• 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

Sweden said:
If handguns had not been banned maybe gun crime would have increased by 43% or 53% . I don't know - nor do you.
Click to expand...

well gun crime was rather low before the bannerrhoid disease hit England. But we do know freedom took a major hit. I think its funny that British olympic pistol shooters couldn't train in England. that does a lot to decrease crime
 
Sweden said:
If handguns had not been banned maybe gun crime would have increased by 43% or 53% . I don't know - nor do you.
Click to expand...

What is known and cannot be denied is all crime in UK increased after the gun ban to the extent that with the exception of rape and murder all exceeded the US rate. That is what gun control cost the UK a 300% increase of crime. Million impacted by loss, trauma, misery and expense in keeping criminals out.

UK crime capital.jpg​
 
Crimefree said:
What is known and cannot be denied is all crime in UK increased after the gun ban to the extent that with the exception of rape and murder all exceeded the US rate. That is what gun control cost the UK a 300% increase of crime. Million impacted by loss, trauma, misery and expense in keeping criminals out.

Click to expand...

How do those statistics compare to those of the US?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
What were the statistics before the gun bans?
Click to expand...

from what I recall their crime rates have gradually increased over time-before and after the gun ban and that is violent crime
 
TurtleDude said:
Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News

They also banned carrying the type of knives people commonly carry here in the USA
Click to expand...
"Lies, damn lies and statistics"

This tabloid trash (that the BBC should be above) deliberately takes two single points of comparison for a particular crime classification to present a negative image. The reality is that it is the rate in 15-16 being competitively low that actually creates this large percentage. Over the longer term, the rate for this crime hasn't massively shifted either way.

The UK has never had a significant gun culture, so we've always had low gun ownership and most of those are professional rather than personal. The big shift in our gun laws after the Dumblane massacre didn't actually have much practical impact in any way and there has never been any direct correlation demonstrated between crime statistics and that law change (or any of the others people continently ignore).

Now please stop misrepresenting our country to promote your personal domestic political opinion. :cool:
 
HonestJoe said:
"Lies, damn lies and statistics"

This tabloid trash (that the BBC should be above) deliberately takes two single points of comparison for a particular crime classification to present a negative image. The reality is that it is the rate in 15-16 being competitively low that actually creates this large percentage. Over the longer term, the rate for this crime hasn't massively shifted either way.

The UK has never had a significant gun culture, so we've always had low gun ownership and most of those are professional rather than personal. The big shift in our gun laws after the Dumblane massacre didn't actually have much practical impact in any way and there has never been any direct correlation demonstrated between crime statistics and that law change (or any of the others people continently ignore).

Now please stop misrepresenting our country to promote your personal domestic political opinion. :cool:
Click to expand...

So... Are you saying that the gun crimes did not increase by 42%? Or are you just upset that it is being talked about?

I am at a loss as to what the point of your post is.
 
natsb said:
The subject is gun crimes. The charts you linked show homicides. Do you have anything that compares gun crimes?
Click to expand...

Why do you need to separate out gun crimes? A homicide is a homicide.
 
natsb said:
So... Are you saying that the gun crimes did not increase by 42%? Or are you just upset that it is being talked about?

I am at a loss as to what the point of your post is.
Click to expand...
I guess ignorance rather than maliciousness on your part would be a good thing.

On the 42%, that is technically correct but meaningless taken on it's own. If you measured from 2013 to 2016, you'd get an even bigger increase but if you measured from 2008 to 2016, you'd get a massive drop. If you take an average across the last decade, the 2016 number is somewhere in the middle. Basically, you can spin the raw figures to show pretty much anything you want.

The other point I thought was perfectly clear. You're trying to tie gun crime statistics between 2015 and 2016 to a change in the law that happened in 1997. You've not even established a correlation between the two, let alone any connection. You're just blindly running with the "gun control bad" narrative, taking anything apparently negative in the UK relating to guns and tying it in to gun control while of course ignoring (or misrepresenting) anything that doesn't appear negative.
 
Rucker61 said:
Why do you need to separate out gun crimes? A homicide is a homicide.
Click to expand...

