Safer WITH, or WITHOUT, Gun Control? USA -vs- UK

i know, i know ~ this topic is already ALL OVER the place, but

check this out:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/7946497.stm

Balbus, in light of the above,

1. Are you in favor of knife control for the UK?

2. Do you believe that you are safer, with the UK having strict gun
control laws?

Because, according to the British Home Office and the British Crime Survey for 2007/2008,

which runs from September to September, 1 year,

you are NOT:

UK population = 60,943,912 (July 2008 est.)

Violent Crimes = 670,383

2007 - 2008 Rate of Violent Crime = 2,300/100,000


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7511807.stm


USA population = 301,621,157

Violent Crimes = 1,408,337

2007 Rate of Violent Crime = 466.9/100,000

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm


You keep asking us:

Do we live in fear, for our lives, from all of these gun-toting, Cowboy Criminals;

WHY we think that gun control is ridiculous;

and why we aren't more concerned with the societal issues.


My short answer is:

the more the government controls the people,

the more violent the people become.

ps Could you imagine just sitting there, scarfing down your burger and fries? Wonder if any of them worried about if that red spot was ketchup? Unbelievable.

 

We already have forms of knife control; whether the blades are serialized, branded, tested and regulated by the government.

Also, those are two different studies with different methodologies that are totally separate.

Why are you hell-bent on pushing for less gun laws Fyrenza? Why are you being duped into believing that violence is solved by arming every person with a gun?

You're still not addressing societal issues here.

 

could you provide evidence of this statement?? i would like to know how the methods are different between the two studies.

of course they are two separate studies its two separate countries lol..

could you provide a single study on the same subject with the two countries included??

links please?? or are you just making another statement discrediting someone and going to refuse to back your statements up with something to support them as you have done countless times here before?

 

Sure. Google it, Bill. You're used to doing that to prove any point.

 

just what i thought.. same as you always do..
i dont have to google it because i see nothing wrong with the studies.
as usual you cant back your statements up..
you FAIL!!!

 

You only need a brain to Google. Not my fault you lack one tonight.

So, the first Graph, the British one, is taken from the year "2007-2008" as a percentage. Overall, people have a 3.2% "risk" of being victims of a "violent crime". Where are these terms described? What constitutes as a risk, and what constitutes as a violent crime according to these statistics?

This is the graph that Fyrenza is taking her stats from:

[SIZE=+1]United States Crime Index Rates Per 100,000 Inhabitants[/SIZE]





[SIZE=-1]Forcible [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Aggravated [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Larceny- [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Vehicle [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Year [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Population [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Total [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Violent [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Property [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Murder [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Rape [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Robbery [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]assault [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Burglary [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Theft [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Theft [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]2007 [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]301,621,157[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]3,730.4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]466.9 [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]3,263.5 [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]5.6 [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]30.0[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]147.6 [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]283.8 [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]722.5 [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]2,177.8 [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]363.3 [/SIZE]

She's taking just the year 2007, instead of the two years "2007-2008" like the other study. Also, There are no defined terms of what constitutes as a "violent crime" here either.

If she provided the data, maybe she needs to back some of it up.

Because if "violent crimes" in the USA are a total of 466.9 per 100,000 for the year 2007, than the percentage is actually

3016.21157 * 466.9 = 1,408,269/301,621,157 (total incidents of violent crimes over total population)

Meaning, in the USA total for the year of 2007, there were ~1,408,269 incidents of "violent crimes" total. That's 0.4669% of people who experienced a "violent crime". That's pretty fuckin' high.

But that's not the same as the "risk" of being a victim of a "violent crime" that was calculated to be 3.2% in the graph of the UK for TWO years.

If you want the breakdown of violent crimes with accurate and uniform data, Google it. Like I did, right here:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

- As you can see, murders per capita for the UK is ranked # 46 in the world at 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
- United States is ranked # 24 at 0.042802 per 1,000 people

If you want to compare those, that's a ratio of 1:4. Meaning, for every 4 people who get murderd in the USA, 1 person gets murdered in the UK.

Thanks for coming out.

 

Did you follow the links? Although UK is listed as covering two years, they're way of doing is from September ~ August, so it's only ONE YEAR.

Shall i google that for you?

Explained above.

Allow me to refer you back to the links i provided, which, btw, are from the British Home Office and FBI, and if they can't be trusted, then we're out of luck.

