The violent crimes rate might be higher, but their murder rate is lower, we're at 4.2 per 100,000, they're at 1.2. Maybe if they didn't ban guns, their rate would be higher with the increase in violence. And really, why would the rate be affected, because as we all know, if you take guns away, only the criminal would have them, I would think then the criminals would become more brazen with their guns, knowing it is unlikely the person they are attacking isn't armed.
http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome Here is another article on Britain that has a strict gun law.
its interesting to think about the correlation between violent crimes and gun ownership maybe more people assault each other because they know nobody is going to pull a gun out? so more people get attacked, but less people killed...
It's way to easy to get guns these days. Just about anybody can get them. Ammunition's not hard to get either.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/07/20/mass-shootings-list.html MASS SHOOTINGS 1. Oslo Norway, 80 people killed 2. Baku Azerbaijan, 12 people killed 3. rural Alabama, 10 people killed 4. Kauhojoki Finland, 10 people killed 5. Tuusula Finland, 8 people killed 6. Blacksburg Va, 32 people killed 7. Erfurt Germany, 13 teachers, 2 students, 1 policeman killed 8. Columbine, 12 students, 1 teacher killed 9. Tasmania Australia, 20 people killed, 15 more as he drove away. 10. Dunblane Scotland, 16 kindergarten children killed, and the teacher 11. Killeen Texas, 23 people killed 12. Jacksonville Fla, 10 people killed 13. Montreal, 14 women killed 14. Hungerford England, 16 people killed 15. Edmond Okla, 14 people killed 16. San Ysidro CA, 21 people killed
not conflicting. When talking striclty of people being murdered. UK has their lowest homicide total in 30 years currently. Is it JUST because of gun laws? Very likely no. Does it help? You're linking to an article written 10 years ago.
Spin it how you wish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom Compared with the United States of America, the United Kingdom has a slightly higher total crime rate per capita of approximately 85 per 1000 people, while in the USA it is approximately 80.[61] Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,[62] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06. Most of the rise in injuries were in the category slight injuries from the non-air weapons. "Slight" in this context means an injury that was not classified as "serious" (i.e., did not require detention in hospital, did not involve fractures, concussion, severe general shock, penetration by a bullet or multiple shot wounds). In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. In 2007, the British government was accused by Shadow Home Secretary David Davis of making "inaccurate and misleading" statements claiming that gun crime was falling, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries recorded by police had risen more than fourfold since 1998, mainly due to a rise in non-fatal injuries.[63][64] In 2007, Justice Minister Jack Straw told the BBC, "We are concerned that within the overall record, which is a good one, of crime going down in the last 10-11 years, the number of gun-related incidents has gone up. But it has now started to fall."[65] In 2008 The Independent reported that there were 42 gun-related deaths in Great Britain, a 20-year low.[66] However, in late 2009 The Telegraph reported that gun crime had doubled in the last 10 years, with an increase in both firearms offences and deaths. A government spokesman said this increase was a result of a change in reporting practices in 2001 and that gun crime had actually fallen since 2005. Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary (an opposition party spokesperson), attributed the rise to ineffective policing and an out-of-control gang culture.[67] Writing in the British Journal of Criminology, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no measurable effect detectable from the 1997 firearms legislation with ARIMA statistical analysis.[14]
pic of the shooter, apparantly...they're doing the trayvon martin baby pic thing here. https://twitter.com/ABC/status/279739438270136321/photo/1
slightly higher, but much lower murder rate. They also have a higher percentage of their population living in urban areas, which I would contend adds to crime rate increase. But, no spin, they have a ban on guns. They have a murder rate much lower than ours. You can feel free to post articles about other shooters, or show statistics of where other shootings have happened if it helps your cause.
No spin. You assume their gun laws have something to do with a lower murder rate than ours. They had a lower murder rate than ours for 100 years. They had as low a murder rate before they banned guns. I mean, you said yourself their murder rate is at a 30 year low. 30 years ago was before the gun ban.
Brainiac asked the most relevant question so far. What to do about MURDER in general. Seems to me that domestic violence is likely the biggest source. People just don't get along. Have hallway sex (say "fuck you" as they pass in the hallway) and it goes downhill from there. Maybe your roommate hogs the TV or steals from your wallet. That sort of thing. Then there's the use of guns in the course of committing a crime. I don't think most killings start out with the killer intending to commit murder. Rather they want to intimidate a robbery victim by waving a gun and things get out of hand. Hence my suggestion we throw the book at anyone using a gun in the commission of a crime. Catch a guy robbing a store with a gun (no shots fired), lock him up for 20 years.
late to the dance. I get that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, but does that mean that every gun has to be OK? Is there no gun that should be outlawed for citizens to own?
