UK gun crime up 27% in 5 years
- Thread starter BillMasen
- Start date
Help Support Homesteading & Country Living Forum:
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Messages
- 18,553
As we proponents of gun rights have been saying for decades now: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
I'm surprised at this news.
It's my understanding that Britain has almost 70 million people, but only something like 64 total gun deaths for the entire country in 2017 (my numbers may be slightly off, as I'm quoting from memory).
With gun crime up 27%, does that mean that there were something like 16 or 17 extra people killed in a year? I don't want to sound callous and unfeeling by putting it that way, since the survivors and families of these victims may feel that there is, indeed, a horrible problem with gun crime, and I am intensely sympathetic to them. I lost a friend to a mass shooting in a Wendy's fast food place in West Palm Beach.
Yet we had almost as many victims (56) in Las Vegas when that lunatic, psychotic ******* opened up on the concert attendees.
When I looked at this article, it said that they seized 425 illegal guns for the year.
We almost certianly have that many illegal guns in a 6 or 7 square block area in the neighborhood that I used to live in.
Maybe Britain does have a gun problem, but I guess it depends upon whose standards you follow and how you interpret things.
It's my understanding that Britain has almost 70 million people, but only something like 64 total gun deaths for the entire country in 2017 (my numbers may be slightly off, as I'm quoting from memory).
With gun crime up 27%, does that mean that there were something like 16 or 17 extra people killed in a year? I don't want to sound callous and unfeeling by putting it that way, since the survivors and families of these victims may feel that there is, indeed, a horrible problem with gun crime, and I am intensely sympathetic to them. I lost a friend to a mass shooting in a Wendy's fast food place in West Palm Beach.
Yet we had almost as many victims (56) in Las Vegas when that lunatic, psychotic ******* opened up on the concert attendees.
When I looked at this article, it said that they seized 425 illegal guns for the year.
We almost certianly have that many illegal guns in a 6 or 7 square block area in the neighborhood that I used to live in.
Maybe Britain does have a gun problem, but I guess it depends upon whose standards you follow and how you interpret things.
Last edited:
Kevin in global terms it is often thought that any more than a handful of shootings each year is dreadful and unacceptable, but sadly because your entire culture, value and belief system differs so much from most other nations the wonderful American peoples are simply hardened to many mass shootings each year that they basically get ignored. Its not a criticism or attack on America its just your value system is so different to the majority of the other western nations. EG in Europe if we have say...... mass shooting in schools then laws will be passed to limit access to guns, in the US that is culturally unacceptable. Though we share a common Language and similar Justice systems, culturally Americans are quite different to the rest of the English speaking world. That is not good OR bad its just how it is.
Thank you for answering.
I may be an American in a gun-saturated culture, but I think that more than a handful of shootings each year is dreadful and unacceptable. I would be much happier if nobody ever got shot.
I may have issues with the "nanny state" and a socialist mentality (which may or may not apply to Britain . . . I reserve judgment because I've never been there), but I think that Britain--with 64 total gun deaths in a year out of almost 70 million people--has accomplished something worth talking about.
I wonder if socialized medicine has anything to do with these numbers. Perhaps because crazy people have access to the medicine and psychotherapy that they need?
Are people in Britain generally satisfied with life and thus are peaceful and happy, or is everyone miserable and living in the political equivalent of a padded room that protects from all harm?
I am curious, and sincerely hope that I don't sound patronizing when I ask these things.
depends who you ask and where they live I suppose.
for instance, I live in a quiet and peaceful area of the South West of England in a location that is almost crime free, what crimes there are tend to be "domestic" in nature, and we don't have gun or knife crime here.
however if you asked someone from say London or Birmingham or Manchester(Manchester used to be called GUNchester because of all the gun related crimes there) you'd probably get a completely different answer.
for instance, I live in a quiet and peaceful area of the South West of England in a location that is almost crime free, what crimes there are tend to be "domestic" in nature, and we don't have gun or knife crime here.
however if you asked someone from say London or Birmingham or Manchester(Manchester used to be called GUNchester because of all the gun related crimes there) you'd probably get a completely different answer.
Thank you.
In the USA, we have states like Massachusets and California where it can be very difficult to legally obtain a gun (San Francisco did--at one point--claim to be almost gun free [for civilians] due to draconian gun laws), and places like Texas, Georgia, and Florida (where I live) where guns are available all over the place. I have an extensive gun collection that I would not be able to own in other parts of the country.
In Florida, $70.00 (about 55 Pounds Sterling, or 65 Euros), a 7 day wait, and a cursory background check is all that you need to walk away with a used "saturday night special".
If you have a criminal history, then just ask around in some dive bars in certian parts of town, and you can have a used pistol for roughly the same price.
I'm pro-gun, but that doesn't mean that I'm dismissive of the problems that occur in a gun culture.
As a general opinion, and not wanting to argue with friends I say YOUR system is way to Liberal, but ours is way to oppressive, OUR laws need easing up a modest amount and US laws need .......... enforcing better because I believe there are many gun laws on the statute books but they dont get enforced.
If America ever does get the balance right its going to be one pretty sweet country, sadly though its going the wrong way and the Socialists that you call Democrats WILL disarm you.
If America ever does get the balance right its going to be one pretty sweet country, sadly though its going the wrong way and the Socialists that you call Democrats WILL disarm you.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Messages
- 18,553
Below is a letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison. Jefferson is often quoted saying something like "I prefer dangerous liberty over peaceful servitude." In actually it is a Latin phrase "Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem" (Attributed to the Count Palatine of Posen) that he quotes in the letter. He recognizes there are evils associated with a large degree of individual freedom, but that even those evils have their benefits.
In the case of liberal gun laws, the question is, should the government trust the people to have the right to dangerous weapons EVEN THOUGH they know that they will sometimes be used for evil purposes? Another question is, if the people can't be trusted to have dangerous weapons, why should government employees (e.g. Law Enforcement and Military) be trusted to have dangerous weapons?
In the case of liberal gun laws, the question is, should the government trust the people to have the right to dangerous weapons EVEN THOUGH they know that they will sometimes be used for evil purposes? Another question is, if the people can't be trusted to have dangerous weapons, why should government employees (e.g. Law Enforcement and Military) be trusted to have dangerous weapons?
"Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it's evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." - Jefferson to James Madison, January 30, 1787
Last edited:
The only thing about what you said that I disagree with is arguing with friends.
I rely on my friends to point out when I'm being stupid, disagreeable, or flat-out wrong on a topic. If I can't rely on my friends to tell me when I'm being a dumbass about something (or if my fly is open), then who?
Ah but Kevin you forget I am English and we are NEVER wrong................................except when we err or are incorrect or mistaken
I remember your writer Samuel Clemens comment about "
If voting made any difference, we wouldn't be allowed to do it - Mark Twain...
"
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Messages
- 18,553
Under ordinary circumstances there is some truth to that, but...
The last Presidential election made a HUGE difference.
"Gun crime" statistics are very misleading. I have so many questions about these numbers. Are the rates of other violent crimes rising too, and "gun crime" just happens to be a part of that? Are crimes specifically committed with guns simply a higher percentage of overall crime, but the crime rate in general is similar (maybe the weapon of choice is now guns, rather than crossbows)? Has the overall crime rate decreased, but gun crime rates have stayed the same and so are now a higher percentage of overall crimes? Also, are we assuming that if a crime (say, a robbery) was committed by someone using a gun, they absolutely would not have committed it if they had not had access to a gun?
Regardless, I think these statistics do suggest that guns are not the cause of crime, but rather and tool that have a variety of uses, and individuals with criminal intentions will tend to use them for criminal purposes.
Regardless, I think these statistics do suggest that guns are not the cause of crime, but rather and tool that have a variety of uses, and individuals with criminal intentions will tend to use them for criminal purposes.
Last edited:
Agree 100% with what you said. I had a mathematics professor who once said: "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Messages
- 18,553
I taught Statistics.
First day of class, I wrote on the board:
There are three kinds of lies
Lies
Damned Lies
Statistics
First day of class, I wrote on the board:
There are three kinds of lies
Lies
Damned Lies
Statistics
EXACTLY my point Doc, Look how much effort the democrats have put into overturning the Democratic wishes of the people by trying to get Trump out, OR how the undemocratic Remainers trying to scrap the referendum result for leaving the EU.
It is not the liberal gun laws that is the problem. It is the liberal crime punishment that is the problem. Automatic and mandatory death penalty would certainly reduce gun related crimes. I like Use a gun in the commission of a crime and die.
Even though I'm somewhat liberal (by the standards of this forum, at least), I agree with some your issues with our justice system. I think it's awful that we have a revolving door in our prison system, and I don't like how rapists and murderers get out of prison on technicalities with an appalling frequency.
I believe in a certian amount of prison reform (like the problems in Mississippi), but that doesn't mean that a mass murderer should go free.
One paradox which I have trouble understanding is the brain wiring and brain damage thing.
Something like 60% to 80% of violent criminals have abnormalities in their brains (especially the frontal lobes of the cerebral cortex), so there are people who say we shouldn't hold them to the same degree of responsibility.
I believe exactly the opposite. If they have brain damage, then they can't be rehabilitated.
So, we should keep such people locked up . . . which--in my mind--is not much different then quarantining someone because they have typhoid or bubonic plague.