{you did realize that the percent was zero<POINT>47 Percent, meaning it's LESS than 1%?}

609.43912 * 4200 = 2,559,644/60,943,912

Meaning, in the UK total for the year of 2007, there were ~2,559,644 incidents of "violent crimes" total. That's" 4<point>2% of people who experienced a "violent crime".

Hey! You were right ~ the ACTUAL figure is MUCH HIGHER! :rofl: Off to change the OP!

ROFLMAO!!!

Too funny!!!

THOSE were the stats i used, to START with, but they're OLD ~ covering a time frame of 1998 ~ 2000!

The source i used for the US was this:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_01.html

which, amazingly enough, had links to this:

For the UK, this:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708.pdf

(hint: page 75)


You know, Ari, before getting all cocky with someone, you'd better be prepared to back up what YOU say

with CREDIBLE, VALID, and CURRENT sources.

{How did you put it? Oh, yeah!}

Thanks for coming out ~

{and might i be so bold as to add:?}

you can run along, now!

 

Yes.

Yes.

 

judging from fyrenza's follow up post id say its you who is lacking the brain cells last night.

nice try though,..

 

one advantage that the USA has is in the case of state sponsored murder , this may not be a regular occurrence in the UK but you would need to be a very poor student of 20th century history to not notice that states with disarmed citizens have a habit of turning the states guns on those disarmed citizens .

I'm British, but think the early Americans had the right idea to distrust government and to enshrine the right to bear arms , even if you had more crime over time I still think it would be worth it for the protection of liberty .

so Im not in favour of laws to ban knives or axes their tools

 

That's just it ~

gun control,

knife control,

bat control ,

NONE of it is going to control violence and/or violent crimes.

The only way to do it is to either:

control the people, which always ends in revolution;

or teach the people SELF-control, which never seems to be on the "Options" list.

In all of this re-vamp of the educational system, i sure hope we get to put our 2¢ in! Besides the classes i mentioned before, add:

Mastering Anger
Stress Management
Breavement Guidance
Basic Survival Techniques
How to Take a Joke, For Fun & Profit

Welllllllll... maybe not the last one...

but you get the idea.

 

Why are you hell-bent on demanding more gun laws from a criminal and increasingly totalitarian government that wants nothing more than to disarm the people for reasons other than public safety? Why do you think there is such an effort by Obama and his ilk -- IN THESE TIMES ESPECIALLY -- to forward such draconian gun control legislation unlike that ever seen before? Do you know nothing about history at all? No dictatorship has ever been implemented without first disarming the people.

Whether you like guns or dislike guns, it has nothing to do with that. You're ignoring the big picture so you can blab on with your petty arguments about people supporting violence because they own guns (complete bullshit). I don't care for guns, but I care even less for Nazi governments that seek to remove guns from the people so they can have their way with them.

Perhaps I could be able to take you more seriously if you also decried guns in the hands of the police and military. If you do, then please say so. Otherwise it makes you look like a hypocrite. If you truly condemn violence, then you condemn ALL violence or none at all. (I say the same thing when it comes to war. You are not anti-war by speaking out against the atrocities of Bush in Iraq, while supporting Obama's escalation in Afghanistan.)

The fact is that criminals will always find a way to obtain guns. Gun control only makes it easier for criminally-minded people to obtain guns because it increases the demand on the black market. All stricter gun laws do is make it harder for law-abiding people, whether it's for hunting or self-defense, to obtain a gun. It has NOTHING to do with lowering gun violence. If it did, the statistics would reflect it, and they don't.

 

Aristartle this is coming from someone who really does not care what you post in politics. However I do like your other posts. Your getting dragged all thru the dirt in these last post wars...

 

Fine. I shall continue my "petty" arguments, because I know they are true. None of your pro-gun websites have any fair and balanced data to use as a sensible argument. The Gun Lobbyists in the USA are the biggest influence on the feeble and weak minds of the people that live there and cannot understand what gun control does and can provide to the people living within a society.

Not my fault I disagree and have facts to back it up.

But you can't compare apples to oranges Fyrenza - so please find a coherent study to cite if you'd like to compare the USA to the UK. A study that uses the same data and compares them in the same format instead of a different format, which is exactly what you're doing. Plus, you can't even do math.

Where are you getting 4200 from as a figure in your calculations? That doesn't make any sense. You're making up numbers because you are desparate to prove that gun-toting people are more free.

