It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK Gun Crimes Soar After Gun Ban

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 01:46 AM
link   
4,671 gun related crimes in one year?
I think we (US) have that many in a month

I really believe that although Gun Bans may reduce the amount of gun owners but after the ban the majority of those owners will be the criminals.
If a criminal thinks that a particular house wont have a weapon because of gun laws, the chance of a home invasion rises dramatically.

Source


Gun crimes in England have almost doubled since 1997, when a ban on firearms began.

According to the Sunday Times of London, crimes in which guns were used numbered 4,671 in 2005-06.

Also, government officials report that most gun crime is committed by children and teenagers under 18 years old.

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, told the Telegraph: "What this shows is that the majority of these crimes are committed by youngsters under 18.

"The government's policy has failed with the group most responsible for this increase in crime. It is long past time the Government stopped believing its own propaganda, and took measures to get a grip."

© 2007 NewsMax. All rights reserved.





posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 02:01 AM
link   
That assumes there is a causal link between the law passed in 1997, and the increase of gun crimes. There is no proof that such a link exists, only that since 1997, gun crime has doubled. Why it has doubled is not clear.

One conclusion that can be drawn from this, however: Wtf is wrong with kids today?

I also have to respectfully disagree with your assertion that criminals are more likely to break into a home they think contains no weapons. Criminals are more likely to break into homes that have a disproportionately high value, compared to their surroundings. In other words, they'll break into wealthier homes. So the first thing you can do to protect yourself, is sell damn near everything you own
. Owning a gun is the second line of defense, because in the unlikely event you encounter a homicidal maniac breaking into your house, you'll be more than adequately prepared to defend yourself.

I'd also like to point out that if you ban guns, not only will most gun owners be criminals, all gun owners, by definition, will be criminals.

[edit on 1-9-2007 by electronQM]

[edit on 1-9-2007 by electronQM]



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by electronQM


One conclusion that can be drawn from this, however: Wtf is wrong with kids today?

I also have to respectfully disagree with your assertion that criminals are more likely to break into a home they think contains no weapons.

[edit on 1-9-2007 by electronQM]

[edit on 1-9-2007 by electronQM]


Yeah, what is wrong with kids today, that murder in liverpool is the last straw.

As for criminals not breaking into your home because you have a gun is ridiculous... How would they know if you had one or not.

Gun crime is liked to drug money. Cut the sorce.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by electronQM
That assumes there is a causal link between the law passed in 1997, and the increase of gun crimes.


It doesn’t matter much if there is a link or not. The point is that gun bans don’t work. They never have, anywhere, and this one in the UK is a failure as well.

What you cant deny, however, is that without gun restrictions more law abiding citizens would be able to defend themselves from the ever increasing number of uneducated criminal thugs that have begun to plague the streets of the UK.

The UK gun ban has made the UK a much more dangerous place to live.

If the ability to carry a gun saves just one life, isn’t it worth it?



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout

Originally posted by electronQM
That assumes there is a causal link between the law passed in 1997, and the increase of gun crimes.


It doesn’t matter much if there is a link or not. The point is that gun bans don’t work. They never have, anywhere, and this one in the UK is a failure as well.

What you cant deny, however, is that without gun restrictions more law abiding citizens would be able to defend themselves from the ever increasing number of uneducated criminal thugs that have begun to plague the streets of the UK.

The UK gun ban has made the UK a much more dangerous place to live.

If the ability to carry a gun saves just one life, isn’t it worth it?


Why are the criminals uneducated? Maybe instead of putting a gun in each citizens hand, we should put a book there
This would serve to solve both the problem of too many guns, as well as being uneducated.

Of course, its probably cheaper to make a gun, in this world. I know that doesn't 'sound' true, but it would be befitting of society for that to be the case


As for gun bans not working, I think I would have to agree, simply on the basis that prohibition has never worked. Guns are also a lot of fun, when used safely.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by electronQM
Maybe instead of putting a gun in each citizens hand, we should put a book there


Well we do have two hands you know.

No reason an educated person cant be an armed person.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 04:07 AM
link   
If gun bans do not work why does Australia have such low gun crime rates maybe they might use a screwdriver instead of a gun. But it would be alot easier to defend against a screwdriver than a gun (you can also run away from a screwdriver).



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
What you cant deny, however, is that without gun restrictions more law abiding citizens would be able to defend themselves from the ever increasing number of uneducated criminal thugs that have begun to plague the streets of the UK.

The UK gun ban has made the UK a much more dangerous place to live.

If the ability to carry a gun saves just one life, isn’t it worth it?


The only people who held handguns before the ban were criminals and members of gun clubs who shot for sport (target shooting).

No-one had a handgun for defence, although some people did (and may still do) hold shotguns at home for that purpose.

