There are new figures stating that the number of total violent crimes in the UK for 2003 was 1904 violent crimes per 100,000 population

what this doesn't take into account is that pre 1997 firearms ownership wasn't cosndiered a violent crime nor was rape (which was considered under the rape catagory) Also Anti-social behaviour crimes such as football violence wasn't considered.

It you actually look at the total number of violent crimes per 100,000 people, the net index is slightly higher admittedly, but the increase represents a nominal 0.03 to 0.08 variational increase. An increase which is noticable ever since the originalrecording in 1950.

in 1998 one eyar after the implenetation of the firearms law, the actual number of violent offences DROPPED from 678 to 636 representing and overwhelming point. This of course is one year before A drop of 42 recorded crimes represnting a 6.2% drop. The year AFTER the implementation.

American crime violent figures are still over 3 times higher then those in the UK proving that the US is still a far more violent place per capita to live.

Please, if you're going to argue this, at least do us the courtosey of having the relevent statsticial data and interpreative capability to argue the facts not some pro-stance rhetoric whihc blusters mainly but otherwise consists of nothing but hot air.

Dirk for eaxample you said

[quote = dirk] The constabulary area, which covers the Highlands and Islands had 2784 fireams and 3600 shotgun certificates per 100,000 population in that period. Even offences involving air weapons were down to nothing. In Scotland as a whole there was a 9% decrease in recorded offences involving a firearm. Of the 938 recorded offences, 61% involved airguns. [/quote]

Look at the population density in the Highlands, there is no-one living next to anyone.

But when you get a compatriative urban denisity of the UK to the US, the UK's crime rates are still lower, the number of crimes commited is still lower. The number of offenses are still lower.

If you then compare scotland to the UK and Scotland has a more relaxed gun law, comparatively scottish gun-crime rates are higher and the violent crime rates are higher.

Therefore, the UK neither needs nor wants a liberlised gun law.

your arguments about Germany not invading France because they had guns overlooks one MAJOR fact, the French army whho would all be armed, had better guns and were Larger then the actual population of switzerland. Switzerland had a finanaical infrastructure to allegedly reamin neutral while selling on german assets. therwefore it had the financial power it needed to keep Germany in the things it coulnd't manufacture itself but had been sanctioned against bying.

Neon

Hmm that link only goes up to `94 and has its stats tucked away somehwere.
Anyhoo..
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics28.htm

Everyone who took part in the BCS survey would disagree with ya.

The United nations report on goes up to 94 before the 97 act that everyone is all one about.

Amaazing how the BCS actuall redfined the statstics and the WENT UP!!!!

even when they went up, there was still a dispreportionately lesser threat in the UK then the US.

Look at the US justice departments statistics as downloadable from the bottom of Red Meats link, then compare them with statistics from the US justice dept

Neon

They arent. If they were they wouldnt have logged the slight increase at the end of the graph there would they?
Interesting how you only compare two countries as if they are the only cultures with crime and use this data. I guess that gun control site decided to omit the 8,000 gun related murders in 1999 compared to the Uk`s 60 and ignore the higher chance of rape in the US at the time as well.

And I have posted up to the minute statstics all the way up to 2002/2003 and still defy you to show me facts which proove your argument. I read the UN report. You're wrong. Purely and simply.

Watch with Mother.....

US 1999 (less up to date then I have already posted BTW)

Murders

12,658, 8259 with firearms

Assaults

2,238,480

Rapes

89,110.

UK 1999

Murders

750 62 With firearms

Assualts 439,285

Rapes 8409

Although the UK's rates are on the rise, the number of assaults in the US is still THREE TIMES higher then the UK. As the UK has 1/3 the population then it would need in the US to out to less then 1,200,000 assaults to be less violent, less the 25,000 rapes and less then 2250 murders

Now..... If you notice at the percentage of the murders commited with firearms 65% in the US and 8.26% in the UK.

gun proliferation means that guns WILL be used to kill. As practised by nearly every western country but the US shows that the number of violent crimes is lessened.

Your second ammenedment is an anachronistic throwback to the days of muskets and warring for independance not a defacto right to watch your civilisation's malcontents get easy access to arms and then blow the crap out of people.