I say keep your weapons, the foam in your mouth and the shackles on your wrists. If you feel closer to Allah or have more self-worth by owning a gun and valuing less government regulation on a killing machine, that's your prerogative.

But remember, there are other more tolerant, peaceful societies and less-armed societies out there in this world that think you are doing it very wrong.

I won't drag it out any further.

Thanks for coming out.

 

I never said that people should be striped of all guns. I think it should be controlled. How many guns does a police or an RCMP office have access to, really?

But an average day citizen can have as many assault and semi-automatic assault riffles as he damn well please? How is this a balance of power issue?

I'm not a hypocrite for claiming that the citizens of the USA are the most heavily armed persons in the entire world. And that's probably been established and created by the Elites for a damn good reason. Maybe they just want people to kill each other, or they want to have a hot spot in the USA to allow the free flow of arms to all parts of the world. The freer the gates are, the more there will be circulating in distribution.

But of course, you completely ignore this very fuckin' obvious fact because for some reason you think people are more free with weapons in their hands than any form that the state is in.

And I do believe in the limited and controlled armament in the police and armed forces, etc. I support controlled gun ownership and limited amount permitted in circulation, and regulation. Guns need to be controlled, there's like, no question about that.

If you feel that there should be no forms of gun control, then you really have no place for discussion in this world. Because we might as well let Iran build nuclear weapons to use against us.

 

WHAT facts?!?

Every single time someone has asked you for a citation, or reference, you kick back, put your feet up on the desk

and tell THEM to look it up!

Well, guess what?

That's not how it works.

If the BRITISH HOME OFFICE and the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION stats for the MOST RECENT YEAR aren't a good enough "source" to suit you,

too bad.

As for the math, and the difference in figures, please see this:

http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2007/01/crime-in-uk-versus-crime-in-us.html

And i'll go with the lower number of 23 given in that article for a weighted average.

Because the UK has TWO ways of measuring crime, both the reported incidents, AND the anonymous survey to catch crimes that go unreported, the numbers are confusing.

And fyi ~ NOwhere was it stipulated that we could not use WHATEVER the country chose to call Violent Crime.

If we're talking about a SOCIETIAL ISSUE, whatever that particular SOCIETY feels is Violent Crime, IS Violent Crime.

Since i've said several times that i'm a Christian, i'll take that "Allah" comment in the spirit in which it was used ~ as yet another insult.

Cripes.

Ah, but something inside me tells me you WILL ~

drag it out, further, that is.

You were wrong.

Not only were you wrong,

you were arrogant and insulting in your posts.

You have let this become something personal,

and you're now working from a vendetta mind-set,

in which you are absolutely NOT going to let the facts dazzle you,

and cause you to think about the opposite of what you believe to be true.

i'm beginning to wonder if you aren't afraid of what might happen if the US ever decided to invade Canada.

And although, intellectually, you may understand the NEED for private gun ownership,

the very thought of buying, learning to use, and even OWNING a gun is abhorent to YOU.

Do you even KNOW what most of us USE our guns for?

i use mine for shooting turtles in the pond ~ they eat the baby fish;

for shooting snakes ~ yeppers, we've got rattlers, corral snakes, water moccasins, and when you're trudging through an uncut pasture, you'd BETTER have a gun and at least one dog with you;

putting down animals that are past any help i could give/get for them, other than release from their pain;

keeping the coyotes at bay ~ they're sneaky, and always run in packs, so you have to concern yourself about your cattle dropping a calf, and the coyotes getting brave;

Other predators ~ bob cats, a couple of three cougars, etc.;

we actually DO hunt ~ Javelina, wild hogs, and deer ~ plenty good eating!;

because it IS such a rural and isolated area, you BET it's for self-protection, if necessary;

on and on and on,

and none of it has to do with planning to kill other people, NOR being so afraid of other people that i need to cower in my bunker, shoot first and ask questions later.

For most of us, owning a gun is like owning any other tool ~ it has it's uses.

 

well done fry!
but whats a javelina?

 

this is like reading many retarded monkeys post about all day, just banging away on the keys.

 

They're Peccaries ~ not wild hogs, nor pigs, but they are still a part of the "swine" family.

Ranchers have to be concerned about them because they are omnivores, and will kill and eat smaller animals.

Anyway, we trap 'em, check 'em out for disease, sex (if it's a pregnant female, we let it go, naturally), etc.