Phatmasser Gun Leanings

[KnightofChrist]

Gun crime soars by 35% (In UK)

The Government's latest crime figures were condemned as "truly terrible" by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.

Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed.

Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.

It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise

and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.

Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.

Unadjusted figures showed overall recorded crime in the 12 months to last September rose 9.3%, but the Home Office stressed that new procedures had skewed the figures.

With new recording procedures taken into account the actual overall rise was just 2%, the Home Office said.

Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said: "These figures are truly terrible.

"Despite the street crime initiative, robbery is massively up. So are gun-related crimes, domestic burglary, retail burglary, and drug offences.

"The only word for this is failure: the Government's response of knee-jerk reactions, gimmicks and initiatives is not working and confused signals on sentences for burglary will not help either.

"The figures will continue to be dreadful until the Government produces a coherent long term strategy to attack crime at its roots and get police visibly back on our streets."

Gun crime would not be cracked until gangs were broken up and the streets "reclaimed for the honest citizen by proper neighbourhood policing", he added.

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Simon Hughes said the figures must prompt "a new, tougher approach" towards people who carry guns.

"Gangs which use and glorify guns as status symbols must be relentlessly targeted by the police," he added.

Home Office statistics showed gun crime has soared by nearly 600% since 1978 - when there were 1,437 firearms offences.

Gun crime has also increased by 65% since 1996, the year before Labour came to power.

Publishing today's figures, Home Office minister John Denham said: "I am concerned at the significant rise that we have seen in firearm offences.

"The number of male homicide victims of shootings was up 41% on the previous year and the proportion of crime in which firearms were used increased from 0.3% to 0.4%.

"We announced earlier this week that we would be introducing a five-year minimum sentence for possession of a firearm as well as new offences to tighten up the law on air weapons and replica firearms.

"The Home Secretary is holding a round table meeting tomorrow with key groups to make sure we are doing all we can to tackle gun crime."

He went on: "The overall crime picture shows a lot of progress.

"We must target our efforts on those areas that have not been moving in the right direction."

Domestic burglary figures increased 7.9% (or increased 5% when adjusted), figures which are likely to embarrass ministers in the wake of the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor's comments on jailing burglars.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soars-35.html#ixzz3wJ7lJrYL

 

And another article of the increase in gun crimes in the UK

Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade

Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold. 

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year (eta 2009)  -  a rise of 89 per cent. 

In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold. 

In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled. 

The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place. 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html#ixzz3wJAFawqF

[Nihil Obstat]

19 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

I question the prudence in allowing citizens to carry around lethal weapons capable of murdering dozens of innocent people within minutes and not mandating any training whatsoever.

As is your right, but just governance does not necessarily require your consent.

[beatitude]

23 minutes ago, veritasluxmea said:

If anything, what you're suggesting sounds like there's no real relationship between gun control and gun violence. (I would apologize for used a biased material but pretty much everything out there- including anything you'd cite- will have a pro- or anti- gun bias. Some people really do try to look at just the facts but they're still working with biased material. I've had to research this topic in depth for a thesis and sources were a nightmare, even with access to private databases and journals.) As for the lowest crime rate in Britain vs America, that's debatable. The British Home Office doesn't classify violent crime the same way the FBI does. Factoring in differences and getting accurate statistics is tricky 

Yes, everyone has their own political angle, but I think there's a difference between that and plain bad stats. I've just had another look at the table he uses and it actually declares itself to be useless - the footnotes say that the data prior to 2002 can't be compared directly with data gathered after, due to the implementation of new frameworks on crime reporting. Yet that's exactly what he encourages his readers to do, to compare. He also makes out that the increase in homicides in 1997 is significant because that was the year of the handgun ban, but I just double checked the date and the handgun ban didn't even take effect until 17th December 1997, so most of those murders had already happened. And again, handgun ownership wasn't that common even when it was legal, so I'm honestly not sure what he's trying to imply.

I wasn't speaking of the violent crime rate in general, but the gun homicide rate. That is much more concrete and easier to compare directly than general violent crime, which is nebulous in how it's defined from country to country.

[KnightofChrist]

3 minutes ago, beatitude said:

Yes, everyone has their own political angle, but I think there's a difference between that and plain bad stats. I've just had another look at the table he uses and it actually declares itself to be useless - the footnotes say that the data prior to 2002 can't be compared directly with data gathered after, due to the implementation of new frameworks on crime reporting. Yet that's exactly what he encourages his readers to do, to compare. He also makes out that the increase in homicides in 1997 is significant because that was the year of the handgun ban, but I just double checked the date and the handgun ban didn't even take effect until 17th December 1997, so most of those murders had already happened. And again, handgun ownership wasn't that common even when it was legal, so I'm honestly not sure what he's trying to imply.

