[Archived] Gun Law Debate: Please keep posts civil and conversational

[Adam C]

Really? Why is it your assault rate is nearly three times that of the USA? Without weapons violent crime makes it appear the UK is the more violent country. Why is that?

The stats I found here http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

put the assault rate as not quite 2.5 times as bad. Where did you get your statistics from? Given that my site has data from 2002 it is possible that yours is more up-to-date.

It is easy to see why 33 children lost their lives in high school shootings in the US last year while there were no such fatalities in the UK. It is harder to put your finger on why the UK has a higher assault rate. We have a bigger drinking culture here for sure, that probably increases the figures. Perhaps there are more assaults in the US that aren't reported? Really though the assault rate is higher in the UK probably because we don't have legally-held handguns. People are less likely to get into a fight at a bar or with their neighbour if they think that the fight will descend into a bulletfest. That said I would rather have busier casualty departments on saturday nights, more people walking round with black eyes and a higher burglary rate than half the country possessing handguns.

This is an interesting debate but on one level It is a bit sad that we feel like we can lecture the US about their gun culture. I can only imagine how angry we would be over here if the Americans saw fit to pronounce to us on our rates of teenage pregnancy, alcoholism and drug abuse.

[jim mk2]

Teenage pregnancies in Britain have declined in the past 10 years but are still the highest in western Europe. However, the US has the highest rate in the world, according to figures compiled by the World Health Organisation.

I'm not sure how up-to-date or accurate the stats on this site but on most counts the US is a clear winner. Britain's apparent high assault rate has been the subject of controversy over the years because of the way crimes are reported and recorded. On some measures Britain has a low assault rate.

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

Read history books and Britain has a drinking culture going back centuries. Probably one reason is the ale is so good. Anyone who has drunk US beer would understand why it has such a low alcoholism rate.

[SydneyRover]

Really? Why is it your assault rate is nearly three times that of the USA? Without weapons violent crime makes it appear the UK is the more violent country. Why is that?

Like others have said the binge drinking culture is significantly higher in the UK. Also if guns were more available I am sure a percentage of those would count in the murder figures instead.

But you didn't actually answer my initial post at all. Why in your opinion are murders from gun crime several dozens of times higher in the US than any other comparable country?

What would you rather have, an assault rate 2.5 times higher or a murder rate (guns or no guns) 4 times higher?

[Mike E]

Really? Why is it your assault rate is nearly three times that of the USA? Without weapons violent crime makes it appear the UK is the more violent country. Why is that?

It isn't more violent. In percentage terms all violent crime ( w/ or w/o guns) are about the same.

Would you rather a family member be beaten up (and have a chance of escaping the incident) or shot dead?

Guns need people to fire them. But w/o guns to fire, there's a much smaller chance of dying in a violent incident.

USA needs to grow a pair and use it's fists rather than hide behind weapons

[thenodrog]

USA needs to grow a pair and use it's fists rather than hide behind weapons

They'd just hit the wrong bloke mike.

[koi]

Thought someone would've posted up the Piers Mogan vid by now:

As much as I hate Morgan, and it's a very real hatred can't help but be on his side, would love to see him smashed in the ring though.

Boxing ring before anyone posts something daft!

[Adam C]

Teenage pregnancies in Britain have declined in the past 10 years but are still the highest in western Europe. However, the US has the highest rate in the world, according to figures compiled by the World Health Organisation.

I'm not sure how up-to-date or accurate the stats on this site but on most counts the US is a clear winner. Britain's apparent high assault rate has been the subject of controversy over the years because of the way crimes are reported and recorded. On some measures Britain has a low assault rate.

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

Read history books and Britain has a drinking culture going back centuries. Probably one reason is the ale is so good. Anyone who has drunk US beer would understand why it has such a low alcoholism rate.

I had no idea about the teenage pregnancies statistic, I stand corrected. Although I still feel my point stands - it would not be nice for another country to lecture us morally on our cultural differences. You make a good point about American beer though lol. Sam Adams isn't bad all the same.

As much as I hate Morgan, and it's a very real hatred can't help but be on his side, would love to see him smashed in the ring though.

Boxing ring before anyone posts something daft!

[ABBEY]

And another school shooting in America .