Neon

This is completely false. and I can't help but notice you keep evading demands for evidence. Show me a western country whose violent crime dropped after instituting or tightening gun control. You're wasting our time with uncontrolled A/B comparisons.

When a citizen shoots in criminal in righteous self defense, the it is of great benefit to that person and to society.

Of course the 'soft on crime' types can't even bring themselves to put these criminals in jail, much less hang them.

Firearms were available to those that could afford them before the first world war. Crime was much lower then than what it is today.

Neon,

This is a factor you need to be aware of. The states with the highest crime in the USA are the states with the most gun control. The states with the least amount of crime are the ones that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons.

Greater? More like in a decline. It is Britain that is now being colonized by the natives of what lands your ancestors had conquered. Only a socialist would think that was a good thing. Of course it was the socialists who lost the empire and are now giving the whole country away to some foriegn socialist bureacrats in Belgium.

Indeed. One of the well documented facts of crime is that most of it is committed by a relatively small core of career criminals. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. There really aren't many "casual criminals." Either you make your living at a legal job or you make your living at crime. If the latter, then you need to rob or burglarize or steal cars constantly.

I can dig up the link if anyone likes, but a few years ago, in my own city, the police estimated (based on criminal records at time of arrest, hence solid statistics) that some large percentage (80 - 90% .. not exactly sure) of all burglaries and robberies and auto theft were perpetrated by less than a thousand or so criminals -- this in a city of 1.5 million people.

This makes sense: it's their living to steal cars, burglarize apartments, do armed stickups in the street, and they typically committed a crime a week, minimum, often more.

Thus when an armed citizen shoots and kills a street mugger, he isn't just thwarting that one crime -- he's effectively prevented all the hundreds of future muggings that criminal would have perpetrated.

The criminal took his chances and chose his risks. If he dies in the act of committing his armed robbery, that's HIS choice. The prevention of all those hundreds of future crimes is a net plus for society by any standard.

Less then 1% population commits 87% countries crime. A statistic I'm willing to agree with

However, I've proven that although gun toting states in the US may have lower crime rate, they are still exponentially higher in the US then the UK

Now England has hughe urban crime problems Car theft and burgalry. Although these are 95% of the tiem commited when people are abosent and in the remaining 3% of the time are abortive. However there is an exponentially lower chance of being harmed in the Uk then in the US.

England is not the worlds most violent place, I'm not saying the US is, but it's MORE violent then the UK.

States with liberal gun laws may have less crime, buth the type of crime they have is SUBSTANTIALLY likely to result in violence, serious injury or death then in the UK.

These are old arguments, I've shown you the facts, I've shown you the figures. Yet for some reason you fail to see that gun liberalisation in the US is a bad idea.

ALthough Canada may have more liberal laws the UK on guns, they don't have the same mentaility as the US. Therefore US mentality coupled with easy access to firearms = BAD IDEA.

Neon

Because you have shown no causality. You have NEVER shown that UK's crime rate decreased after tightening gun control (mostly because it increased) and you have never shown that those US states that loosened gun control saw increased crime (because it decreased).

Showing static snapshots of the UK vs the US NOW is worthless. Looking at their crime rate NOW and their policies NOW is less than worthless. Looking at the UK NOW vs the UK THEN, before and after policy changes, and the same for the US is worthwhile and the answer is inescapable: gun control never lowers crime rates.

Erm... Hello? It is Neonwraith's JOB to know the law... Your saying that a TRAINEE JUDGE is wrong??? Are you dense?

And if you think hes so wrong... Wheres your proof?

So wheres your links to these? I would really like to see them... Im being all upity, I am actually curious to see your proof backed by VALID links of stats...

Yeah nice... I want actual STATS, not just paper tabloid shit... Statistics that show and back up your specualtion, all you have given me there is some he said, she said shit and propaganda... I would like to see statistics... Please, can you just do that for me? I have searched all over the web for stats to try and see if your right and I can't find ANY. I would like to know where you got your Stats from, just tell me the website that shows this (Not being tabloids or some NRA website) And I will totally believe you.

Those stats were just refering to the USA.... DOesn't matter JLB, I will try to look some comparison stats which either back you up or totally deflate your opinon....

Britain's crime rate hasn't sky-rocketed since the ban, as I showed with the relevant statistics in another thread.