I wasn't speaking of the violent crime rate in general, but the gun homicide rate. That is much more concrete and easier to compare directly than general violent crime, which is nebulous in how it's defined from country to country.

Judging by the stats in the two articles I posted, as well as other stats I've read, I'd honestly say gun control in the U.K. is a failure.

[Spinozist]

1 minute ago, KnightofChrist said:

Judging by the stats in the two articles I posted, as well as other stats I've read, I'd honestly say gun control in the U.K. is a failure.

I wouldn't say gun control in the UK is a failure, but the increases are indeed bad (and the increase in 2003 indeed appears very bad).

Imagine one group of a hundred people, 20 of whom had cancer one year, and 25 the next. The rate of cancer rose by 20%. No imagine another group of a hundred people, 1 of whom had cancer one year, and 3 the next. The rate of cancer for this group rose by 300%. The second group should seriously worry about the increase of cancer, but the first group has a much more serious problem.

Gun violence in England and Wales during 2014 was a total of 4,860 offences involving firearms (excluding air weapons), according to the ONS ( http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_401896.pdf , page 46). The population of England and Wales is approximately 50 million. This means that gun violence occurs at a rate of 0.01% (and has been steadily dropping over the past couple years) . According to the CDC, in 2013, there were a total of 67,394 offenses involving firearms in the USA, compared to a population of about 320 million, yields a rate of about 0.02%. The article you cite is from 2003, but imagine that the UK offences involving firearms skyrocketed by 35%. 35% of 0.01% is 0.0135%, which is still quite a bit less than 0.02%.

For another statistic, 72 homicides in the UK in 2014 were caused by firearms according to http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html , about 1.44 per million, while the CDC reports that the number of firearm caused homicides in the US during 2013 was 11208, or 370 per million, or 25600% greater. This does indicate that the USA has a much more serious problem with firearm deaths than the UK.

[beatitude]

9 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Judging by the stats in the two articles I posted, as well as other stats I've read, I'd honestly say gun control in the U.K. is a failure.

Whenever I read statistics I go to the original sources and look at the methodology that was used, even if I'm inclined to believe the conclusions the journalist is drawing, because the way stats get represented is generally poor. The Daily Mail is a very strongly pro-Tory paper and both those pieces were published in the run-up to election time, which has influenced how they select and portray data. The National Office for Statistics (which is about as even-handed as you're going to get, as they're not affiliated with any political party of partisan group) gives a more nuanced picture. (Edit: I see Spinozist beat me to it.)

As it happens, at the moment I live in a 'bad' inner city area that is one of the UK's gun crime hotspots (linked to gangs and drugs), and I still walk around by myself and would feel no safer carrying a weapon. I feel safe enough in the first place. I use my common sense and that's enough. I have no interest in guns and neither do most people here, aside from people who use them for sports, who can still get them. I'm happy to live in a place where most police are unarmed and there is rarely a national discussion to be had about police shooting people dead, because it hardly ever happens. I'm also glad that I would struggle to compile a list of UK police deaths to match Lilllabettt's memorial for police officers killed in the line of duty, because police here aren't often killed either. When I read articles from the US about toddlers accidentally shooting people with their parents' guns and school killings and whatever else I just don't get the point of having these things in the house. Where is the benefit? It seems to me that a lot of people want to own them just because they like the idea of a gun or they see it as something central to personal rights/identity, not for any practical purpose, and to be honest that doesn't make much sense to me.

[KnightofChrist]

22 minutes ago, Spinozist said:

I wouldn't say gun control in the UK is a failure, but the increases are indeed bad (and the increase in 2003 indeed appears very bad).

Guns in the UK were heavily restricted/banned on the premise that it would reduce gun crimes, yet gun crimes increase rather than decrease. That is a failure, it is a failure because the opposite of what was hoped happened. 

22 minutes ago, Spinozist said:

Imagine one group of a hundred people, 20 of whom had cancer one year, and 25 the next. The rate of cancer rose by 20%. No imagine another group of a hundred people, 1 of whom had cancer one year, and 3 the next. The rate of cancer for this group rose by 300%. The second group should seriously worry about the increase of cancer, but the first group has a much more serious problem.

Gun violence in England and Wales during 2014 was a total of 4,860 offences involving firearms (excluding air weapons), according to the ONS ( http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_401896.pdf , page 46). The population of England and Wales is approximately 50 million. This means that gun violence occurs at a rate of 0.01% (and has been steadily dropping over the past couple years) . According to the CDC, in 2013, there were a total of 67,394 offenses involving firearms in the USA, compared to a population of about 320 million, yields a rate of about 0.02%. The article you cite is from 2003, but imagine that the UK offences involving firearms skyrocketed by 35%. 35% of 0.01% is 0.0135%, which is still quite a bit less than 0.02%.

