Summations Only

the logic of you being armed escapes me.

And here's another report on the same situation in Australia

Haha, the Daily Mail is the toilet paper equivalent of Fox News. We call it the Daily Wail over here - its job is to tell its readers that we're all going to hell in a hand cart and to do it they publish garbage like that.But let's have a look.So all firearm offences - that's includes any offence with a firearm including owning a firearm without a licence, not keeping a shotgun properly locked up, imitation firearms (about 20%) etc - was less that 10,000 in 2009.Still it's a worrying trend. Why the increase? Well, in a bit of the article from the Daily Wail that you didn't paste and highlight (I wonder why?) they say: Starting roughly in 2004 there was a spate of me-too youth gang crime in some of the poorer estates in two of our cities - notably Manchester and Nottingham..Despite our efforts, the USA is exporting its gun culture - you must be very proud.Luckily, our youth don't find it as easy to get and use guns - gun related murder in the UK runs at around 50 per year and has been falling year on year for the last 10 years.

The article looks like good journalism to me. I'm sure it's only toilet paper to the idiot Left.I only pasted the top part of the article figuring you could follow the link to the rest. Thanks for the nasty suspiciousness though, it really dignifies the discussion.Too bad your criminals have our criminals as their model but you already had your criminals no matter who they decided to emulate.You guys need your guns back.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Tangle: Luckily, our youth don't find it as easy to get and use guns - gun related murder in the UK runs at around 50 per year and has been falling year on year for the last 10 years.

---

You omitted this part as well. The gun related murder is around 12.000 in the US annually - compare that to the UK number any which way you want and the diff is drastic.In my country, the more serious traffic crimes are included in the Penal Code - when you look at the numbers without any explanation you get a wrong picture of the situation - just like in the gun related crime as a whole.

That's a quote from Tangle, not from the article, with the usual questionable statistics.The point is the general point that gun crime has been rising contrary to the claims of the gun control crowd.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The point is the general point that gun crime has been rising contrary to the claims of the gun control crowd.

---

The number of gun crime SHOULD go up when control is tightened - it is the violent crime (especially that resulting in deaths) that should go down.That is exactly what has happened.

You guys live in lala land. The police are having to use high powered weapons they never had to use before. That's a measure of the rise in VIOLENT crime.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, I'm sure it does.Did you notice that it's also 3 years old? If you were really interested in the facts about gun crime in the UK, you would spend a little time doing some real research instead of googling old articles from discredited sources, then cherry picking from within them.I suggest you start with this briefing paper from the House of Commons Library:Just a moment...I'd take particular note of Annex 1 which is titled "Notifiable offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used" From 1990 to 2011.You'll see that picking your dates and definitions to make your story work for you is rather vital and the usual trick used by the ignorant and malicious.That table shows all firearm crime from 1990 to 2011. (Remember that the UK brought in a series of firearm legislation during that period and it was after Dunblane killings in 1996 that the major changes happened.)You'll see that from 1990 to 2004 firearm offences more than doubled from 10,000 to 24,000, then halved again to today. A similar pattern was followed by gun related murder - rising steadily from 60 in 1990 to 90 in 2001 then falling steadily back to 60 in 2011.(In fact 60 is now regarded as high - recent previous years had been around 40. So I'm sure that there's a Daily Wail blaring headline shouting "GUN MURDER UP 50%". See how easy it is to mislead?)If you see a "fact" in the Daily Wail - it's generally a good idea to check it before you make yourself look silly.

Perhaps you could tell me, from that article, how many gun deaths there were?
Can you?
Or did the article 'forget' to actually post any details?Remember, this debate is about gun deaths.Are gun deaths in the UK increasing?
It is a simple question: can you answer it?

