We do not need increased gun control...

[Earth_First]

If by all accounts what I am reading is half true; what this young man needed was access to mental health screening and proper medical/health insurance to properly diagnose and treat his disability.

However, this will NOT focus on the issues that may have helped prevent this unfortunate circumstance to the downfall of proper medical treatment in this country.

What we WILL get out of all of this is alot of rage towards firearms and the need to further regulate the firearms debate...

I for one, sympathize with the young man only from a standpoint where this tragedy may have been averted if he perhaps had access to medical professionals who could possibly control the mental disabilities he has suffered.

I'll hang up and take your responses off the air...

[Warren Stupidity]

1. AZ one of three states that permit concealed carry without a permit

yes we do need more gun control.

[SPedigrees]

4. You'd better take my state into account while rethinking

your theory. Vermont is one of those three states. Moreover we've never had a law prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. Never. We have a very large per capita gun ownership. Yet we have one of the lowest rates of violent crime in the nation. What we do not have here are many persons stupid enough to listen to RW hate radio or politicians who foment hatred and advocate violence against our neighbors.

What is needed is to clamp down on hate speech. There are laws on the books against it that badly need to be enforced.

[RegieRocker]

8. Agreed

[Little Star]

Bingo.

[Kingofalldems]

5. Absolutely

[Statistical]

16. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

AZ has laws against murder, brandishing a firearm, attempted murder, and battery but the suspect violated all those too.

Do you honestly think if AZ had a prohibition on carry he would have somehow not committed the crime? Really?

One of the men who subdued him was legally carrying. He didn't draw and fire because the suspect was on the ground when he arrived. Instead he sat on the guy and held the gun down. However if the suspect hadn't been restrained it would have meant that at least one law abiding person also had a firearm on the scene.

[blueamy66]

58. BUT the man that subdued him didn't need to use his gun

cause others had already taken care of the situation WITHOUT guns.

????

[Statistical]

94. After 15 people were shot.

Drawing conclusions from a single event is somewhat silly.

There have been incidents where CCW holders lawfully used lethal force to defend their fellow citizens.

This guy wasn't in the right place or time. Maybe if someone else closer had concealed weapon they could have reduced the body count. I doubt anyone even trained security could have stopped the initial attack however ending the attack earlier could have saved lives.

[Warren Stupidity]

105. woman, the 61 year old unarmed woman.

[spin]

20. Criminals often carry firearms without a permit ...

Why do you think that changing the law would have stopped this shooter.

First, it doesn't look like anybody noticed or cared that he was waving red flags indicating that he had a severe mental problem. His name never made it on the NICS background list as a prohibited person. It's quite possible that the state would have granted him a concealed carry permit as they probably would have had no indication that he was mentally unstable.

Second, assume that you could change Arizona law and totally eliminate all methods of carrying a firearm in public unless you were a police officer on duty. Why would you think that it would stop someone planning to murder a number of people from carrying a firearm to the massacre? He is planning to commit murder, an action that is highly illegal and will subject him to far more serious punishment than being caught carrying a concealed weapon.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. Please name a shall issue state where if you qualified to purchase you would not have

qualified for the CCW permit?

Why do you think he would have obeyed the law if he did not have a CCW?

[cleanhippie]

42. You have failed to support your assertion with "why".

WHY do we need more gun control? What data, facts or evidence supports your assertion that more gun control would have prevented this or any other shooting?

WHAT KIND of gun control would you consider to be appropriate? How would you implement it?

[blondeatlast]

56. Even a gun fan acquaintance had a hissy over the repeal of the CCW permit

requirement.

[blueamy66]

93. i live here

and I agree with you wholeheartely

[madokie]

96. That has to be one of the most uninformed statements I've read here today

Criminals don't care about laws, never have and never will

[Warren Stupidity]

104. seriously?

You think as a society we are better off with unrestricted concealed carry?

[madokie]

106. I don't see it as a problem

I'm not a gun owner by choice but I don't push my desires off on to others who feel a need to own firearms. Recently we've had a couple home invasions where the homeowner was able to save himself and his family because he had access to a firearm and used it. One of the perpetrators died on the spot the other is still in the intensive care awaiting a jail cell.
To answer your question YES.

[LisaL]

2. We don't?

Why? Because politicians who support it don't get elected?
Give me a break.

[cleanhippie]

43. No, we don't.

But you seem to think we do, so I have a few questions for you.


WHY do we need more gun control? What data, facts or evidence supports your assertion that more gun control would have prevented this or any other shooting?

WHAT KIND of gun control would you consider to be appropriate? How would you implement it?

[dkf]

3. What we need is better ways to screen for mental illness prior to getting a gun.

[spin]

22. The guy was waving red flags ...

nobody in law enforcement put his name on the NICS list of people prohibited from buying firearms.

[AlinPA]

77. It wouldn't do any good at all, there are so many guns available that anyone can get one

anytime they want. Nothing seems to work.

[sharesunited]

6. Fewer guns and less ammo. Make them scarce.

Screening is useless. Any gun owner is capable of slipping a gear.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. I am sure you can examples of where you have slipped a tooth or two

[spin]

27. In case anyone agrees with you , they need to read this ...

1) There are 300 million firearms in the United States.

2) With reasonable care, a firearm will function for several lifetimes. I own firearms that my step father owned, my grandchildren will inherit these firearms as well as mine and pass them along to their children.

3) Ammunition with proper care will also last indefinitely. Moisture and severe temperature extremes can damage ammunition.

So even if you stopped the manufacture of all firearms and ammunition today and totally secured the border to prevent gun smuggling into the United States, there would be plenty of guns and ammo 100 years from now.

You could, of course, attempt to ban and confiscate firearms. Even if you could convince the army to sweep through neighborhoods and search homes and gather up all firearms, people would bury their firearms and ammo in PVC pipes packed with Cosmoline.

[sharesunited]

28. Analogy: Stopping the production of child porn while leaving existing images alone?

Why go after existing images when people will just save their favorite ones to CDs and bury them?

[cleanhippie]

44. Wow, that sure is a giant strawman you just put up.

Have fun knocking that down.

[DCKit]

47. What is it with you and kiddy porn? Really? nt

[sharesunited]

49. It is the perfect public policy example of how we define potential for harm and what we do about it.

[DCKit]

53. It's a false equivalency. Please find another. nt

[sharesunited]

55. Yet what I hear you saying is you wish it weren't so witheringly apt and relevant.

[DCKit]

57. Yes. All "false equivalencies" are also "witheringly apt and relevant".

You need to send a sample of your writing to the MSM. There's a whole new world just waiting to hear what you have to say.

Alternatively, you could become a speechwriter.

[niceypoo]

29. You agree with them

You are making their case for them. You are saying the US is already hopelessly flooded with weapons and ammo, thus you make the strongest case for banning the sale of same.

[spin]

50. Which would accomplish absolutely nothing ...

as I've pointed out there's plenty of weapons and ammo to last several lifetimes.

Stopping the sales would also cause guns to be smuggled into our country. Since these firearms would be illegal many would be fully automatic and be very inexpensive.

The solution would be worse than the problem.

[Demeter]

7. You cannot force people into mental health care

believe me, I've got family members who need it because they are hazards to themselves (not others), but because they aren't sufficiently incompetent, there's no way to get it for them if they refuse.

It takes an atrocity like this to get the attention of the courts, who ultimately can require intervention....just too late to prevent tragedy.

[Demeter]

9. dupe self- deleted

[geckosfeet]

10. We DO need better access to health care - especially mental health care.

But we also desperately need firearms regulation that makes sense and works.

NYC gun laws make no sense for a Montana cattle farm. The fact that a person with such severely impaired judgment had easy access is also troubling.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Shagbark Hickory]

12. You're right. Controlling guns is useless. Time for an all out ban. nt

[Upton]

17. Millions of good law abiding Democrats own guns

I think they'd disagree with you, but don't let that get in the way of your fantasy..

[Shagbark Hickory]

39. And millions of law breakers own them as well nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. What other constitutional rights, freedoms, and liberties do you oppose?

[Shagbark Hickory]

40. When the constitution was drafted, I don't think "arms" that kill 6 people in 6 seconds are what our

forefathers had in mind.

[beevul]

59. Speech didn't mean internet iether.

Or TV.


When the bill of rights was drafted, it protected PRINCIPLES and CONCEPTS. Not any particular thing which met or didn't meet a set of contrived standards.


Consider how others would use your principle to limit freedoms which they disagree with.

[Shagbark Hickory]

90. Agreed though.

oops.

[Dappleganger]

99. They would probably didn't think of iPads, either.

[spin]

30. O.K. are you willing to volunteer to help gather up all the weapons?

You could just pass a law saying that everyone should turn in their firearms and some would but many people would refuse. Someone would have to go door to door and search homes to find weapons.

I know the local police in my area wouldn't be much help as they believe in RKBA. You might be able to get the army or national guard to do the job but don't count on it. Even the law might prove tricky if you decided to use the military for law enforcement.

A good number of people would be willing to fight to preserve their "rights". You could easily ferment a revolution. While you may believe that our military could easy handle such a revolution, may I remind you of how successful we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our country has spent billions of dollars training people with skills that makes us the best fighting force in the world. Many of those soldiers are now civilians and own firearms. These ex-soldiers would be a formidable guerrilla force, quite capable of bringing our economy to its knees.

[Shagbark Hickory]

41. Cash for guns.

It's an ideal time for such a program.

[spin]

48. O.K. Give me $10,000 for every handgun I own ...

and I will think about giving all of them to you. (I'll probably only hide five or six, (a .22 cal semi auto, a .38 snub nosed revolver, a .357 magnum revolver, a Colt .45 auto, a 12 gauge coach gun, and a 6.5 X 55 Mauser.)

How's that sound.

[Shagbark Hickory]

92. Thats a little steep.

Such a program could offer a few hundred dollars per gun.

[cleanhippie]

45. Perhaps we should ban free speech, too. It seems that speech was the catalyst for this shooting...

why stop with guns? Lets ban speech too. And maybe dissent. Lets make voters be qualified to vote. Lets make warrants for searching a suspect a thing of the past....


Did I miss any? What other rights would you ban?

[Kingofalldems]

13. I disagree but I will add that most RW gun fanciers would call your

proposal for access to mental health--- communism.

[fascisthunter]

15. funny how we are able to own and carry guns for security

yet we are unable to take care of each other when the chips are down, huh?

[CJCRANE]

14. What about increased 'mouth control'

by certain RW pundits and pols...maybe they should think before they open it.

[Statistical]

18. +1. n/t

[hack89]

51. The First amendment does need to be revised

how else do you stop unpopular speech?

[CJCRANE]

62. There needs to be greater pushback from the silent majority.

Freedom of speech works both ways...everyone else has the right to tell the blowhards to shove it.

They need to be named and shamed by as many people as possible.

Not exactly the same thing, but remember how Jon Stewart and Shep Smith shamed the Repubs into voting for the 9/11 First Responders bill.

The RW aren't used to people standing up to their BS. Maybe it's time for them to get used to it.

[sixmile]

19. I like Chris Rock's idea: Bullet Control

From his act:
"Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, we wouldn't have any innocent bystanders."

[spin]

31. I like his idea too ... I can make bullets.

I can pump out 200 to 250 rounds per hour and sell them for $1000 per round. I can be RICH in eight hours!!!

Of course, those damn drug smugglers who can bring tons and tons of marijuana across our border might find ammunition a lucrative product and undercut me.

[affrayer]

21. We Don't Need Gun Control!

What we need is "right winger" control.

Guns Don't Kill People, Right Wingers Do!

[FormerDittoHead]

23. Hey! Maybe we can we get mandatory "mental health screening" for ALL REPUBLICANS!

Although I think they would resist what would otherwise be better for them, the country and the world..

[spin]

33. I foresee Homeland Security requiring every American to undergo ...

a mental health exam. Of course you will have to undergo a porno body scan AND an x-rated body pat down as you enter the testing building.

Big Sis will solve the problem!

[B Calm]

32. When you sit down and think about it, the right to own a gun is a very liberal idea!

[spin]

36. The strange part is that liberals don't understand this ...

Power to the People!

[TheKentuckian]

38. Of course it is. Pretty strong liberty there.

[divvy]

34. did you bump your head?

From my point of view, anyone who feels that they need to carry a weapon in public in order to feel "safe" is suffering from some form of mental illness.

[spin]

46. Well I guess I must be mentally ill as I have a carry permit and carry ...

That's strange because I have never had any problems with the law or the authorities except for three traffic tickets in the 64 years I have been on this planet. Of course, if I would have had problems with the law I wouldn't have been able to obtain the permit.

I would have thought that my mental problem would have been noticed by now but it seems that it hasn't manifested itself enough to warrant any attention.

Strangely enough I had a government security clearance for 40 years. Many of my co-workers also had a government clearance and a concealed weapons permit. I guess we are all nuts and the government background checks failed to catch that fact.

But maybe as I reread your post I've figured it all out. You say, "From my point of view, anyone who feels that they need to carry a weapon in public in order to feel "safe" is suffering from some form of mental illness."

I don't really carry my firearm in order to feel safe. I carry it because I like to be prepared for any emergency if possible. It's like the fire extinguisher in the room where I am typing and the fire alarm on the wall or the emergency medical kit in the bathroom. I don't fear a fire is going to breakout anytime in the near future, but if it does I may be able to put it our before it destroys my home. I don't fear a medical emergency, but last weekend a teenager stopped by with a bad cut on his hand. My daughter and her husband who have medical training patched him up using the medical kit and saved a trip to the emergency ward.

