Britain more violent society than America

[hack89]

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence.

In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158 million - or more than two every minute.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people,..... The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents.

How is this possible since since gun ownership is so restricted? Don't fewer guns mean less violence?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz0iYLBcHmR

[armueller2001]

1. Apparently it's morally superior

to be raped and/or beaten to death than to be able to defend yourself with a firearm.

[FarrenH]

5. Apparently

Making food that is cheap, tasty, requires no effort to prepare and has a high calorie count more readily available does not contribute to an increase in obesity in a population.

Making souped-up hot-rods that can go double the maximum speed limit in most places more readily available does not contribute to an increase in the number of road deaths in a population.

Making weapons that are vastly more effective at killing people more readily available in no way contributes to an increase in the number of deaths in a population.

Makes perfect sense to me.

[shadowrider]

9. I've fixed the statement for you

Making weapons that are vastly more effective at killing people more readily available in no way contributes to an increase in the number of deaths of bad guys intent on committing crimes against people willing to defend themselves in a population.

[FarrenH]

15. You have a lot of faith in humanity

how far does it extend? Would you, for instance, endorse people owning fully automatics or rocket launchers? They might have to deal with a lot of bad guys. Maybe an Abrams tank? After all, an LA friend told me some gangs there are equipped with armor piercing rocket launchers, so you can't be too careful. At what point does the "bring a gun to a knife fight" logic end, if law-abiding citizens are to defend themselves? And if there are limits, why?

[eqfan592]

24. People already CAN own fully automatic weapons.

As well as many other "destructive devices," if they have the money and the inclination to do all the paperwork and jump through all the hoops.

Truth is, I do have enough faith in humanity to realize that the vast majority of people, if they did have such devices, wouldn't do a single thing wrong with them. If people were so inclined to try and do harm with the devices they have on hand, I think we'd see a LOT more carnage on the roads and at construction sites.

[GreenStormCloud]

26. Time for a reality check.

Gangs with RPGs? Damn expensive weapon for each shot fired. They are pretty big and impossible to conceal under a hoodie.

Criminal with full-auto. Again that is an expensive weapon. Again it can't be concealed under a hoodie. Criminals with full-auto are very rare.

Practical considerations of crime are such that criminals prefer handguns. Practical considerations of mobile self-defense are such that citizens prefer handguns too.

[pipoman]

30. With such an utterly,

and demonstrably false statement, you certainly don't expect anyone to believe or agree with any of your silly ass-ertions?

After all, an LA friend told me some gangs there are equipped with armor piercing rocket launchers,

Really now? They are are they? What are they doing with them, decorating their cribs? Link to one single story of anyone using or being arrested with an 'armor piercing rocket launcher' (which is an idiotic description, similar to saying a high temperature nuclear bomb)...link to just one. You can't huh? I guess your friend is a complete liar or more likely just an idiot.

[FarrenH]

31. Actually he's a political scientist from Berkeley campus who now works in the UK

but here you go

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/crime/Panamanian-murderer-caught-in-D_C__-lived-off-federal-subsidies-88229112.html
http://www.streetgangs.com/news/021310_chicago_weapons_seized

from the first six or seven results on a Google search.

Now don't you feel silly

[iverglas]

41. well ...

Now don't you feel silly

He looks pretty silly all right ...

[FarrenH]

46. I'll tell you who looks silly

Someone who dares someone else to come up with examples of criminals in American cities armed with rocket launchers, when that other person then goes and finds 2 examples in his first 6 Google results.

;)

[iverglas]

51. that

was what I said, of course.

:hi:

[FarrenH]

53. whoops

I'm tired. Mistook you for the preceding poster and thought he/she was talking about my pol. sci friend. Only on re-reading did I realise you were someone else talking about that poster.

[pipoman]

54. Well now, lets have a closer look shallwe?

Huh, I'll be darned, look at this...not only is the subject of the article a Panamanian with no mention at all of gang membership, but

from your first link..

Authorities said in court documents that Barrera did not own a rocket launcher and had no plans to attack Metro.

Well, I guess there is always the second link, huh?

Oh, wait...yep, would ya' look at that...

He’s charged with 11 counts of misdemeanor firearms possession and one count of misdemeanor possession of ammunition.

Something isn't quite ringing true here since possession of a rocket launcher is a federal offense and this guy was not even charged with a state felony, really?...I'll wait and see...

The point remains, why do we not hear about any people using these massively abundant rocket launchers? Not a single incident of any gang member (or anyone else) committing a crime with one...really, did you even bother to read your own links?

[iverglas]

58. just to add

The department’s Organized Crime Division confiscated the launcher and 13 other weapons after executing several search warrants on the West Side.

You weren't actually intending, by cherry-picking your quotations the way you did, to, like, misrepresent the situation, were you?

Did you actually think that the person charged with the misdemeanour counts - no explanation having yet been given for the charges being misdemeanours, in any event - was the one found in possession of the rocket launcher?

If so, you may need to try this too:

[pipoman]

60. Of coarse

it must be true..no other reference in any other story I can find. Nobody was charged for having this thermonuclear shoulder fired ICBM?...pardon my skepticism..

[pipoman]

55. Didn't bother to click the links, huh?

You are slipping in your absence..

[iverglas]

57. I most definitely did, and I did it immediately

Still got this one open in another tab, as a matter of fact, and had planned to bring this on back here, so I'll just do that now. With my emphasis.

http://www.streetgangs.com/news/021310_chicago_weapons_seized

A spokesperson from News Affairs could not say why the State’s Attorney’s Office approved misdemeanor as opposed to felony charges. If Tatum is not a convicted felon and has a valid FOID card, that may be two reasons the charges aren’t upgraded.

... Another warrant executed at a different location turned up 3 additional weapons, including the LAW Rocket. LAW stands for light anti-tank weapon and it’s a one-shot only weapon, according to a CPD press release.

I think that kinda answers the drivel I saw earlier.

[FarrenH]

32. And the point being made here

which I think is being missed, is this:

In a perfectly harmonious Utopia, where everyone is a pacifist and wouldn't dream of hurting each other, you could have nuclear bombs lying around the place and no one would get killed. Clearly the primary driver of murder and assault is the aggression humans have towards each other in that society, not the availability of weapons. Hence Switzerland's favourable violent crime stats when compared to the UK.

But given 2 societies with equal levels of murderous or injurious intent, the one with lots of guns in circulation will experience far more injury and death than the one with lots of sticks in circulation. Its simple logic.

[SteveM]

36. "Simple logic" always fits a hypothetical...

Please reference a society which has "equal levels of murderous or injurious intent" -- matching ours, I suppose -- and we can test the simplicity of your logic. I recall hundreds of thousands of Africans murdered recently -- with machetes, since guns were not common. Can you find this country and argue your logic?

[FarrenH]

44. I''m finding the responses here hilarious

The argument doesn't rest on empiricism so why the need for a comparable society in the real world? In fact finding real world examples would obscure the argument, since no two real world societies could possibly be equal in all other things. No, it rests on probability math.

(1) It is easier to kill with a gun than a knife.
(2) Someone who intends to kill is statistically more likely to succeed with a gun than a knife.
(3) Given two societies with the same population and the same proportion of the population intent on murder - the same everything else, in fact - but greater availability of guns in one of them, statistically more people will die in the latter society.

This is fairly obvious math, people.

Since this seems to be a common point of confusion in several of the responses, the issue is not that guns _cause_ more aggressive behaviour, its that guns _enable_ more fruitful aggression, and given any two less than ideal societies where absolutely everything else is perfectly equal, the greater availability of guns will make one society more dangerous than another. Fact.

Sure, one can argue that some of the fruits of that aggression will be people successfully _defending_ themselves against harm, but that will still mean more deaths. And its also true that in every industrialised democracy the number of guns in criminal hands is proportional to the number of guns in civilian hands (I exclude developing nations like my own here where rampant police corruption can equip criminals disproportionately to innocent civilians when the govt makes it hard to legally acquire guns, which is why, oddly enough, I support gun ownership in South Africa). This is skewed by areas that prohibit or severely restrict guns that have pourous borders and are adjacent to areas that don't (again, like my own country, which is a recipient of huge illegal caches of guns from the cold war in Africa). But it generally holds.

You can mitigate the above bias towards greater harm by improving social conditions to reduce murderous intent, encouraging better anger management as a cultural virtue, discouraging murderous intent through draconian laws or whatever, which is why some societies without freely available guns are more dangerous than some with guns, but you can't actually deny that the same society, stripped of its guns, will be as dangerous as it is with guns. That defies probability.

Footnote: I'm a analyst/dev and a lay student of both complex systems and formal logic. If someone wants me to whip up a cellular automata (and provide the source code for verification) to illustrate the above, it might be a fun few hours of my weekend to do so?

[hack89]

47. So it is your contention that America has reduced societal aggression?

In the past 20 years gun ownership has skyrocketed while violent crime (to include gun crime) has steadily decreased. What fundamental changes has America experienced that mitigated the additional deaths you think are inevitable?

What lessons does America's declining rate of violent crime teach the world?

[FarrenH]

48. I can only speculate

but the first thing that comes to mind is that generations of politicians running on "law and order" have made the state more draconian - and as Saudi Arabia and the old Soviet Union illustrate, increasingly draconian states suffer less of what is officially termed violent crime, even as the state itself arguably becomes more criminal in the sense of violating basic rights.

The second is the parallel appearance of decreasing sexism, racism and other such divisive, violence-inducting attitudes in the bulk of US society. Not clear on this one. On the one hand a large proportion of the right appears to have gone batshit insane, but on the other there seems to have been a geniune shift away from the aforementioned attitudes among the rest of the population.

Again, this is just speculation. It doesn't obviate the dictates of probability described above, which center on a society and the exact same society without guns - an argument that is immune from empirical comparisons between different countries (this latter kind of argument demands the parallel evaluation of an obscene number of variables and is always doomed to go round and round).

[hack89]

50. But in America we have the expansion of a civil right

is that the sign of a draconian government?

You say "state" - don't you mean "states"? There are 51 criminal justice systems in America - is it your contention that all are acting in concert to deter crime by repressing their citizens? Really? Even though many judges (and all politicians) are elected unlike the Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia?

[FarrenH]

52. That's not my "contention"

What I offered was idle speculation, having not given it serious thought beforehand. As you indicate, causes of violent crime in a country with the size, population and political and social complexity of the USA are multidimensional.

What I was attempting to clarify was that, in a generally free society, the availability of guns would always be a positive contributer to net harm due to statistical probability, even if its acknowledged that it does not in isolation cause harm. Kinda like plant nutrients in soil can be shown to always positively affect growth, even though they don't cause plants to spontaneously come into existence, nor ensure that plants will grow big and strong if other factors like sunlight and rain have an opposing influence.

[iverglas]

59. oh, do learn the lingo

If you're going to talk about things like rights, you really need to.

"The state" means something in the context of rights. What it does not mean is some minor secondary jurisdiction of any particular country in the world, including yours.


But in America we have the expansion of a civil right
is that the sign of a draconian government?

Hmm. If I call my lunch "dinosaur", does that make this the year umpty million BC?

[hack89]

61. What rights does the BOR protect other than civil rights? nt

[iverglas]

62. what colour is orange, true or false?

I'd say what the fuck you talkin about? but then I'd just have to read the answer ...

[hack89]

66. true nt

[pipoman]

56. This appears to be a bit more

analytical version of the demonstrably erroneous 'more guns = more crime' mantra so often heard here.

[GreenStormCloud]

63. You have a glaring error.

Sure, one can argue that some of the fruits of that aggression will be people successfully _defending_ themselves against harm, but that will still mean more deaths.

You are excluding almost all self-defense cases. You are only counting self-defense cases in which the bad guy is killed. You are omitting the cases in which the bad guy run away when he discovers that his intended victim is armed. There is no solid data on how often that happens. But that doesn't mean that you can ignore it.

[FarrenH]

68. I wouldn't say its a glaring error

but its a fair point you make. A kind of MAD principle at a personal level is what you're proposing. My answer would be the same can conceivably be posited for knives. And if we are to be fair we'd filter out the same agreed % for less effective weapons leaving the same risk difference for death for those cases where the deterrent is not enough to prevent conflict. i.e. More deaths with guns.

But I have to concede that the very fact that the potential outcome is more deadly might act as a greater deterrent. To resolve this, we would, in fact, need to turn to actual statistics. And all the data I've seen for firearm deaths in industrialised countries appear to say the same thing, which is neatly summed up by this para:


The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders or assailants may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998).


(source:http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html)

A google search of ".edu" and ".ac.*" (academic) sites for

firearm deaths suicide, homicide, accidental "self defense" (site:.edu OR site:.ac.*)

turns up studies that corroborate this over and over. Successful and deadly illegal shootings far outweigh legal shootings in countries where guns are legally available to the citizenry. I think its reasonable to infer they should be closer to a match if MAD was in play. One could argue that it is because an there are too FEW innocent citizens who carry, but again, the number of guns in criminal hands is generally proportional to the number of legally carried guns in industrialised nations with an effective police force, kind of obviating this.

So it appears the "personal MAD" principle does not significantly influence outcomes. Which means there is still a balance of probability that a society that effects and effectively enforces a total ban will be safer than a permissive one, all other things being equal

[GreenStormCloud]

71. Two problems with your reply.

Knives are not a level combat field. I am a senior citizen and would lose a knife fight to a young person.

Your second error is to rely upon the Kellerman study. It has been thoughly debunked many time on this website. Check out post 21 in this thread. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=259234#259266


Also, you may want to take a look at: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

[FarrenH]

76. Casting aside the knife issue

The issue of statistics is really what carries it. And the reason I provided a Google search string for academic sites with studies is so that you could browse the results and realise just how overwhelming the academic evidence is. Its not just the Kellerman study, which to be honest I'd never even heard of it was just top of the list. Its the same conclusion of many studies, over and over and over. My own impressions were originally formed by an academic I knew that studied this. Heres some precis of lots of other studies from the results on the first page (a link to the Harvard School of Public Health):

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html

---

40. Legality of reported self-defense gun use
We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.
Major findings: Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.
Publication: Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. "Gun Use in the United States: Results from Two National Surveys." Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267.

41. Hostile gun displays
Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use.
Major findings: Firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.
Publication: Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah. "The Relative Frequency of Offensive and Defensive Gun Use: Results of a National Survey." Violence and Victims. 2000; 15:257-27

44. Gun threats against and self-defense gun use by adolescents
We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17, which asked questions about gun threats against, and self-defense gun use by these young people.
Major Findings: These young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense, and most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents. Males, smokers, binge drinkers, those who threatened others and whose parents were less likely to know their whereabouts were more likely both to be threatened with a gun and to use a gun in self-defense.
Publication: Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. "Gun Threats Against and Self-Defense Gun Use by California Adolescents." Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2004; 158:395-400.

---

So no, the MAD principle does not appear to apply, which means the original argument stands: An effectively policed nation with legal gun ownership will, for the reasons given above, always be more dangerous than the same nation with a total prohibition, all other things being equal. Constantly comparing single variables from different countries, which strikes me as being 80% of the arguments here, is guaranteed to go in circles because it implicitly relies on so many unspoken intuitions. Analysing a country, at a point in time, to its hypothetical twin that excludes this one element, based on the known attributes of that element from the best research available, is a far more intelligent exercise.

[GreenStormCloud]

79. Please notice that I am doing a book review of Hemenway's book.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x303199

So far, Hemenway shows an astonishing ignorance about how guns actually work.

Many of the CDC and other so-called public health studies have been posted here before, and all have been debunked. BTW - In the CDC studies, shooting of "inteterminate intent" is their code for self-defense shootings. The CDC is less than honest.

[spin]

69. For most people a firearm is easier to use than a knife ...

however, a trained knife fighter is EXTREMELY dangerous and quite possibly more deadly than an individual armed with a handgun.

Top Ten reasons to consider Edged Weapons Training if you're a gun person:

1. There are many, and growing, countries, states, cities, and locations where you can't carry a gun. In the US this includes many schools, bars, airports, shopping centers, restaurants and even theatres. In addition to legally forbidden carry zones, many individual stores such as Costco, supermarkets, Denny's and hundreds of others are individually posting no carry signs.

2. 10% of gun attacks are disabling, 45% of knife attacks are disabling.

3. Considering training, stealth, access, clothing and other factors, a knife attack, especially if wearing a vest, can often be more effective faster than a gun defense.

4. 85% of gun attacks miss the intended target, 10% of knife attacks miss the intended target.

5. Knife proficiency is far easier to attain than gun proficiency.

6. Knife training and practice are cheap and simple, and knives cost a small percent of a gun plus ammo.

7. Knives and other weapons can still look much tamer to a gun-prejudiced jury than a gun, even though in many situations they are more dangerous and effective.

8. Small women, the elderly, the infirm, disabled, youth, etc. can be just as proficient as a combat hardened knife veteran with practice, even in situations where the disability or other limits would not permit firearm proficiency.

9. Accidental collateral damage to innocent bystanders or family members is much less likely with a knife than a gun. Guns are distance weapons, if you're in a scuffle or in-fight, attempting to shoot your gun creates exponential risk to bystanders.

10. Even a gun person can benefit by knowing how to defend against a knife attack, with or without a gun. If even the most heavily armed elite SWAT and SOCOM teams can be surprised with a knife attack, everyone can benefit from this course!
http://www.bladecombat.com/knifevsgun.html

[GreenStormCloud]

73. Interesting. I will need to look into that further. N/T

[GreenStormCloud]

43. Try comparing the US in 1994 against the US in 2009.

You would be comparing the same society, with mostly the same people. However, the 2009 has a much lower crime rate and about 100 million more guns privately owned. So lots more guns has not resulting in more injury. Your simple logic failed.

[FarrenH]

45. Answered here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=302953&mesg_id=303243

[GreenStormCloud]

64. Your error pointed out here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=302953&mesg_id=303373

[GreenStormCloud]

65. BTW - Your answer was to dodge my assertion.

The fact is that the US has 100,000,000 new guns among the public and our crime rate is markedly reduced, including our murder rate. Your totally ignore that fact. I suppose that it isn't convenient to your thesis.

[FarrenH]

70. Not at all

And in claiming so you show a lack of understanding of the answer. The argument is from known properties of guns and probability math that would apply to _any_ country. It doesn't rely on the history of any particular country or period since it shows the statistical _contribution_ of firearms to any imperfect situation must be positive (in the sense of causing more death). IOW, any number of other variables can also influence the outcome in other ways, without obviating the positive effect of firearm availability on fatalities.

Put another very simple way, given a set (1,x,y,z,...) we know that the first element ALWAYS increases the total of any sum, even though the total of all elements added may vary up and down significantly based on the other elements in the set. If we had one such set for every year and the first element was ALWAYS positive, we could say the first element always contributes positively, though the total may decline for any number of years. And my argument speaks to why this element is always a positive contributer. It does not claim that element alone will ensure a higher total, just that it always increases the total (of, in this case fatalities). There is no onus, therefore, for me to account for your numbers.

[GreenStormCloud]

72. You provide no evidence for your claim.

we know that the first element ALWAYS increases the total of any sum,

No, you don't know that. That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And the fact remains that the number of guns in the populace has increaced greatly while crime has gone down. Further, violent crime in the US, except for murder, is much lower than in other industrialized countries. Especially our rate of burglary of occupied dwellings is way lower. Criminals here have good reason to fear their victims, and they have to be very careful in victim selection.

BTW - You are assuming that the guns/crime curve is linear, or that the slope is always positive. Instead the slope may change from positive to negative. Inother words, the curve may be shaped like a hill, with a peak and then a falling curve.

[pipoman]

67. OK

I reread this response. I don't disagree with this. It is so. Would I be right then to assume that you are merely stating this as a point of fact and are not intending to build some sort of case or to justify your belief that more gun regulations are warranted?

[FarrenH]

74. The case I would build out of this

is that it is a compelling consideration in support of the banning of legal firearm ownership, but not the only consideration. I'll use my own country as an example.

I live in Johannesburg, South Africa, which has among the highest crime statistics in the world. There are a number of contributors to this, one being that we have among the highest GINI coefficients in the world and are among the worlds 20 largest economies. Which means if you came to my fair neighbourhood you'd find a green leafy suburb, with affordable high-speed internet and hundreds of channels on sat TV, upwards of 50 fast food joints within 2 km of me, probably about 20 malls, 24-hour shops et al in the same radius. And this is one of many such neighbourhoods around here. Drive 10km down the ring road highway system, however, and you'd be in the midst of a slum that looks like a Bangladeshi shanty-town in minature. SA is a country starkly divided between the rich and poor, the highly educated and the functionally illiterate and the contrast causes massive social upheaval.

But another reason for crime is that our police force is hopelessly corrupt and inept. Our former head of police is on trial right now for intimate involvement with organised crime. An well-intentioned effort to make government services more representative of the countries demographics post-Apartheid has resulted in entire police stations in some areas where most of the police officers are functionally illiterate and some are supporting large families, many of whom are otherwise out of work. Almost every time I am stopped for a minor traffic offense I am asked for a bribe. As an aside one consequence is that private security firms do a roaring trade here. A recent study of firearms used in crimes (which they are frequently) estimated that roughly a third of them were police weapons acquired from corrupt police officials. On top of this, Africa is saturated with cold war weaponry provided by the US, China and the USSR who fought their proxy wars here for decades. And there is a constant massive influx of illegal immigrants from the rest of Africa. So everything from handguns to AK47s flow across our pourous border in large numbers.

At the same time, the government has embarked on an effort to severely curtail legal gun ownership. Coupled with a police force that only solves 1/10ths of all routine criminal cases and won't even open a docket for some petty crimes like cellphone theft any more, the result is that it is extraordinarily easy to acquire a firearm, but extremely difficult to legally own one. Out where my parents stay in a semi-rural area, people with any wealth simply operate on the assumption that they will receive no effective protection against criminals from the government at all, and see personal security as their own responsibility. Which is why they will jump through two years of beauracratic hurdles to legally own a firearm.

I strongly supported a total ban for years, but came to the realisation that in some places in my country, that's like being unarmed in a war zone.

Clearly, there's a distinction between a developing nation such as my own, with such weak state protection, and most western European states as well as the USA and Canada. As I pointed out, the number of firearms in criminal hands is usually proportional to the number of legal firearms in countries where there is effective law enforcement. In SA, a total ban wouldn't even make a dent in the number of illegal firearms in circulation and everyone would be considerably less safe, because the police just aren't effective at taking illegal firearms out of circulation. In contrast, when the UK introduced a ban on legally owned handguns in 1997, they took large numbers of guns out of circulation.

I offer this as an illustration of how other considerations should come into play, such as the contemporary state of a country, when contemplating legal ownership. Thus, as i said above, my precding argument "is that it is a compelling consideration in support of the banning of legal firearm ownership, but not the only consideration." and is certainly more compelling for developed nations.

[pipoman]

75. Very interesting

I am guessing by your use of language either you are a transplanted US American or was educated here?

The system for outlawing anything, but more importantly imposing restrictions on Constitutionally enumerated rights, isn't weather or not that action, activity, or item is dangerous, or weather there is risk....thank dog..I like to swim, many like to ride motorcycles, race cars, snow ski, sky dive, ride ATVs, hunt rattle snakes, and a million other dangerous activities. Any actuary could determine risk on any activity and a lot of activities which are currently legal would be banned before we got to firearm ownership.

[FarrenH]

77. I'm a white South African who grew up under Apartheid

and I have to say bitterly opposed it. We did have very decent education here. If you're wondering why I post on DU my keen interest in American politics began when Apartheid collapsed and a whole flood of American peace-corps types, hippies, students on break, political and business advisors and others of similar hues flooded my bohemian, (previously illegally) multicultural suburb because it offered a bohemian vibe and lots of cheap lodging in the heart of Johannesburg. It was there I befriended a huge number of Americans including one who radically adjusted my understanding of America. I used to think Reagan was a "nice seeming guy" until I met Mike, a Pol Sci post grad doing a thesis on the Rise of Afrikaans Banking in Apartheid SA. A black, American, Taoist, Aikido practitioner with a brain the size of a planet who speaks fluent Afrikaans (along with two or three European languages) makes quite an impression. I mean, politics was my buzz before that but more local stuff. And Mike is the kind of guy who could and did impart a very rich, detailed and nuanced account of American society and recent history from a left-liberal academic viewpoint, very articulately.

DU isn't the only board I post on and American politics isn't the only politics I'm intrerested in but given Reagan's secret cooperation with the Apartheid state, support from more extreme elements of the US right wing and meddling that persists to this day (just a month or three back Hillary was over here trying to convince a polite but unconvinced SA govt to allow US bases on our soil), I've come to realise what happens there affects us here in significant ways. That, and the fact that there are half a dozen Americans I count as close friends and still keep in touch with on the 'net although they've left for the US and other places.

My feeling is yes, you have to respect your own constitution but realise that while remarkable for its time and a template for the constitutions of many newer democracies such as our own, its also anachronistic and some aspects were more suited to another time. Were your government not so bitterly divided along partisan lines I'd say a little constitutional adjustment might be in order, but thats another debate. I hate to sound smug but ours is better, precisely because it was drafted with the assistance of European, American and Canadian legal scholars and updates some of the concepts embodied in your own as well as adding a few (like constitutional protection for reproductive choices for women and constitutional protection of sexual preference, making discrimination against homosexuals impossible, at least constitutionally).

What I will say is that I've noticed that the reverence with which many Americans appear to regard their constitution, while a useful garantor that future generations will continue to protect and respect it, sometimes seems to translate into a sense that it is somehow the embodiment of good sense, rather than simply a still largely sensible social contract. And I think thats a subconscious element in the thinking of many Americans around gun rights that isn't really rational. IOW, behind all the impassioned arguments that carrying deadly weeapons is somehow an essential ingredient of a nation that wants to preserve life and liberty in perpetuity is this additional reverence that is not really a rational argument but bolsters the feeling of rightness of the rational arguments being made.

Whereas what I've tried to argue here is that no, the question of whether the right to legally bear firearms is sensible or not at any point in a society's evolution is really entirely contingent on circumstance. And at some point in a society's hopeful progression towards a more and more egalitarian utopia it becomes a net negative. Its good to be aware of that and what its parameters are so that when that point is reached, the dialog around the issue isn't seen as closed and isn't still at the level of talking about it like Pentacostals talking about one of the ten commandments.

[pipoman]

78. I appreciate your history

First, I would say I find it odd that someone whose continent's poorest, most helpless inhabitants have been ruthlessly murdered at the edge of a knife, and various other methods including guns, only for their own inability to fight back, would think it a good idea to disarm the population.

You may be a more refined human, let's face it, not all humans are operating on your optimistic plan to a "more egalitarian utopia". They will kill you for being in the wrong place at the wrong time or because you are a good, helpless, victim with something of value.

Back to a point in a previous post of yours, you mention something about not needing a gun for self defense in countries with less corruption. I contend that there is less corruption very much because of the US long history of public ownership of arms.

Last, please tell me a time in the history of the world that it worked out well, long term, for the population to be disarmed?

[SteveM]

35. Parks and wildlife has announced the Silly Season is open. No limits...

Full-autos are already legal to own, as you have no doubt read in the responses. Can you count up the number of deaths resulting from full-auto crimes? I bet it is single integer, and certainly less than one week of "CSI: Miami" episodes.

The Second Amendment debate centered on arms as weapons designed to be held in one or both arms and firing a projectile; light weaponry, in other words. THIS is what is protected by 2A to this day. Your rocket launchers, tanks, jet fighters, howitzers, etc. can be owned, but are highly restricted as they are NOT considered to be "arms" as expressed in 2A. Note: some celebrities/wealthy personages own these big arms (Michael Dorn, who played Warf in "Star Trek: The Next Generation," owns a Korean War-era Sabre fighter, and flies it.)

There are already some 20,000 laws placing "limits" on firearms. I'm not sure what you mean by "logic end" with regards guns at knife fights.

[SteveM]

33. Evidently...

Since the mid-1990s the violent crime rate in the United States has dropped steadily and significantly.

Since the mid-1990s the number of firearms in Civilians hands has increased by more than 100,000,000.

Please square this with "...weapons that are vastly more effective at killing people more readily available in no way contributes to an increase in the number of deaths in a population."

Note: I did not make the assumption that "more guns = less crime." We already know that "more guns = more crime" is not proven.

[FarrenH]

34. For clarity

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=302953&mesg_id=303163

[SteveM]

42. Doesn't cut it. You are not engaging and your "logic" doesn't hold. nt

[FarrenH]

49. I am and it does

this isn't snark, I've tried to clearly address your post and others which are essentially similar here, I just don't want to type the same reply on multiple sub-threads (not the same link as my last post to you)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=302953&mesg_id=303243

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Let me wipe the straw out my eyes, first.

[hack89]

28. So you agree that gun availability is irrelevant

to violent crime rates? That there are other factors involved? That gun bans do not necessarily have positive effects on societies?

Because we hear all the time how violent America is and that gun bans are needed to reduce the carnage.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

3. Imagine how many more deaths there would be

if the Brit's had guns. Fuck, it could be as high as the US homicide rate which in 2004 was at 5.5 homicide victims per 100,000. In the UK the homicide rate is 1.49/100,000.

It's harder to kill someone with a pointy stick than it is with a gun I guess...who would have thought.

Edited for spelling.

[msongs]

4. imagine how many fewer deaths there were be if gun owners quit shooting people nt

[spin]

6. That might work if ALL gun owners quit shooting people ...

but if honest gun owners no longer had the ability to shoot aggressive criminals, there would be MORE deaths.

[high_and_mighty]

7. lol, that made me laugh

How many homicides are heat of the moment vs premeditated? Then break those down to those that involved a gun vs other means. If the numbers skew highly in favor of guns I would suppose that would suggest that having access to a gun could increase the the likelihood that someone that is unstable could kill someone when emotions run high. I would say thats the price of freedom just like the fourth amendment gets criminals out of jail sometimes.

Of course this is purely hypothetical for me.

[slackmaster]

12. Most of us never started shooting people, and never will

[SteveM]

37. Please tell the thugs of your "imagination." I haven't shot anyone in real life.

[armueller2001]

8. It's harder to defend yourself

from a beating or a pointy stick or a gun when all you have is a pointy stick.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

19. How about a bunch of fruit?

...a banana maybe?

[eqfan592]

13. LOL! wow, just wow.

When there's a high violent crime rate and there are guns available, it's "The guns are causing the high violent crime rate!" But when the guns are taken away and the violent crime rate shoots through the roof, it's "Think of how bad it would be if there were guns!"

MAJOR logic fail on your part.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

18. You're are talking about Americans right?

But I think the article was saying the Brits are more violent in general. A pissed off bloke can do more damage with a gun than a pointy stick. I don't think the violence in Britain takes place when a robbery is necessarily being committed but when people are just violently pissed off with each other. Why do you want guns introduced the general population of Britain? Maybe you being such a clever dick n all you could give me a logical answer to that one.
For the record; I have a shotgun and a pistol. :smoke:

[eqfan592]

21. Actually, I think the point of the article isn't that Brits are more violent in general...

...but rather that everything they have done so far has had little to no effect on reducing crime, and in fact the problem has actually gotten worse.

The root causes of crime tend to be poor education and poverty. Dealing with those two factors is the way to fight crime in the long term. Firearms restrictions do very little to prevent criminals from being successful, and only serve to disarm those they abuse.

More damage with a gun than a pointy stick? That's cold comfort to the person who had the pointy stick rammed through their back as they were trying to flee from the attacker. A firearm is a great evener of odds for any would be victim, pure and simple.

Gun control has failed Britain, and has left it's people virtually defenseless, while the root causes of the crime that runs rampant in their nation continue to go unchecked, because it's easier to pass restrictions on implements than it is to fight the root causes.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

25. Maybe you being such a clever dick could show us where he said he wanted to arm people in Britain.

[SteveM]

38. More problems...

"Why do you want guns introduced the general population of Britain?"

Introduced? Before the turn of the 20th Century, Brits needed no introduction to guns. They had plenty, and the crime rate was low. It was gun PROHIBITION that was introduced to the British.

Don't just "think the violence (occurs) when people are just violently pissed off with each other." Find out more about "gun crime" and you will discover that most offenders are REPEAT FELONS with violent criminal pasts, not some everyday person who "snapped."

Britain should never have disarmed its citizenry; it will have no effect on violent crime. The argument that introduction of guns will make it worse (false) is the same kind of argument War on Drugs, LLC, supporters use when someone suggests legalizing drugs.

[Euromutt]

20. We can imagine, but going by statistics might be a better way to go

About 1/3 of homicides in the U.S. are committed with means other than a firearm; that means that even if prevalence of firearms in the U.S. were roughly equal to that in the UK, and even assuming that every U.S. firearm homicide would not have occurred using a different means, the U.S. homicide rate would still be higher than the UK's (and by extension, those of France, Germany, Spain and Italy).

There is, to put it bluntly, a stronger tendency towards homicide in the American psychological makeup than there is in that of the UK or the rest of western Europe. It's not like the British don't shoot (or knife) each other, but they generally do so without intent to kill; even though the UK homicide rate has declined slightly in the past five or six years, from 2000 to 2008, the number of nonfatal shootings almost tripled and nonfatal stabbings doubled. Carpet ("Stanley") knives have been a popular weapon among British (and Dutch) football hooligans for decades because the short blade allows the wielder to slash an opponent with little risk of causing a permanent or fatal injury.

In short, Europeans kill each other less than Americans do not because Europeans don't have the means, but because they don't have the desire.

[rfranklin]

10. No, it means fewer people shot...

but perhaps gun ownership is unrelated to either causing or preventing crime. There are cities in the U.S. which allow virtually everyone to have a gun yet they have higher crime rates than others that restrict gun ownership. For instance, violent crime in Memphis, TN is about three times that of New York City.

[backwoodsbob]

16. our neighboring town of Tazewell had a murder this year

first one in twenty some years.town of about 15,000.

funny thing is EVERYONE here owns guns.

so how is more guns=more death applied again?

[SteveM]

39. Then there is Vermont. Huge crime rate. nt

[damntexdem]

11. Then it's a good thing they have fewer guns, isn't it?

It would be really bad if more of them were using firearms.

And don't even talk about what soccer matches would be like if the fans had guns -- or the players, for that matter.

[eqfan592]

14. Same exact logic fail as a previous poster. (nt)

[Euromutt]

17. Slightly off-topic, but typical Daily Fail quoting the Tory party there

The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence.

What the Tories did not say--and what the Mail predictably chose not to point out--is that the upward trend in violent crime started well before 1997, and was already a matter of concern while John Major was prime minister, though it probably started under Thatcher. It would be more accurate (and certainly more honest) to say that both the Conservatives and Labour presided over two decades of spiralling violence. The problem both parties have is that, when you're into your second term in office (let alone your third), it's a little unconvincing to keep blaming things on the previous government (not that that ever stopped Thatcher from doing so).

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Euromutt]

23. Nonfatal violent crime runs quite a gamut of possibilities

It runs from being punched in the face to being nonfatally knifed, shot or raped. There's a fair amount of the first two in the UK, and as I argued elsewhere in the thread, the primary reason the British don't murder each other as often as Americans is not because they don't have the means, but because they don't have the desire.

And given that even in the U.S., nonfatal violent crimes occur about 100 times as often as homicides, your chances of becoming a victim of any violent crime really are markedly higher in the UK. And if you make the mistake of defending yourself a little too forcefully, you stand a good chance of receiving a more severe punishment than your assailant. Yippee.

[proteus_lives]

27. Hmm, Brits are hot-tempered lot.

Not the genteel tea-drinkers that the movies would have us believe. :rofl:

[Bob2bob]

29. Lies, damn lies and Tory crime statistics.

Lies, damn lies and Tory crime statistics.

Shadow Home Secretary is accused of using figures 'likely to mislead the public'

By Andy McSmith
Friday, 5 February 2010

"Mr Grayling's office arranged for a press release to go out in every constituency in England and Wales, purporting to show that violent crime had risen sharply under Labour, as part of a campaign spearheaded by Mr Cameron about "broken Britain". But Mr Grayling had failed to take into account a more rigorous system for recording crime figures introduced by the Home Office in 2002. Instead of leaving it to the discretion of desk sergeants whether an incident should be recorded as a violent crime, police have been told they must always make a record of every complaint. As a result, official figures for violent crime leapt by more than a third in one year."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lies-damn-lies-and-tory-crime-statistics-1889927.html

[iverglas]

40. and the Daily Mail!!!!!

And our charming colleagues here in the Guns forum, who, year in and year out, day in and day out, post these completely specious "comparisons" of crime statistics in countries whose classification of crimes are not remotely comparable ...

Did you know that Canada's rape rate is waaaay higher than in the US? Only problem is, there has been no such crime as "rape" in Canada for many years now ...

Then there's common assault, yer basic no-injury, minor assault, which is included in "violent crime" stats in both Canada and England/Wales ... but not in the US ...

They're amusing, these folks, aren't they?