How Gun Control Made England The Most Violent

[Socio]

Proof gun control does far more harm than good;

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/09/24/How-Gun-Control-Made-England-The-Most-Violent-Country-In-Europe

Gun control in Britain passed in stages, beginning just after World War I and continuing in a reactionary fashion with increasing strictness through the 1990s.

When the final stage arrived in 1997, and virtually all handguns were banned via the Firearms Act, the promise was a reduction in crime and greater safety for the British people. But the result was the emergence of Britain as the "most violent country in Europe."

If the UK is this bad imagine what the US will look like with the same kind of gun control.

[questionmark]

If you ignore that Britain always was the most violent country in Europe and the fact that crime rates have dropped since strict gun control was implemented the above quack is right:

Source: The Guardian

But anything to keep the fan base.

Edited September 26, 2014 by questionmark

[Guest]

Its the classification problem rearing its ugly head. Is a violent crime in the UK the same as a violent crime anywhere else ? The graphic is lifted straight from a gun advocacy website of dubious provenance.

The only meaningful statistic here is deaths or grievous bodily harm on a per capita basis. Care to guess where Britain stands on that statistics - certainly much lower than the US with its free availability of guns. I would freely acknowledge that general violent crime is higher in the UK than in most of Europe - but the cause of most violent crime in the UK is binge drinking and the stats concern mainly people under the age of 25 years in drunken brawls, a problem most of Europe doesn't suffer from.

Gotta love the quaint old ways of the British

Br Cornelius

Edited September 26, 2014 by Guest

[Frank Merton]

"Dubious provenance." I love it. How about propaganda?

[questionmark]

Its the classification problem rearing its ugly head. Is a violent crime in the UK the same as a violent crime anywhere else ? The graphic is lifted straight from a gun advocacy website of dubious provenance.

The only meaningful statistic here is deaths or grievous bodily harm on a per capita basis. Care to guess where Britain stands on that statistics - certainly much lower than the US with its free availability of guns. I would freely acknowledge that general violent crime is higher in the UK than in most of Europe - but the cause of most violent crime in the UK is binge drinking and the stats concern mainly people under the age of 25 years in drunken brawls, a problem most of Europe doesn't suffer from.

Gotta love the quaint old ways of the British

Br Cornelius

That is exactly what Mr. Breitbart is trying hard to ignore: 60 years ago drunken and disorderly was not even considered a offense but a misdemeanor. And that is what mostly made the statistics go up since the 60s. Real crimes have been on the decrease ever since. And had a real dip after the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.

[FLOMBIE]

Yes, it was certainly the gun control that created all the violence.

[George Ford]

That is exactly what Mr. Breitbart is trying hard to ignore: 60 years ago drunken and disorderly was not even considered a offense but a misdemeanor. And that is what mostly made the statistics go up since the 60s. Real crimes have been on the decrease ever since. And had a real dip after the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.

I have been on both the giving and receiving end of drunken violence. When I was much younger groups of us young bucks would go out drinking on an evening, and there would invariably be some sort of drunken shouting and singing, jumping on bins, climbing lamp posts and sometimes fighting at some point in the evening involving at least one member of our group. Back then the fight would normally be over in a minute or two and the perpetrators normally just thrown out by the bouncers or told to calm it down by the police if the incident happened on the streets. If things continued to get out of hand and the police turned up the situation was normally calmed down and people moved on, it was rare to see anyone get arrested. BUT now when I see a fight in the town the door staff often restrain the perpetrator until the police come along. Now this only started happening when the police got the ruling they could hand out a Fixed Penalty Notice [FPF] (an on the spot fine of £60-£90). I'm pretty sure the door staff are in cahoots with the police in a 'you scratch our back and we'll scratch yours' kind of a way. Anyway, instead of things being just young men letting off steam and being idiotic, loud, boisterous and aggressive now there is this whole new level of 'offense' involved. The police will even turn singing football chants into a FPF. So as some people above have pointed out, small offences that were never recorded are now been recorded as 'violent crime'.

[Beany]

If you ignore that Britain always was the most violent country in Europe and the fact that crime rates have dropped since strict gun control was implemented the above quack is right:

Source: The Guardian

But anything to keep the fan base.

Always spoiling the fun, aren't you.

[Mr.United_Nations]

Proof gun control does far more harm than good;

http://www.breitbart...untry-In-Europe

If the UK is this bad imagine what the US will look like with the same kind of gun control.

Not proof is it? and anyway places in Eastern Europe are more violent

[spartan max2]

Damn. Talk about England and the gun control crowd will jump all over you lol.

[Duke Wellington]

Proof gun control does far more harm than good;

http://www.breitbart...untry-In-Europe

If the UK is this bad imagine what the US will look like with the same kind of gun control.

In the US, UK and Germany approximately 26% of the population are mentally ill in any given year (usually the same ones year after year). Many don't realise they have a mental illness especially when it comes to personality disorders.

Guns don't kill the looney pulling the trigger does. Instead of banning guns we should be preventing the creation of loonies and removing those that exist from society for treatment. This only happens in US, UK and Germany when someone is brought to the attention of the authorities as a danger to themselves or others. Sometimes even then the spree killer slips through the net.

We need everybody in society to be communicating and relating to each other a bit better. Not engaging in malignant narcissistic abuse towards their children, neighbours, work colleagues, friends and members of the public. This cancer infecting our societies needs eliminating not the guns.

[+OverSword]

If the UK is this bad imagine what the US will look like with the same kind of gun control.

You really don't have to be concerned about this happening IMO. The American people have proven time and again that they won't allow the government to implement reactionary gun legislation. Obama stated that he was done with trying to implement any gun control laws since no event was tragic enough to convince Americans that guns are the problem.

[spartan max2]

You really don't have to be concerned about this happening IMO. The American people have proven time and again that they won't allow the government to implement reactionary gun legislation. Obama stated that he was done with trying to implement any gun control laws since no event was tragic enough to convince Americans that guns are the problem.

I think the fact that he tried to use the tragedy really backfired on him. People don't like that

[DefenceMinisterMishkin]

Guns are for people who don't know how to throw a proper punch!

[questionmark]

Always spoiling the fun, aren't you.

I did not know that boolcrappy, even when generated by a professional spout, was fun.

[aquatus1]

I think the fact that he tried to use the tragedy really backfired on him. People don't like that

He did? Wasn't he calling for mental health reform?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Proof gun control does far more harm than good;

http://www.breitbart...untry-In-Europe

If the UK is this bad imagine what the US will look like with the same kind of gun control.

as has been said in other GC threads, what works or doesn't for one culture may not work for another culture.

[Likely Guy]

Guns are for people who don't know how to throw a proper punch!

Succinct.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Likely Guy

[dr no]

I have been on both the giving and receiving end of drunken violence. When I was much younger groups of us young bucks would go out drinking on an evening, and there would invariably be some sort of drunken shouting and singing, jumping on bins, climbing lamp posts and sometimes fighting at some point in the evening involving at least one member of our group. Back then the fight would normally be over in a minute or two and the perpetrators normally just thrown out by the bouncers or told to calm it down by the police if the incident happened on the streets. If things continued to get out of hand and the police turned up the situation was normally calmed down and people moved on, it was rare to see anyone get arrested. BUT now when I see a fight in the town the door staff often restrain the perpetrator until the police come along. Now this only started happening when the police got the ruling they could hand out a Fixed Penalty Notice [FPF] (an on the spot fine of £60-£90). I'm pretty sure the door staff are in cahoots with the police in a 'you scratch our back and we'll scratch yours' kind of a way. Anyway, instead of things being just young men letting off steam and being idiotic, loud, boisterous and aggressive now there is this whole new level of 'offense' involved. The police will even turn singing football chants into a FPF. So as some people above have pointed out, small offences that were never recorded are now been recorded as 'violent crime'.

Very true that,it is the same with football hooliganism,back in the 70s/80s I saw regular pitch battles in grounds and in the streets,hardly anybody got arrested and those that did would usually get released without charge,now people are getting jail sentences for it.

[skookum]

I think it is more of the fact we have taken visible policing off the streets and replaced it with CCTV. The two effects are, one; there is no visible deterrent or anybody to intervene before things get out of control. Two; the shear number of cameras catch most violent crimes, some that probably wouldn't have been reported without.

I can't see it being anything to do with arming yourself up like Rambo and having a very false sense of security. Britain has a drinking problem and has for far two long.

I work every weekend in an environment with drunk people. Last night was pretty straight with no abuse or violence against me. But I know tonight will be a different kettle of fish, the most calm people will be on edge tonight and I fully expect at least two dozen verbal attacks with one or two violent attempts against me.

This is the problem Britain has, drinking far too much for recreation. The more successive nights people have on a binge the worst the behaviour becomes. It is something as a Brit I feel ashamed of and something we really need to tackle. The only problem is successive governments think that increasing the price of drink will solve the problem. Seeing how much money people part with I can tell them for a fact it would do nothing, maybe just increase the needs for food banks.

Edited September 27, 2014 by skookum

[Guest]

Can you imagine if you introduced guns into a typical inner city Saturday nights partying. I would place money on crime stats going through the ceiling.

Br Cornelius

[Crabby Kitten]

It's vital because it would be like chaos if ordinary people in the UK were allowed guns.

[dr no]

I think this link shows that in actual fact serious violent crime, GBH or aggravated assault is far higher in the US as is rape.

While it becomes clear that certain types of offenses are marginally higher in the UK than in the US (robbery and knife crime being more likely in the UK by an order of 1.1x and 1.27x respectively) a number of other, more serious offenses, are both marginally and substantially higher in the US. Rape of a female is 1.02x more likely in the US, while theft of a vehicle is 1.29x more likely. More disturbingly, burglary is significantly higher at 1.52x more likely to occur in the US. However, it is at the considerably more, well, violent crimes that America really supersedes England and Wales into its own class. In the United States, you are 6.9x more likely to be the victim of aggravated assault resulting in serious injury than in the UK. You are4.03x more likely to be murdered than in the UK. And more staggeringly (though not surprising) you are 35.2x more likely to be shot dead in the Unites States than in the UK. Before anybody asks, no, these do not take into account justifiable homicide and other “acceptable shootings”, nor do murders for that matter:

http://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

[Frank Merton]

The American (not just the US but most of the Americas, as well as the Philippines and much of the Middle East) situation with guns never ceases to amaze me. It is a classic example of politics going seriously haywire -- how an irrational minority of single-issue voters is able to prevent sensible law.

Here is a little litany:

If a gun is present, a domestic squabble becomes a murder.

If a gun is present, a severe bout of clinical depression or grief becomes a successful suicide (other forms of suicide don't succeed nearly as much).

If a gun is present, a bit of road rage becomes manslaughter.

If a gun is present an intrusion becomes manslaughter, or worse if it was your confused grandmother.

If a gun is present childhood curiosity becomes a tragedy that the parents will have to live with all their lives.

If a gun is present, an attempt at self-defense is suicidal, even if it is one's own gun (professional criminals tend to be adept at taking guns away from people -- they often do it to even trained cops).

The responses people often provide to items of this liturgy is that they are different, they are "responsible." My thought is generally if you really were responsible you wouldn't even think of having one around. That said, locking up the guns and all those things are only passive defenses, and a moment's lapse is all it takes.

I watch propaganda by gun advocates who show cases where merchants being robbed have "gotten" the criminals. Maybe exceptions to gun control laws can be written that, subject to rules, a merchant can have one, but they don't show the times the merchant was killed by his or her own gun.

There are times when a gun is appropriate -- I just mentioned one. Of course law enforcement officers and similar people and the military need guns, but here too there have to be carefully thought-out rules. The same of course applies to hunters and farmers, although in these cases a rifle should be enough.

The thing that gets me, and makes the unfortunate psychology of gun advocates so obvious, is the oft-heard claim that without guns there is no way to remove an autocratic government. This is almost funny in its perversion -- as though in the modern age a few hot-heads with guns can overthrow the government in any but the most primitive states.

One thing to remember is that when only the police have guns, we are all much safer. Yes the police must have oversight and rules about these guns, but that way, provided the laws restricting gun ownership are well enforced, it becomes damn difficult for a criminal to get one, and the efforts usually bring police attention.

Another advantage to society at large such laws provide is that if someone is found in possession of a gun, the police can act on that alone and not wait until it is used.

I see no point in taking good care of one's health, and all the sacrifices and time that requires, if one is going to go out and get oneself shot.

[keithisco]

The American (not just the US but most of the Americas, as well as the Philippines and much of the Middle East) situation with guns never ceases to amaze me. It is a classic example of politics going seriously haywire -- how an irrational minority of single-issue voters is able to prevent sensible law.

Here is a little litany:

If a gun is present, a domestic squabble becomes a murder.

If a gun is present, a severe bout of clinical depression or grief becomes a successful suicide (other forms of suicide don't succeed nearly as much).

If a gun is present, a bit of road rage becomes manslaughter.

If a gun is present an intrusion becomes manslaughter, or worse if it was your confused grandmother.

If a gun is present childhood curiosity becomes a tragedy that the parents will have to live with all their lives.

If a gun is present, an attempt at self-defense is suicidal, even if it is one's own gun (professional criminals tend to be adept at taking guns away from people -- they often do it to even trained cops).

The responses people often provide to items of this liturgy is that they are different, they are "responsible." My thought is generally if you really were responsible you wouldn't even think of having one around. That said, locking up the guns and all those things are only passive defenses, and a moment's lapse is all it takes.

I watch propaganda by gun advocates who show cases where merchants being robbed have "gotten" the criminals. Maybe exceptions to gun control laws can be written that, subject to rules, a merchant can have one, but they don't show the times the merchant was killed by his or her own gun.

There are times when a gun is appropriate -- I just mentioned one. Of course law enforcement officers and similar people and the military need guns, but here too there have to be carefully thought-out rules. The same of course applies to hunters and farmers, although in these cases a rifle should be enough.

The thing that gets me, and makes the unfortunate psychology of gun advocates so obvious, is the oft-heard claim that without guns there is no way to remove an autocratic government. This is almost funny in its perversion -- as though in the modern age a few hot-heads with guns can overthrow the government in any but the most primitive states.

One thing to remember is that when only the police have guns, we are all much safer. Yes the police must have oversight and rules about these guns, but that way, provided the laws restricting gun ownership are well enforced, it becomes damn difficult for a criminal to get one, and the efforts usually bring police attention.

Another advantage to society at large such laws provide is that if someone is found in possession of a gun, the police can act on that alone and not wait until it is used.

I see no point in taking good care of one's health, and all the sacrifices and time that requires, if one is going to go out and get oneself shot.

Frank... this is one of the best rebuttals to gun ownership that I have ever read.... power to you my friend,