British police calling for knife ban

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: bastion
police in the UK are incredibly lenient, the last thing they want to do is bother people, arrest them or conviscate things - they will bend over backwards to make sure they don't have to arrest people - but if you're obviously flaunting the law in public, they will come down like a tonne of bricks - as they should in my opiion.

I'll second that passionately.
If you aren't being a prick then the overwhelming majority of police officers in the UK will be cool and turn a blind eye or have a chat and say don't be a prick next time.

I have never ever been scared of UK police, they are vastly outnumbered, only 1 for every 5000 citizens at any given time right now during the Summer where I am, only one in ten at most in my area carry tazers, just sticks, and they are mostly friendly and decent.

If you are not harming others or threatening to harm others then they leave you alone. I have to remind myself that some things are illegal the amount of times I see cops making good calls to keep a community at peace and happy.

It hadn't really struck me how different the police were in the UK compared to the US until a friend of mine from the States was in a car with me when I got pulled over for speeding.
As soon as I pulled over and stopped I got out to chat to the police officer and my friend couldn't beleive that I just got out and walked straight up to him as he was getting out of his car.
Told me that in the states the officer would have been shouting at you whilst pointing a tazer or firearm if you had just jumped out of your vehicle without being told to.

originally posted by: b14warrior
a reply to: Skid Mark

For a start, this wasn't a knife ban but an amnesty.
Secondly, guns aren't banned in the UK. Most people could get a shotgun licence as long as they have a place to hunt and a clean criminal record.

And lastly, comparing knife crime to gun crime is daft.
Just look at the figures. How many people masacres with guns in the US are there and how many knife massacres are there in the UK?
The chances of a burglar having guns in the UK is very very slim. They may have a bat or a knife and I may have the same but that narrows the chances of either of us dying.
Plus then you've got the police running round shooting anything that moves.

To be fair banning guns wouldn't work in the USA as there are already too many guns there and of course the criminals will be the last people to surrender them.
I wouldn't want them banned if I was American but there is no way I would relax UK laws on ownership.

First off murder is murder. If you stab someone and they die that's the same as shooting someone and them dying.

Massacres in the us are less then 1 percent of gun crimes. Most are suicides which would happen anyway. The rest are gang related which is directly related to poverty.

Guns are in fact banned. In 88 and 97 you banned semi auto rifles (again an absolutely marginal percentage of gun deaths in the us) and hand guns.

You have always had gun control at least since the 20's.

Second its the homicide rate per capita that matters. In the UK you keep homicides classified until you have a trial. So any unsolved murder goes unreported unless it goes to trial and the accused gets off. Most criminal justice scholars think the UK pads its numbers.

Lastly homicide and violent crime are down in the us despite what the media misleads you to believe.


When you severely restricted guns in 88 and 97 after your massacres the rate of decline in homicides didn't change.

Did gun control stop the Norwegian massacre? You can't have automatic weapons in Norway yet the psycho got them.some how.

I'm not opposed to the UK allowing handguns to be kept in the home for defensive purposes if they came with psych testing, mandatory training certifications and possibly biometric registration. It's one of the few areas where I would be OK with relinquishing some freedoms in order to be personally responsible for my and my family's security. Home invasions and violent burglaries are becoming more and more common in this part of london, not enough to become paranoid and live in fear but enough to be a minor concern.

I also think the second amendment was very forward thinking and logical although I know a lot of Brits detest the idea. The Swiss model which hardly ever gets cited and is conveniently ignored by the anti gun lobby is also very effective.

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
I'm not opposed to the UK allowing handguns to be kept in the home for defensive purposes if they came with psych testing, mandatory training certifications and possibly biometric registration. It's one of the few areas where I would be OK with relinquishing some freedoms in order to be personally responsible for my and my family's security. Home invasions and violent burglaries are becoming more and more common in this part of london, not enough to become paranoid and live in fear but enough to be a minor concern.

I also think the second amendment was very forward thinking and logical although I know a lot of Brits detest the idea. The Swiss model which hardly ever gets cited and is conveniently ignored by the anti gun lobby is also very effective.

Nice reasonable post. I agree completely about the Swiss. Its like what the us was supposed to be.