Most gun crimes involve young gang members. A smaller percentage involve organised bank hold-ups etc. The ordinary member of the public is no more at risk than they've ever been, and still has no need to carry a gun for defence. If you're a member of a drug gang it's a different matter


As for young Rhys Jones - shot in the back of the head whilst walking home from football practice - no change in the gun laws in any direction could have prevented that
Although a zero tolerance policy on antisocial behaviour might help remove some of the scum off the streets....

The reason for the increase in gun crime is simply down to the increase in drug gangs fighting for territory in a small number of inner city areas. Where I live there is no risk of being shot (although without the handgun ban that risk might well have been higher)



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   
We've done this one to death here.
The recorded increses in UK gun crime are in very large part down to the increased use of replicas and air guns.
Not actual firearms as such.

Sorry and all gun fans but that's the truth here.

[edit on 1-9-2007 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   
criminals had guns before the ban and they will have guns after the ban, do you honestly think criminals get their guns through legitimate means?
pffft, of course not!, the only people you will hurt with a gun ban is the non criminal homeowner/renter that wants to defend him/herself against rape or another violent crime and they wont have the means to do so
take a look at these cities in the U.S. where gun ownership is mandatory:
www.cnsnews.com.../Culture/archiv e/200109/CUL20010911b.html

sorry , cant get the link to work, you're gonna have to copy and paste it in your browser window.

[edit on 1-9-2007 by infiltr8u]



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
We've done this one to death here.
The recorded increses in UK gun crime are in very large part down to the increased use of replicas and air guns.
Not actual firearms as such.

Sorry and all gun fans but that's the truth here.

[edit on 1-9-2007 by sminkeypinkey]


That's one point to raise - 'gun crime', in UK statistics at least, includes replicas, air guns, bb guns and so forth as well as actual handguns/shotguns/rifles unless otherwise stated. Also in Home Office statistics, a gun crime is recorded even if the gun is used only to threaten someone or used as a blunt instrument to attack someone - a shot doesn't have to be fired (the gun doesn't even have to be loaded) to be classed as gun crime. In fact, compared to last year, gun crime has gone down in every category (Have a look through the Home Office website for further info - the results of recorded incidents, the National Crime Survery and other statistics and trends can be found on there if you're interested).

The original poster suggested that the number of gun crimes in the UK in one year is equivalent to the US in one month. This is incorrect. In fact, in the US, in 2005 stood at 419,640 - that means you're ten times more likely to be involved in a gun crime in the US than in the UK. And the statistics I used are from the US Department of Justice and cover only non-fatal gun crime. I'm sure if you added up the incidents with fatalities, the proportion would go much higher.

Now, one argument is that the US is a much larger country than the UK is so you'd expect gun crime to be higher - this is of course true. So let's look at things proportionally - the US has a population of 301,139,947 and the UK has a population of 60,776,238 (both according to the CIA World Factbook). Thus, the US is roughly five times larger than the UK in terms of population and so one would expect it to have five times the amount of gun crime to be on par with the UK in that respect - it hasn't. It has at least ten times the level of gun crime (not including gun offences involving fatalities) and so, proportionately, the US has a far higher level of gun crime than the UK.

I would also caution the original poster against trying to apply the US way of thinking to the UK - as I have said before, we may be allies but we're not joined at the hip. There are reasons why we do things differently - what works for America might not work for Britain, and vice versa. The UK policy of banning firearms except for registered gun clubs, sporting events, pest control etc. is in my view the correct one for our country. I leave it up to Americans to decide how guns should be handled in their country and I leave it up to Australians to decide how guns should be handled in theirs.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   
I think the best way to reduce gun crime is not to allow all citizens access to guns but to bring in such punative sentences for having, carrying or using a gun that those phsyco enough to still use them will be taken off the streets for a very, very long time and the rest are discouraged from using them alltogether.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 08:12 AM
link   


That's one point to raise - 'gun crime', in UK statistics at least, includes replicas, air guns, bb guns and so forth as well as actual handguns/shotguns/rifles unless otherwise stated.


One thing alot of people keep over looking it is not Gun crime that is on the rise, its more to do with knife crime than anything else. Look at knife crime compared to gun crimes, that far outways gun crime. More needs to be done to tackle knife crime as well as gun-crminal related offences.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by infiltr8uthe only people you will hurt with a gun ban is the non criminal homeowner/renter that wants to defend him/herself against rape or another violent crime and they wont have the means to do so


- It is simply incorrect to claim that "the only people hurt by a gun ban" are the legitimate owners.

In many instance those legitimate owners become a source of illegal guns themselves through robbery, selling on or even loss.
This is one of the primary reasons why guns were banned in the UK.

