Violent gun crime rate dramatically up in Britain.

[Silverhair]

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1741336.stm

"Between April and November 2001, the number of murders in the Metropolitan Police area committed with a firearm soared by almost 90% over the same period a year earlier.

Armed street robberies rose, in the same period, from 435 to 667 in 2001 - an increase of 53% - while overall in the capital there were 45,255 street robberies and snatches last year, against 32,497 in 2000."

"Although all privately-owned handguns in Britain are now officially illegal, the tightened rules seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Wow! What a discovery. Criminals don't obey gun laws. Imagine that.

That result is EXACTLY what we RKBAers have been predicting.

While we are at it, Australia is also having an increase in crime since the gun ban in 1997.
Link: http://www.ssaa.org.au/ilasep98.html
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/44e7066a7d173a95ca256bdc0012241f?OpenDocument

[Jack_DeLeon]

1. Its because they havent banned all the knives yet...

:eyes:

[Oldpals]

2. Guns

Here we go again with the gun lobby trying to justify gun proliferation because there has been an increase in gun crime. Take a look when you have a chance at the actual number of gun associated deaths in the UK with a population of 60 million people and see what that is compared to ours.

[SoutherLib]

26. England Ban.

You do not find it ironic that after an outright ban, one taken with the sole intent to disarm the citizen not the criminal that gun crime rises???

[iverglas]

28. define "irony"

You do not find it ironic that after an outright ban, one taken with the sole intent to disarm the citizen not the criminal that gun crime rises???

Do you find it ironic that when you water your garden, your neighbour goes to church?

You water your garden to make it grow. Nothing at all to do with your neighbour's religious practices. I wouldn't even think of making the connection, let alone calling the non-existent connection "ironic".

The tightened firearms regulations in Britain were introduced to prevent further mass murders by people in lawful possession of firearms. Why would you expect that to stop or even reduce "gun crime"?

Do you happen to have any idea what the "gun crime" in question actually consists of? How much of it there actually is?

Can you make any actual credible connection between increased rates of firearms crime IN THE PAST (do note the date on the data you're slobbering over) and the tighter restrictions on firearms possession by non-criminals? Did the tighter restrictions actually CHANGE something that somehow created the conditions in which firearms crime flourishes? Exactly what cause are you attributing this effect of yours TO?

I'm afraid all I'm seeing in your post is "I watered my garden and then my neighbour went to church; how ironic!!"

Well, you see: not.

[Pert_UK]

32. It's like "silvery" of "goldy" but made of iron....

:evilgrin:

[sir pball]

5. They're working on it

I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried...

The British Medical Journal has discovered something which may have escaped the attention of the less well-informed reader: that long pointy knives are sharp and can be stuck into people thereby causing them damage or even provoking a death-related incident.

The solution? Oblige long pointy knife manufacturers to make the knives less pointy by rounding off the tips.

[Xela]

6. "It's because they haven't banned all the knives AND replica guns AND..."

...BB guns, and Airsoft guns, and paintball guns...

Xela

[iverglas]

19. don't you people ever feel your faces turning red?

"It's because they haven't banned all the knives AND replica guns AND..."

When "IT" is a simple falsehood, how could it be "because" of ANYTHING??

If I tell you I got carjacked last night, will you tell me it was because I wasn't properly packing?

And then if I say ha ha, gotcha, I wasn't carjacked at all, will you feel really foolish?

The "IT" in question here was (a gross generalization about) a FIVE-YEAR-OLD FACT. And even better, the post contained a link to some representations of an EIGHT-YEAR-OLD FACT.

Put 'em together, and you get THE SKY IS FALLING!! ... and evidently, a few people willing to explain why the sky is falling ...

But I give up.

What explanation DO any of you actually have for the fact that there were SEVENTY-THREE FIREARMS HOMICIDES in the United Kingdom last year?

Like, I mean, that is, for why there WEREN'T the 2000+ firearms homicides that would have occurred had the firearms homicide rate experience in the US been experienced in the UK ... ?

And when was it that anyone else presented argument for the case that firearms control prevents crimes being committed against persons and property by drunken yobs with no guns at all?

[iverglas]

3. have you looked at a calendar lately?