The reduction in gun crimes according to that report is only over the last few years, which is a reduction from an enormous high that followed on the gun ban and not a reducton from the gun ban itself. So this is rather misleading since we are talking about the effect since the gun ban some 15 or so years ago.If you look at the chart given in the report it shows a huge increase in gun crime AFTER the gun ban, increasing by some 10,000 incidents a year if I'm reading it correctly to a peak in 2003-4 and then starting to come down. But it didn't even come down to the level of the year of the gun ban until last year. Now this year apparently it's finally gone below that by a small amount. After 15 years you get a tiny reduction after years of huge increases. What kind of proof is that of crime reduction from gun control?Is that what you expect of gun control, that it will produce that much MORE crime for that long before it finally starts to drop? Why bother taking away people's guns if the best that's been accomplished is a return to the same level at the year they were banned some 13 years later? What kind of accomplishment is that?Also of course the report could drown a person in numbers and I didn't read through the whole thing, just skimmed to the bottom to see if they offered any explanation for the fall of such crimes over the last few years and didn't see any. Perhaps it could be explained by the increase in high-powered police weapons as reported in the article and video I posted? If so then you've armed your police at the expense of your citizens. what really have you accomplished? Nothing but putting power in the hands of government and taking it out of the hands of the people WITHOUT anything at all to show for your vaunted crime reduction rate. Again, the drop over the last few years probably has nothing to do with the gun ban itself, but I'd guess with the increase in police arms made necessary by the increase in crime made necessary by disarming your law-abiding citizens. While meanwhile you've made sitting ducks of the people and even begun to criminalize them for defending themselves. That looks to me like a very very sick society.If there's more to that welter of numbers that I'm overlooking I hope maybe crash or someone else will take on the challenge of figuring it out tomorrow.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are amazing.Like I say, it shows firearm crime rising steadily from 1990 to 2002/3 stabilising in 2003/4 then falling every year since so now it is half what it was at it's peak. That is not the "last few years"Now what else is missing? YES! it's population growth over the same period. More people = more crime. So the fall in firearm crime was not only a fall in absolute terms, but in real terms it was too - it fell whilst the population was growing.And once again, those statistics include everything that had a gun involved - even if it was a licensing issue or a fake gun. So look just at murders using guns again. Falling pretty much every year since 2001/2 - again with a rising population and again not just "the last few years".For your information, the UK Firearm Act was implemented in 1997. Coincidence? Think about what would happen if something that was legal is no longer legal. Perhaps those crimes related to the Act would increase for a while as the police took action and the public got used to it? Maybe? Then you'd expect a decline if if it was working wouldn't you?

The point you're missing is that on the other side of that state is another state, with its own laws, generally laws comparable in strictness to its neighbors - not, usually, a Wild West free-fire zone. States have a vested interest in their borders not providing an enormous interface between vastly heterogenous gun environments.And again, the state borders don't matter in this case, for the two reasons you keep ignoring - the guns were obtained in Connecticut, and the states that Connecticut borders have roughly the same levels of gun control and gun ownership. I don't know how to make heads or tails of this. If you're not talking about mass shootings at schools, how do you explain post 3, where you talk about mass shootings at schools? How do you explain post 14, where you again talk about mass shootings at schools? Post 28, where you again mention mass shootings at schools? 31, where you refer to that subject yet again? Post 333, where you again speculate on the effect of gun availability on mass school shootings?You're doing a great job of talking about everything but what you claim your argument has been. I have been, throughout. Maybe you need to be doing a better job of confining yourself to making the arguments you actually want to make.

But they haven't been. They've been increasing, even as the national gun ownership rate has been in decline.

The report clearly SAYS the reductions are, first, between this and the last year and then the one before that, but you hadn't bothered to explain that, you just made it sound like there's a clear decrease as if it were the result of the gun ban. SSo I had to go look to find out: reductions from what level.Real numbers, population increase, etc, do not allow you to call an increase a reduction. The way you guys talk gun crime should have immediately decreased with the gun ban, because you think the possession of guns by law-abiding citizens is the problem, crazy though that idea is. So you take them away and gun crime does NOT go down, it actually increases above the pattern of increase up until that time. What was a steady rise up to that point becomes a steep ascent. According to your claims, shouldn't it have at least leveled off some?The graph shows a fall only since 2004, and that's CAN'T be due to the gun ban which occurred seven years before the peak. The gun ban itself OBVIOUSLY stimulated an INCREASE. Why would there be a period of feeling things out? Either the possession of guns by the citizens was the problem or it was not. Obfviously it was not. So I suggest the later decrease is due to the arming of the police. Enough firepower is bound to be a deterrent, has nothing to do with disarming the poor citizens and not only was taking away their guns ineffective according to your claims, but you're letting them be helpless victims of crime and even criminalizing them for defending themselves.That report does not show ANY kind of benefit from disarming the people, not one tiny benefit, and the pain and suffering and increased vulnerability inflicted on the nation ought to have you all hanging your heads in shame. In fact I think all you UK leftists ought to dedicate yourselves to freeing that poor man Tony Martin who is wrongfully sitting in jail.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.