Sorry, scaling properly, the 1999 total for firearm murders would be 8259 vs. 310.
What happens when you subtract the number of deaths due to illegal firearms from both samples? For example, I heard it was the case that most gangland deaths in the US are caused by illegal MAC10’s.
I would imagine that no more than a handful, if any at all, of the UK firearm murders involved a legally owned shotgun or rifle. As for the US, your guess is as good as mine but I would think there were still thousands of firearm murders involving a weapon owned legally by someone, though perhaps not the killer. And so, as a guess, I would say 4000 vs. 5, say.
A few facts (from a Londoner) regarding gun crime in England.
It is a piece of cake to get hold of an illegal gun in London. However the penalty for posession is 5 years - so most people don’t have illegal guns.
It is all but impossible to get hold of anything other than a shot gun or single- shot hunting rifle legally.
Other weapons (Mace, Knives, CS gas etc) are also banned but easily bought illicitly (and freely available in France, which is hardly far away).
Of the gun crime in England almost all is in the inner cities, and of that almost all of it is black-on-black and rooted in the drug industry. Details here:
http://www.met.police.uk/trident/
Most English people have never fired a pistol.
Our police are increasingly armed (and very visibly so around potential terrorist targets) but we are some way off an armed police force here.
Theodore Dalrymple (which is an alias BTW) is a professional malcontent who writes similar articles every week in both the Spectator and Telegraph (have a look online). He does tend to over exagerate things, but is funny.
I wasn’t looking for murder rates but rather a statistical comparison of types of murders within the murder rates.
From Sentientmeat’s link it looks like about 7% of UK murders are committed with firearms while 65% of US murders are committed with firearms - so my theory goes out the window.
The main difference is that in the UK we don’t have gun murders of the “husband finds wife in bed with his best friend, takes gun out of cupboard and shoots both” kind. That sort of thing is more likely to end with him bashing them up - but not killing them.
Most gun murders in Britain, as I have said above, are black-on-black drug related murders, and of the remainder the majority are criminal-on-criminal in any case. Obviously these murders occur in the USA as well. Some of these criminals are extremely heavily armed with Uzis etc, but don’t represent a direct threat to the innocent public (although obviously society as a whole suffers as a result of their activities).
Exceptions to the above type of murder make the NATIONAL news as big stories. I can’t imagine this happens in the USA.
And as we don’t have the number of guns in circulation we also have a much lower level of accidental gun-deaths.
Your WAG would be incorrect. Despite the rising number of guns (and the number of handguns is rising at a higher rate than long guns), the number of children killed in gun accidents is decreasing in the United States.
It is suspected, by the ATF that about 70 million guns have been sold in the U.S. since 1990. And yet in the period 1970 to 2001, the rate of firearm death of children under 15 has dropped by 60%.
Statitics - as we should all know - can prove pretty-much whatever you want them to, so I’d not look to those for your answers.
The UK Gun Controls were simply a logical step for a country which has decided that there is no need for it’s general populous to own - let alone carry around - guns.
I don’t give a flying fcuk if it has harmed a ‘sport’ really - ‘sportsmen’ can continue to own guns at their clubs and should not even be dreaming about having them elsewhere anyway, so I fail to see why it should harm them but I really don’t care if it does - it’s hardly important in the scale-of-things…
To my mind, deciding that the populous doesn’t need a gun is a a pretty sensible approach isn’t it? We don’t really believe we all need to be armed do we? Really??
End-of-the-day my impression is that the US is hiding behind a statute/amendment which was never intended to be used in the way it is used currently - as well as hiding behind a gun in the hope the other person won’t have one (increasingly less likely as time goes on).
Even if greater gun ownership did reduce crime in the US - it doesn’t mean it would do-so elsewhere, gun culture is long-established in the US and it would take a similarly long time to have the same effect elsewhere anyway…
As for violent crime ‘exploding’ the UK - I’m pleased to see it hasn’t done so near here and I don’t exactly live in a ‘priveleged area’…
JP
TRJP - I’m not familiar with UK gun law. What’s the deal with sporting firearms? They can be used at sport clubs but can’t leave the premisies?