For another statistic, 72 homicides in the UK in 2014 were caused by firearms according to http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html , about 1.44 per million, while the CDC reports that the number of firearm caused homicides in the US during 2013 was 11208, or 370 per million, or 25600% greater. This does indicate that the USA has a much more serious problem with firearm deaths than the UK.

Comparing crime rates in UK to the USA is a bit like comparing crime rates between one state in the US to the whole of Europe, not an fair comparison what-so-ever. I also question the reliability of the O.R.C stats that you and @beatitude posted, government will protect government policies and the O.R.C. has more than once from my memory been accused of data manipulation. They are no more trustworthy than any of the other sources for stats in this thread. For example: http://www.research-live.com/news/government-accused-of-crime-research-bias/3001634.article

Anyway, like I said before, we've done this before, a bazillion times. I may stick my head in again, but then again I may not. I'm quite sure we've all made up our minds on the subject and none of us will be changing our positions.

O.R.C should be O.R.S, my apologies for the typo.

[KnightofChrist]

correction again... O.N.S. ugh... Autocorrect....

[beatitude]

We quoted the Office of National Statistics (ONS) and that isn't government-affiliated. It's independent. They are definitely more trustworthy than the Daily Mail because they present the data in context - they don't just give percentages that look scarily large but actually translate into very small numbers in real terms.

I pointed out in an earlier post that the main legislation banning firearms in the UK came into effect in 1968, not 1997, and that handgun ownership in the UK was never prevalent. So it is very difficult to draw a meaningful causal link between the handgun ban and the increase in gun-related crime, partly because spikes like that weren't seen after 1968 (gun crime decreased over the next two decades and only began to climb again in the 1990s), partly because the increase in murders began in the year before the handgun ban took effect, and partly because when viewed over the span of several decades it's possible to see that the murder rate has fluctuated.

The Dunblane and Hungerford massacres were perpetrated with legally obtained firearms, which was what called the vetting process for handguns into question. We are twenty years on from Dunblane, and there have been no more massacres. Considering the number of mass shootings there have been in the US in that time - especially those committed with legally owned firearms, or firearms stolen from people who had legally bought them - I think the ban has been pretty successful in stopping this horrible phenomenon from going further.

[Anomaly]

Totally different conditions and cultures between US and UK.   UK never had the need for guns and did not integrate the need and use of guns within their culture so eliminating a few guns from a small population was negligible effort and impact when comparing attempts to eliminate guns from US society. 

The UK has little recreational hunting culture because access to what little game and "natural" property has been controlled by a wealthy minority for centuries.  It's like discussing banning tea in the US and the U.K. to combat caffeine misuse.  US has long gotten over the Boston incident whilst the UK would seriosly discuss the appropriate nuclear warhead response. 

[PhuturePriest]

2 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

As is your right, but just governance does not necessarily require your consent.

I would say a government has the duty of making prudent decisions when it comes to the safety of its citizens. Though it is within the government's rights to allow civilians to carry around lethal weapons made to kill people wherever they'd like with no training whatsoever, I don't see how anyone can argue that is a prudent and wise decision. The governance in this decision was just in that it was done in within the parameters of the legal system, but that does not mean it was a good decision.

Given your statement, you must also hold it is within a government's right to restrict guns, even heavily so, so long as it is done with just governance.

[KnightofChrist]

ONS was created by Parliament, and if I recall correctly funded by it as well. I have doubts of its independence from government when it was created by it and most certainly if it is funded by it. Still the link posted in my last post should honestly give pause to their trustworthiness. Anyway, y'all have fun on the never ending merry-go-round.

[PhuturePriest]

One thing I find very interesting (and perhaps points to the almost deification of firearms in America's gun culture, in my opinion) is that pro-gun advocates who are of the mind that we should have very few gun laws and we should be free to carry whatever type of firearm we please anywhere we please, seem to only think along those lines when it comes to firearms. I question how comfortable they would be if a law were passed and 90% of the population suddenly walked around with swords, for instance.

What if, for the sake of argument, the 2nd amendment also said citizens have the right to walk around with lethal explosives, or even flashbangs, for that matter? What about armed drones? Tanks? Fighter jets? Would you support this legal right simply because the constitution says so, or would you sit back and wonder if we shouldn't perhaps draw a line for the sake of public safety?

I ask this out of honest curiosity. 

Edited January 4, 2016 by PhuturePriest

[Nihil Obstat]

19 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

I would say a government has the duty of making prudent decisions when it comes to the safety of its citizens. Though it is within the government's rights to allow civilians to carry around lethal weapons made to kill people wherever they'd like with no training whatsoever, I don't see how anyone can argue that is a prudent and wise decision. The governance in this decision was just in that it was done in within the parameters of the legal system, but that does not mean it was a good decision.