[jim mk2]

Fortunately no one killed but another reminder why all US schools should have machine gun turret at the school gates, armed guards outside each classroom and their own private air force patrolling the skies above the school (copyright US gun lobby)

[sambo]

Alex Jones is the biggest tool in the world. Makes me angry just hearing him

[Drover]

I just went on his infowars website out of curiosity. He thinks his rice cooker is spying on him. Says it all really.....

[Amo]

Alex Jones & Piers Morgan in one room is the best pro-gun argument yet.

[Steve Moss]

Its not often I agree with Andrew Sullivan, but we appear to be on the same page about Piers Morgan: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2013/01/the-dumb-disgusting-desperation-of-piers-morgan.html

And here's some commentary on Piers v. Shapiro: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/11/piers-morgan-loses-gun-control-debate-to-ben-shapiro/

Even the Washington Post has a few less than kind words about Piers: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2013/01/10/piers-morgans-self-serving-gun-control-crusade/

All in all, I think the English owe us big time for taking Piers off your hands. He's not the best of journalists, not by a long shot.

[Steve Moss]

The homicide rate in the US is four times as high as in the UK.

The number of people who are murdered by guns is between fifty to ninety times as high in the US as in the UK.

By memory, the USA is first in the world in per capita firearm ownership but only 28th in violent crime. So the argument that guns=more violence is not correct.

On the other hand, I agree that we have far more murders than the UK. So the argument that easy access to guns contribute to the murder rate is probably correct. But while I think there would be some reduction (as non-gun murders are generally less efficient at achieving the murderer's intended result), I believe that would continue to be true even if we banned guns.

As I've stated before, a significant portion of the USA murder rate is directly related to gangs and drugs. If the country is serious about reducing the murder rate, it would eliminate the economic incentives to commit murders.

Unfortunately, it also tends to be more of a demographic issue. For example, despite being 12% of the population, around half the murderers tend to be black and most of their victims are also black. Here's an article on the subject: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/04/09/race-wars-part-1-the-shocking-data-on-black-on-black-crime/.

While I don't know for sure, I suspect these horrific stats have more to do with drugs, gangs and extreme poverty, then it does easy access to weapons. Remove the weapons and the incentives would remain. The deaths would just be more medieval. We need to attack the root causes, not individual freedom.

The stats I found here http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

put the assault rate as not quite 2.5 times as bad. Where did you get your statistics from? Given that my site has data from 2002 it is possible that yours is more up-to-date.

I think your stats are accurate. I was working from memory.

[SydneyRover]

By memory, the USA is first in the world in per capita firearm ownership but only 28th in violent crime. So the argument that guns=more violence is not correct.

On the other hand, I agree that we have far more murders than the UK. So the argument that easy access to guns contribute to the murder rate is probably correct. But while I think there would be some reduction (as non-gun murders are generally less efficient at achieving the murderer's intended result), I believe that would continue to be true even if we banned guns.

As I've stated before, a significant portion of the USA murder rate is directly related to gangs and drugs. If the country is serious about reducing the murder rate, it would eliminate the economic incentives to commit murders.

Unfortunately, it also tends to be more of a demographic issue. For example, despite being 12% of the population, around half the murderers tend to be black and most of their victims are also black. Here's an article on the subject: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/04/09/race-wars-part-1-the-shocking-data-on-black-on-black-crime/.

While I don't know for sure, I suspect these horrific stats have more to do with drugs, gangs and extreme poverty, then it does easy access to weapons. Remove the weapons and the incentives would remain. The deaths would just be more medieval. We need to attack the root causes, not individual freedom.

The argument is more guns = more murders, more school mass murders etc... not more guns = more violence. However, I also believe that argument isn't far off either. Which countries were above the US in that list and how are they comparable to the US.

Amongst nations on a similar footing (the EU, Canada, Australia, Japan etc), the US has the highest murder rate and by far the highest rate of school shootings.

All you've done in the rest of your post is name a bunch of constants that are present in other countries.

You blame drugs and gangs as a big factor in the US' high murder rate. However these also form a massive proportion in other nations' (admittedly much lower) gun crime figures. I would waiger that at least a similar proportion of gun crime in the UK is related to drugs and gangs as in the US.

Where it makes a real difference though is that it's much harder for incidents like the numerous school shootings, or Aurora, or the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, or the NFL player murdering his girlfriend, to happen in other countries. In countries where guns are less legal, criminals still often manage to get hold of them. However many of those who commit murder in the US were previously law abiding citizens, which is why even background checks, although an important step, don't do that much against the problem.

Your figure about black people I would guess roughly correlates with the amount of black people living in poverty, and thus these figures have less to do with their race and more to do with the fact they form some of the poorest sections of society. Although I don't have the figures, I would guess a large proportion of gun crime in the UK is also committed by and against some of the poorest sections of society.

So basically all you've done is name a bunch of constants. In the US gun crime is massively linked to drugs, gangs and poverty. However this is also the case in other countries too.

Yet your gun crime and murder rates are significantly higher.

The biggest variable here is the access to guns.

[Steve Moss]

Sydney Rover- Are you suggesting our drug wars are similar? Have you compared our incarceration rates? And have you considered how entire generations of black youth growing up without fathers might effect their propensity for violence?

This is but one of many cultural differences between our countries.

I disagree with you. Access to guns is not the single most contributor to murder today. The main culprits are far more pervasive.

Here's an article on Australia post-gun ban: http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/07/23/do-gun-bans-reduce-violent-crime-ask-the-aussies-and-brits/

And here's a somewhat humourous article establishing that England's gun ban did nothing to effect its murder rate: http://mygunculture.com/2011/01/12/uk-gun-ban-creates-more-interesting-graphs/

Hey, at least you have some really dynamic graphs to show the Queen.

And finally, America's culture on weapons is completely different than the rest of the world. This was recognized by our Founders and is still the case today:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people.... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.... " --George Mason

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. " --Thomas Jefferson

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion . . . in private self-defense. " --John Adams

"The Constitution s hall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. " --Samuel Adams

" . . arms discourage and keep invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ... Horrid mischief would ensue were [the law-abiding] deprived of the use of them. " --Thomas Paine

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...[where] the government s are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike...how to use them." --Richard Henry Lee

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." --Amendment II, Constitution of the United States

[jim mk2]

America's culture on weapons is completely different than the rest of the world. This was recognized by our Founders and is still the case today:

Very true, and is why your children will continue to die in school shootings amid other mass murder atrocities.

Please carry on while the rest of the world watches, appalled.

[jim mk2]

Those root'n, toot'n, shoot'n good old US boys are at it again.

Press Association

1 US Shooting

GUNMAN SHOOTS SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR

A gunman walked into a business school in downtown St Louis and shot an administrator in the chest before shooting himself, police have said

.

Police Chief Sam Dotson said the shooting happened at about 2pm on Tuesday. The administrator was a man in his 40s who was shot in his office.

Mr Dotson said both the administrator and the gunman are in surgery. He was unable to say if their wounds were life-threatening. No-one else was injured in the incident.

The shooting happened at the Stevens Institute of Business and Arts, which has about 250 students in programmes including business administration and interior design.

Mr Dotson said officers found students hiding under desks and in closets.

[Steve Moss]

It all may be moot anyway, as even the Democratically controlled Senate is declining to take up gun control: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-not-enough-support-for-new-gun-laws-in-democratic-controlled-senate/

Apparently, the Democrats fear big loses in 2014 if they bring the issue up.

And I like this quote from Professor Ann Althouse:

"It occurred to me, after the Sandy Hook murders, that blaming guns is a secular substitute for blaming the devil. People find it too challenging to figure out why a human being would do this terrible thing and they latch on to the idea that the gun made it happen. Suicide presents a similar challenge, and one way to fathom it is to say: It was the gun. Isn't it like saying the devil made him do it? The gun/the devil is a great go-to answer, freeing you from wracking your brain about the workings of the human mind."

[Adam C]

Professor Ann Althouse:

"It occurred to me, after the Sandy Hook murders, that blaming guns is a secular substitute for blaming the devil. People find it too challenging to figure out why a human being would do this terrible thing and they latch on to the idea that the gun made it happen. Suicide presents a similar challenge, and one way to fathom it is to say: It was the gun. Isn't it like saying the devil made him do it? The gun/the devil is a great go-to answer, freeing you from wracking your brain about the workings of the human mind."

Sorry Steve but that is codswallop. Guns exist and can be held in the hand. If it wasn't for guns the headline from Jim Mk 2's post would be "NUTTER DECKS SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR" and would probably be on a different page of the newspaper if it was even considered newsworthy. The Devil cannot be seen and his existence cannot be proved.

At the same time I have to say kudos to you for fighting one side of this argument pretty much single-handed against the rest of us.

Edit: Just re-read that quote and it made me angry. Nobody says that the gun makes anyone do anything. I think the argument is that with a gun any violent act can quickly become an atrocity. And that is why guns should be restricted. Nobody has a problem with guns per se - they are just hunks of fabricated metal. But when people cannot use them responsibly and without butchering each other then I think we should restrict their use.

[Mike E]

I think I'd prefer a cut or even a deep wound to a bullet anywhere. Even if you survive both, the bullet requires removing before stitches. It's little reasons like that which make the argument for gun control so much more credible.

The fact is that with a gun you run the risk of killing someone in a half-mile radius. Subbing that for a fist/knife/sword/axe/vase/fryingpan you can only punch/cut/stab/shank/smash/twang someone in a 3ft radius. Death is less likely and anyone who intervenes in such a crime can do so without the risk of death. The perpetrator of the crime also lives to see his head get checked.

[Steve Moss]

A pretty comprehensive review of US homicide data: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7056

In 1900-1923, the UK homicide rate averaged .8 per 100,000. In 1925-1949 the UK homicide rate was an average of .8 per 100,000. In 1950-1974 it averaged .7. From 1975 to 1994 it averaged 1.2. This during a period where guns have been essentially banned. The data was taken from Table 2 1: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/postgraduate/ma_studies/mamodules/hi971/topics/interpersonal/long-term-historical-trends-of-violent-crime.pdf

Assuming the data is correct, then the UK firearm ban has had no effect on your homicide rates. Which means your murderers are not using guns, but are still killing. They're just more medieval in their methods, though their effectiveness has not decreased. Ask yourself if you'd rather be beaten to death with a cricket bat or shot with a .45. One way or the other, the gang member or the drug dealer will kill if he thinks its in his interests.

Also interestingly enough, some USA states have a lower homicide rate than the UK, despite have effectively no gun control. http://libertarianhome.co.uk/2012/12/uk-murder-rate-higher-than-some-us-states/

I maintain it is not the easy access to guns which has the most significant impact on the homicide rate. It is instead driven by social and economic conditions which have to be evaluated based upon specific localities, not sweeping generalities. In 2012, Chicago alone, for example, accounts for 513 of the USA's homicides, with another 261 in Detroit.

[Mike E]

I'd rather be beaten with a cricket bat as I have a much higher chance of surviving

In the case above, one could argue that gun bans should be brought to specific states. However, imo this would just move the gun crime to other states. If we banned guns specifically in London, Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham, maybe only the posh tory-boys would get shot

[jim mk2]

The US gun lobby makes the Taliban seem progressive and civilised. Good to read in the papers today Obama getting to grips with the US gun problem. If he succeeds in defeating the NRA and forcing through legislation on social medicine he will have done more than any other president in making the US a more civilised country.

[Steve Moss]

I'd rather be beaten with a cricket bat as I have a much higher chance of surviving

Your missing the point. Your homicide rate has NOT decreased as a result of your gun ban. Your chances of avoiding or surviving being murdered as a statistical matter has not improved.

So by banning guns, you've not decreased your chances of being murdered. You have decreased your chances of being murdered with a gun, but you've selected a more medieval (and likely more painful) method of death which will occur at equal or greater rate than before the UK banned guns.

Which isn't surprising as the UK's homicide rate pre-guns was significantly higher than post-guns. It doesn't take much effort or time kill someone with a club (bat, pipe wrench or hammer) or a knife or any other method. All it takes is the will.

So while your gun ban hasn't had a downward effect on your homicide rate, it does correlate to your rate of other violent crime increasing almost 250% and home invasions have skyrocketing. Congratulations UK, you've made your situation worse.