If I actually did carry a firearm because I needed it to feel safe, I probably would have a mental problem just as if I laid in bed at night with a fire extinguisher beside me worried about a fire.

[Lucian]

61. +1

[Fla_Democrat]

88. Tell me Dr., is my hat on straight?

:smoke:

[Motown_Johnny]

35. Yes, we do need more gun control

This guy never should have had access to such a deadly weapon.


Gun control includes the background checks and need to license firearms as well as limiting things like the 30 round magazine this guy used (he was stopped when he ran out and needed to reload).


Stricter gun control would have saves some lives here, maybe even the little girl.

[TBF]

37. If this guy was in bad enough shape to be rejected by the Army,

why on earth should he be allowed to own firearms?

[hack89]

52. So the government decides what my "needs" are?

do you understand the purpose of the Bill of Rights?

[Motown_Johnny]

102. Yes, do you understand it's limitations?

[beevul]

63. Actually no we dont.

"need to license firearms as well as limiting things like the 30 round magazine this guy used (he was stopped when he ran out and needed to reload)."

See poll tax, on licensing a right.

Second, the spring in the magazing the shooterwas using broke. The shooter did NOT run out of ammunition.


"Stricter gun control would have saves some lives here, maybe even the little girl."

Ahh, another person that thinks that someone bent on murdering illegally, would be stopped by the illegality of a gun, and therefore wouldnt have it illegally to murder with.


Ok. Lets test it.

Lets select Chicago, circa 2000, where handguns were illegal.

How many times (years) was Chicago the murder capitol of America while the handgun ban was in effect?


There is no proof that gun control would have saved any lives.

You are of course free to believe what you believe...in spite of it.

[Motown_Johnny]

103. No Proof That Gun Control Would Save Any Lives !?!?!?!??

Maybe you should go look at gun deaths and murders in countries where guns are more difficult to obtain.

You don't make any sense at all

[maxsolomon]

54. You're right - we need more Regulation of our Militia.

i want to see musket-loading exercises on the village green. i want every able-bodied male over 18 there every saturday morning marching up and down. i want no guns in the hands of women, as only males over 18 are part of the militia that is neccessary to the security of a free state. having your own personal armory should come with responsibilities to your community. and hell, whatever happened to Armories, anyway?

what drives gun sales and gun ownership in America? not an altruistic concern for the security of the nation. FEAR drives gun sales - why else did they skyrocket when Obama took office? because gun absolutists were afraid of the Black Socialist so they thought they'd better hoard.

[Lucian]

60. Yes we do need increased gun control.

I read that the shooter legally owned his gun. If there was increased gun control, he wouldn't have had access to that gun as easily.

They should give mental health tests before allowing someone to own a gun.

[spin]

65. Should they give a mental health test before allowing a person to vote ...

or to exercise free speech or to drive a car?

How do you determine sanity by a test? Who would write this test and who would administer it? How much would this test cost?

How effective would this test be? Do you think a criminal with a record of violence would take the test? Would the test stop a person who was insane from buying a firearm from a black market street corner vendor?

How about this. If a person is running around waving red flags that declare "I am a NUT!" the police make sure that his name ends up on the NICS background prohibited list. That way when he walks into a gun store and the clerk calls his name in, the voice at the other end of the line says "Rejected!"

[Lucian]

71. A person voting doesn't use something that can end a life.

It's always annoying to see the gun nuts come out after shit like this happens.

[spin]

79. A quick piece of advice ...

the term "gun nut" often results in your post being deleted since recent changes on DU. I personally have no problem with the term, but I don't make the rules.

You didn't answer my questions about who would write and administer the test?

Nor did you reply to my statement that the shooter showed obvious signs of mental problems and yet the state failed to report him to the NICS background check system which would have stopped his legal purchase of the firearm he used.

We were supposed to improve the NICS background check after the mentally unstable individual shot up Virginia Tech. Obviously we have a way to go on this issue. I suggest the both the pro and anti RKBA groups should work together to force both state and the federal government to make this background check more reliable.

[Lucian]

82. I call it like it is.

Gun nuts are gun nuts. If this gets deleted, so be it.

As far as administering the test, well it would be the government of course. Who do you go through to get a permit? Gee, I wonder...

[spin]

85. I predict a difficult time passing any such law ...

Few people would trust the government enough to vote for such a test and many would fear that it would be a requirement for all citizens to take the test every five years.

If you failed, you would probably be shipped off to Prudhoe Bay Alaska for some "reeducation".

Janet Napolitano would probably be all for the test. Of course the building it was given in would have the new body scanners and eager employees waiting to give you a intimate body pat down.

[Spider Jerusalem]

64. People keep saying that, for some reason.

"We don't NEED increased gun control!" While the murder rate in the US is 5.5 per 100,000 population. Note that in Western Europe it averages around one per 100,000 population; 1.28 per 100K in the UK, for instance. There are of course cultural differences, but ease of access to firearms plays a part as well. Here in the UK there's been one case in the past 15 years or so of someone going on a shooting spree; in the US it happens several times a year.

There is quite a lot of argument around this; the "pro-Second Amendment" argument focuses on supposed "original intent" and parsing the meaning of what's meant by "militia" and whether it IS "the people" or some subset thereof; this leaves to one side the entire question of how relevant "original intent" in the amendment is in a radically changed society more than two centuries on.

[spin]

66. The UK has a HIGHER violent crime rate than the U.S...

so it may be a good thing that guns are not commonly available in your nation. On the other hand, you might have a lower violent crime rate if guns were available.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
Last updated at 12:14 AM on 3rd July 2009

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. emphasis added

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

***snip***

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

* The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
* It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
* The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
* It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz1AZvizrmG

To top that off, you guys have been fudging your data to make yourselves look better.

Violent crime underestimated for 10 years

Police forces recorded offences of grievous bodily harm in lower category

By Ben Russell, Home Affairs Correspondent

Friday, 24 October 2008

Police have been under-recording the most serious violent crimes for up to a decade, the Home Office admitted, as figures revealed an apparent 22 per cent increase in incidents this year. Conservatives said the Government's claims to have cut crime were "fatally undermined" as reports of violent crimes from murders to grievous bodily harm leapt during the year to June, after officials discovered hundreds of incidents had been wrongly recorded by a string of police forces. As many as 13 forces had been recording offences of grievous bodily harm with intent in a lower category, when they should have been included in figures for the most serious offences.

The revelation overshadowed quarterly figures showing a 6 per cent fall in crime and led to warnings that the Home Office was failing to tackle violent and other crime.

Figures released yesterday show the number of the most serious violent crimes recorded in England and Wales apparently leapt to 5,500 between April and June, up from 4,500 during the same period last year. Some cases of knife crime also shot up because of the recording error. Incidents of grievous bodily harm with intent involving knives increased by 29 per cent to 1,616.

The Home Office said most of the increase in serious violent crimes was due to new guidance introduced to ensure they are properly recorded in crime statistics. It insisted the errors only related to the way crime was classified and did not affect the trends in violent and overall crime rates.

But the Conservatives went on the attack. Dominic Grieve, the shadow Home Secretary, said: "These figures fatally undermine government spin that violent crime was getting better and betray a government that is completely out of touch with what is going on in our streets and in our communities. Labour's target-driven approach has simply been to manipulate the statistics. They should now face up to the reality of their failure and realise that if you can't count a problem, you can't combat it. In any event, serious violent crime would still have increased before miscounting was revealed."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/violent-crime-underestimated-for-10-years-971489.html

In the United States our violent crime rate has been dropping for years.



This drop oddly enough coincides with the advent of shall issue concealed carry sweeping across our nation as well as castle doctrine, stand your ground, and take your gun to work laws. During this time frame the sale of firearms has climbed to record levels. It's hard to say that the drop in our violent crime rates was caused by more guns but it is obvious that the sale of more guns in our country DID NOT lead to an increase in our violent crime rate.



edited to add concealed carry map

[Spider Jerusalem]

67. You're citing a study by the Conservative party published in a right-wing paper.

About which there are serious questions, and which is inaccurate:

Crime figures are a bit of a mess - and they always have been. As Alan Travis has written, their "integrity has been regularly questioned since they were first introduced in 1857".

So using them for political purposes is a risky business - something which may be haunting shadow home secretary Chris Grayling today. The Conservatives have been accused in a BBC investigation of distributing misleading figures on violent crime.

Official figures sent out for campaigning purposes to Tory activists in constituencies throughout England and Wales appeared to show that there had been sharp increases in violence during Labour's time in office.

The lesson here is: ALWAYS READ THE NOTES. They're always in small type, they're irritating. But, you know, they're normally kind of important. Especially note 2 of the recorded crime statistics:

The National Crime Recording Standard was introduced in April 2002. Figures before and after that date are not directly comparable.

Even for civil service speak, that is pretty clear. The National Crime Recording Standard changed a crucial element of recorded crime: instead of police officers deciding whether an incident should be recorded as a violent crime, the decision was given to the alleged victim. It had the effect of forcing up recorded violence by an estimated 35% in the first year.

As the BBC pointed out this morning on the Today programme, the Tories might have been better off using the respected British Crime Survey, which records peoples' direct experiences of crime. That shows those experiences of violent crime have fallen by around 50% since 1995. But they don't include things like manslaughter, for instance.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/feb/03/conservatives-crime-figures

Nice try though.

[spin]

69. That's the typical cop out I always get from you Brits ...

I don't claim to be an expert on what news sources in the UK are liberal or conservative, I just Google "violent crime rate in the UK" and that's what comes up.

If the source is wrong, then simply produce your own sources to counter the article. Shouldn't be much of a problem. We can then debate whose sources are more truthful.

Note: the graph I showed dealing with the violent crime rate in the United States came from the Bureau of Justice Statistics at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/. The actual link is http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/cv2.cfm. (I forgot to include that info in my previous post.I went back and edited the post to show the source.

[Spider Jerusalem]

70. I just did; can't you read?

Citing a Tory study that was published in the Daily Mail is the same thing, essentially, as citing a Republican study that was broadcast on Fox News to prove a point. If you wouldn't do the latter...you shouldn't do the former.

Also, I'm an American; I happen to be living in the UK (my wife is British).

[spin]

78. I should avoid watching football while posting on DU ...

I didn't read all of your post. My bad.

My research shows that there is a problem with the accuracy of crime reporting in the UK. Any official published statistics can probably be taken with a grain of salt. Obviously the statistics were fudged to show the government was doing an excellent job and from comments I have read in several forums, many Brits feel crime is rising at an surprising rate. I understand that the economy may cause a cutback in your police force which will only aggravate the problem.

The more I search the internet, the more I believe that the UK needs an independent bureau to determine accurate crime statistics.

Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries
September 19, 2005

A UNITED Nations report has labelled Scotland the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America.

England and Wales recorded the second highest number of violent assaults while Northern Ireland recorded the fewest.

The study, based on telephone interviews with victims of crime in 21 countries, found that more than 2,000 Scots were attacked every week, almost ten times the official police figures. They include non-sexual crimes of violence and serious assaults.

***snip***

The study, by the UN’s crime research institute, found that 3 per cent of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2 per cent in America and just 0.1 per cent in Japan, 0.2 per cent in Italy and 0.8 per cent in Austria. In England and Wales the figure was 2.8 per cent.

Scotland was eighth for total crime, 13th for property crime, 12th for robbery and 14th for sexual assault. New Zealand had the most property crimes and sexual assaults, while Poland had the most robberies.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article568214.ece

Of course the UN survey was based on telephone calls which obviously are not reliable.

But then there is this:

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith apologises over knife crime figures
By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor 6:51PM GMT 15 Dec 2008

The Home Secretary was forced to apologise over the release of controversial knife crime figures after the statistics watchdog accused the Government of spin.

Both No 10 and the Home Office were severely criticised by Sir Michael Scholar, the head of the UK Statistics Authority, last week for pressurising officials compiling the figures.

In a damning letter, Sir Michael said the release of the data on stabbings was "premature, irregular and selective''.

In the Commons, Jacqui Smith admitted: "I am sorry that I think we were too quick off the mark with the publication of one number in relation to the progress that had been made with tackling knife crime."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3777808/Home-Secretary-Jacqui-Smith-apologises-over-knife-crime-figures.html

The crimes that no one is counting: Police fail to record street attacks and wife-beating in attempt to meet Government targets

By James Slack, Home Affairs Editor
Last updated at 1:15 AM on 23rd October 2009

Some vicious street attacks and wife-beatings are not being included in police figures because officers wrongly fail to count them as a crime, it emerged yesterday.

One in three decisions taken by officers to dismiss a report of a serious violent attack is wrong, the police inspectorate found.

If the findings are repeated across all forces, it would mean more than 6,000 victims of violence being ignored by the police, as officers record the incidents in a category called 'no crime'.

By categorising a complaint as 'no crime', it effectively ceases to exist and will not show up in official figures. In some cases, it is suggested this is done simply because officers feel it would be very hard to solve a crime.

Chief Inspector of Constabulary Denis O'Connor said controversial Government targets on reducing and solving crime may be to blame, warning: 'There are some fairly well-rehearsed perverse incentives around targets and "no crimes" is one of those potentially.'

The findings came from an audit of the way police handle reports of the most serious types of violence, ordered by former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith last year after she revealed some forces were recording serious crimes in a lower category.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222138/Crime-figures-One-violent-incidents-classified-police-crime.html#ixzz1AaOAudLz

The more I research the crime rates in the UK, the more I get the feeling that the truth is hidden by political manipulations and that the UK is nowhere near as safe as people believe.

Do the official crime figures tell the whole story?

When the new-style crime figures were published in 2002, Mr Blunkett claimed they were the 'most accurate measure' of crime ever. The report was also said to be the most comprehensive ever. But when you check the small print, it turns out that the Home Office itself thought that there were far more than the 13 million crimes discovered by the British Crime Survey for 2001/02 - perhaps four times as many.

Arriving at the true figure is not easy because police figures are notoriously unreliable, but the Home Office has made 'best estimates' of the extent of police under-recording of some offences. Even on the most cautious assumptions, at least another 11.3 million crimes should have been added to the 13 million acknowledged crimes originally found by the BCS in 2001/02, a total of 24.3 million. According to another Home Office research study, The Economic and Social Costs of Crime, in 2000 there were at least 60 million crimes. On these estimates, the real figure was somewhere between 24.3 million and 60 million.

The same can be said of the 2004/05 figures. The true figure is well over 35 million, as we show below.

Why the huge disparity?

Has there been a cover-up? Is any of this found only in a secret report? No, there is no secret report to be found. And, if you ask Home Office officials to confirm the higher figures they do so promptly. It's partly a case of 'If you don't ask, you don't get'. And until members of the public do ask - and keep on asking - the Government has every intention of pretending that the crime problem is under control. No objective observer would say that the British Crime Survey is comprehensive when it misses out murder, sexual offences, crimes against people under 16, illegal drug use and crimes against commercial premises, including thefts of trucks, vans and shoplifting. And no independent statistician would claim that the British Crime Survey was the 'most accurate' measure of crime.

***snip***

Whilst using phrases like 'looking at the long-term-picture' and taking 'a closer look at the figures' the author of the article disregards both the long-term picture and the facts that any objective observer would see upon taking a closer look. Statistical analysis is notoriously open to interpretation and, for this very reason, we need a genuinely independent statistical service whose officials see themselves as servants of democracy, not the instruments of the party in power.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crimeFiguresMain.php

[Spider Jerusalem]

81. The statistics are not neccessarily accurately reported, no.

They also tend to be cherry-picked to make political points on one side or another (as the Tory study you cited that was basically "look at how bad things have gotten under Labour!" while other measures show a 50% decline in the crime rate since 1995). Also there are certain other factors that make direct comparison more difficult; Britain is a heavily urbanised and densely populated country. A majority of the population live in urban areas, which have higher crime rates by virtue of population density, etc. Compare crime rates in rural/suburban areas of the US to major cities and see what the difference is; this is something else that makes trying to make direct comparisons in number of overall violent crimes a bit pointless. The murder rate however would be expected if anything to be higher allowing for the same factors, and yet it isn't; the key difference being ease of access to firearms.

[spin]

89. We also do the same in the U. S.

Former NYPD captain didn't fudge crime statistics in past - he 'delayed' in reporting them
Sunday, February 7th 2010, 12:49 AM


Former NYPD captain Ernie Naspretto says he delayed in reporting crime statistics til after midnight on New Year's Eve, 1997.

I had no idea if crime statistics were fudged at Brooklyn's 81st Precinct. A probe reported exclusively by the Daily News last week will determine that.

But I definitely know the pressure every precinct commanding officer in this city feels - week by week, month by month and year to year - to keep crime down.

I'm a retired NYPD captain. I was the commanding officer of Bensonhurst's 62nd Precinct from June 1997 to July 1999. The "6-2" is by no means a high-crime area, but you would have never known that if you saw me on New Year's Eve, 1997.

It was the last night of the year, and my Compstat figures, which measure the seven major types of crimes in a given precinct, were looking a little scary. Just six crimes before midnight - anything from murder to a car theft to a mugging - would mean I would break even with 1996 crime levels.

***snip***

Well, the only thing that has changed for commanding officers since 1997 is that numbers are getting harder and harder to beat, and the pressure to do some dumb things is getting stronger and stronger.

So what did I do that night? Did I fudge crime stats? Did I send crime victims on their way with no satisfaction? Absolutely not! I just ... delayed.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/02/07/2010-02-07_why_i_bent_crime_stats_excop_tells_of_pressure_from_brass.html#ixzz1AeiTjey8

Reminds me of how my boss would have me play games with the data to make sure we made our goals for the month. Everybody ended up happy.

[progressivebydesign]

68. Really? because countries with increased control have a nanofraction of our murders!

I mean.. we can debate this all day long, but the cold, hard, fact is that countries that control weapons have very few murders and attacks with ANY weapon. 1994: USA 15.00 gun deaths per 100k people, vs. Japan .07 per 100k. .07. And the other countries are like 2.0 per 100k. America's obsession with guns and violence, and the utter infiltration of our Govt by the NRA (which is nothing more than a PR department for the gun manufacturers) is killing Americans daily. The AMA considers gun violence to be a major public health issue.

We need more gun control.. and frankly, it's too late to turn back the clock on the disastrous culture of violence we have created with guns and violent entertainment. I'm sad for the future.

[X_Digger]

75. Our NON-gun murder rate is higher than other nations' TOTAL murder rate

So even if all gun crimes magically disappeared, with no method substitution, we'd still be head and shoulders above other nations.

Funny you should mention Japan, though. They have a terrible suicide rate- and not just single individuals, either. Thing is, what we would classify and report as a murder-suicide, gets reported as a multiple suicide- boshi-shinjyu (mother-child suicide), fushi-shinju (father-child suicide), or ikka-shinnjyu (family suicide).

http://www.japanpsychiatrist.com/Abstracts/Shinju.html

[spin]

80. Why are you using 1994 data?

That was in the last century.

The violent crime rate has dropped significantly since 1994 in the United States.







The source for the above graphs is from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=kftp&tid=31

Furthermore the crime rate has continued to drop.


source FBI http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/december/crime_122010/crime_122010

In the 1994 time frame shall issue concealed weapons law was starting its sweep across our nation.



There currently are FAR more firearms in our country than there were in 1994 as yearly sales have skyrocketed since that year.

I think if you look at more up to date data, you will realize that our country is actually moving in the right direction and that the future looks far more positive then it did in 1994 which was near when crime peaked.

[Statistical]

83. Why would you use a stat 16 years out of date?

In 2009 it was 5.0 per 100K. In 2010 the tenative data shows a 7.1% decline meaning ~ 4.6 per 100K.

Another point is despite the high availability of firearms the NON-GUN rate in the US is roughly double that of Europe.

A large portion of the homicide rate is due to our stupid war on drugs and criminal on criminal violence in the drug trade.

Lastly violent crime in the US is lower than UK and at a 30 year low. We don't need any more gun control.

[GSLevel9]

72. this has nothing to do with Gun Control. nt

[Chorophyll]

73. Yeah. You know what? We do. We really do.

Enough is enough. This is not the wild west. This is a huge diverse country with beaucoups of police departments and we do NOT need everyone walking around armed to the teeth.

[X_Digger]

74. Yet police are under no obligation to protect you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x333329

[MisterP]

76. that's like saying we don't need mental health care

both such statements are ridiculous, and only America's saturation by the cartels' front groups in Los Estados is what's keeping this mental block in place in so many minds...

[CreekDog]

84. Well the "decreased" gun control of the past 15+ years is not working

so yes, we do need increased gun control.

[krispos42]

87. It's not?

All data from gov't sources; that last one is hotlinked from the DOJ.

[Statistical]

98. Also it has fallen further since those charts. In 2009 the homicide rate was lowest since 1964. n/t

[Statistical]

97. You sure about that. US crimes rates are at a 38 year low.

Violent crime rate is significantly lower in US than in "gun free" (as in law abiding citizens don't have guns but criminals still do) UK.

You need to go back to 1973 to find a year with lower overall violent crime rate than 2009.
You need to go back to 1964 to find a year with lower homicide rate than 2009.

[Zoeisright]

86. Bull. Shit.

Gun control is extremely effective in every civilized country in the world. Learn a bit more about a topic before you mouth off.

[Statistical]

100. Not really.

UK has a much higher violent crime rate despite banning guns.
Mexico has a near complete ban on firearms by civilians but has one of the highest homicide rates in the world.
Despite similar laws Canada has lower violent crime and homicide rates.

Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland have high firearm ownership rates yet very low rates of violent crime and homicide.

Japan has a very low homicide rate however the US NON-FIREARM homicide rate is 3x the Japanese homicide rate. Think about that for a second despite all the firearms in this country we kill people WITHOUT firearms at 3x the rate of all homicides in Japan.

Think maybe just it might have more to do with culture, social safety net, availability of mental health care, war on drugs, for-profit prisons, and socio-economic factors.

[cynatnite]

91. There are a lot of victims of gun violence who would probably disagree with you. n/t

[WinkyDink]

95. Left: More gun control BEFORE victims. Right: More gun laws AFTER the victims.

Prevent vs. Punish.

Social: More mental-health care. Private: More prisons.

[End Of The Road]

101. Gun violence is a symptom of the illness, but not the illness.

We need to find common ground (NOT a la PNAC!) and common goals. We must leave vitriol behind and engage in true dialog and honest, informed debate. It's not gonna happen in my lifetime, but I don't see how gun control stops violence bred by hate. The AZ shooter was loony; he would have found a way to violence with or without access to guns.