Firearms and their relation to crime figures

[Radman]

Well I would say Scotland is in the upper echelon, rest of UK is average - relatively low.

England&Wales murder rate is higher than in Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Slovenia and Sweden.

If we exclude non-Western European countries, only Belgium, Ireland, France, Finland and Portugal have a higher murder rate.

Which I would say is average, also note England AND Wales (The reason they are put together is due to the same legal systems, NI and Scotland have their own systems - NI has a much higher murder rate to the rest of the UK for very 'obvious' reasons.

Also have you ever seen how the Spanish police operate? I wouldnt trust their figures as far as I could throw them, same goes for the Greek authorities (especially when it boils down to sexually motivated crime, they have a SHOCKING detection rate...)

 

[Sander]

Which I would say is average, also note England AND Wales (The reason they are put together is due to the same legal systems, NI and Scotland have their own systems - NI has a much higher murder rate to the rest of the UK for very 'obvious' reasons.

Also have you ever seen how the Spanish police operate? I wouldnt trust their figures as far as I could throw them, same goes for the Greek authorities (especially when it boils down to sexually motivated crime, they have a SHOCKING detection rate...)

It's a murder rate. It includes suicides and euthanasia. There's not much to fuck up there.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

Dammitboy wins all gun discussion threads.

Unfortunately, we can't be perfect at everything.

Backwards arms and all.




Also, if you're too stupid to realize that race matters, in a sociological/economic context, don't waste any ones time with a white-knight post.

As was already stated, skin color has no relation. The factors that people APPLY themselves to skin color, however, have a lot to do with inner-city crime.

 

[Radman]

Dammitboy wins all gun discussion threads.

Unfortunately, we can't be perfect at everything.

Backwards arms and all.




Also, if you're too stupid to realize that race matters, in a sociological/economic context, don't waste any ones time with a white-knight post.

As was already stated, skin color has no relation. The factors that people APPLY themselves to skin color, however, have a lot to do with inner-city crime.

I wouldnt call me stupid, along way from that I assure you...

As for being a 'white knight' (cute) i'm far from that aswell, the UK has its own problem in relation to inner city gang culture (although not nearly as bad as the US due to our strict gun control.)

What I have stated here is fact and nothing but, if you come over to the UK and believe you can 'get way with' saying racist or 'semi' racist remarks your wrong... REALLY wrong...

But hey ho believe what you will, I have my opinion (which is professional aswell as personel)

Probably worth some interest to you, google 'Operation Trident' for an interesting read...

 

[DammitBoy]

Also, if you're too stupid to realize that race matters, in a sociological/economic context, don't waste any ones time with a white-knight post.

Hah! Good post!

---

ps - negro is offensive to black people? funny, someone will have to explain that to all the black guys I work with.

When I call them "typical silly negros" for thinking fat ugly white women are hot because they have a massive ass - they all laugh like hell...

 

[Mr. Nixon]

I was almost killed in 1992 but was able to get away by showing my gun. Also the cities that have the most gun crimes have full gun bans so how is gun bans going to help anything? Alot of crimes are stopped with guns without death.

 UK  2010 estimate 62,041,708

 USA  2010 census 308,745,538

Less population= Less crime.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Less population= Less crime.

No shit sherlock!

I think most here are inteligent enough to keep the relation in mind and that size matters.

the number of used weapons in the hand of civlians is not directly related to the numbers of crimes. So much is clear. Criminal statistics usualy tell only the number of crimes. Not what might be the cause.

As I explained in another thread. One has to keep a lot of points in mind. Like the demographics, cultural differences (rural, village, farms, cities, urban etc.) economy and more. All this matters. A society which has in general a solid economy and small poverty (in general) will probably have less issues with crimes since many of them are releated to poverty. Other forms of crime are Drug-related crimes or Organized crime which is a whole topic for it self since it happens often enough that the usual citizen might not even take to much notice (corruption, smuggling etc.). Guns actually are probably the smallest factor if anything.

Hence why I doubt that armed civlians will inherently create a society with less crimes. But I as well doubt that less firearms in the hands of civlians might mean less crimes. I think its not really that much related since usualy the problem is not the sane civlian who has a firearm. But how the ilegal or legal weapons got in the hands of criminals.

 

[MutantScalper]

It's a murder rate. It includes suicides and euthanasia. There's not much to fuck up there.

Btw, here's another violent crime - list, in it UK is actually less violent then for example the Netherlands.

In homicides UK is up there with the rest of Europe as a low homicide-figure nation.

In jailed population UK is slightly worse then most of Europe but still a lot better then the US.

 

[Sander]

Btw, here's another violent crime - list, in it UK is actually less violent then for example the Netherlands.

See? Now that's a useful statistic.

In homicides UK is up there with the rest of Europe as a low homicide-figure nation.

Relative to the rest of the world. It's much more relevant to compare it to its peers in terms of living conditions. And there, it's definitely worse than its peers.

In jailed population UK is slightly worse then most of Europe but still a lot better then the US.

The US has the most prisoners both in absolute and in relative terms in the world. In large part because of its very strict drug laws.

 

[MutantScalper]

Relative to the rest of the world. It's much more relevant to compare it to its peers in terms of living conditions. And there, it's definitely worse than its peers.

And you are saying that if UK were to make it's gun laws less strict it would become less violent? It is the strict gun laws that are making UK violent?

I'm saying that if UK were to make it's gun laws less strict it would be closer to the US in terms of gun crime figures, more armed gang violence, more spree shootings, etc.

 

[Wintermind]

Dammitboy wins all gun discussion threads.

Unfortunately, we can't be perfect at everything.

Backwards arms and all.




Also, if you're too stupid to realize that race matters, in a sociological/economic context, don't waste any ones time with a white-knight post.

As was already stated, skin color has no relation. The factors that people APPLY themselves to skin color, however, have a lot to do with inner-city crime.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here; are you referring towards racially motivated crimes, or more the parts of the culture that glorify it; like narcocorridos or the whole 'gangsta' kind of thing? Or am I missing something painfully obvious?

 

[Sander]

And you are saying that if UK were to make it's gun laws less strict it would become less violent? It is the strict gun laws that are making UK violent?

Eh? I'm saying neither. It's my opinion that gun laws have very little to do with levels of violent crime in any society, and that quality of life, income gaps, equality issues, social stratification and the like are a lot more relevant.

I'm saying that if UK were to make it's gun laws less strict it would be closer to the US in terms of gun crime figures, more armed gang violence, more spree shootings, etc.

Based on what data? Again, you keep on claiming this, but you have offered no proof whatsoever for this assumption of yours. Yet at the same time, you keep claiming that the other side is the stubborn side who won't listen to reason and have made up their minds. While that could very well be true, I don't see you behaving any better in this debate. Where's the evidence that guns make for more violent crime? Nowhere. All you can offer are a few anecdotes and examples that cannot be considered any kind of proof because there are so many different determinants. And the pro-gun crowd can offer up an equal amount of anecdotes and examples.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here; are you referring towards racially motivated crimes, or more the parts of the culture that glorify it; like narcocorridos or the whole 'gangsta' kind of thing? Or am I missing something painfully obvious?

If I understand correctly, he's saying that the black gang culture is to be blamed for a lot of violent crime.

 

[MutantScalper]

Eh? I'm saying neither. It's my opinion that gun laws have very little to do with levels of violent crime in any society, and that quality of life, income gaps, equality issues, social stratification and the like are a lot more relevant.

I'm not saying gun laws alone are enough to keep crime in all it's forms away. What I am saying is that it's one significant part of the puzzle that includes good social policy, no segregation of minorities, availability of education to the poor, etc. Overall strict gun laws are a hallmark of a responsible nation. A poor nation with loose gun laws or laws that aren't enforced will be worse off then a poor nation with gun laws that are enforced.

What the gun industry would have you believe is that you can flood poor neighbourhoods with guns and it won't make a negative difference. And you apparently agree with them.

Based on what data? Again, you keep on claiming this, but you have offered no proof whatsoever for this assumption of yours. Yet at the same time, you keep claiming that the other side is the stubborn side who won't listen to reason and have made up their minds. While that could very well be true, I don't see you behaving any better in this debate. Where's the evidence that guns make for more violent crime? Nowhere. All you can offer are a few anecdotes and examples that cannot be considered any kind of proof because there are so many different determinants. And the pro-gun crowd can offer up an equal amount of anecdotes and examples.

Well the only way to settle this would be to make a kind of huge social experiment and flood the streets of UK with guns.

 

[Wintermind]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here; are you referring towards racially motivated crimes, or more the parts of the culture that glorify it; like narcocorridos or the whole 'gangsta' kind of thing? Or am I missing something painfully obvious?

If I understand correctly, he's saying that the black gang culture is to be blamed for a lot of violent crime.

I think that's related to organised crime in general; when you're a criminal, dealing in drugs and everything, you can't exactly call the police or sue somebody; your main means of recrimination is basically violence. I'm pretty sure the same thing sort of thing happened with the mafia, too.

 

[Sander]

I'm not saying gun laws alone are enough to keep crime in all it's forms away. What I am saying is that it's one significant part of the puzzle that includes good social policy, no segregation of minorities, availability of education to the poor, etc. Overall strict gun laws are a hallmark of a responsible nation. A poor nation with loose gun laws or laws that aren't enforced will be worse off then a poor nation with gun laws that are enforced.

See, you keep repeating this, but you keep offering no proof at all for this. Despite my repeated requests for this proof.

It's fine if you believe that this is true, but at least have the decency to admit that your belief is as valid as another man's belief that guns have a negligible effect.

What the gun industry would have you believe is that you can flood poor neighbourhoods with guns and it won't make a negative difference. And you apparently agree with them.

Oh hey yet another straw man.

What I'm saying is that allowing guns to be legally bought by citizens, preferably after background checks excluding certain criminals and people with severe psychiatric problems, will have a negligible effect on violent crime levels.

That's a far cry from 'flooding the poor neighbourhoods with guns'. But that kind of hyperbole fits with what you've been doing throughout these threads consistently: pulling the discussion into the extreme, ridiculing the opposition and pretending that there's either very strict gun laws or none whatsoever, and the latter is accompanied by mass flooding of markets by freely and cheaply available guns.

 

[MutantScalper]

See, you keep repeating this, but you keep offering no proof at all for this. Despite my repeated requests for this proof.

It's fine if you believe that this is true, but at least have the decency to admit that your belief is as valid as another man's belief that guns have a negligible effect.

Maybe the effect of guns in society is negligible in the Netherlands but it isn't in Finland where I live. We have a very large gun ownership ratio and we live next to Russia and Estonia, both with astronomical homicide and gun violence figures.

Maybe Netherlands can afford to loosen it's gun laws, not sure. Maybe you can afford to have 10 - 20 more gun murders more per year. But Finland can't.

Oh hey yet another straw man.

What I'm saying is that allowing guns to be legally bought by citizens, preferably after background checks excluding certain criminals and people with severe psychiatric problems, will have a negligible effect on violent crime levels.

That's a far cry from 'flooding the poor neighbourhoods with guns'. But that kind of hyperbole fits with what you've been doing throughout these threads consistently: pulling the discussion into the extreme, ridiculing the opposition and pretending that there's either very strict gun laws or none whatsoever, and the latter is accompanied by mass flooding of markets by freely and cheaply available guns.

I've offered links to studies and statistics as well and the opposition has done stupid stuff like refer to black people as "negros". I refuse to accept the top dumbass - prize of this debate.

 

[Sander]

Maybe the effect of guns in society is negligible in the Netherlands but it isn't in Finland where I live. We have a very large gun ownership ratio and we live next to Russia and Estonia, both with astronomical homicide and gun violence figures.

Maybe Netherlands can afford to loosen it's gun laws, not sure. Maybe you can afford to have 10 - 20 more gun murders more per year. But Finland can't.

You already have a ton of guns. Why would gun laws increase murders? Not saying they'll decrease them, but why would they lead to more murders? You don't know they will, it's simply your assumption. You see guns, you see murders, you connect the two and assume they're related closely. But you have little evidence to support that theory, despite your adamance that it has to be true.

Yes Finland has a high murder rate and lots of guns. Switzerland has a low murder rate and lots of guns. As I've said over and over and over again, there are a ton of examples and anecdotes to be found supporting either side. Which is exactly why a debate fueled by anecdotes and examples won't work, yet you still keep coming back to it.

I've offered links to studies and statistics as well and the opposition has done stupid stuff like refer to black people as "negros". I refuse to accept the top dumbass - prize of this debate.

The opposition has cited multiple studies as well, yet you ignore them. Like, for instance, the comprehensive study Gun Availability and Violent Crime: New Evidence from the National Incident-Based Reporting System by Lisa Stolzenberg, published in the peer-reviewed Social Forces journal.

You pretend as if you're the only one citing statistics and studies, but that's simply not true. You also pretend that DammitBoy using the word 'negro' is somehow relevant (hint: no it isn't). You're not fighting a fight of logic and reasoned debate, you're simply dismissing out of hand what the other side is saying. The reason I tell you all these things is because you keep insulting the other side and telling them that they're the ones doing all those things - which may be true, but you're just as guilty.

 

[MutantScalper]

You already have a ton of guns. Why would gun laws increase murders? Not saying they'll decrease them, but why would they lead to more murders? You don't know they will, it's simply your assumption. You see guns, you see murders, you connect the two and assume they're related closely. But you have little evidence to support that theory, despite your adamance that it has to be true.

Yes Finland has a high murder rate and lots of guns. Switzerland has a low murder rate and lots of guns. As I've said over and over and over again, there are a ton of examples and anecdotes to be found supporting either side. Which is exactly why a debate fueled by anecdotes and examples won't work, yet you still keep coming back to it.

Switzerland has a relatively high gun death figure when compared to neighbouring nations such as Austria, didn't we already go through this once?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-to-reconsider-right-to-bear-arms-446946.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

Gun deaths in Switzerland are more common than in Finland for example.

As Arden mentioned the Swiss are voting now on whether to reduce the amount of guns in the society.

Finland on the other hand has been a hunting nation with lots of hunting weapons. There has been a shift from rifles and shotguns into handguns which translates into more street crimes with handguns and more school shootings etc. I don't prefer this type of development.

The opposition has cited multiple studies as well, yet you ignore them. Like, for instance, the comprehensive study Gun Availability and Violent Crime: New Evidence from the National Incident-Based Reporting System by Lisa Stolzenberg, published in the peer-reviewed Social Forces journal.

You pretend as if you're the only one citing statistics and studies, but that's simply not true. You also pretend that DammitBoy using the word 'negro' is somehow relevant (hint: no it isn't). You're not fighting a fight of logic and reasoned debate, you're simply dismissing out of hand what the other side is saying. The reason I tell you all these things is because you keep insulting the other side and telling them that they're the ones doing all those things - which may be true, but you're just as guilty.

Have you read that study? You obviously hadn't read the Eurostat - study that you thought was the absolute pro-gun truth.

There are plenty of studies, I can point to more of them, that swear by guns and try to defend guns. Usually these studies, as is the Stolzenberg study, are made in US for the US gun industry. Excuse me if I don't accept them as a reason to have looser gun laws in Finland.

You also thought the term "negro" is still acceptable to use. Or have you changed your mind about that already?

 

[Sander]

Switzerland has a relatively high gun death figure when compared to neighbouring nations such as Austria, didn't we already go through this once?

And again: gun death isn't relevant, what's relevant is overall death. If guns are removed and instead of death by gun we get an equal amount of death by knife, that won't make the dead people any more alive. Hence why pointing to gun violence is irrelevant, and monitoring overall violence levels is.

Finland on the other hand has been a hunting nation with lots of hunting weapons. There has been a shift from rifles and shotguns into handguns which translates into more street crimes with handguns and more school shootings etc. I don't prefer this type of development.

Again: proof.

Have you read that study? You obviously hadn't read the Eurostat - study that you thought was the absolute pro-gun truth.

Aaaaand yet another straw man. As I kept saying, the EuroStat study was flawed but they were the only numbers I could find at the time. That's not exactly an illogical stance.

And yes, I have read that study. And I'll cite the abstract of the study for you(emphasis mine):

Using four years of county-level data drawn from the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) for South Carolina and a pooled cross-sectional time-series research
design, we investigate whether gun availability is related to violent crime, gun crime, juvenile gun crime, and violent crimes committed with a knife. We contribute to the literature by distinguishing between illegal and legal gun availability and by using a comprehensive measure of gun crime. Results show a strong positive relationship between illegal gun availability and violent crime, gun crime, and juvenile gun crime. Little or
no effect for the legitimate gun availability measure is observed in any of the estimated models. Findings also reveal that illegal guns have little influence on violent crimes committed with a knife. Offenders seem not to be substituting knives or other cutting
instruments when illegal firearms become less available. A supplemental analysis also indicates no evidence of simultaneity between gun availability and violent crime. The
strong and consistent effect of illegal rather than legal gun availability on violent crime has important policy implications, because it suggests that greater attention should be
directed at devising ways for legitimate gun owners to better secure their weapons.

In short: legal gun availability is largely irrelevant for violent crime. Illegal gun availability on the other hand is relevant.

There are plenty of studies, I can point to more of them, that swear by guns and try to defend guns. Usually these studies, as is the Stolzenberg study, are made in US for the US gun industry. Excuse me if I don't accept them as a reason to have looser gun laws in Finland.

Dismissing studies out of hand without even having seen them. Nice.

You don't think there's an anti-gun lobby commisioning studies too? Instead of saying "Well that's just funded by gun lobbyists[which you don't even know in this case] so it's bound to be bullshit", maybe you should look at the contents of the study and see if you can find anything wrong with it?

You also thought the term "negro" is still acceptable to use. Or have you changed your mind about that already?

I have no problem with the term "negro", although it seems it's more disapproved of than I thought. But that's completely irrelevant here.

 

[Yoshi525]

Why does this topic seem to bring out the spastic in otherwise-non-spastic posters?

As the few non-spastics have already said, there are a lot of factors at play - saying that increased gun possession = increased gun crime, or the converse is somewhat spastic. You can use statistics to support aforementioned spastic conclusions if you like, I really couldn't care less.

Despite the above, I'm going to dip my feet into the sea of spasticity and throw in my two pence. It's fairly bleeding obvious that if one could control gun possession with a high degree of success, then one would see reduced gun crime. No guns = no gun crime. Singapore is a tiny state, with pretty damn good border controls, a small population and the death penalty, ergo in such a climate it is indeed possible to control gun possession with a reasonable degree of success. Also, as someone mentioned (or else I dreamed it up in some opium fueled oriental nod), there are always alternative weapons available. If your rival gangs don't have shooters, then it ain't as necessary for you to.

In contrast, the US is huge and borders three highly anarchistic nations by the names of Mexico, Texas and Canada. Hence control ain't going to be successful.

that won't make the dead people any more alive. Hence why pointing to gun violence is irrelevant, and monitoring overall violence levels is.

You talk a lot of sense, but....really? The issues seem pretty damn immiscible to me, for a plethora of reasons that I can happily volunteer if you do so require?

Hope this helps...everyone concerned - Dammitboy. Ta-ta!