In the USA a small but significant source of illegal firearms are guns taken from their armed Police and the same thing happened in Northern Ireland with our routinely armed Police too.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by electronQM
That assumes there is a causal link between the law passed in 1997, and the increase of gun crimes. There is no proof that such a link exists, only that since 1997, gun crime has doubled. Why it has doubled is not clear.


Wonder what kind of "proof" would be good enough for you that criminals know their victims are most likely defenseless now? In the US, there is an opposite statistic that shows that every time a new area votes to allow concealed weapons, violent crime goes down - because criminals are basically cowards and the risk to themselves just got increased.

All this might not be clear to a person that perhaps has a pathological fear of firearms, but it would be and is clear to any other thinking, logical person. People that fear firearms should keep themselves away from firearms and not try to impose their fears on everyone else.


Also, there was a thread earlier this year where it talked about japanese-type swords and knives being increasing used by criminals in the UK because these were not (yet) banned. You see, any other thinking, logical person would understand that this proves that simply taking away firearms does not deter (potentially lethal) criminal activity. It just forces the criminals to change weapons. So, if the UK goes so far as to ban eating utensils, criminals will simply use clubs and rocks. Reminds me of Einstein's famous WWIII weapons vs. WWIV weapons quote, where he's not sure what they'll fight WWIII with, but is sure that WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones.


And last to your later question of why don't we just give the criminals books to read instead of letting people defend themselves against them, again, any other thinking, logical person would understand that a person has to have the will and intent to want to read a book and learn how to be a constructive member of society - which if criminals had in the first place, they wouldn't be criminals.


Know why cattle, pigs, sheep make good farm animals? Simple. They're too stupid to figure out that we want to and can kill them all because they are defenseless.


[edit on 9/5/2007 by centurion1211]



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   
I just have to also post this here, because it helps illustrate just how hysterically illogical the anti-gun people are:

Guns vs. Doctors

Doctors:


- The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
- Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000. (and they cause millions more with known-to-be-fatal prescription drugs and unnecessary surgeries.)
- Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health Human Services.)

Guns:


- The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
- The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
- The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 000188.

(Statistics courtesy of F.B.I.)

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.


Remember, "Gun owners don't kill people, doctors do."

[edit on 9/5/2007 by centurion1211]



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
The recorded increses in UK gun crime are in very large part down to the increased use of replicas and air guns.
Not actual firearms as such.


Right. And that proves what?

Would you point a realistic looking bb gun at someone if you knew there was a chance they were armed with a real gun?

Hell, you can point a bb gun at a UK cop and most of them will have no choice but to run due to a belief that they are facing weapons superiority.


[edit on 5-9-2007 by cavscout]



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Look at knife crime compared to gun crimes, that far outways gun crime. More needs to be done to tackle knife crime as well as gun-crminal related offences.


Right, and most people are smart enough not to bring a knife to a gun fight.

Would you pull a knife on someone you think may be armed with a gun?

Pulling knifes, screwdrivers, bats, ect. on people in the UK is a safe thing to do, because they aren’t going to shoot you for it.

But I dare you to do it in a "shall carry" or "Vermont carry" state in the US; you are likely to get your face removed from your skull. Which is why American streets are generally safe, even in big cities that allow CCWs.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Look at knife crime compared to gun crimes, that far outways gun crime. More needs to be done to tackle knife crime as well as gun-crminal related offences.


Got any great ideas on how to do that that won't also impact your ability to eat things that don't already come in bite-sized morsels


That's right, if you try to ban all knives except table knives, guess what the criminals will be using next


And, BTW, if it comes down to criminals only having the books that electronQM wants to give them, guess what, they'll be beating you over the head with books in order to rob you ...



[edit on 9/5/2007 by centurion1211]



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by donotdoit
If gun bans do not work why does Australia have such low gun crime rates maybe they might use a screwdriver instead of a gun. But it would be alot easier to defend against a screwdriver than a gun (you can also run away from a screwdriver).


Wrong, gun banning is not working in Australia.

Article


Australia

The Australian government made sweeping changes to the firearms legislation in 1997. However, the total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again. While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia. Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise – for example, armed robberies have jumped 166 percent nationwide.

The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms has cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million. The cost of the police services bureaucracy, including the costly infrastructure of the gun registration system, has increased by $200 million since 1997.

“And for what?” asks Mauser. “There has been no visible impact on violent crime. It is impossible to justify such a massive amount of the taxpayers’ money for no decrease in crime. For that kind of tax money, the police could have had more patrol cars, shorter shifts, or better equipment.”
(my bolding for emphasis)

And for those that don't want to read the entire article, this is about the source:


The Fraser Institute is an independent research and educational organization based in Canada. Its mission is to measure, study, and communicate the impact of competitive markets and government intervention on the welfare of individuals. To protect the Institute’s independence, it does not accept grants from governments or contracts for research.



[edit on 9/5/2007 by centurion1211]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join