Oddly enough, it isn't 2001 this year. Of course, I guess it was PostTheSameOldDeceptiveShitDay in the dungeon ... it seems to be celebrated about once a month, from what I've noticed.

And of course, apart from the idiocy of posting 2001 news as if it were actually news, there are some problems with the "news" posted.

There's the little fact (the BBC's claims to the contrary) that the ban on the possession of handguns in the UK had nothing to do with the crime-associated use of firearms.

And then there's the one about it being not quite statistically kosher to claim to discern a trend by comparing part of one year to part of an immediately preceding year.

But most especially, there's the one about lies and damned lies: in a city of over 7 million people, there were THIRTY firearms homicides in a 6-month period. If those 30 homicides were an increase of "almost 90%", then there were SIXTEEN firearms homicides the year before. Just imagine: if firearms homicides had risen from 2 to 4, there would have been a 100% increase! (Which someone would undoubtedly have called a 200% increase, or a 300% increase ... kinda like they do about the other bit of old news from Australia that I expect you'll be treating us to next ...)

But hey, you like old news. Here's some more, from the same BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3419941.stm

New gun crime figures have shown a 2% increase in firearm offences in the year to March 2003.

The Home Office said the figures showed "a dramatic slowdown" compared to a 34% increase the previous year.

But the figures also pointed to a 46% rise in the use of imitation firearms in recorded crime, with 1,815 offences.

... There were 10,248 gun crimes - 0.41% of all crime - in the year to March 2003.

But only 9% resulted in injury.

There were 81 homicides involving firearms compared with 97 the year before.

There are close to 10,000 GUN HOMICIDES in the US every year. Okay, okay, the US is a little bigger. If the UK were the same size (and all other things remained equal, of course), the UK would have had maybe 385 gun homicides.

You know of a city of 7 million in the US that had THIRTY firearms homicides in any recent 6-month period?

But c'mon; tell us.

When you posted that headline -- "Violent gun crime rate dramatically up in Britain" -- were you really wanting someone to believe that IT WAS TRUE?

Or were you maybe just setting the stage to offer us all the more recent facts, or maybe the actual numbers ... the ones that don't support the rkba-head agenda?

... Oh, my good bloody dog. I was JOKING about that Australian crap -- and now I see you actually gone and done it.

Read the url you posted, now:
http://www.ssaa.org.au/ilasep98.html

See the DATE in it? Get out your calendar and count: 1998 (although of course the figures in the 1998 article are from 96 and 97), 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 (we won't count 2005 as stats are of course not available yet).

Look at the great big blocks on that graph!



Heavens to Betsy! From 1996 to 1997, firearms homicides in New South Wales ROSE FROM 21 TO 24!! As you'd know if you used that gold star before wasting all that time, it has been pointed out here on quite a few occasions that, for instance, the population of New South Wales in 1996 was 6,038,696 (and rising about 1% a year, btw) -- about 3/4 of whom lived in the urban areas of Sydney and nearby cities. Quick -- who can name a heavily urbanized, multi-ethnic state of 6 million people in the US that had TWENTY-FOUR FIREARMS HOMICIDES in a recent year? And what reasonable person, addressing an issue in good faith, suggests that a rise in anything from 21 to 24 -- an increase of THREE -- in a population of over 6,000,000 is even worth mentioning?? Even if the fact in question weren't a decade old?

24 out of 6 million is a rate of 0.4/100,000; 21 out of 6 million is a rate of 0.35/100,000. Run, run; the sky is falling.

14,000 -- the number of firearms homicides in the US in 1996 -- out of 265 million (1996 population of the US) is a rate of 5.28/100,000. If US firearms homicides had risen, year over year, by the same proportion as the NSW numbers, there would have been 2000 more homicides in the second year than in the first, and the rate would have been 6/100,000. Conversely, if NSW had had a population equal to the population of the US (and all other things were equal), and firearms homicides had increased at the same rate as they actually did, they would have risen from 924 to 1056. If the US had a population of 6 million (and all other things were equal), its firearms homicides would have started at 308 and risen to 363 -- that is, 363 firearms homicides if the population were the same size as NSW with 24 firearms homicides. The firearms homicide rate in the US in 1996 was FIFTEEN TIMES the firearms homicide rate in NSW.