I feel the same about concealed cary in the us. I have a permit but am appalled by the lack of marksmanship training to have such a permit. It should a the least follow what the police do 4 times a year. Nobody wants to compromise these days.

a reply to: luthier

The fact that Australia hasn't had a massacre since isn't really a valid argument unless the rate of massacres has changed. How many massacres happened per year before the ban and how many after. If it is one or two ina hundred years vs none in 10 that isn't a real statistic.

Mate, this thread is about knife laws in the UK. But I will say that you'd be better off sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich and blaming Americas 'culture'. Because your argument completely falls apart when looking at the facts.

Australia had 14 mass shootings in the 18 years prior to the bans, since the bans, we have had zero.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: luthier

The fact that Australia hasn't had a massacre since isn't really a valid argument unless the rate of massacres has changed. How many massacres happened per year before the ban and how many after. If it is one or two ina hundred years vs none in 10 that isn't a real statistic.

Mate, this thread is about knife laws in the UK. But I will say that you'd be better off sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich and blaming Americas 'culture'. Because your argument completely falls apart when looking at the facts.

Australia had 14 mass shootings in the 18 years prior to the bans, since the bans, we have had zero.

When were the bans? But you answered my question and I accept that completely. What I am say is mass shootings are tiny fraction of the homicide by firearms in the us. Less than 1 percent. Most are suicide and gang wars. So yeah its cultural at least the huge numbers people speak of.

Its much more complicated of an issue and is directly related to social problems.

Have there been any other mass killings/serial killers not using guns? Just a question don't persecute me for asking.

In all the studies I have seen by unbiased sources FBI Interpol etc the rate of violent crime had been declining without gun bans in every western country that imposed them. I know fort sure in the UK this is true.

So while you may not have mass shootings people still get killed at the same rate as before the ban taking in account the rate of decline in violent crimes (meaning it didn't suddenly decline faster when guns were banned).

In the us the state of Massachusetts heavily regulates firearms more than almost anywhere else in the country but the murder rate when they did this changed to knives and bats.

California has lots of gun control but serious homicide problems.

Its far too late in the us to ban guns. There are far too many illegal guns in poor neighborhoods and the result would be good guys without guns bad guys with guns.

What we can do is try to change economic conditions, have better education and job training in impoverished areas. I guarantee the results would be 100x better. But that stuff takes work.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

So does that mean your allegiance is to the left? Because if Bush was still in power, he'd be allowing the DEA to be currently raiding people who are complying with state laws.

You only have Obama to thank for respecting state laws when it comes to drug regulations.

It is hard to define one's views these days of either left or right, so let's say I'm for small federal government foot print, so no matter if it is the Patriot's Act or Obamacare I see danger in both. I also see the Constitution as NOT a living document, otherwise the founding fathers would have designed it that way from the start.

originally posted by: Cherry0
I didn't get a chance to read all the posts yet so not sure if it was mentioned, but for the back and forth arguments between murder statistics, wouldn't population play a big part into all this. I think that's one part of the puzzle missing here.

U.S. Population / UK Population

Well, yeah if you ever see anybody talking about murder rates then it is usually rated on murder per 100000 so population doesn't actually matter.
America has 5 murders per 100000 and the UK has 1 murder per 100000.
America doesn't have the highest murder rate in the world by far and UK certainly doesn't have the highest.

One factor that makes it 5 times higher in the States the fact that so many people have a hand held device that makes it really really easy to take the life of another human being. To suggest otherwise is bonkers.

With that said, it's too late to change it.
If it became illegal then the police would never manage to gather even half the guns up so many people would still want guns for protection and the police would still be shooting anything that moves.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: b14warrior
a reply to: Skid Mark

For a start, this wasn't a knife ban but an amnesty.
Secondly, guns aren't banned in the UK. Most people could get a shotgun licence as long as they have a place to hunt and a clean criminal record.

And lastly, comparing knife crime to gun crime is daft.
Just look at the figures. How many people masacres with guns in the US are there and how many knife massacres are there in the UK?
The chances of a burglar having guns in the UK is very very slim. They may have a bat or a knife and I may have the same but that narrows the chances of either of us dying.
Plus then you've got the police running round shooting anything that moves.

To be fair banning guns wouldn't work in the USA as there are already too many guns there and of course the criminals will be the last people to surrender them.
I wouldn't want them banned if I was American but there is no way I would relax UK laws on ownership.

First off murder is murder. If you stab someone and they die that's the same as shooting someone and them dying.

Massacres in the us are less then 1 percent of gun crimes. Most are suicides which would happen anyway. The rest are gang related which is directly related to poverty.

