England: Violent Crime

[Paulipod 0]

Quote

The ONLY point is, taking guns away from, or leaving guns with the population has no effect on crime rates, so why do it?

If it makes no difference either way - then it makes sense to remove them... There are around 800+ accidental deaths from guns in the US each year so you would prevent these losses. By your reference this could only then be compared to the economic loss of production jobs etc... and as no other industry would be allowed to continue with such fatalities there would be a strong argument.

Bodyflight Bedford
www.bodyflight.co.uk

[trigger 0]

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? ***

No criminals havn't got bolder with the absence of legally held weapons as it was an offence to have a loaded gun in house pre 1997 any way.

Hot burgularies are also extremely rare and the independant article merely stated that burgularies were up and no mention of an increase in violent burgularies tho your right they do happen
The use of knives is on the increase predominately street crime muggings and gang related assault.

A homeowner does have the right to use reasonable force if threatened the use of a 9mm probably wouldn't be considerred reasonable in any case [uk].

.CHOP WOOD COLLECT WATER.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

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? ***

No criminals havn't got bolder with the absence of legally held weapons as it was an offence to have a loaded gun in house pre 1997 any way.

Hot burgularies are also extremely rare and the independant article merely stated that burgularies were up and no mention of an increase in violent burgularies tho your right they do happen
The use of knives is on the increase predominately street crime muggings and gang related assault.

A homeowner does have the right to use reasonable force if threatened the use of a 9mm probably wouldn't be considerred reasonable in any case [uk].

Do you have stats to back that up? I didn't see anything in the report about hot burglaries, that's why I asked if they were available in my other post.

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

[trigger 0]

Your right i dont have the stats but i'm sure there out there and to my best knowledge i canonly think of two most recently last year infact a 1st devision foot baller household was robbed by guys armed with baseball bats and knifes no one was injured tho.

I've been burgulled twice by the favoured means of making damn sure i wasn't at home.

.CHOP WOOD COLLECT WATER.

[mnealtx 0]

I've seen blogs and such talking about an increase , but I've not seen any sort of statistics to back them up - that's why I was asking.

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

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

The ONLY point is, taking guns away from, or leaving guns with the population has no effect on crime rates, so why do it?

If it makes no difference either way - then it makes sense to remove them... There are around 800+ accidental deaths from guns in the US each year so you would prevent these losses. By your reference this could only then be compared to the economic loss of production jobs etc... and as no other industry would be allowed to continue with such fatalities there would be a strong argument.

I love this stat. I will bet you can show me where is came from can't you! Or can you?

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

[Paulipod 0]

There are alot of sources... which is why i picked a smaller number..

for example :-

http://www.rense.com/general62/gns.htm

But.. even if it was less than 100 - the same point still stands

Bodyflight Bedford
www.bodyflight.co.uk

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

There are alot of sources... which is why i picked a smaller number..

for example :-

http://www.rense.com/general62/gns.htm

But.. even if it was less than 100 - the same point still stands

Maybe you can also find the stats for how many times having a gun to use in defense PREVENTED a death or injury, as well...

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

[Paulipod 0]

Quote

Maybe you can also find the stats for how many times having a gun to use in defense PREVENTED a death or injury, as well...

No - cus that not what I am saying.... The post I replied to had made the statement/assumption that a gun ban made no change plus or minus to crime.... hence why ban them...

Check my reply more closely

Bodyflight Bedford
www.bodyflight.co.uk

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

There are alot of sources... which is why i picked a smaller number..

for example :-

http://www.rense.com/general62/gns.htm

But.. even if it was less than 100 - the same point still stands

So you would ban an item, and have the government confiscate private property, just because it was involved in between 100 and 800 accidental deaths? Nice.

So you would ban:
Ladders
Automobiles
Swimming pools
Bathtubs
Electricity
and Doctors

Interesting world you propose. Not sure I'd want to live there, though.

Besides, you're working on a faulty premise when you assume that removing firearms would have no effect on the crime rate. Between 760,000 and 3.6 million crimes are stopped because of the presence of guns. You also don't present any kind of plan to get guns from criminals, the people who are the problem, and who would not turn in their guns.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
http://www.saf.org/journal/11Kleck.pdf

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

[Paulipod 0]

Quote

Besides, you're working on a faulty premise when you assume that removing firearms would have no effect on the crime rate. Between 760,000 and 3.6 million crimes are stopped because of the presence of guns. You also don't present any kind of plan to get guns from criminals, the people who are the problem, and who would not turn in their guns.

Thats not my premise at all... I was replying to a post based on that assumption and asking for a different reason. I simply offered one.

Bodyflight Bedford
www.bodyflight.co.uk

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Maybe you can also find the stats for how many times having a gun to use in defense PREVENTED a death or injury, as well...

No - cus that not what I am saying.... The post I replied to had made the statement/assumption that a gun ban made no change plus or minus to crime.... hence why ban them...

Check my reply more closely

And your point was that 800 or so deaths could be prevented by banning them. I countered with an invitation to look up how many deaths or injuries were prevented by the use of a weapon. If I misconstrued your meaning, I apologize.