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.
 
HonestJoe said:
I guess ignorance rather than maliciousness on your part would be a good thing.

On the 42%, that is technically correct but meaningless taken on it's own. If you measured from 2013 to 2016, you'd get an even bigger increase but if you measured from 2008 to 2016, you'd get a massive drop. If you take an average across the last decade, the 2016 number is somewhere in the middle. Basically, you can spin the raw figures to show pretty much anything you want.

The other point I thought was perfectly clear. You're trying to tie gun crime statistics between 2015 and 2016 to a change in the law that happened in 1997. You've not even established a correlation between the two, let alone any connection. You're just blindly running with the "gun control bad" narrative, taking anything apparently negative in the UK relating to guns and tying it in to gun control while of course ignoring (or misrepresenting) anything that doesn't appear negative.
Click to expand...

Civility... Look it up. I simply asked for clarification of your post. I didn't say "Please make me the target of your anger issues."'

On the subject of ignorance versus maliciousness... Please show where I ever tied gun statistics in any years to an event in 1997 or any other year. Pleas show where I have introduced any correlation of anything to anything. Please show where I have taken any stance on "gun control bad". Pleas show where I have ignored or misrepresented anything, that alone anything negative to the UK.

You may want to reconsider the HonestJoe moniker. Mayhap, the "Joe" part is correct.
 
natsb said:
Civility... Look it up. I simply asked for clarification of your post. I didn't say "Please make me the target of your anger issues."'
Click to expand...
I thought you were the OP given how you seemed to be blindly supporting his trash and completely failed to understand my perfectly clear response. I make no apology for anger at such ignorant (or malicious) threads. They're entirely deserving of it.

Maybe you need to clarify what your point was.
 
HonestJoe said:
I thought you were the OP given how you seemed to be blindly supporting his trash and completely failed to understand my perfectly clear response. I make no apology for anger at such ignorant (or malicious) threads. They're entirely deserving of it.

Maybe you need to clarify what your point was.
Click to expand...

Okay, you misidentified me. That happens often on these boards. I have been guilty myself.

I neither supported or disagreed with anything, blindly or otherwise. I simply asked for clarification. If you can drop all that negative militancy, I would love to just have a civil discussion on the topic.

You said the statistics can be skewed to deliver any message. I don't have any problem with that as I see it happen all the time. Why were these particular years picked? Was there any event that caused the selection of the beginning year? It was certainly not selected to show the UK in its worst light, because as you pointed out, they could have used 2013 to 2016 to accomplish that task.
 
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...

Absolutely untrue. Additionally, the purpose isn't to compare rates between two countries, but to compare changes in rates in the same country before and after changes in gun control laws.
 
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...

As to how our numbers are calculated: suicide is not homicide. We also count all murders prior to conviction. The U.K. Doesn't. They count them on the year they get conviction. They don't count people under 16 and so on. I don't understand why the numbers aren't more concrete for y'all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If your ability to have something is given to you by your government, then it can be easily be taken away! I don't deny that England has a lower rate of crime with firearms, because its subjects have no right to them to begin with. Politicians on both sides tend to ignore the fact that the 2nd Amendment is a limit on the government.
 
Rucker61 said:
Why do you need to separate out gun crimes? A homicide is a homicide.
Click to expand...


That's very simple: the subject is somebody being shot to death, not choked by hand.
 
jet57 said:
That's very simple: the subject is somebody being shot to death, not choked by hand.
Click to expand...

Are the numbers being calculated just for kicks, or to measure the overall impact on public safety?
 
JLee1977 said:
If your ability to have something is given to you by your government, then it can be easily be taken away! I don't deny that England has a lower rate of crime with firearms, because its subjects have no right to them to begin with. Politicians on both sides tend to ignore the fact that the 2nd Amendment is a limit on the government.
Click to expand...

It really is no such thing.
 
Rucker61 said:
Are the numbers being calculated just for kicks, or to measure the overall impact on public safety?
Click to expand...

The subject is gun deaths. Trying to conflate those with anything else is patently lying in order to try and shift the subject into numbers that do not matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom