• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

But England banned all handguns, semi auto rifles etc

Once you get beyond the early Renaissance, and skip lightly over various wars of religion and civil wars and begin the modern era, England never had murder levels comparable to the US even when they had very little gun control. Comparing the two isn't really useful.


Looking at gun deaths before ban and after ban is useful, but really the best measures are looking at overall homicides by all means, and overall violent crime. These tell the tale without cherry picking.


But, as has been noted, the Home Office massages the official figures and thus solid data is lacking. In all probability though the real figures are higher than the official ones, as Home Office would have a vested interest in minimizing the issue.


In short there's no real evidence that strict gun control has done anything to make England less violent. Possibly, arguably even the opposite, but without accurate data it is hard to say.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
You would think they would be more transparent about these sorts of things since it involves... oh, I dunno, maybe... people dying.
Click to expand...

You are expecting governments to care if citizens die, they do not. If they did no gun control laws would exist.
 
Goshin said:
Once you get beyond the early Renaissance, and skip lightly over various wars of religion and civil wars and begin the modern era, England never had murder levels comparable to the US even when they had very little gun control. Comparing the two isn't really useful.

Looking at gun deaths before ban and after ban is useful, but really the best measures are looking at overall homicides by all means, and overall violent crime. These tell the tale without cherry picking.

But, as has been noted, the Home Office massages the official figures and thus solid data is lacking. In all probability though the real figures are higher than the official ones, as Home Office would have a vested interest in minimizing the issue.

In short there's no real evidence that strict gun control has done anything to make England less violent. Possibly, arguably even the opposite, but without accurate data it is hard to say.
Click to expand...

England's violent crime starts to rise from incredibly low figures in about 1920..1937 as parliament began to react ever more hysterically to perceived threats from the people rising up (Thomas Jones Whitehall diaries) In ever increasings steps following each more strict set of gun control legislation. (Greenwood). London was once considered the safest city in the world.

Chief Insp (ret) Colin Greenwood of the West Yorkshire Constabulary did some ground breaking research on sabbatical to the University of Cambridge Institute of Criminology as a Cropwood Short Term Fellow. This was published in his book Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales. https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Greenwood.pdf

What is very clear from Greenwood's work, however, is that the legislation has not done any good; the public are no safer - probably the reverse - and all that can fairly be said about the repeated legislative visits to this subject is that they serve to keep the government's agenda in the media. It was ever thus, the governments of the 1930s spent the run up to the Second World War trying hard to disarm the people, as did the post-war governments. One cannot read Greenwood's book without developing a sense of despair at the government's consistent small-mindedness on this subject. Part of a review. Think of the typical British understatement.

It has an interesting historical account and much for anybody to know about gun control.

Joyce Lee Malcolm, Guns and Violence: The English Experience offers a revealing comparison of the experience in England ... to the history of crime and violence in England from the Middle Ages to the present.

A nice country comparison by Gary Mauser with lots of countries data.
The Failed Experiment
Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada,
Australia, England and Wales
Gary A. Mauser
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/faildxprmt.pdf
 
natsb said:
Because most homicides do not involve guns, and the topic of this thread is gun violence.

A homicide is not a homicide. That is why comparing international statistics is so difficult. For instance, the US counts suicide as a homicide, the UK does not.
Click to expand...

And most gun crimes do not involve homicide.
 
jimbo said:
And most gun crimes do not involve homicide.
Click to expand...

WTF is gun crime?

1 An invention of gun control to skew the figures more favourably?

2 A useful comparison to knife crime, bat crime, pipe crime and vehicle crime?
 
I'm not surprised by two things;

1. Criminals taking advantage of disarming law abiding citizens.

2. The fact that some believe places like Australia has a "gun ban." You can acquire a firearm in any country, but there are strict laws in place.
 
Crimefree said:
Gun crime is an excellent way of falsely skewing the data. It is cherry picking. I have no idea why people find gun control propaganda inventions so interesting. That they cannot see the deliberate attempt to remove data to increase the focus on what has no causal relationship to crime.

The question is of what interest is an instrument of crime and why is it only important if it is guns?
Click to expand...

The interest would be that gun crime relates to crime with guns. In assessing crime with guns, it makes no sense to analyse crime that occurs when guns are not involved.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The interest would be that gun crime relates to crime with guns. In assessing crime with guns, it makes no sense to analyse crime that occurs when guns are not involved.
Click to expand...

Then one must ponder why people murdered without a gun don't count. Or what the absence of a gun changes. Murder is murder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Goshin said:
Once you get beyond the early Renaissance, and skip lightly over various wars of religion and civil wars and begin the modern era, England never had murder levels comparable to the US even when they had very little gun control. Comparing the two isn't really useful.


Looking at gun deaths before ban and after ban is useful, but really the best measures are looking at overall homicides by all means, and overall violent crime. These tell the tale without cherry picking.


But, as has been noted, the Home Office massages the official figures and thus solid data is lacking. In all probability though the real figures are higher than the official ones, as Home Office would have a vested interest in minimizing the issue.


In short there's no real evidence that strict gun control has done anything to make England less violent. Possibly, arguably even the opposite, but without accurate data it is hard to say.
Click to expand...

It certainly looks that way when you discount the evidence against it.
 
Manc Skipper said:
It certainly looks that way when you discount the evidence against it.
Click to expand...

my favorite bit of propaganda from across the pond came from the British "Home Secretary" who was asked if the Dunblane bed wetting had accomplished anything and he said-it completely eliminated murders and robberies committed by those using "legally owned handguns"

think about how silly that claim was
 
blackjack50 said:
Then one must ponder why people murdered without a gun don't count. Or what the absence of a gun changes. Murder is murder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Sure it is. But that's why I made my question specific to gun crime.
 
natsb said:
Because most homicides do not involve guns, and the topic of this thread is gun violence.
Click to expand...

Source?

A homicide is not a homicide. That is why comparing international statistics is so difficult. For instance, the US counts suicide as a homicide, the UK does not.
Click to expand...

Um. Did you mean to say, "a suicide is not a homicide"? Or that the homicide rates of two nations can't be easily compared?
 
Phys251 said:
Source?



Um. Did you mean to say, "a suicide is not a homicide"? Or that the homicide rates of two nations can't be easily compared?
Click to expand...

I was addressing the statement made that a "homicide is a homicide". I was pointing out that all countries in the multi-country homicide charts are not singing the same song; making comparisons difficult.
 
natsb said:
I was addressing the statement made that a "homicide is a homicide". I was pointing out that all countries in the multi-country homicide charts are not singing the same song; making comparisons difficult.
Click to expand...

Ah. Honest question, though--just how much could editing the definitions change the homicide statistics? At the end of the day, it comes down to how often people's actions directly lead to other people's deaths, does it not?
 
Phys251 said:
Ah. Honest question, though--just how much could editing the definitions change the homicide statistics? At the end of the day, it comes down to how often people's actions directly lead to other people's deaths, does it not?
Click to expand...

In the UK, a violent death at the hand of another person isn't counted as a homicide until legal proceedings conclude and someone is found guilty of the crime. In the US, that death is counted as a homicide right away, and given our homicide clearance rate of about 62-63%, using the UK counting method could reduce the official homicide rate by 1/3.
 
Phys251 said:
Ah. Honest question, though--just how much could editing the definitions change the homicide statistics? At the end of the day, it comes down to how often people's actions directly lead to other people's deaths, does it not?
Click to expand...

The UK home office has developed a set of rules that cover the reporting of violent crime in order to bring down the disgraceful figures which raised questions in parliament when it became known that once safe England now exceed all US violent crime with the exception of murder and rape which were increasing but had not caught up yet. The police have admitted to fudging the figure and are not happy as it gives a false sense of security and changes the emphasis on police work.

Multiple homicide in the same house are counted as one crime. Conviction is required to count as homicide. These are just two ways.
 
Rucker61 said:
In the UK, a violent death at the hand of another person isn't counted as a homicide until legal proceedings conclude and someone is found guilty of the crime. In the US, that death is counted as a homicide right away, and given our homicide clearance rate of about 62-63%, using the UK counting method could reduce the official homicide rate by 1/3.
Click to expand...

Crimefree said:
The UK home office has developed a set of rules that cover the reporting of violent crime in order to bring down the disgraceful figures which raised questions in parliament when it became known that once safe England now exceed all US violent crime with the exception of murder and rape which were increasing but had not caught up yet. The police have admitted to fudging the figure and are not happy as it gives a false sense of security and changes the emphasis on police work.

Multiple homicide in the same house are counted as one crime. Conviction is required to count as homicide. These are just two ways.
Click to expand...

Wow. Then natsb was right. You'd think that the conclusion could be drawn within a few days, perhaps even a few hours or minutes in many cases.
 
Phys251 said:
Wow. Then natsb was right. You'd think that the conclusion could be drawn within a few days, perhaps even a few hours or minutes in many cases.
Click to expand...