Guns are in fact banned. In 88 and 97 you banned semi auto rifles (again an absolutely marginal percentage of gun deaths in the us) and hand guns.

You have always had gun control at least since the 20's.

Second its the homicide rate per capita that matters. In the UK you keep homicides classified until you have a trial. So any unsolved murder goes unreported unless it goes to trial and the accused gets off. Most criminal justice scholars think the UK pads its numbers.

Lastly homicide and violent crime are down in the us despite what the media misleads you to believe.


When you severely restricted guns in 88 and 97 after your massacres the rate of decline in homicides didn't change.

Did gun control stop the Norwegian massacre? You can't have automatic weapons in Norway yet the psycho got them.some how.

Yes murder is murder.
But suggesting that having so many people owning a handheld device that makes murder really really easy and can be used at distance doesn't increase murders rates then that's crazy.

America's murder rate is 5 times that of the UK so I very much doubt unsolved cases are going to pad the figures to get them even close.

Murder rate didn't decrease much after tighter gun control laws in 88 or 97 because guns were already so very rare anyway. Murders were almost never done with guns already we just wanted to stop massacres.

You really can't be serious with that Norway argument can you. That's ridiculous!
So if something bad/dangerous that is band gets into somebody's hands that should have it and they cause damage with it then we should just make it easier for everybody to get hold of it.
You are also talking about a country with one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

originally posted by: b14warrior

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: b14warrior
a reply to: Skid Mark

For a start, this wasn't a knife ban but an amnesty.
Secondly, guns aren't banned in the UK. Most people could get a shotgun licence as long as they have a place to hunt and a clean criminal record.

And lastly, comparing knife crime to gun crime is daft.
Just look at the figures. How many people masacres with guns in the US are there and how many knife massacres are there in the UK?
The chances of a burglar having guns in the UK is very very slim. They may have a bat or a knife and I may have the same but that narrows the chances of either of us dying.
Plus then you've got the police running round shooting anything that moves.

To be fair banning guns wouldn't work in the USA as there are already too many guns there and of course the criminals will be the last people to surrender them.
I wouldn't want them banned if I was American but there is no way I would relax UK laws on ownership.

First off murder is murder. If you stab someone and they die that's the same as shooting someone and them dying.

Massacres in the us are less then 1 percent of gun crimes. Most are suicides which would happen anyway. The rest are gang related which is directly related to poverty.

Guns are in fact banned. In 88 and 97 you banned semi auto rifles (again an absolutely marginal percentage of gun deaths in the us) and hand guns.

You have always had gun control at least since the 20's.

Second its the homicide rate per capita that matters. In the UK you keep homicides classified until you have a trial. So any unsolved murder goes unreported unless it goes to trial and the accused gets off. Most criminal justice scholars think the UK pads its numbers.

Lastly homicide and violent crime are down in the us despite what the media misleads you to believe.


When you severely restricted guns in 88 and 97 after your massacres the rate of decline in homicides didn't change.

Did gun control stop the Norwegian massacre? You can't have automatic weapons in Norway yet the psycho got them.some how.

Yes murder is murder.
But suggesting that having so many people owning a handheld device that makes murder really really easy and can be used at distance doesn't increase murders rates then that's crazy.

America's murder rate is 5 times that of the UK so I very much doubt unsolved cases are going to pad the figures to get them even close.

Murder rate didn't decrease much after tighter gun control laws in 88 or 97 because guns were already so very rare anyway. Murders were almost never done with guns already we just wanted to stop massacres.

You really can't be serious with that Norway argument can you. That's ridiculous!
So if something bad/dangerous that is band gets into somebody's hands that should have it and they cause damage with it then we should just make it easier for everybody to get hold of it.
You are also talking about a country with one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

I am serious. There was no way for anyone to defend themselves.
Hand guns are the cause of the us murder rate. They are a close range weapon.

Why is the us so different than switzerland where nearly every household has guns? Or canada?

You are honestly telling me culture and economics have nothing to do with the murder rate?

The us murder rate is not even in the top 100 but we have the most guns per person so there goes your theory.

I suppose texas should have the highest gun crimes in the us too by that logic but turns out not even close. Its cities like detroit, new orleans, la (most strict gun laws in country). If you took these destitute cities out we would be less than the uk.

a reply to: luthier

Have there been any other mass killings/serial killers not using guns? Just a question don't persecute me for asking.

