"Gun crime" is meaningless. Only total crime matters.

And, as always, you have failed to show causality between the nations' respective crime rates and their policies. When asked to explain the fact that crime in the UK has risen with gun control, you evade. When asked to explain the fact that US crime has fallen with loosening gun control and more guns in private hands, you revert to parrotting that irrelevancy, above.

Total crime is meaningless when talking about gun control. Only gun crime matters.

With gun control, the number of gun crime deaths in the UK is a miniscule fraction of the huge number of gun crime deaths in the US.

number of deaths due to gun crime in the UK in 1 year: 97
number of deaths due to gun crime in the US in 1 year: over 11,300

You say that I should be comparing violent crime in the UK now (under gun control) compared to violent crime in the UK in the 1800s - that's absolutely ridiculous. How the hell can you compare a 21st century democracy to a 19th century society. Only a fool or a sophist would do that. I think you're the latter.

Gun crime is meaningless. If "gun crime" changes but total crime in other forms rises via substitution, you've done nothing. E.g., criminals may CHOOSE to not use a gun if they feel it's not necessary. Thus they still mug and rape and rob, but use other implements. The implementation hardly matters. No victim cares what weapon was used to effect his crime. If the ratio of what weapon is used changes but the total doesn't change, you have done nothing. If 100 gun-muggings become 100 knife muggings, this is not success.

"Gun crime"is a specious non-concept.

Indeed, which is why I never said anything like that. Gun control really didn't start in any meaningful way until the 20th century. Here, educate yourself and get back to me:

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/SlipperySlope.htm

Gun crime is not meaningless at all.

Gun control started much earlier than you think in the UK

False. The goal of public policy is to reduce crime, not just change irrelevant details of the crimes. A policy that does not reduce total crime is worthless.

Read the cite then get back to me.

Balls. The tools facilitate the crime. It's far easier to kill with a gun at a distance than with a knife, where you can see them up close, where you have to push the knife into their flesh and feel their blood over your hands. If your non-firearm violent crime rate was proportionately less because of your high firearm crime rates then your point might hold some water, but it isn't so it doesn't.

Your high firearm crime rates are an exceptionally prominent fact, and to try to divorce the firearm from that for ideological reasons is to blind yourself to the problem.

Again, with the fatuous A/B country comparisons. Again, the telling fact is that if you look at any one area before and after gun control increases, crime increases as well, thus your argument doesn't hold water.

And to continue to ignore the empirical failures of gun control is to blind YOURSELF.

And the tools facilitate the DEFENSE too. No one can be taken seriously who elides that fact.

Okay Explain what you percive to be demogrpahics. I can quote you ethinic diversity, Poverty, Urban density and cultural identiy. All of which according to the NAtional statistics beureau are BENCHMARK FACTORS in demographic analysis.

SO what are the factors of crime in the US. I guarentee the UK will have EXACTLY the same factors.

Okay....

(Quoted from Chitty's History of Criminolgy 3rd Ed 1998 Bleakell Publishing)

(UK)

After Firearms Act 1887, the next 20 years saw a dramatic fall in the number of firearms offenses. Since the restriction became near total, the number of weapons on the streets wa snot beleived to have dropped although the legitimacy and and efficacy of the procuration of ammuntion and replacement parts was beleived to be the main stay in the drop to a trace elvel of crime. In the United States at that time, the rate of firearms related crimes was to remain within one standard variance of norm.

Even the firearsm offences act 1987 was addaquate to stop a rising trend in fthe firearms offenses seen throught the decade. However this did not decrease the figures below the nominal trace established by the 1887 act, but did halt the rise.

Thats not proof. Thats simply stating an opinion. You have cited authority or evidence.

No it's not. It's not differnet. I have told you before. the US and UK have near identical (although Scaler) Demographics

The only things that are different are the envrionmental factors.

Yes, but look at the ecconomic countries with gun control and their comparative violent crime rates.

Switzerland and Canada I have bene recently shown have different Urban/Rural densities and population dispursements to the US and the UK. Therefore maybe the fact that in small communities people tend to know who did what is a deterrent? I can't prove this, but I can idfferentiate them adaquately from the baseline I can draw between the rest of the Ecconomic superpowers.

Prove it. WHERE IS YOUR AUTHORITY!!!!!!! WHERE IS YOUR AUTHORITY!!!!!!

And that makes you a Morlock? A canabilistic bloodthristy savage? Fair enough I suppose.

Neon

But not in the same amounts, which is the ENTIRE issue. For example, a lot of crime is committed by minorities in inner cities. The UK has a different ethnic makeup. There are illegitimacy rates, and a dozen other variables.

Try John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime," or look at US Dept of Justice stats. Over the last 15 years, many states (more than half) went from May Issue to Shall Issue concealed carry permits. The number of permit holders increased by about 2 million, and the number of guns in private hands increased by 70 million. These are trivially obtainable facts. Violent crime decreased.

What are you talking about? The UK has a 12% black population? The same illegitimacy rate in its inner cities? Demographics are QUANTITATIVE.

But now you're saying that demographics matter and that you can't look ONLY at gun law differences. Make up your mind.