Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 14
The UK holds that distinction, and it is pretty clear why the hold it... gun control:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/09/24/How-Gun-Contro...

Excerpts:

Gun control in Britain passed in stages, beginning just after World War I and continuing in a reactionary fashion with increasing strictness through the 1990s.

When the final stage arrived in 1997, and virtually all handguns were banned via the Firearms Act, the promise was a reduction in crime and greater safety for the British people. But the result was the emergence of Britain as the "most violent country in Europe."

...

And what has been the outcome of passing more laws in Britain to remedy the fact that other laws were ignored or broken? It has not been good.

In 2009, twelve years after the Firearms Act of 1997 was passed, Daily Mail Online reported that Britain was "the most violent country in Europe." They also reported that Britain's home figures showed "the UK [had] a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and South Africa."


-----

How could this be? Turns out that violent people don't need guns to be violent, they're violent with or without guns. The only difference? Their would-be victims are at a distinct disadvantage if they are disarmed. It's a criminal free-for-all over there now, the stats don't lie.

This is what happens when you trust the government to protect you individually... they simply cannot do it. It's impossible unless you're going to literally move into a police station (and even that wouldn't be foolproof). You're on your own, we all are. I opt to be armed just in case.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Britian actually compounded the problem. While they disarmed their citizens, they simultaneously imported vast numbers of immigrants from violent third-world hell holes. There are now more "British" Muslims serving with ISIS than are serving in the Queen's army.



Mason
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
"This is what happens when you trust the government to protect you individually... they simply cannot do it. It's impossible unless you're going to literally move into a police station (and even that wouldn't be foolproof). You're on your own, we all are. I opt to be armed just in case."

So why do we even have a police force then? As more and more people become armed, we're heading toward anarchy. Look at that survivalist guy in PA, or the guy who broke into the White House. Why do we even let these lunatics have guns? Because it is their second amendment rights? That makes no sense.

There has to be some kind of controls, or everybody will be running around killing everybody because you bumped their cart in the grocery store, or whatever. It is insane out there and getting crazier every day as more and more people buy weapons and carry them everywhere.

"Strange days indeed . . . "
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
There has to be some kind of controls, or everybody will be running around killing everybody because you bumped their cart in the grocery store

idiot.

justacog
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
There has to be some kind of controls, or everybody will be running around killing everybody because you bumped their cart in the grocery store, or whatever.

----------------------------------

Yeah, nothing like starting a gun fight over the last box of Wheaties......cleanup on aisle 5!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
There has to be some kind of controls, or everybody will be running around killing everybody because you bumped their cart in the grocery store

idiot.


Well, I wouldn't go so far to say that about Inconclusive. More misguided as any thing else. I try to respect his point of view; even if it's an over exaggerated emotional one.

Would you really pull your weapon out in frustration with bumping carts or whatever if you also knew that other people around you were armed as well? That is the control Inconclusive. Especially if open carry was more accepted. I believe there was an earlier time in our history that if you carried concealed you would cause suspicion of your character.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 71
The UK holds that distinction, and it is pretty clear why the hold it... gun control:

Death rate by firearms per 100,000 people:

UK: 0.25
US: 10.30.

Yes, that's correct. The number is forty times higher in the United States.

Great argument.

Oh, incidentally?

Spain: 0.62
France: 3.01
Greece: 1.64
Hungary: 0.87
Germany: 1.24
Belgium: 2.42
Czech Republic: 1.76
Germany: 1.24
Italy: 1.28
Luxemborg: 2.02
Netherlands: 0.46
Portugal: 1.77
Sweden: 1.47
Switzerland: 3.84
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-re...

Apparently none of these countries are in Europe?

So, nice post. You ask "How could this be?" Answer: it isn't.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Would you really pull your weapon out in frustration with bumping carts or whatever if you also knew that other people around you were armed as well? That is the control Inconclusive. Especially if open carry was more accepted. I believe there was an earlier time in our history that if you carried concealed you would cause suspicion of your character. - blesto

----------------

Yep. Has there ever been a documented case of a CHL holder losing it, going berserk leading to a shooting?

I suppose there has to have been given the law of large numbers but the MSM would be sure to give it Ferguson like coverage so perhaps there hasn't.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14

How could this be? Turns out that violent people don't need guns to be violent, they're violent with or without guns. The only difference? Their would-be victims are at a distinct disadvantage if they are disarmed. It's a criminal free-for-all over there now, the stats don't lie.


Oh yes, they do. The "violent crimes" reported in the different nations are NOT THE SAME.
I told you that before.