Not really man. I mean, there was that women up in Cairns who stabbed her 8 kids to death last year. There have also been a few arson attacks that killed multiple people, but there honestly hasn't been much. Serial killers a few and far between.

We do have drug wars obviously, the most notorious being Melbourne's gangland killings. 36 people got killed (usually shot in the street or outside there house). lol, the whole ordeal probably wouldn't have even gotten local news coverage in the US, but we made an entire tv series about it, it was a pretty big deal over here. Not a bad show either.



Anyway...... We do obviously still have our share of gun crime. People have lost there s# since the 1998 regulations were passed and open fired at people in the streets, but it's very rare and has always been under 5 people, so it's not classed as a 'mass murder'.

Over all the regulations have been very effective though. John Howard (the prime minister at the time), is very proud of what he did to eliminate mass murders. He still quotes it as his greatest achievement well in power, he often says, "I have a great respect for lots of aspects to American society, but there gun laws aren't one". lol, I hate the bloke with a passion personally, but ya got to give credit where credit is due. The laws he passed proved to be very effective.

But back to the UK vs US murder rates..... The fact the US has such a higher rate of murders compared to the UK does kind of prove there is an issue in the US that needs to be fixed. I mean, by all logic the UK should have a much higher murder rate, because they've got such a high population density compared to the US. It's a country the size of the state of Oregon, with over 60 million people.

You can claim poverty and drug wars as the cause of the abnormally high murder rate in the US all you want. But the fact is that the UK have have poor people too and they also like there illegal drugs, basically as much as there US counterparts.

Its far too late in the us to ban guns. There are far too many illegal guns in poor neighborhoods and the result would be good guys without guns bad guys with guns.

Your probably right. Gun regulations as strict as the UK or Australia probably isn't a realistic prospect for the US. But imo, there are some obvious steps the US could take to significantly lower the circulation of illegal firearms and to greatly lower the rate that mass shootings occur.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa
I loved that show
It was like Neighbours but with crims.

There was also a really good one I watched about the Milperra massacre.

Your telly is way better than your beer, that's for sure.

a reply to: sprocketuk

lol yeah, Foster's beer and neighbours. The two things about Australia that most Aussies usually despise, but the pome's seem to love. It's an ironic state of affairs.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I have been watching Wentworth...blimey its good.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa
Those two lads on the Fozzies adverts were awesome. It was a sad day when they left their little beach shack.

I used to like a bit of VB, but haven't seen it in years round my way.

At least you guys make decent rum

originally posted by: sprocketuk
a reply to: Subaeruginosa
I used to like a bit of VB, but haven't seen it in years round my way.

Yeah, I'm Victorian, so it's VB's all the way for me mate. It's a quality brew.

What's going on at the moment, is no different to what's been going on for the last 10 years, each year same thing comes up. The problem is knife crime is still an issue, but also so is gun crime, don't believe the stats as I'm privileged to raw data and I have stated I think many times on here, it's not about the stat, it's about the crime and what should be now common knowledge is how the police classify crimes isn't necessarily representative of the crime that occurred.

London at least is becoming very violent, many people from countries where life is cheap and the police truly do give them a beat down, find operating in London and the UK in general an absolute joy. The police are very liberal, the charges carry lighter sentences and that's if the CPS actually do their job, which again is rare and the prison is like a hotel that they can't leave, all comparative to where they come from.

I think the public need to really be made aware of just how violent crime is getting, I mean there are officers out there with 30+ years that say the level of violence now is nothing like they have ever experienced and I can certainly believe that. So, we have to try and limit something, because the government certainly don't want to limit the population but I for one dread to think what London is going to be like ten years from now, total knife ban or no total knife ban.

By the way with regards to guns, there was a right under common law to possess a firearm for self protection, that is no longer the case. The government control the issue of firearms licences and it can be a right carry on, because having it for self defence is no longer a valid excuse and you also have to show how and where you will store the gun and also the ammunition, which must be stored separately....Anyway, that's for a UK gun law thread.

To be honest, none of these laws really make any difference to crime in the cities, the gang culture today is far more violent than when guns were permitted for self defence and gangs and violent individuals don't have to use guns or knives to kill, so where does the banning stop?

