I think the article seems to tentatively agree that yes, they perhaps have, with a few anecdotal examples and a possibly tongue-in-cheek suggestion that we need incarceration laws more like the US (god forbid).
It is a somewhat misleading picture I think.
Firstly, it’s very difficult to compare violent crime across countries, because the definition varies hugely. The UK definition is much broader than the US’ and will include for example situation where violence was threatened but did not occur.
Their definitions of rape and murder are more similar however, and it’s interesting that the article alludes to these rates being higher in the US…
Secondly, in drawing the conclusion it just focuses on the US and the UK. Why did we pick the UK as a comparison only? Why not any of the other developed countries with a “liberal” justice system? Is it because it wouldn’t support the conclusion we want?
Finally the UK, like most of the developed world, has seen a massive drop in violent crime in recent decades that we’re struggling to understand. So this 13 year old article needs to be probably need to be revised at least.
I think it possible that countryfolk living far from copshops — although enforcement, as with air-rescue and air-ambulance, and high-speed vehicles does have a lot more resources nowadays — may well be more at danger from criminals and gangs without methods of self-protection [ although most who can afford it can make suitable accommodations — ‘We need that rifle for rats, officer’, and ‘Nay, that’ol pit covered in straw hasn’t been touched these 30 years, nowt to see there.’ ] — but most people don’t need guns, however much I think they should have the option.
As for a rise in violent crime before an after the article, I’ve never really seen that. Obviously not living near immigrant gangs helps ( the native gangs are a dying breed now, you can get more by sending your kids to work in financial services in the City of London than by training them to brandish sawn-off shotguns in banks as back in the 1960s ), and there are some seriously unpleasant people about, but I’ve never seen a crime committed ( and have only been thieved from once in my life; earlier this year I left a chair on the lawn because I couldn’t carry it in due to a broken arm. Nasty but not violent. )
The article is flat wrong in its first factual claim, that “Violent crime jumped by two-thirds between 1998 and 2003.”
This is a complete reversal of the truth. Violent crime fell dramatically between 1998 and 2003. See the graph here. From the figures provided, between year ending Dec 97 and year ending Apr 04, violent crime fell by 32%.
The mistake is understandable, if bone-headed. The figures used for the column must be police recorded crime. Which would be fine, but for the fact that in 1998 there was a major change to the rules for police recording violent crime which resulted in a steady increase in recorded figures over the next 5 or so years as police implemented the new system.
This fact would have been clearly flagged on any official data set so managing to ignore it is a fairly spectacular blunder.
Even if there’s no need to update the column, it should certainly be corrected because it’s just plain wrong.
A crime shows in statistics in the year it was reported, not the year it was committed.
So when Dr. Harold Shipman committed those 200+ murders between 1975-98 they are not in statistics of those years but 1998 ( when he was caught ) and after ( when more murders we discovered ).
Or that’s how I understand it, and that amount would surely skew statistics.
It was an interesting time, the 1980s were the time of huge protests against government policy as Thatcher dismantled and restructured major industries and widespread unemployment. There was also a demographic blip where the proportion of young people the age range commonly associated with crime was higher than usual. The economy had pretty much recovered by the 1990s.
Crime goes up and down and it is all very interesting looking at historical examples, but I don’t see how this can be used as any sort of evidence by suggesting there is a connection with the laws restricting firearms. There is no real control with which to make any comparison, the laws have always been quite strict.
The example of Tony Martin was not really a cause celebre. There was no campaign by frustrated homeowners to get tooled up with the firepower necessary to dispatch unarmed burglars. This man killed a boy of 16 with a pump-action shot gun that was illegally owned. There is evidence he set traps and lay in wait like a hunter and his defence rested on his paranoid mental state. He was not the stuff from which heroes are made. It takes a great deal of spin to change that view, yet here we have an argument based on this strange story as if it reveals the truth about some great injustice.
Better to ask why this strange argument was made. It is quite clear that it is simply part of the struggle the US has with its own Constitution regarding the right to possess firearms. Most other countries simply do not have this argument, it is peculiar to the US and the often troubled relationship between the government and the people.
Suggesting that rising violent crime is caused by laws restricting access to lethal firearms seems an absurd argument from the fringe of the gun law debate in the US.
It does not bear much examination.
The UK does have crime issues, it is country of 60 million people, stuff happens. But it has little to do with the carnage would be caused if gun ownership was widespread and falling into the hands of unstable characters like Tony Martin.