I don't think any of the pro-2A side will disagree that comparison of crime rates between two countries are valuable. The measure of success of gun control is the change in rates and trends in rate changes before and after implementation, normalized for rate changes/trends if the law had not been implemented.
 
Actually, comparing raw numbers or even percentages of two countries who have entirely different gun laws is pretty irrelevant. The UK will most certainly have fewer gun crimes and fewer gun crimes per 1000 people than the US. That is not debatable. One cannot compare these two countries simply because the mindset regarding gun ownership is completely different. Which is better? Depends on your point of view on a number of issues, mostly surrounding the conflict between safety and freedom, two concepts that people have been trying to balance in government for thousands of years. There is no "formula" around these two concepts that fits every society at every time period. There also is no "right or wrong" around how the two are balanced. It just depends on your point of view, how the society views each, and what things are impacting the time period in which we live. The gun control argument will always be about safety vs. freedom.

Oh, and before someone quotes Ben Franklin, I can tell you right off that his quote is inaccurate. Every day we reduce liberty in order to have more safety and that is certainly not a bad thing. Again... balance is what is important.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Actually, comparing raw numbers or even percentages of two countries who have entirely different gun laws is pretty irrelevant. The UK will most certainly have fewer gun crimes and fewer gun crimes per 1000 people than the US. That is not debatable. One cannot compare these two countries simply because the mindset regarding gun ownership is completely different. Which is better? Depends on your point of view on a number of issues, mostly surrounding the conflict between safety and freedom, two concepts that people have been trying to balance in government for thousands of years. There is no "formula" around these two concepts that fits every society at every time period. There also is no "right or wrong" around how the two are balanced. It just depends on your point of view, how the society views each, and what things are impacting the time period in which we live. The gun control argument will always be about safety vs. freedom.

Oh, and before someone quotes Ben Franklin, I can tell you right off that his quote is inaccurate. Every day we reduce liberty in order to have more safety and that is certainly not a bad thing. Again... balance is what is important.
Click to expand...

The point is that direct comparison is not possible due to the many influence on CRIME. One of the most important is culture but there are many others not discounting the police and governments willingness to tackle the causes of crime.

It is only gun control who keeps ignoring facts that loves this idiotic comparisons because it is so easy to fool people who are not aware of the causal factors of crime.

BTW there is no difference in countries gun laws. All seek to deprive citizens guns. Not one of them has ever worked or ever will work. That is a physical impossibility that controlling an object will influence the crime rate. Only delusional gun control supporters believe it is possible. Not one of them knows how.

You are quite right gun control seeks to hold the high ground on public safety and promises that removing guns will increase public safety. This fight is not about guns it is about public safety. Nor can this fight be won by protecting guns and ignoring public safety. The public care only about their own safety and are quite happy to sacrifice ever others citizens guns in order that they feel safe.

There is never a good reason to trade liberty for safety and it never ever will be a good thing. What is your freedom worth to you that you would sell it for some perceived safety? Your safety is your responsibility.
 
Last edited:
Crimefree said:
The point is that direct comparison is not possible due to the many influence on CRIME. One of the most important is culture but there are many others not discounting the police and governments willingness to tackle the causes of crime.
Click to expand...

All of that encompasses culture. How a culture tackles and or examines the causes of crime also partially defines them. As we look at different cultured, crime is thought of and dealt with differently.

It is only gun control who keeps ignoring facts that loves this idiotic comparisons because it is so easy to fool people who are not aware of the causal factors of crime.
Click to expand...

No, I see people on both sides of the issue making these comparisons. turtle started this thread. He doesn't support gun control.

BTW there is no difference in countries gun laws. All seek to deprive citizens guns. Not one of them has ever worked or ever will work. That is a physical impossibility that controlling an object will influence the crime rate. Only delusional gun control supporters believe it is possible. Not one of them knows how.
Click to expand...

Of course there is a difference in gun control laws. That's the backdrop of the premise of this entire thread.

You are quite right gun control seeks to hold the high ground on public safety and promises that removing guns will increase public safety. This fight is not about guns it is about public safety. Nor can this fight be won by protecting guns and ignoring public safety. The public care only about their own safety and are quite happy to sacrifice ever others citizens guns in order that they feel safe.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that.

There is never a good reason to trade liberty for safety and it never ever will be a good thing. What is your freedom worth to you that you would sell it for some perceived safety? Your safety is your responsibility.
Click to expand...

