England: Gun Crime Update

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

John, I don't think anyone could argue with any dispasionate logic that the firearms ban has done nothing to lower firearms related crime but also if they hadn't have banned the firearms there would still be no improvement in the crime figures. So other than the obvious point I just mentioned is there another point that you are trying to make?

That's unprovable.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[number9 0]

Quote

Quote

I believe (& I don't follow these things closely) that in the US your per capita chance of being shot is higher than the UK. Therefore a ban MAY be working.

The key word is "may". And it proves false, as there are numerous international comparisons, which go both ways. There is no correlation...

So why not use other countries as examples instead of continually pointing the finger at the UK? Oh, that's right, because the UK is at the cutting edge of any legal trend....

Quote

Quote

I also believe that most UK gun crime is committed by 16-30 year old black males. It is probably more likely that it is a social problem causing the growing murder rate. I would suggest that family breakdowns and music that glorifies killing to protect your "respect" and "honour" are of more influence than anything else.

Ding ding ding! There you go. You finally got it. All of that was even hinted at strongly in the initial news story, but in all the puffery over national pride, no one could be bothered to recognize it. I'm glad that you managed to notice this true cause of gun crime. The key word is culture.

Correct. A culture that has largely been imported from America. So much for the UK setting trends...

Just a thought from a long term lurker...

[crwtom 0]

Quote

firearms murders rose by 18 per cent , from 49 to 58, between 2005-06 and 2006-07...

ever notice that NRA spokes people constantly talk in relative terms (percentages, etc) when talking about European gun crime - you'd get them to talk in ansolute numbers (in coparison with absoluet numers in the US) only at gun point I guess.

As an analogy:
I had a salary raise of over 4% this year, but Bill Gates has actually decreased his net worth over the last year or two. By NRA logic this makes me the richest man in the world.

The reality is that US gun murders per capita are 10-fold and more than that of most European contries. These little %-changes they bring up are a joke in view of the absolute numbers.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[CornishChris 5]

Good point. Can I borrow $10?

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people

[vortexring 0]

>'The key word is culture.'

I'm surprised to hear you mention this - I've argued this point with you for a while now. Yet you bring it up. And quote from a reasonable source. You ok mate?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

>'The key word is culture.'

I'm surprised to hear you mention this - I've argued this point with you for a while now. Yet you bring it up. And quote from a reasonable source. You ok mate?

And I'm surprised, you're still up on Lizzy's island, Vortex. Lights not yet sh(o)ut down over there?

Culture and Gun Crime Update - what a fine combination JR shows here, I love his threads about England

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

>'The key word is culture.'

I'm surprised to hear you mention this - I've argued this point with you for a while now. Yet you bring it up. And quote from a reasonable source. You ok mate?

And I'm surprised, you're still up on Lizzy's island, Vortex. Lights not yet sh(o)ut down over there?

Culture and Gun Crime Update - what a fine combination JR shows here, I love his threads about England

I'm nocturnal!

Anyway, what's keeping you up Christel? Or are you in some mad part of the world where it's 2 in the afternoon!?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

...
I'm nocturnal!
....

Quote

Me too, Vortex, me too. Just returned from Empuria with its usual mixture of bright sunshine and Tramontana winds - love that place.

And love to read JR's usual England slenders; that man should get himself a passport and try to find out a bit about the world outside his borders. That world and especially England has more to show than just gun bans (or no-gun-bans).

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[vortexring 0]

I sense DZ.com is as far as our man might dare to travel Christel. Any come backs John?

I'm still happy to take you out for a few beers in Glasgow if you feel you might be up to it....

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[The_Almighty 0]

Quote

I sense DZ.com is as far as our man might dare to travel Christel. Any come backs John?

I'm still happy to take you out for a few beers in Glasgow if you feel you might be up to it....

He'd need to bring his gun with him, just incase he needs to kill an attacker how could he go out without it eh? what if...just what if !!!!!!!!

[Stumpy 284]

This thread is nothing without recipes

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

48 to 59 from one year to the next is probably not statistically valid. So best be getting yourself there.

Cherry picking again. Anyone can selectively choose two data points that match their pet theory and try and imply something from them. But look at the long term stats over time, and you'll see that you're wrong.

I find it humorous how all the anti-gun people want to use such grossly invalid statistical techniques to try and prove their points. It says a lot.

It's also humorous how they have the need to publicly belittle me personally, as if that is somehow a means of lending credence to their own failed arguments. That says a lot too.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

John, I don't think anyone could argue with any dispasionate logic that the firearms ban has done nothing to lower firearms related crime...

That sentence is so full of double-negatives that I'm not sure what it means. But dispassionate logic shows that the ban didn't lower gun crime.

Quote

...but also if they hadn't have banned the firearms there would still be no improvement in the crime figures. So other than the obvious point I just mentioned is there another point that you are trying to make?

The point is: they took everyone's guns, for nothing.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>'The key word is culture.'

I'm surprised to hear you mention this - I've argued this point with you for a while now. Yet you bring it up. And quote from a reasonable source. You ok mate?

It usually takes oodles of other posts to get through all the bullshit before the "culture" angle becomes ripe for introduction. But I've been spouting this line for quite a while here in regard to gun crime.

Examples:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2767640;search_string=culture;#2767640

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2463411;search_string=culture;#2463411

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1899742;search_string=culture;#1899742

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1898387;search_string=culture;#1898387

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

ever notice that NRA spokes people constantly talk in relative terms (percentages, etc) when talking about European gun crime - you'd get them to talk in ansolute numbers (in coparison with absoluet numers in the US) only at gun point I guess... These little %-changes they bring up are a joke in view of the absolute numbers.

The correct spelling is "absolute".

And if you're so worried about absolute numbers as the valid way to compare the UK and US, then you should also be concerned with the fact that the US has five times more population than the UK, and therefore absolute numbers are a meaningless comparison. That's why per capita rates are the valid way to go.

And percentage changes in the per capita rate are just a reflection of the absolute numbers, and the direction in which they are changing.

No matter how you cut it though, gun crime in England has gone up since the ban. Absolute numbers, per capita rate, and percentage.

That's the ugly truth that you gun-o-phobes just can't bring yourselves to admit.

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

And by that analysis, the gun crime problem has grown worse, thereby proving that the gun ban has been ineffective at preventing gun crime.

John, you know damn well that England's "gun ban" was never meant to address the issue of "gun crime". The proposing legislators said so right from the start.
This has been pointed out to you dozens of times yet you keep using this same BS strawman argument to prove that the gun ban was "ineffective".
Ineffective in addressing an issue it was never meant to address? Big effing surprise!
Your continued use of this argument reeks of intellectual dishonesty. Give it up will you?

Vale

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

And by that analysis, the gun crime problem has grown worse, thereby proving that the gun ban has been ineffective at preventing gun crime.

John, you know damn well that England's "gun ban" was never meant to address the issue of "gun crime". The proposing legislators said so right from the start.
This has been pointed out to you dozens of times yet you keep using this same BS strawman argument to prove that the gun ban was "ineffective".
Ineffective in addressing an issue it was never meant to address? Big effing surprise!
Your continued use of this argument reeks of intellectual dishonesty. Give it up will you?

Vale

Really? The ban wasn't in response to a crime committed by a person with a gun? What was it in response to, pray tell?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

Really? The ban wasn't in response to a crime committed by a person with a gun? What was it in response to, pray tell?

Yeah, like you don't know already. Her is a nice news article to help jog your memory http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/16/newsid_3110000/3110949.stm
It' already been pointed out in one of John's previous "England bashing" threads that there have been no further massacres in England since the ban. It could therefore be argued that the "ban" was 100% effective in achieving its stated goal.
Have a nice day.

Vale

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Really? The ban wasn't in response to a crime committed by a person with a gun? What was it in response to, pray tell?

Yeah, like you don't know already. Her is a nice news article to help jog your memory http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/16/newsid_3110000/3110949.stm
It' already been pointed out in one of John's previous "England bashing" threads that there have been no further massacres in England since the ban. It could therefore be argued that the "ban" was 100% effective in achieving its stated goal.
Have a nice day.

Vale

100% effective in regards to mass shootings...at least until the next one. Too bad it didn't have any effect on the everyday gun crime.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

100% effective in regards to mass shootings...at least until the next one. Too bad it didn't have any effect on the everyday gun crime.

Yeah right, I forget that you people only accept something as "proof" only if it proves your own point. As for it not having any effect on gun crime, so what? Once again, it was never meant to address that, it would have been surprising if it had had any. Are you really not getting the point or are you just playing dumb?

Vale

[mnealtx 0]

YOU seem to be missing the point that the ban *was* in response to a gun crime... unless killing a bunch of kids in a Dunblane schoolyard was legal before the fact...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

YOU seem to be missing the point that the ban *was* in response to a gun crime... unless killing a bunch of kids in a Dunblane schoolyard was legal before the fact...

OK, if you want to see it that way. In that case the ban was 100% successful in preventing the particular gun crime it was meant to address. It did not prevent other types of gun crimes like f.e. armed robbery, but so what? It was never meant to in the first place. Your attempt at twisting words around doesn't make John's argument any less of a strawman.
Cheers,

Vale

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

>'The key word is culture.'

I'm surprised to hear you mention this - I've argued this point with you for a while now. Yet you bring it up. And quote from a reasonable source. You ok mate?

It usually takes oodles of other posts to get through all the bullshit before the "culture" angle becomes ripe for introduction. But I've been spouting this line for quite a while here in regard to gun crime.

Examples:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2767640;search_string=culture;#2767640

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2463411;search_string=culture;#2463411

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1899742;search_string=culture;#1899742

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1898387;search_string=culture;#1898387

Fair enough - I did mention cultural issues before in at least one of your threads, but with no acknowledgement:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=2922396;page=2;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

Perhaps you missed it.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[The_Almighty 0]

Quote

Quote

ever notice that NRA spokes people constantly talk in relative terms (percentages, etc) when talking about European gun crime - you'd get them to talk in ansolute numbers (in coparison with absoluet numers in the US) only at gun point I guess... These little %-changes they bring up are a joke in view of the absolute numbers.

The correct spelling is "absolute".

And if you're so worried about absolute numbers as the valid way to compare the UK and US, then you should also be concerned with the fact that the US has five times more population than the UK, and therefore absolute numbers are a meaningless comparison. That's why per capita rates are the valid way to go.

And percentage changes in the per capita rate are just a reflection of the absolute numbers, and the direction in which they are changing.

No matter how you cut it though, gun crime in England has gone up since the ban. Absolute numbers, per capita rate, and percentage.

That's the ugly truth that you gun-o-phobes just can't bring yourselves to admit.

But if we hadn't had the ban , they would have gone up by double the amount that they actually did, so the ban is working.... you prove me wrong
see, quoting they have gone up means fuck all in reality.... what if the increase was only half of what it would have been without the ban?

[The_Almighty 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Really? The ban wasn't in response to a crime committed by a person with a gun? What was it in response to, pray tell?

Yeah, like you don't know already. Her is a nice news article to help jog your memory http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/16/newsid_3110000/3110949.stm
It' already been pointed out in one of John's previous "England bashing" threads that there have been no further massacres in England since the ban. It could therefore be argued that the "ban" was 100% effective in achieving its stated goal.
Have a nice day.

Vale

100% effective in regards to mass shootings...at least until the next one. Too bad it didn't have any effect on the everyday gun crime.

Since our last mass shooting, how many have you had in the good old US of A ?