It should be interesting to note that the 1920 firearms act in the UK was put in place primarily from fear of the civil unrest in Russia spilling over to Britain...There no doubt lies the real reason governments wish to restrict or curb weapon ownership.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: luthier

Have there been any other mass killings/serial killers not using guns? Just a question don't persecute me for asking.

Not really man. I mean, there was that women up in Cairns who stabbed her 8 kids to death last year. There have also been a few arson attacks that killed multiple people, but there honestly hasn't been much. Serial killers a few and far between.

We do have drug wars obviously, the most notorious being Melbourne's gangland killings. 36 people got killed (usually shot in the street or outside there house). lol, the whole ordeal probably wouldn't have even gotten local news coverage in the US, but we made an entire tv series about it, it was a pretty big deal over here. Not a bad show either.

Anyway...... We do obviously still have our share of gun crime. People have lost there s# since the 1998 regulations were passed and open fired at people in the streets, but it's very rare and has always been under 5 people, so it's not classed as a 'mass murder'.

Over all the regulations have been very effective though. John Howard (the prime minister at the time), is very proud of what he did to eliminate mass murders. He still quotes it as his greatest achievement well in power, he often says, "I have a great respect for lots of aspects to American society, but there gun laws aren't one". lol, I hate the bloke with a passion personally, but ya got to give credit where credit is due. The laws he passed proved to be very effective.

But back to the UK vs US murder rates..... The fact the US has such a higher rate of murders compared to the UK does kind of prove there is an issue in the US that needs to be fixed. I mean, by all logic the UK should have a much higher murder rate, because they've got such a high population density compared to the US. It's a country the size of the state of Oregon, with over 60 million people.

You can claim poverty and drug wars as the cause of the abnormally high murder rate in the US all you want. But the fact is that the UK have have poor people too and they also like there illegal drugs, basically as much as there US counterparts.

Its far too late in the us to ban guns. There are far too many illegal guns in poor neighborhoods and the result would be good guys without guns bad guys with guns.

Your probably right. Gun regulations as strict as the UK or Australia probably isn't a realistic prospect for the US. But imo, there are some obvious steps the US could take to significantly lower the circulation of illegal firearms and to greatly lower the rate that mass shootings occur.

Thank you and thanks for not attacking me.

However if you look at the us murder rate like i said it would be less than the uk if you ommitted detroit, new orleans, baltimore, and inner la. My point is the numbers are very skewed by gang warfare we havent dealt with and seem to allow. Almost 90 percent of gun hommicides are gang realted in inner cities full of poverty. Seriously check out the rate of some of these cities. We are talking a rate in the 50 per 100,0000

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: luthier

Have there been any other mass killings/serial killers not using guns? Just a question don't persecute me for asking.

Not really man. I mean, there was that women up in Cairns who stabbed her 8 kids to death last year. There have also been a few arson attacks that killed multiple people, but there honestly hasn't been much. Serial killers a few and far between.

We do have drug wars obviously, the most notorious being Melbourne's gangland killings. 36 people got killed (usually shot in the street or outside there house). lol, the whole ordeal probably wouldn't have even gotten local news coverage in the US, but we made an entire tv series about it, it was a pretty big deal over here. Not a bad show either.

Anyway...... We do obviously still have our share of gun crime. People have lost there s# since the 1998 regulations were passed and open fired at people in the streets, but it's very rare and has always been under 5 people, so it's not classed as a 'mass murder'.

Over all the regulations have been very effective though. John Howard (the prime minister at the time), is very proud of what he did to eliminate mass murders. He still quotes it as his greatest achievement well in power, he often says, "I have a great respect for lots of aspects to American society, but there gun laws aren't one". lol, I hate the bloke with a passion personally, but ya got to give credit where credit is due. The laws he passed proved to be very effective.

But back to the UK vs US murder rates..... The fact the US has such a higher rate of murders compared to the UK does kind of prove there is an issue in the US that needs to be fixed. I mean, by all logic the UK should have a much higher murder rate, because they've got such a high population density compared to the US. It's a country the size of the state of Oregon, with over 60 million people.

You can claim poverty and drug wars as the cause of the abnormally high murder rate in the US all you want. But the fact is that the UK have have poor people too and they also like there illegal drugs, basically as much as there US counterparts.

Its far too late in the us to ban guns. There are far too many illegal guns in poor neighborhoods and the result would be good guys without guns bad guys with guns.