Given your statement, you must also hold it is within a government's right to restrict guns, even heavily so, so long as it is done with just governance.

Within reason, yes. I agree that they should be bound by prudence in choosing specific policies. But typically we are still bound by imprudent laws. Though we can and should try to change them.

[veritasluxmea]

2 hours ago, beatitude said:

I wasn't speaking of the violent crime rate in general, but the gun homicide rate. That is much more concrete and easier to compare directly than general violent crime, which is nebulous in how it's defined from country to country.

So what I'm saying is that doesn't prove causation. The US does review and implement stricter gun laws after tragedies. Are they successful? Maybe. I think a review of people's backgrounds would be helpful. However it seems if people just keep trying and trying to get rid of guns, eventually you'd reach a point where guns would be illegal but still around. You can't un-invent a gun. There was a guy who recently 3d printed his own handgun that actually works. And then people who legitimately need and use guns wouldn't have recourse to them. 

2 hours ago, beatitude said:

As it happens, at the moment I live in a 'bad' inner city area that is one of the UK's gun crime hotspots (linked to gangs and drugs), and I still walk around by myself and would feel no safer carrying a weapon. I feel safe enough in the first place. I use my common sense and that's enough. I have no interest in guns and neither do most people here, aside from people who use them for sports, who can still get them.

If we're going with personal stories I also live in the city and work and travel in a bad area. Fortunately during the day it's fine to travel around and like you said, as long as you use your common sense you're fine. I've had a few encounters which I've been able to walk away from. However, I would feel much, much safer if I was armed and trained to use a gun. It's to much money and hassle for me right now (money for gun, safe, training classes, and everything) but it would be something I'd do when I have my own place and family.

I'm glad you're fine with the guns laws in your country and don't have a problem with the way things are. That's how I feel about where I live, too. I'm not suggesting Britain or anybody there needs to change. The family I lived with in high school had a gun safe in their basement and their dad and kids would go off quietly and practice handling guns, shooting targets, and so on. When we lived in suburban areas, hours away from the nearest city and police, we owned guns just in case (and yes, my parents knew how to use them). For most families, guns are treated respectfully and carefully and just aren't a big deal. 

2 hours ago, beatitude said:

Where is the benefit? It seems to me that a lot of people want to own them just because they like the idea of a gun or they see it as something central to personal rights/identity, not for any practical purpose, and to be honest that doesn't make much sense to me.

The benefit is that many children and disadvantaged people- people you want to protect from harm- are saved by guns. 

20 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

 

Quote got messed up here ^ Is there actually a law banning people from walking around with swords? There are a lot of anime nerds around here who have real swords and honestly no, I wouldn't care if I saw them walking around with them. 

[PhuturePriest]

2 hours ago, veritasluxmea said:

Quote got messed up here ^ Is there actually a law banning people from walking around with swords? There are a lot of anime nerds around here who have real swords and honestly no, I wouldn't care if I saw them walking around with them. 

I don't know if there's an actual law banning it (and I'm not particularly motivated enough right now to look,) but I would be willing to bet if I walked down the street or into a restaurant with a real katana that could cut people in half, someone would call the cops and I would be escorted off the premises. I like swords and even I'm not particularly keen with people walking around with them. I'm not an expert with them, but I'm competent enough to know the vast majority of people who have them have no clue how to use them, and the only thing more dangerous than a properly trained swordsman is an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing. Which happens to be the same with guns, coincidentally. I'm sure you've seen one of the many video compilations of people accidentally shooting themselves and others.

[Socrates]

The gun law I support is the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

And if despotic-minded politicians and their toadies find it too harsh on them, then too flippin' bad for them.  They can move to France.

[PhuturePriest]

6 minutes ago, Socrates said:

The gun law I support is the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

And if despotic-minded politicians and their toadies find it too harsh on them, then too flippin' bad for them.  They can move to France.

That's Mr. Toad to you, cowboy.

I don't know much about France, but I would personally love to move to Britain. If you would like non-supporters of the 2nd amendment like me out of the country, how about taking real action and pay the fees to send me on my merry tea-drinking, Mr. Bean-watching, British loyalist way? I hear Britain could use some vocations anyway.

[Not A Real Name]

I personally wish people would take a test before owning a smartphone.

What is this?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Ban the cars!

Jk jk.

[PhuturePriest]

1 hour ago, Not A Real Name said:

I personally wish people would take a test before owning a smartphone.

What is this?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Ban the cars!

Jk jk.

The idea of riding by horse is so much more romantic, no?