I guess it way more difficult to walk around unnoticed with a hunting rifle than with a handgun…
Sporting handguns are also pretty much forbidden. You would have to be an international class shot to get a licence, and then only for a specialist weapon. As you may know London is bidding for the 2012 olympics and this is a bit of a problem, in that we would have to allow in guns that would normally be illegal in Britain.
Rifles are easier to get hold of, especially if you have an easily identified use for them eg hunting (there isn’t a great history of hunting with rifles in the UK - we shoot small game with shotguns and hunt foxes (and stags) with dogs.)
Prior to the Dunblane massacre (see above for details) there were quite a few gun clubs where enthusiaists could shoot and store handguns. These no longer exist (there used to be a pistol range in the Houses of Parliament - it’s a creche now).
Also, just to completely confuse matters, gun crime is recrded completely differently in the UK from the US. We would count a hold up with a replica gun or air pistol as “gun crime”
Really? When was the referendum? I can’t remember when the country decided anything. I remember a time when the antigun movement jumped on an extremely rare event which, if we’re brutally honest, is just as likely to happen today as it was before the ban, to whip up a media frenzy which resulted in a kneejerk reaction from the government.
Sportsmen cannot own guns, whether they are kept on the premises of a licensed gun club or not.
Strawman. Who is even arguing that the like sof concealed weapon permits be instituted in the UK? Not me. I’m questioning the logic behing destroying a sport.
The rest of your post carries on in a similar vein.
Ahem, I think your preconception is showing. The UK has always had strict gun control laws, Hungerford and Dunblane merely tightened them further. And I think it is much less likely now - even ardent gun nuts can only legally own rifles and shotguns, are far more thoroughly vetted, and must worry about a long sentence should they keep anything illegal in their house.
You want to shoot a pistol, pay £500 and join a club, or pay £10 for a budget flight to France. No biggie.
Interesting. I stand corrected, at least as far as the 1-14 year age group goes. The rate for the 15-19 year group is essentially unchanged as is 19-14 years although they aren’t really children.
Do you suppose the decrease in child gunshot accidents could be partly a result of the tough laws regarding carelessness in allowing children access to guns?
Yeah, that’s probably part of it. But I suspect that the better part of the decrease came about from the efforts of groups on both sides of the issue to: a) raise awareness of the problem; b) run campaigns to educate gun owners on safe handling and storage methods; c) educate kids on the dangers of firearms; and d) make gun locks more readily available. I should note that item d) is not only advocated by pro- and anti-gun groups, but also gun manufacturers (nearly all new guns are sold with a lock of the appropriate type now) and government bodies. Many of these entities provide gun locks free of charge. As a long-time member of the gun-owning community, I can tell you that safety has become a much more prominent issue than it once was. The outcome of all these efforts and education is that it has become less socially-acceptable to store guns in an unsafe manner.
Please fight my ignorance…
How in God’s name is it harder to diguise ammunition than the frame of a handgun?
I don’t think it’d be that difficult. There are usually ways to get stuff into a country without having to ever go through an x-ray machine, and for those industrious enough to obtain a few raw materials, it’s not that difficult to load your own rounds at home.
Where I live, it’s perfectly legal to do so, and often preferable because it’s not as expensive as buying rounds at the store, and you can make them to your own specifications and tolerances.
It tightened them to needlessly stringent levels. School shooting were extremely rare as it was. Really, how many years had it been legal to own a firearm for? How many school shootings had taken place over those years? The problem was that Dunblane was the product of a warped mind who was carrying a grudge from the 1970’s after being sent home from a Scout camp. He should never have had access to a gun in the first place, the fault lies at the feet of the Police and the vetting procedures employed, not with guns themselves.
Are you familiar with the concept of representative democracy?
+MDI , do you have any evidence that the British People are not in favour of the current gun laws?
Operators of X-rays in airports are looking for suspicious shapes. An assembled gun is distinctive in outline. So is a collection of bullets. However, unless well-experienced in handgun assembly, individual parts will not jump out as suspicious.