Your probably right. Gun regulations as strict as the UK or Australia probably isn't a realistic prospect for the US. But imo, there are some obvious steps the US could take to significantly lower the circulation of illegal firearms and to greatly lower the rate that mass shootings occur.

However if you look at the us murder rate like i said it would be less than the uk if you ommitted detroit, new orleans, baltimore, and inner la. My point is the numbers are very skewed by gang warfare we havent dealt with and seem to allow.

But these cities are still in the US, so you have to own it. Saying it doesn't represent America because it's mostly poor black people fighting over the drug trade in urban area's, would be no different to if people claimed the UK's knife problem doesn't represent the UK, because it's mostly due to immigrant's in London.

a reply to: luthier

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: b14warrior

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: b14warrior
a reply to: Skid Mark

For a start, this wasn't a knife ban but an amnesty.
Secondly, guns aren't banned in the UK. Most people could get a shotgun licence as long as they have a place to hunt and a clean criminal record.

And lastly, comparing knife crime to gun crime is daft.
Just look at the figures. How many people masacres with guns in the US are there and how many knife massacres are there in the UK?
The chances of a burglar having guns in the UK is very very slim. They may have a bat or a knife and I may have the same but that narrows the chances of either of us dying.
Plus then you've got the police running round shooting anything that moves.

To be fair banning guns wouldn't work in the USA as there are already too many guns there and of course the criminals will be the last people to surrender them.
I wouldn't want them banned if I was American but there is no way I would relax UK laws on ownership.

First off murder is murder. If you stab someone and they die that's the same as shooting someone and them dying.

Massacres in the us are less then 1 percent of gun crimes. Most are suicides which would happen anyway. The rest are gang related which is directly related to poverty.

Guns are in fact banned. In 88 and 97 you banned semi auto rifles (again an absolutely marginal percentage of gun deaths in the us) and hand guns.

You have always had gun control at least since the 20's.

Second its the homicide rate per capita that matters. In the UK you keep homicides classified until you have a trial. So any unsolved murder goes unreported unless it goes to trial and the accused gets off. Most criminal justice scholars think the UK pads its numbers.

Lastly homicide and violent crime are down in the us despite what the media misleads you to believe.


When you severely restricted guns in 88 and 97 after your massacres the rate of decline in homicides didn't change.

Did gun control stop the Norwegian massacre? You can't have automatic weapons in Norway yet the psycho got them.some how.

Yes murder is murder.
But suggesting that having so many people owning a handheld device that makes murder really really easy and can be used at distance doesn't increase murders rates then that's crazy.

America's murder rate is 5 times that of the UK so I very much doubt unsolved cases are going to pad the figures to get them even close.

Murder rate didn't decrease much after tighter gun control laws in 88 or 97 because guns were already so very rare anyway. Murders were almost never done with guns already we just wanted to stop massacres.

You really can't be serious with that Norway argument can you. That's ridiculous!
So if something bad/dangerous that is band gets into somebody's hands that should have it and they cause damage with it then we should just make it easier for everybody to get hold of it.
You are also talking about a country with one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

I am serious. There was no way for anyone to defend themselves.
Hand guns are the cause of the us murder rate. They are a close range weapon.

Why is the us so different than switzerland where nearly every household has guns? Or canada?

You are honestly telling me culture and economics have nothing to do with the murder rate?

The us murder rate is not even in the top 100 but we have the most guns per person so there goes your theory.

I suppose texas should have the highest gun crimes in the us too by that logic but turns out not even close. Its cities like detroit, new orleans, la (most strict gun laws in country). If you took these destitute cities out we would be less than the uk.

At absolutely no point did I say that culture and economics don't play a huge role. I don't think a single person in their right mind would suggest such a thing.
What I am saying is that in America, so many people having guns will cause the murder rates to be higher than in a country that has similar economic and social unrest yet barely anybody has access to firearms.

Also, you have the most LEGAL guns per capita, look at the countries in the top 100 murder rate list and many may possibly to be full of illegal firearms or even zero records on gun ownership, the vast majority are undeveloped nations after all.

Again, I'm not saying that America should outlaw firearms or even that guns are the only issue. The only thing I and many others have said is that having so many guns in a country that has certain issues causes more murders.
In the UK it is harder to kill people, therefore despite having similar issues and problems (although perhaps not as extreme) we have less murders.

The fact that we don't have guns also mean that the police don't need to carry guns and that is why police in the USA kill more people in a matter of days that other countries do in years.