It isn't even bloody meaningful to talk about "rates" when the NUMBERS being talked about are 21 and 24 OUT OF SIX MILLION, the little fact your source DOESN'T ONCE MENTION.

Here's a different kind of statistic for you:
http://www.ippnw.org/HelsinkiBrady.pdf
(Oh, it costs me some giggles, but I feel I must head someone off: no, the site has nothing to do with anyone named Sarah.)

... firearms homicides <in Australia> decreased from 31.9% of all homicides in1996 to 19.3% of all homicides in 1999/2000, and the number of firearms robberyoffences in the year 2000 decreased to an 8-year low.

Who, other than someone who thinks s/he is talking to an audience of complete morons, pulls this kind of crap?

Nice link, that last one, though. From it:

Homicide rates(a) - 1997 to 1999

Selected countries --- Homicide rate

Austria --- 0.8
England and Wales --- 1.5
France --- 1.6
Greece --- 1.7
Northern Ireland --- 3.1
Italy --- 1.6
European Union - average for 17 member States --- 1.7

Australia --- 1.9
Canada(c) --- 1.9
Japan(d) --- 1.0
New Zealand(e) --- 2.0
South Africa --- 56.5
USA --- 6.3



(edited to fix word; "ban on the prohibition of handguns" just really didn't make sense)

[Silverhair]

4. Here is one dated July 21, 2005. Violent crime rate going up again.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aNqCWpQAJGMI&refer=europe

"July 21 (Bloomberg) -- Britons were more likely to become victims of violent crime last year, even as the rate of non- violent offences such as burglary declined, U.K. government figures published today show.

Crimes including assault, murder, rape and weapon possession rose by 7 percent in the year ended March 2005, compared with a year earlier, the survey of total recorded crime shows."

[iverglas]

7. and now perhaps you would tell us what your point is

It's not like I didn't give you an opportunity.

A prohibition on handguns was imposed in the UK in an effort to prevent the use of handguns by PERSONS IN LAWFUL POSSESSION OF HANDGUNS to commit acts of violence against persons.

Crimes are committed in the UK by PERSONS IN UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS who would have been in unlawful possession of firearms NO MATTER WHAT law were enacted to regulate lawful possession.

When you are prepared to explain what connection you are hoping to make between these two facts ... or present facts to rebut either assertion, or any element of either assertion ... do please let me know.

Of course, there were all sorts of other things in my post that you could respond to any time the whim takes you.

I do believe you'd said you weren't going to. And then you do ... and yet you don't.

Maybe you could haul some of your chums over at this point. Quite a number of them should be interested in that

the rate of non- violent offences such as burglary declined

given what a huge hoohah they have kicked up in the past about "home invasions" in the UK, and how they're going up because decent law-abiding homesteaders couldn't keep firepower in their castles to ward off the Huns at the gate.

Our old buddy Volk seems to need to hear the word, too:

http://www.a-human-right.com/homedefense.html

In other countries, especially those which have recently outlawed armed self-defense (such as England), home invasions are on the rise. Their criminals have nothing to fear from the law-abiding people.

Tsk. Well, I did warn against trying to claim trends based on such skimpy and scant evidence.

Oh yeah, here's the one I was actually looking for, found first in a pretty stupid place. Yeah, we have pretty stupid people up here in Canada too:

http://www.wildlife.nb.ca/manshomehiscastle.html

(Use that pointy gold thingy now and find the earlier discussion of Joyce Lee Malcolm around here somewhere, if you'd like to actually be up to speed before speaking.)

And y'know, it's not really wise to edit so very bloody obviously when you cut and paste. Here's how what you quoted actually went, with the bit in bold being what you didn't quote:

Britons were more likely to become victims of violent crime last year, even as the rate of non- violent offences such as burglary declined, U.K. government figures published today show.

Crimes including assault, murder, rape and weapon possession rose by 7 percent in the year ended March 2005, compared with a year earlier, the survey of total recorded crime shows. Some of the increase can be attributed to more reports of "less serious" violent offences, U.K. Home Secretary Charles Clarke said.

Let's have a little more, shall we?