Of course there are good reasons to trade liberty for safety. None of us can be completely responsible for our own safety simply because there are forces larger than ourselves at work at times. Does it make sense for the US to have laws that deprive people of their liberty in order to improve public safety? Of course it does. Liberty is not absolute, nor should it be.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
All of that encompasses culture. How a culture tackles and or examines the causes of crime also partially defines them. As we look at different cultured, crime is thought of and dealt with differently.
Click to expand...

No you are trying to make everything fall under culture when this is patently incorrect. Government/party police is largely responsible as is obvious in other countries where the police are now an arm of government. As examples Japan, China the USSR all have a history of armed citizens and government intervention to change that. The difference between armed and unarmed citizens changes policing and crime, influencing the types of crime. Governments handling of social problems has a greater influence on crime than culture. Look at a list of crime causes and you will not see culture on that list. It will influence certain things like beak down of the family unit but government will have more influence on that.

No, I see people on both sides of the issue making these comparisons. turtle started this thread. He doesn't support gun control.
Click to expand...

Seriously you are not going to try anecdotal evidence and expect to get anywhere with it? I accept there are some firearm owners who do but by far the majority of people using this false comparison are gun control supporters. It's origins are as gun control propaganda. The same as "gun crime"

Of course there is a difference in gun control laws. That's the backdrop of the premise of this entire thread.
Click to expand...

No there is not any difference they are all laws that rely on deprivation as a reduction method of crime control. Give an example of one which is not. Just because the words are different does not mean the principle of operation is different.

I can agree with that.
Click to expand...

That is refreshing as most do not see this is a fight over personal and public safety

Of course there are good reasons to trade liberty for safety. None of us can be completely responsible for our own safety simply because there are forces larger than ourselves at work at times. Does it make sense for the US to have laws that deprive people of their liberty in order to improve public safety? Of course it does. Liberty is not absolute, nor should it be.
Click to expand...

You are confusing governments responsibility for creating a safe environment for citizens. Never is there a valid reason to trade personal safety for a loss of freedom. Give an example if you think that not valid.
 
Last edited:
Crimefree said:
No you are trying to make everything fall under culture when this is patently incorrect. Government/party police is largely responsible as is obvious in other countries where the police are now an arm of government. As examples Japan, China the USSR all have a history of armed citizens and government intervention to change that. The difference between armed and unarmed citizens changes policing and crime, influencing the types of crime. Governments handling of social problems has a greater influence on crime than culture. Look at a list of crime causes and you will not see culture on that list. It will influence certain things like beak down of the family unit but government will have more influence on that.
Click to expand...

Everything in what you posted above relates to the culture of the society of which is being discussed. How government develops depends on societal culture. You are ignoring the foundation of the issue.

Seriously you are not going to try anecdotal evidence and expect to get anywhere with it? I accept there are some firearm owners who do but by far the majority of people using this false comparison are gun control supporters. It's origins are as gun control propaganda. The same as "gun crime"
Click to expand...

Your comments are ironic since you just used your own personal experience to support your position. Further, I never claimed either side did it the majority of the time. All I said was that I see it from both sides. Even you did not dispute that.

No there is not any difference they are all laws that rely on deprivation as a reduction method of crime control. Give an example of one which is not. Just because the words are different does not mean the principle of operation is different.
Click to expand...

You are completely missing the point. There certainly is a difference in gun control laws between different countries. Some countries have stricter laws and some do not. You can call it whatever you like, but what I just said is entirely factual.

That is refreshing as most do not see this is a fight over personal and public safety
Click to expand...

Most can't see the forest for the trees.

You are confusing governments responsibility for creating a safe environment for citizens. Never is there a valid reason to trade personal safety for a loss of freedom. Give an example if you think that not valid.
Click to expand...

Since I am discussing the former and not the latter, there is no reason for me to give any examples.
 
Crimefree said:
It is illegal for a newspaper seller to have more than two box cutters.

England land of the morally bankrupt willing to sell their souls to government for some perceived safety.
Click to expand...

News to anybody here that is.
 
England has a different way of combating crime..

They depend greatly on CCTV camera's There is a average of 1 camera per every 4 people.. They monitor them 24/7 and the people monitoring have direct access to police.. I see both good and bad in this..

They also have the technology to scan car license plates as they drive down the road and can find out the owners name, If Insured ( the car) and the owners criminal record ( if owner has one) and any info on the car ( if stolen etc..) I like this...

They also have a brutal gang problem..

If you want an education on England's Crime fighting,, watch NetFlix "Caught on Camera"

djl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom