Originally Posted by Tither

It is clear that the strictest gun control in the Western World did not play a part in this crime drop. Crime fighting is done by good police work and crime fighting equipment, and techniques. Not by trying to control the law-abiding!

That fact will go right over the empty heads of the gun control freaks, wierdos and plain old nut jobs. To them its rather simple. Guns cause crime just as flies cause garbage. Doesn't matter its an island kingdom with zero guns. There are guns some where so they still have crime.

I see that dinigration of "reasonable" and "responsible" calls for appeasement went to the heart of the beast and what is now being called for is outright BANS just like countries that practice this particular form of Facism have already done with disastrous results. That was indeed a quick slide!

Denial cannot be claimed at this point! The sublime thesis of appeasement and "compromise" by registration has reared it's ugly head of the ridiculous by exposing the true agenda.

I declare the patient deceased as we await the upcoming ceremonies for the grieving kinfolk and well wishers of their deceased agenda...only by ignoring the Constitution and willfully ignoring rights and LAWS of this Republic could such a thing exist as have the other Nations which have ceeded their rights of persons to monarchist construction. Those who still persist in the "agenda" I wish them well, may their chains rest lightly on them...kiss the hand that feeds you and we will forget that you were ever our countrymen.

Originally Posted by Galileo

Looks like it's mostly good news when it comes to crime in England:
NDS - News Distribution Service
Here's a graph of crime trends in England:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/resourc...m119-28050.jpg

It took me a little time to weed our where the graph came from but finally I did. Seems you may have inadvertently, Uh, well, left out part of the story.

I found the graph, but started clicking on the other tabs and found more info.
Topic: Crime Trends

Police recorded crime statistics provide a good measure of well-reported crimes, are an important indicator of police workload, and can be used for local crime pattern analysis. Recorded crime statistics provide the only measure of homicide and a more reliable measure of relatively rare crimes such as robbery. However, they do not include crimes that have not been reported to the police or incidents that the police decide not to record.

Trends in crime Reported crime to police graph

This shows that crimes reported to police is far grater than the British Crime Survey indicates.

Hey, that is a handy little site. Thanks Galileo!

Violent and sexual crimes

Trends in recorder firearm crime graph.

Trends in homicides Graph

Here is the main page for anyone wanting to check out the categories.

Originally Posted by Tither

Hey, that is a handy little site. Thanks Galileo!

Violent and sexual crimes

Trends in recorder firearm crime graph.

Trends in homicides Graph

Here is the main page for anyone wanting to check out the categories.

Bad Tither, you weren't supposed to go probing around. Just bend over and accept defeat at the hands of the all powerful gun grabber freaks. Now you let the cat out of the bag. One in four victims of violent crime. Not reporting crime, oh my. What will they think of next to cook the books so to speak. So the socialist paradise of gun control heaven turned out to be for criminals only. No hostile work environment. Prosecution of victims for fighting back. The best part is the prey are totally clueless.

Originally Posted by Tither

It took me a little time to weed our where the graph came from but finally I did. Seems you may have inadvertently, Uh, well, left out part of the story.

I found the graph, but started clicking on the other tabs and found more info.
Topic: Crime Trends
Police recorded crime statistics provide a good measure of well-reported crimes, are an important indicator of police workload, and can be used for local crime pattern analysis. Recorded crime statistics provide the only measure of homicide and a more reliable measure of relatively rare crimes such as robbery. However, they do not include crimes that have not been reported to the police or incidents that the police decide not to record.

Trends in crime Reported crime to police graph

This shows that crimes reported to police is far grater than the British Crime Survey indicates.

The graph that I presented is not based on crimes recorded by the police. The graph is titled "Trends in all BCS Crime". BCS means British Crime Survey. It's a survey in which people are interviewed about their experiences with crime and thus includes crimes that are not reported to and recorded by the police.

"For the crime types it covers, the BCS provides a more reliable measure of trends in crime as it has a consistent methodology and is unaffected by changes in levels of reporting to the police, recording practice or police activity."
NDS - News Distribution Service

Originally Posted by Tither

Oh. I see we are going to do this after all!

Yeah that is a good thing. Finally it is dropping after several years of increases. Crime cannot keep going up forever.

Huh? The graph shows that crime in the UK has generally been going down for over 10 years.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/resourc...m119-28050.jpg

Originally Posted by Tither

Our homicide rate is 4 people per 100,000 higher than the Australia and the UK, but for overall victimization and violent crime the Australia and the UK is king.

I don't think the overall victimization rate tells us much about the relationship between guns and crime. People are still going to commit crimes whether or not they have guns just like people are still going to still get into car accidents whether or not they wear seat belts. The question is- do more guns increase the fatality rate of crime? Do guns increase the chances that a crime will turn deadly just as not wearing a seat belt increases the chances that a car accident will involve a fatality? How can it be explained that the US can have an overall lower crime rate yet a higher homicide rate? A much higher gun ownership rate than other developed nations could explain this- that although crime occurs less frequently in the US crime is more likely to involve guns in the US so someone is more likely to die. When I've questioned gun activists about this before I usually get a very vague response.

Originally Posted by Tither

It is clear that the strictest gun control in the Western World did not play a part in this crime drop. Crime fighting is done by good police work and crime fighting equipment, and techniques. Not by trying to control the law-abiding!

They already had such low rates of gun ownership so you wouldn't expect it to make much difference. However, if such laws were enacted in a nation with a very high gun ownership rate such as the US then the effect would be very obvious and dramatic (if the law did succeed in greatly reducing the gun ownership rate).

Originally Posted by Tither

Crime fighting is done by good police work and crime fighting equipment, and techniques. Not by trying to control the law-abiding!

False dichotomy

Originally Posted by Galileo

The graph that I presented is not based on crimes recorded by the police. The graph is titled "Trends in all BCS Crime". BCS means British Crime Survey. It's a survey in which people are interviewed about their experiences with crime and thus includes crimes that are not reported to and recorded by the police.

"For the crime types it covers, the BCS provides a more reliable measure of trends in crime as it has a consistent methodology and is unaffected by changes in levels of reporting to the police, recording practice or police activity."
NDS - News Distribution Service

The old survey eh, and those surveyed are more often clueless than not. Wait that's right with one in 4 being a victim then they would be knowledgeable.

Snake oil is still snake oil no matter how you slice the pie.

Originally Posted by Galileo

Huh? The graph shows that crime in the UK has generally been going down for over 10 years.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/resourc...m119-28050.jpg


I don't think the overall victimization rate tells us much about the relationship between guns and crime. People are still going to commit crimes whether or not they have guns just like people are still going to still get into car accidents whether or not they wear seat belts. The question is- do more guns increase the fatality rate of crime? Do guns increase the chances that a crime will turn deadly just as not wearing a seat belt increases the chances that a car accident will involve a fatality? How can it be explained that the US can have an overall lower crime rate yet a higher homicide rate? A much higher gun ownership rate than other developed nations could explain this- that although crime occurs less frequently in the US crime is more likely to involve guns in the US so someone is more likely to die. When I've questioned gun activists about this before I usually get a very vague response.

Or possible you ignore the obvious. "...although crime occurs less frequently in the US crime is more likely to involve guns in the US so someone is more likely to die." Talk about being vague. This remains to be shown. As in cause and effect rather than speculation on your part.

They already had such low rates of gun ownership so you wouldn't expect it to make much difference. However, if such laws were enacted in a nation with a very high gun ownership rate such as the US then the effect would be very obvious and dramatic (if the law did succeed in greatly reducing the gun ownership rate).

To borrow your words ...False dichotomy! If it were true in any fashion then gun free DC would be a haven of less crime rather than the murder capitol of the US. Stick to your socialist island rather than selling snake oil here.

Galileo-

It was a mistake for you to bring up the crime rates of the UK. There is more than enough evidence to show that the police have intentionally been playing games with crime statistics. A person can only be the victim of a crime five times a year before the police stop recording. That means even if you've been robbed or mugged 100 times in one year, the police still only put the first five times down next to your name, and then no more.

British farmer Tony Martin was reportedly robbed 43 times by the same pair of career criminals before he finally decided enough was enough and opened fire on them.

BBC NEWS | UK | Police miscount serious violence

A number of police forces in England and Wales have been undercounting some of the most serious violent crimes, the government has admitted.

It means figures for serious violent crimes rose by 22% compared to last year - rather than showing a fall as previous figures appeared to indicate.

The mistake happened when some crimes classed as "grievous bodily harm with intent" were recorded as less serious.

Figures say overall crime is down, and ministers say these can be trusted.

The government says it does not know how long the undercounting has been going on - leading to concerns that figures on violent crime may have been wrong for up to a decade.

A former Home Office crime consultant told the BBC the government had been "hiding behind" its changes in the crime counting rules.

Professor Marian Fitzgerald, a criminologist at the University of Kent's Crime and Justice Centre, said the long-term trend of increasing violent crime was now "catching up" with the government.

Let's be clear, this isn't crime that wasn't being recorded or wasn't being reported or wasn't being dealt with

Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary

The Conservatives said the new figures "fatally undermined" government claims that violent crime was in decline.

Shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve said: "They betray a government that is completely out of touch with what is going on, on our streets and in our communities."

Crime in UK

Even Dan Rather noticed England's problem long ago and observed their problems were much worse than ours.

Yet Americans still enjoy a substantially lower rate of violent crime than England, without the "restraint on personal liberty" English governments have seen as necessary. Rather than permit individuals more scope to defend themselves, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government plans to combat crime by extending those "restraints on personal liberty": removing the prohibition against double jeopardy so people can be tried twice for the same crime, making hearsay evidence admissible in court, and letting jurors know of a suspect’s previous crimes.

This is a cautionary tale. America’s founders, like their English forebears, regarded personal security as first of the three primary rights of mankind. That was the main reason for including a right for individuals to be armed in the U.S. Constitution. Not everyone needs to avail himself or herself of that right. It is a dangerous right. But leaving personal protection to the police is also dangerous.

The English government has effectively abolished the right of Englishmen, confirmed in their 1689 Bill of Rights, to "have arms for their defence," insisting upon a monopoly of force it can succeed in imposing only on law-abiding citizens. It has come perilously close to depriving its people of the ability to protect themselves at all, and the result is a more, not less, dangerous society. Despite the English tendency to decry America’s "vigilante values," English policy makers would do well to consider a return to these crucial common law values, which stood them so well in the past.

Originally Posted by Galileo

Huh? The graph shows that crime in the UK has generally been going down for over 10 years.

First of all, it has dropped some. That is good! However, we are offered this caveat in a 2008 article.
How should we deal with gun crime?

The publication of quarterly police recorded crime figures in January highlighted a general fall in crime, with a drop of some of 9% in overall recorded crime in the period concerned. While crime figures are notoriously unreliable, and should always be read with caution these seemed initially to be showing something positive. Yet these statistics were blemished by a 4% rise in gun crime and a 21% rise in drug offences.

However we need to also note this.
Are the courts too soft on young offenders?

The number of under-18s in Britain committing violent offences jumped by more than a third between 2003 and 2006, according to The Sunday Telegraph’s statistics, based on reports from the Ministry of Justice.

The figures also show that just over half of young offenders apprehended during this period were let off with a police caution, in which they admitted their offence but received no punishment, and that three-quarters of all violent crime suspects are freed on bail while awaiting crown court trials.

So a lot of crimes are not recorded because of cautions. What kind of offenses deserve a caution?
Three Strikes and You're ... in Like Flint

The Home Office says offenses that may now be dealt with by a caution include burglary of a shop or office, threatening to kill, actual bodily harm, and possession of Class A drugs such as heroin or cocaine if police decide a caution would be the best approach.

Other crimes including common assault, threatening behavior, sex with an underage girl or boy, and car theft should normally be dealt with by a caution, if the offenders admit their guilt but have no criminal record.

Government accused over deactivated gun ban

The Home Secretary has been accused of "papering over the cracks" on gun crime by proposing a ban on old, deactivated firearms which only feature in a small number of offences.

Mr Davis said: "While we welcome any action, however overdue it may be, to tackle the scourge of gun crime the Government's own figures show that in 2005/06 there were only eight incidents where deactivated or reactivated weapons were used - just 0.04 per cent of gun offences.

"We need sustained action to tackle the other 99.6 per cent of this serious problem, bearing in mind that gun violence has increased four-fold over the last 10 years."

Feb 6, 2007 Britain tops European crime league

Britain has one of the worst crime rates in Europe, a report said yesterday. It is the most burgled country in Europe, has the highest level of assaults and above average rates of car theft, robbery and pickpocketing. Only Ireland has a worse record.

Risks of being assaulted were highest in the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden and Denmark and lowest in Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Spain and France.

So what does your graph actually mean? What stock can we actually put in it?

Jim Kouri, CPP: Justice Department: Gun Violence Falls 63%

Justice Department: Gun Violence Falls 63%

published By Jim Kouri, CPP
MichNews.com
Mar 17, 2005