Total recorded offences dropped 6 percent, with burglary plunging 20 percent in the period, the figures show. Violent crime was the only category in the survey to rise, though perception of violent crime fell 11 percent, according to the latest Home Office British Crime Survey.

Whatever became of the wave of brutal home invasions that was to follow on the conviction and imprisonment of that poor beleaguered misunderstood persecuted Tony Martin guy? (Oh yeah, funny thing; he was a nasty vicious bigot.)

Do you actually have a small clue about what these figures actually represent? Did you consider reading the article you posted?

"There is more recording and more reporting,'' Home Office Minister Hazel Blears said in a British Broadcasting Corp. interview. "Half of all the violence is actually linked with alcohol."

"We've got very, very serious problems of social disorder" in some cities which are moving toward 24-hour drinking, <David Davis, Conservative Party spokesman in charge of home affairs> said.

Perhaps you're actually saying that it would be a good thing for all the yobs wandering the streets puking and punching when the bars let out to have pistols in their pockets. Because, you see, what you don't seem to be seeing at all is that THIS is a large part of the "violent crime" you're talking about, and specifically of the increase in violent crime.

Now if you could just tell us what any of this has to do with firearms, or firearms control ... well, you'd have gone to bed and woken up a new person, I suppose.

For your assistance in contemplating these matters, here are some other reports about the same things:

http://www.huntspost.co.uk/content/huntspost/news/story.aspx?brand=HPTOnline&category=News&tBrand=HPTOnline&tCategory=newnews&itemid=CMED27%20Jul%202005%2017%3A14%3A16%3A390

27 July 2005

... CRIME in Cambridgeshire fell by eight per cent in 2004/05, compared with the previous year. And there were more than 6,000 fewer victims across the county.

Burglaries tumbled to their lowest level for more than 10 years, and robberies (theft with violence) fell almost 20 per cent to the lowest level for five years. Vehicle crime has been halved in a decade.

... These reductions in crime have carried on into the first quarter of this year, with burglary down 15 per cent, violent crime down by a quarter, robbery down by 28 per cent, vehicle crime down by a further 10 per cent and an overall crime reduction of seven per cent, police say.

Cambridgeshire is also one of only 12 forces in the country to see a fall in violent crime. The number of violent incidents in the county has dropped by three per cent - 427 fewer victims than last year.

... Factfile: In the central division, which includes Huntingdonshire and Fenland (2004/05 compared with 2003/04):
Total crime reduced by 10.3 per cent
Vehicle crime dropped 16.5 per cent
Burglary and robbery reduced by almost 25 per cent.

http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/tm_objectid=15762705&method=full&siteid=50002&headline=violent-crime-increases--name_page.html

Overall crime in the region was down by 12 per cent, with burglary down 22 per cent and vehicle theft down 21 per cent.

The Home Office figures showed the number of violent offences in the entire West Midlands region increased by 23 per cent.

There were 655 offences per 10,000 people in 2004-5, up from 539 offences per 10,000 people in 2003-4.

Last year, London had the worst record for violent crime. But it has now been overtaken by the West Midlands.

... Overall crime had fallen by 13.4 per cent, from 339,444 to 293,995. Gun crime was also down by 15 per cent, from 1271 to 1081.

... Across the country, the British Crime Survey showed that overall crime was down seven per cent and violence was down 11 per cent.

The number of gun crimes recorded by police rose six per cent in the year to just under 11,000, and 73 people were killed by guns in the 12 months, five more than the previous year.

Run, run, the sky is falling! There were FIVE MORE FIREARMS HOMICIDES in the UK than last year.

A population of 60,270,708 (July 2004) ... 73 firearms homicides ... that's a firearms homicide rate of 0.12112 PER 100,000.

A population of 59,553,800 (July 2003) ... 68 firearms homicides ... that's a firearms homicide rate of 0.11818 PER 100,000.

That's an increase of 0.00294 FIREARMS HOMICIDES PER 100,000 in 2004 over 2003. Run for the hills! The Huns have broken down the door!

In 2004, New York State had a population of 19,227,088. So triple it, and you get about the population of the UK.

Did New York State have 1/3 of 73 FIREARMS HOMICIDES in 2004? Did New York State have 24 FIREARMS HOMICIDES IN 2004?

