Summations Only

So your hypothesis is that because the UK population isn't armed, burglars don't concern themselves with whether anyone is home or not. Well that's interesting, considering this obvious fact: Burglary of Single-family Houses | ASU Center for Problem-Oriented Policing | ASUOk so we've established that burglary rates are identical between countries and I've shown you my workings.I can't find numbers on occupied burglary in the UK but the FBI tell us that it happens in 60% of all burglaries in the USA.
http://www.homesecurityresearch.com/home_burglary_facts.phpI'd be amazed if it was much different in the UK - but you presumably do so can you share please.

Hi again Tempe 12ft Chicken An extra step that is open to police interdiction and your conviction ... if it is illegal to have ammunition. Another extra step necessary, and one that leaves you open to some serious health issues (Lead poisoning - Wikipedia) Another extra step that is open to police interdiction and your conviction ... if it is illegal to have ammunition.If police put up road blocks between you and a store, and kept adding road blocks on streets you use then it becomes much more difficult and time consuming to get to that store, and your need to go there would have to be high for you to continue to get there. Curiously, not in my experience here. I've looked -- as I look for mushrooms on day hikes -- so this is not universally true. I also look for arrowheads with little luck. Plus IF a lot of people -- gun owners -- were collecting shell casings, their availability in this regard would drop off rapidly.Again the issue arises on how many times a casing can be used before it fails.The idea is not to eliminate, but to make difficult, the possession of large quantities of ammunition that could be used in a rampage.Enjoy.

Definitely could be location specific. As a resident of Arizona, one of the states with the loosest gun laws, shooting with any type of weapon is not frowned upon in National Forests (except during our dry season). This is where a lot of individuals in this area go to blow off a little steam.Yes, the availability would drop off, but do we really want to fully disarm the law-abiding population and allow them to wait for it to drop off, while those who do not obey laws collect the means to make more ammo? At least in AZ. Lol. That is just it...according to many people that I know who own guns, they will not give them up. For them the need is high and they will want to continue to utilize firearms for whatever purpose. Also, for those planning something deadly the need is also high. The individuals that the need is not high for are those who would then need protection from the illegally gained firearms. Right, but why not make the process of obtaining a gun more difficult. Requiring guns to be registered, gun safes to be owned before guns can be purchased, and limiting ammo (both capacity and amount allowed to be held at once by a single person) could serve the same purpose without disarming the population of law-abiding citizens who do not use their guns for incorrect purposes.Someone earlier mentioned that Guns coming from Mexico are made in the US, so if we ban guns, our manufacturers will still be selling items to other countries, including Mexico. These guns will then find their way back into the system through the black market. A blanket ban is not the answer for this country but rather better regulation and better mental health treatment are what we should really be looking for.

Wow Tangle !! We have some astonishing burglars over here in Blighty !The FBI tells us that 60% of burglaries in the US are occupied burglaries and Crash tells us that our rate of occupied burglaries is 4 times that rate ! Our burglars are managing to burgle occupied houses 240% of the time !We're superhuman over here !

Crash - you have to enlarge to salient points of the graph. You cant get away with white non-grided graphs. You should be ashamed of yourself for foisting this stupid graphic on us. Ashamed!Edited by xongsmith, : okay typos hit me baqd here

Crash wonders: Maybe we were preoccupied with staggering back in aghast?

That and he gives no source. We have no way to know if the data is correct or something he or someone else pulled out of their ass.ABE
We don't even know if the chart is for Australia.Nothing anyone claims has any validity if they are not welling to present their sources. This is one of a long list of things that Crash threw out without any support.He reminds me of a monkey in zoo. Flinging shit as he does a crash gallop. He has out gished Duane Gish.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Found his source. Amazing it doesnt agree with him.

quote:

---

After Port Arthur, the then Prime Minister John Howard introduced laws that one article calls some of the world’s toughest gun laws. Semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns were among the first guns to be entirely outlawed for regular citizens (that is, not military or police personnel). This led to the removal of up to 700,000 guns via the buyback scheme. This almost immediately led to a sharp decline in gun-related deaths (homicide, suicide and accidental) in the following two years. Five years later, in 2001, gun crime was still significantly lower, making it clear that the dropping rates of gun-related deaths were not just a fleeting trend.

​

In more recent times, it seems Australia has become an even more safe place to live. In 1991, pre-gun law Australia saw 3.64 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people. Today, this has almost halved to 1.71. For comparison, the current rate in California alone, and solely for homicides, is 3.37 per 100,000 people. Even more shockingly, the rate of fire arm assaults per 100,000 people is 44.78. While Australia does have a smaller population than the US, you can clearly see that gun crimes in America are unacceptably high, and it seems about time to start implementing a solution, like Australia did.

---

I guess that is why he didn't give a source.Edited by Theodoric, : forgot to bold as in original

Which kids? I don't follow; you're clearly trying to evade the question. Answer it, instead: if we reduce gun deaths, but increase stabbing deaths by more, why is that a good thing? Shouldn't the goal be less homicides without regard to how they're committed? They were, though: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.htmlIt's funny how you link without quoting or showing, describing it one way; when I actually go there and look, the truth is the opposite. Please, when you discuss with me, remember that misrepresenting your sources violates the forum guidelines.

Oh, I see - so when you said that I attributed this to "someone", you were saying something you knew not to be true. There's a name for what that's called, but I don't seem to be allowed to tell you what it is. Perhaps you can use your imagination.

Seriously ?

Strange how that line goes down over time.You're the only one who insists that a gun ban is supposed to create immediate results.But your own stats show that homicides declined over time after banning firearms. 350 homicides in 1996...roughly 250 in 2010.That's a success if I've ever seen one.

I'm not comparing the US with the UK, I was trying to understand what happened when the UK took away people's guns, and the material I found plus the statistics Tangle posted all suggest they got an increase in gun crime during the years immediately following the ban. That includes the graph in the report he posted. If the graph doesn't give an accurate picture then somebody needs to post statistics that actually reflect something meaningful. So far all the statistics posted here look untrustworthy.

Well, no. That's not my hypothesis, it was Rahvin's:

quote:

---

A criminal has no way of knowing whether a given home contains a gun owner or not; most home invaders try to commit their crimes while the victims are away, so as to avoid the police or any form of confrontation. For the remainder...the possibility of a homeowner with a gun being present simply escalates the threat.

---

You've jumped into a conversation I've been having with him. I've already done so. Again, Tangle, you can't maintain a studied ignorance of my sources and then claim that I've not provided any. I'm not required to repeat myself to every newcomer. If this is a conversation you want to be a part of, it's your responsibility to get caught up.

I don't understand what you're talking about, but it strikes me that if the only complaint you have about my numbers is that they're poorly formatted, you've conceded my major points.