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

[Paulipod 0]

Quote

I countered with an invitation to look up how many deaths or injuries were prevented by the use of a weapon

Sure.. this I understand... but the poster I replied to had stated that a gun ban does not change the crime figures + or - .... and wanted a different reason for not having guns.... your comparison goes back to the crime/incident prevention figures

Bodyflight Bedford
www.bodyflight.co.uk

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I countered with an invitation to look up how many deaths or injuries were prevented by the use of a weapon

Sure.. this I understand... but the poster I replied to had stated that a gun ban does not change the crime figures + or - .... and wanted a different reason for not having guns.... your comparison goes back to the crime/incident prevention figures

I'm not sure, but I think he may have arguing that the Home Office was saying that the ban didn't affect crime.

Perhaps he'll chime back in with his thoughts.

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

[trigger 0]

I've seen blogs and such talking about an increase , but I've not seen any sort of statistics to back them up - that's why I was asking.
***

I've looked at the uk goverments official web site but they tend to batch things into cats like violent crime and burgularies rather than specifics like burgularies,violent burgularies,muggings,physical assault etc

.CHOP WOOD COLLECT WATER.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Besides, you're working on a faulty premise when you assume that removing firearms would have no effect on the crime rate. Between 760,000 and 3.6 million crimes are stopped because of the presence of guns. You also don't present any kind of plan to get guns from criminals, the people who are the problem, and who would not turn in their guns.

Thats not my premise at all... I was replying to a post based on that assumption and asking for a different reason. I simply offered one.

..and dismiss a point of greater value.

"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]

Quote

Quote

I countered with an invitation to look up how many deaths or injuries were prevented by the use of a weapon

Sure.. this I understand... but the poster I replied to had stated that a gun ban does not change the crime figures + or - .... and wanted a different reason for not having guns.... your comparison goes back to the crime/incident prevention figures

I made a simple (but not quite acurate) point, to make a point. Most data indicates, but does not directly confim, that removing arms from a population coresponds with an increase in violent crime. Read John Lott if you are curious to this theory

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

[mr2mk1g 10]

Not in England it doesn't - see attached.

(Graphs taken from Home Office Statistical Bulletin, Crime in England and Wales 2005/06).

[Paulipod 0]

I really dont like arguments on symantecs however that is not at all what your statement read...

Quote

The ONLY point is, taking guns away from, or leaving guns with the population has no effect on crime rates

In no way could be read that :-

Quote

Most data indicates, but does not directly confim, that removing arms from a population coresponds with an increase in violent crime.

You said very clearly that taking guns away has NO effect on crime rate - that means up or down.
So - you then asked for a different reason as to why guns should be removed from society...

To try and drag me into a debate on a point I didnt make wont work

Bodyflight Bedford
www.bodyflight.co.uk

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Not in England it doesn't - see attached.

(Graphs taken from Home Office Statistical Bulletin, Crime in England and Wales 2005/06).

The reason this thread was started was because the data was found to be purposfully made to look better than it is. By the HOME OFFICE!!

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

[Scoop 0]

Quote

The reason this thread was started was because the data was found to be purposfully made to look better than it is. By the HOME OFFICE!!

This happens all round the world in every industry. Figures are always skewed and represented in a different manner to make things look better. The truth is the average person is more concerned about littering, dog shit on the pavement and gangs of kids than they are about being burgled or mugged. The goalposts keep moving and the police keep chasing them, of course rates will fluctuate to reflect this. Right now these goal posts focus on anti social behaviour.

Most violent crime is youth on youth as opposed to violent behaviour on strangers so when you see how 'violent' our streets are its not a fair depection.

I'm sick to death of being told how violent our streets are from someone who lives the otherside of the world when I walk them everyday and know exactly what crime has been reported in my area. If you couldn't drive you wouldn't try and teach someone else so why try and tell me whats happening in my own country?

This thread also has fuck all to do with guns so stop bringing them up. I, for one, am glad that we live in a country where people are willing to stand toe to toe to defend themselves than shoot someone. You guys seem to forget there are ways to defend yourself without the use of a firearm. The only time you would need a firearm is when faced by either another firearm or dangerous weapon (sword, machete etc) - These incidents are EXTREMELY (and I can't stress that enough) RARE in the UK. Perhaps a testimony to the fact that not everyone is tooled up and therefore there is no need to carry weapons. (The old 'by arming a population you're forcing the criminals to arm too' debate)

[juanesky 0]

Quote

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?

Or do you hate jews?

Maybe u will get it in arab wouldn't u?

"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

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

The reason this thread was started was because the data was found to be purposfully made to look better than it is.

Firstly, those graphs contain data from police recorded crime as well as the BCS - it was only the BCS which was addressed by the article John linked to.

Secondly, the issue that was raised in that article was that the BCS has an oddity in the way in which it has always capped the number of offences of a particular type that an individual can claim to have been the victim of. Yes this is odd, but it won't affect the tracking of statistical change across the years because as I already pointed out, it was like that when the BCS started way back in 1981!

Whatever statistical anomalies it throws up will have been there in 1981 and every year the BCS reported since. For the purposes of tracking change it matters not one jot because the same errors will crop up every year, thus the only constant will be the change from one year to the next – the very thin the BCS was set up to track.

[shropshire 0]

Great post Sam

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Secondly, the issue that was raised in that article was that the BCS has an oddity in the way in which it has always capped the number of offences of a particular type that an individual can claim to have been the victim of. Yes this is odd, but it won't affect the tracking of statistical change across the years because as I already pointed out, it was like that when the BCS started way back in 1981!

But that also means that they've been under-reporting violent crime for 25 years. I don't think that holding everything constant is so important that they should disregard improving the statistics, and giving a false picture of the actual crime survey results. It's better to be accurate, than to hold variables constant. Even statisticians should agree with that.