Bah, you do the research. I thought the actual figure should be easy enough to find, but my search results are all cluttered up with John Lott and the NRA and assorted other rkba-head crap. But y'know, I think we can kinda say: NO.


Do you have the slightest clue how idiotic someone sounds when s/he chooses to play Chicken Little over an increase of 5 FIREARMS HOMICIDES in a population of over 60 million?

[billbuckhead]

8. I bet a lot of these guns are from smuggled from USA

The Japanese, Canadians and Mexicans have been complaining about the weak USA gun laws and enforcement enabling smuggling into their nations.

Sadly, America's promiscuous gun laws are killing and terrorizing people around the world.

[Squatch]

9. Smuggling is a result of weak export laws, not gun laws.

[billbuckhead]

11. If anyone can buy a gun in the USA and it's very hard

to buy a gun anywhere else in the civilized world, the crooks will go to the easy place to buy guns. Even Al Queda terror manuals say to take advantage America's weak gun regs.

[Squatch]

13. Oh yeah?

Do you have a copy of these "terror manuals"?

Yeah, come to the USA to buy a $600 rifle, when the same one goes for 20 bucks at bazaars and markets around the developing world.

[billbuckhead]

14. Here you go, right from a "jihad" training manual--- Happy?

4.4 Firearms Training

Firearms training differs from country to country. In some countries, possession of firearms by the public is illegal, in other countries it is legal. In some countries of the World, especially the USA, firearms training is available to the general public. One should try to join a shooting club if possible and make regular visits to the firing range. There are many firearms courses available to the public in USA, ranging from one day to two weeks or more. These courses are good but expensive. Some of them are only meant for security personnel but generally they will teach anyone. It is also better to attend these courses in pairs or by yourself, no more. Do not make public announcements when going on such a course. Find one, book your place, go there, learn, come back home and keep it yourself. Whilst on the course, keep your opinions to yourself, do not argue or debate with anyone, do not preach about Islam and make Salah in secret. You are going there to train for Jihad, not call people to Islam.

Useful courses to learn are sniping, general shooting and other rifle courses. Handgun courses are useful but only after you have mastered rifles.

In other countries, e.g. some states of USA, South Africa, it is perfectly legal for members of the public to own certain types of firearms. If you live in such a country, obtain an assault rifle legally, preferably AK-47 or variations, learn how to use it properly and go and practice in the areas allowed for such training. If you cannot get someone to teach you, you can purchase books about shooting technique and practise shooting stationary targets at different distances, with a partner. You can also practise running a distance, e.g. 1km, then shooting targets from a distance. Again, there are many variations and unless you have an experienced, trained person to learn from, you will be able to do little more than perfect your shooting technique at different ranges.

<http://johnw.host.sk/articles/war_jihad_histroy/how_can_i_train_myself_for_jihad.htm>

[Squatch]

15. I found it, too...albeit a different one than what you posted...

link

Funny, no mention of US firearms laws in this one.

[billbuckhead]

16. Gonzales probably scrubbed that part but you can find others

I'm sure there a various ones but sadly the one posted by the Bush misadministration is probaly inaccurate like everything else about this fascist regime and their NRA fellow travelers.

[Squatch]

17. You could be right. I just find it

hard to believe that an AQ terrorist would come to the states to buy firearms, when he has access to much cheaper stuff in developing nations.

[billbuckhead]

18. If their gonna attack us in the USA why bring in weapons?

They can buy gun they want in the states with promiscuos gun laws and lax enforcement just like our own very successful terrorists, the beltway snipers.

[Squatch]

24. How many AQ shooting rampages have you read about in

the USA?

I think international terrorists are out for a "bigger bang", hence their use of explosives, hijackings, kidnappings, etc.

I really think that the likelihood of AQ choosing to wage terror on US soil with firearms is very remote.

[billbuckhead]

25. The beltway snipers were very effective terrorists.

A lot of bang for the buck. paralyzed the DC beltway for weeks. Luckily AQ isn't that sharp. Tim Mcveigh said that he wished he would have used sniping to kill government officials, that it was more fair and effective. One could argue that it has been used extraordinarily effectively before, when the VRWC used sniping to crush the liberals of the 60's.

