point of view. While I do care what happens in the UK to its citezens, the topic is raised to counter gun control (anti second amendment) nuts here in the US. And the point being made is that gun control does NOT lower crime or save lives. Nerver has, never will

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Rerfer to my other response

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jjiimmyyt 0]

Where I live (Jersey, part of the UK put internally independent) you can get a permit for almost anyway weapon, (including 50 cal stuff). When my stepmum's dad died we found his old service revolver and several german weapons he acquired off of some Germans a few years back. I took them to the local cops and they asked if I wanted a port d'armes (gun permit).

So virtually anyone can have a gun, but we have no gun crime. Hell, we have virtually no crime apart from kids getting pissed up and nicking cars and a few smackheads. The only time the armed response unit gets called is when some nutjob takes potshots at birds from his back garden. I think we had a bank job a few years back

Why is that? My guess is we are relatively affluent, socially inclusive society. It is not guns that cause crime, it is poverty and social exclusion. I think if you fix that (fuck knows how) you are well on the way.

"This isn't an iron lung, people. You can actually disconnect and not die." -Dave

[juanesky 0]

I don't think he will get it, seems like he supports illegal government seizures. It is like supporting then nazi's deportation of the jews, because they don't like the jews!.

And you can wonder if V for Vendetta is going to happen in that land or not!...

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Scoop 0]

Its no surprise that the standards for recording crime change year by year. The goalposts keep moving. My own personal belief from experience is violent crime has not increased. What we are ssing alot more of is playground antics being reported to the police and being dealt with as assaults instead of the school dealing with them in house.

All this doom and gloom that you keep posting just isn't accurate. But all the while mugs like you are buying into it, they will continue to sell papers and as such will continue to make shit stories

[DZJ 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Controlling guns has made no difference.

That's the point. The 1997 ban was not supposed to make any difference. That was not the reason behind the legislation.

Please understand one thing. My opinions are based on a US point of view. While I do care what happens in the UK to its citezens, the topic is raised to counter gun control (anti second amendment) nuts here in the US. And the point being made is that gun control does NOT lower crime or save lives. Nerver has, never will

Does it not strike you as at all absurd to be trying to use UK legislation, drafted and implemented for British reasons and circumstances, to score points in entirely unrelated domestic American debates?

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

I don't think he will get it, seems like he supports illegal government seizures. It is like supporting then nazi's deportation of the jews, because they don't like the jews!.

And you can wonder if V for Vendetta is going to happen in that land or not!...

Once again in English?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Stats I would like to see are the numbers/rate of "hot" burglaries - in a society that does not have the option of concealed carry in public, I would think that hot burglaries would show the greatest rise if the means to protect oneself in the home was no longer available.

Are you mad...you obviously dont have a clue

Obviously I do, since I've actually read the report. Sorry to bust your bubble.

Now - do you have a point to make, or just more insults, hyperbole and projection?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Controlling guns has made no difference.

That's the point. The 1997 ban was not supposed to make any difference. That was not the reason behind the legislation.

Please understand one thing. My opinions are based on a US point of view. While I do care what happens in the UK to its citezens, the topic is raised to counter gun control (anti second amendment) nuts here in the US. And the point being made is that gun control does NOT lower crime or save lives. Nerver has, never will

Does it not strike you as at all absurd to be trying to use UK legislation, drafted and implemented for British reasons and circumstances, to score points in entirely unrelated domestic American debates?

Makes perfect sense - anti-self defense folks bring up foreign countries crime and weapon ownership rates to try to prove that guns are dangerous.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[trigger 0]

Then try reading it again this time not between the lines.

.CHOP WOOD COLLECT WATER.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Then try reading it again this time not between the lines.

Try making a point.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[trigger 0]

No need to,now go back and read the text.

.CHOP WOOD COLLECT WATER.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Controlling guns has made no difference.

That's the point. The 1997 ban was not supposed to make any difference. That was not the reason behind the legislation.

Please understand one thing. My opinions are based on a US point of view. While I do care what happens in the UK to its citezens, the topic is raised to counter gun control (anti second amendment) nuts here in the US. And the point being made is that gun control does NOT lower crime or save lives. Nerver has, never will

Does it not strike you as at all absurd to be trying to use UK legislation, drafted and implemented for British reasons and circumstances, to score points in entirely unrelated domestic American debates?

No because I do not really relate them directly. The ONLY point is, taking guns away from, or leaving guns with the population has no effect on crime rates, so why do it?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

No need to,now go back and read the text.

Saying that I "don't have a clue" isn't making a point. If you don't want to be considered a troll (although it may be too late), learn to debate.

Now, did you have something to say about the stats I quoted, or that 'hot' burglaries would be a possible indicator that criminals have gotten bolder since the removal of homeowner's ability to defend themselves?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706