The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[broncofan]

BTW, I forgot to mention in my last post that death by firearm comprised about 7.7% of total homicides in Britain, compared with 68% in the U.S. If we are not going to attribute this to lower availability of guns, we must believe that Brits just prefer less efficient means of committing murder. And if we do recognize that gun control leads to less firearm deaths, but do not believe this would result in less total homicide, we must believe that there would be a perfect displacement of firearm deaths for other methods. How can you believe that?

[martin48]

Our national healthcare system (free at point of delivery) will not last much longer! We are racing, blindfolded, into a US system of wealthy-insured and sod-'em parts of society.

Good set of posts, bronofan. Summary: If you value your life, it's much better to live in the U.K. Less chance of being killed plus a civilized heath care system. Guns may not be the cause of crime, but they do increase the chance of death or injury during the commission of a crime, whether you're the perp, the victim or a bystander. If you or others around you are carrying guns, your risk of death and injury is increased. If there is a gun in your home the risk of accidental death, injury and suicide are increased.

[trish]

Ah, how the entrepreneurial sirens of the reefs do beckon the greedy.

[Stavros]

Thank you Stavros for doing the fact-checking. The lesson is that anything PaulClifford says that is counter to intuition and un-cited is likely to be false.

In the U.K, deaths caused by firearms are something like the 5th or 6th most common method of committing homicide. The other causes of death are strangulation, kicking and hitting, sharp objects, blunt objects etc.

It didn't occur to me how inefficient all these other methods of killing are until you actually see the other options spelled out. Would all 11,000 people who were killed by guns in the United States have been killed with one of these other methods if not by firearm? What about the individuals who were killed at some range?

And if a lower availability of firearms is not the cause of the U.K having a significantly smaller proportion of homicides committed with firearms, what is? Are Brits much better at strangulation? One would have to be a fool to look at these statistics, and not attribute the lower homicide rate in the U.K to the lower availability of firearms. According to a rough calculation firearm deaths are the cause of over 68% of U.S homicides. Are we to assume that if you lower this number, it just re-distributes homicides by method with no net change in total number? It stretches credulity.

I think that raw data on crime gives a general picture, as it is meant to do, but that when you drill down into the figures you often find, in the UK as in other countries, a high proportion of violent crime is committed between professional criminals, or in people engaged in criminal acts, of which drug dealing is possibly the most lethal. Other than that, crimes committed in the heat of the moment must count for a lot, particularly in domestic situations, where a knife or blunt object is a common weapon. Gang violence, which has been a problem in inner cities, also tends to be knife related in the UK. I have no way of knowing if more people would be killed by guns if they were easier to obtain than they are; it is assumed that this would be the case but having said that, criminals who need a gun don't seem to have a problem getting hold of one and some of the deranged men who have gone berserk and murdered their own families usually had a licence.

[broncofan]

http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...homicide-rates

Everything you said makes sense Stavros. I am wondering though if in the U.S we have one expanded category of murder, one that usually is completed with firearm; that being situations between strangers (males with egos) that escalate into a shooting because one or both men are carrying.

Though we have a substantial number of drug related deaths they are a fairly modest percent overall (about 500/9000- apparently 5000 homicides are of causes unknown). And again, fewer than half of our homicides are committed in the course of felonies(2000/9000). I would guess that both of these categories are larger percentages of total homicides in Britain. There is of course a strong likelihood that many of the homicides whose cause is unknown are committed by career criminals, which is why authorities only have a body and cannot trace the origin.

It is possible that this category, other arguments, which comprises a fairly large percentage of homicides involves a lot of impulsive shootings just based on the sheer number of carriers of weapons and the potential for explosive situations. But these numbers and inferences are equivocal. As you say the numbers can only give a general picture.

*BTW these are 2008 numbers, but this was what I found;.

[Ben in LA]

This story popped up on my Facebook feed. Self-defense?

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/child-3...winnett/nZTsr/

[martin48]

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/art...ry-guns-public

Comment no needed!

[robertlouis]

Yet another mass shooting, this time at a naval yard in DC. Ho hum. As the old song has it, "When will they ever learn?"


http://http://www.huffingtonpost.com...n_3934027.html

[trish]

Perhaps we should arm all U.S. Naval officers. Oh wait! We already do that.

[Prospero]

Terrorism? Sounds like it....