[SoutherLib]

27. Gonzalez is firmly anti-gun

Look at the ATF letter that bans future importation of parts kits specifically the barrel. That came straight from his desk. Gonzalez is no Aschcroft on the gun issue.

[iverglas]

22. ha ha! Funny indeed

Funny that the dept of justice of the present right-wing US administration would not republish something that might make its policies look bad??

Ha! That's a good one indeed.

Actually, to be more sedate, it's not too hard to imagine that the dept of justice might not think it wise to publish information that assists in circumventing laws.

The intro *did* say:

"The Department is only providing the following selected text from the manual because it does not want to aid in educating terrorists or encourage further acts of terrorism."

If you read it as it would have been written by someone who had a clue about syntax:

The Department is providing only the following selected text from the manual because it does not want to aid in educating terrorists or encourage further acts of terrorism.

-- that explanation makes sense ... at least as a purported explanation.

[Squatch]

23. It did seem odd to me that AQ has a "training manual" in that

the term implies some sort of fixed doctrine, which is entirely the opposite of what we've come to experience.

AQ, and other guerilla forces, are most successful when not adhering to a fixed doctrine. Doing so could lend predictability to their actions, thereby defeating (at least partially so) their goal of inflicting terror to effect socio-political change.

[iverglas]

21. yes ... but ...

We *were* talking about crime guns in the UK, not generally regarded as part of the developing world, and not known for its gun bazaars.

There are very few internal sources for the handguns that are, of course, the crime gun of choice. They are not lawfully possessed in large numbers, so breaking into homes and businesses won't net many. They can't be purchased legally by most people, so there aren't going to be many people able or willing to sell them on to someone illegally.

They're durable goods, certainly, so undoubtedly there are some in illicit circulation that have been there for a while. But inarguably, their numbers are rising (although really, not so as anyone from anywhere in the US would be likely to notice), and the supply is plainly being provided from somewhere outside the country.

[iverglas]

20. no, that's just not quite so

The smuggling that puts firearms in the hands of street-level criminals in places like Canada and the UK is generally much less sophisticated than anything I would term "export".

Firearms used in crimes in places like Toronto were never "exported" to Canada. They were illicitly trafficked -- smuggled and sold on -- after being purchased in the US at some variety of retail level: on the street, at a gun show, from a private party, or from a licensed dealer. Or, of course, after being stolen from lawful owners. And smuggled, if not individually, then in exceedingly small quantities. They were never sold or purchased for export.

Firearms simply can't be acquired in any of those ways in Canada with a fraction of the ease.

The cross-border trafficking here looks pretty much the same as illicit sales look in the US: person to person by the individual unit or maybe handful, not business to business by the crate or container.

Those are the firearms that are used in nightclub shootings, drive-by shootings, mistaken-identity shootings, turf wars and the like on the streets of Toronto. They're present to a considerably lesser extent, at least for now, on the streets of London, although it's conceivable that the smuggling there is somewhat more organized simply because of the lack of opportunity for individuals to do it the way it can be done between the US and Canada.

It would still have pretty much nothing to do with export laws -- I don't think it's like firearms are being legally exported from the US, paperwork and all, and ending up being used to hold up English off-licences. It has to do with the ease with which firearms can be illicitly acquired in the US and then illicitly trafficked into another country.

[Wickerman]

12. Where the hell IS my misuse of stat award?

I might want to send this one on to the actual authors.

[billbuckhead]

10. "perception of violent crime fell 11 percent"

Gee, your article makes you wrong again! Why is that surprising?

"Total recorded offences dropped 6 percent, with burglary plunging 20 percent in the period, the figures show. Violent crime was the only category in the survey to rise, though perception of violent crime fell 11 percent, according to the latest Home Office British Crime Survey.

A Home Office spokeswoman explained the difference between perceived and reported crime by saying proactive policing led to the recording of more ``lower level crimes.''

``There's a feeling of being safer,'' she said. ``It's also to do with the levels of alcohol-related crime -- lots of people don't experience it,'' she said."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aNqCWpQAJGMI&refer=europe

Gee, burglary down 20 percent even though there are no guns to protect against home invasion, RBKAextremist apologists say this is impossible. Oddly here in the ATL suburbs, one of the mosy heavily armed areas outside the third wold we've had a rash of home invauions and armed robberies.

[Pert_UK]

29. OK...one more time, with feeling......

Look, I'm sorry to be sarcastic with you (given our polite and entertaining exchanges so far), but this kind of rubbish is really beneath you....Drop me a line when you have recent stats that even vaguely relate to public ownership of guns in the UK, and which haven't already been comprehensively debunked several times already....

Wow....2001 eh? That IS newsworthy....And I mean, it's not like more recent figures are available...Oh hang on, let's see what we have for 2004:

"Gun crime figures show fresh rise (UK)

Except, of course, that they don't really:

"The number of firearms offences in England and Wales has risen in the last year (2004), according to Home Office figures released on Thursday. There has been a 3% climb in gun crime, following a 2% rise the previous year, the figures show."

But I thought that they'd banned handguns in the UK? Ha, look, guncrime is still going up!.........

Except:

"The statistics also show a 35% rise in crimes involving imitation weapons." - so we're including fake guns in this category.

"the figures, which cover the 12 months to June this year, also show a 15% drop in the number of shooting-related deaths. "

"GUN CRIME: YEAR TO JUNE 04
Fatalities: 70 (-15%)
Serious injuries: 430 (no change)
Total firearms offences: 10,590 (+3%)
With replica/ imitation gun: 1,350 (+35%)
With handgun: 4,910 (-10%)
Source: Home Office recorded crime figures. Comparisons are with year to June 03 "

"The government was keen to stress that the risk of being a victim of violent crime is at its lowest for nearly 25 years. "

Hmmmm.....I wonder what would happen to these figures if the general public had access to handguns?...Better or worse.....better or worse.....better or worse.........

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3761626.stm"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=91106


And how about all the way back from Sept 2003:

"Pro-RKBA people on this board keep repeating the following mantra, or similar: "Gun crime is on the increase on the UK. They've banned guns entirely. Therefore their gun ban hasn't worked." This is either ignorance, dishonesty or bafflingly bad logic. The ban on guns was brought in solely to prevent perfectly law-abiding citizens from having access to guns. I appreciate that this might sound odd, but after 2 significant massacres by gun-owners with legally held weapons, the government (with massive public and media backing) decided that the risks of just one gun owner going berserk with a gun outweighed the rights of the UK public to participate in shooting as a sport or the collection of working firearms as a hobby. The law was in no way intended to address the use of firearms by criminals, who would, in any case, be obtaining illegal weapons illegally on the black market. It was only aimed at preventing tragedies like Hungerford and Dunblane, which between them claimed 33 lives, many of them children."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=7663

Edited to add:

"Officers hope the campaign will help maintain a downward trend in shootings and murders investigated by Operation Trident.

At the official launch of the campaign at Scotland Yard on Tuesday, Commander Dick said over the past two years Operation Trident had achieved a 23% reduction in shooting murders within London's black communities.

"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3752910.stm

And before anyone starts - NO, the banning of handguns wasn't supposed to stop all gun crime in the UK, it was supposed to prevent the misuse of firearms by their legal owners.

Necessarily, addressing the misuse of illegal firearms by criminals was always going to be an entirely different problem with different motives, mindsets, environments, weapons etc.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=90726

[Silverhair]

30. I have to admit to bad research on this one.

In fact, it was my blunder on this one that has led me to speculate on the differences in our cultures. Both of our countries had loose gun laws for a long time, (I think. If I am wrong I will accept correction.)but yours has remained much more peaceful.

So I am formulating, but have not finished, a new theory of cultures and guns. Since it is in the formulation stage, I don't want to post the full thing yet, although I will be putting parts of it up for discussion.

As usual, I will value your input.

[Pert_UK]

31. I have to confess....

that I am no expert on UK gun law history - I only know what I know from personal experience and reading news stories in my lifetime.....and I'm just not that old!

As far as I am aware, there have been fairly strict gun laws in the UK for at least several decades.....Individuals have had to apply to the local police for a firearms certificate, showing good reason for ownership (e.g. member of a club) and I also think (but am not sure) that they needed a reference from their doctor....

Of course, we did have loose gun laws for some time, but that was a long time ago.

More tomorrow.....bedtime soon!