US statistics are based on a far narrower definition of what a violent crime is than the UK statistics.

Second, and more importantly, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime” as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.”

So a slap in the face and a touch to the boobs are a violent crime in the UK, but no the US.


http://boards.fool.com/quotin-the-uk-there-are-2034-violent-...

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checkin...

The fact that the UK has a homicide rate of 1.5 per 100,000 residents, while the US has a homicide rate of 4.7 per 100,000 should demonstrate conclusively that something can't be right with Breitbart's "violent crime" numbers.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 24
Death rate by firearms per 100,000 people:

UK: 0.25
US: 10.30.

Yes, that's correct. The number is forty times higher in the United States.

Great argument.

Oh, incidentally?

Spain: 0.62
France: 3.01
Greece: 1.64
Hungary: 0.87
Germany: 1.24



Amazing how when there's a post that Goofy is truly politically threatened by on this board (or any board), and when he responds, his posts gets so many recs, so quickly......maybe he brings out his doppels for self love? I've always suspected this, but he's always denied it.

First, his post doesn't address the issue posed by the OP. He immediately goes to "firearm crimes". What about crimes period?!? That's the point!! Whether you die by being shot, poisoned, or being slammed by a brick to the head is irrelevant. You're dead, period. Does it really matter HOW you die?

Another thing is the difference in demographics....you realize that Europe is VERY white?!? While the US is 13% black and something like 17-18 Hispanic, many countries like Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, the UK, etc are quite white ??

So while the US is something like 30% comprised of black and Hispanic high violent crime offending residents, most of Europe is like less than 5% of this demographic?

Do you realize how BIG of a difference this makes to the crime numbers?

The blacks in the US, which make up 12-13% of the population, commit 49.6 (or HALF!!) of the murders in the US. That's compared to the rest of the population. That's something like 400-500% higher rate of murders. (4 times higher.....we're not talk 10, or 20, 70% higher black crimes....we're talking 400-500% times higher!!)

The second highest crime committing population isn't even separated from "rest" of the population. FBI doesn't separate whites from Hispanics from the crime rate in the US.....yeah...wonder why? PC reasons. So if you were to compare the "real" white murder rate from blacks, it's probably something like 7-8 times higher!!

It's truly staggering.

So gun play is not a "guns control" issue. Many of it is because of black gangs in the inner city. And crimes involving Mexican drug gangs as well. It's genetics and culture that feedback on themselves. Yes, I said GENETICS. Certainly, whites are involved in crime. But it's nowhere near the crime rate of the minorities. And here's a counterexample...Asians are virtually off-the-charts missing on the violent crime radar.


You compare the 30% of the US that are either blacks or Hispanics, and the 1,2 or 3, sometimes as high as 4% minorities, then you now know the difference in crime rates.

If the US didn't have 90% of more violently predisposed minorities, it's crime rate would absolutely plummet.

Yet, you blame guns, when the real crime problem is based in demographics.

And people need to stop being PC and speak the truth!....including this board!!






http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0855617.html
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 35
Lord writes: Certainly, whites are involved in crime. But it's nowhere near the crime rate of the minorities. But it's nowhere near the crime rate of the minorities.

==============================

You are totally out of the ballpark with your unsubstantiated ideas about crime. Crime is related to poverty not race or genetics!


COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Violent crime rates have more to do with poverty levels in a neighborhood than with the race of local residents, new research has found.

A study of Columbus neighborhoods found that violent crime rates in extremely disadvantaged white neighborhoods were very similar to rates in comparable Black neighborhoods.

The violent crime rate in highly disadvantaged Black areas was 22 per 1,000 residents, not much different from the 20 per 1,000 rate in similar white communities.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/badcomm.htm

Seems like you need to first find out the truth before opening up your computer and writing nonsense!

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 17
"Amazing how when there's a post that Goofy is truly politically threatened by on this board (or any board)"

Amazing that you have to make it about him.....

"First, his post doesn't address the issue posed by the OP."

Actually it does. The OP attributes it to gun control.

"What about crimes period?!? That's the point!!"

When you adjust for the way crimes are tracked in each country the OP is quite incorrect.

"Another thing is the difference in demographics....you realize that Europe is VERY white?!? While the US is 13% black and something like 17-18 Hispanic, many countries like Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, the UK, etc are quite white ??

So while the US is something like 30% comprised of black and Hispanic high violent crime offending residents, most of Europe is like less than 5% of this demographic?"


Not surprised you are going here. Looks like you didn't learn last time you showed your true colors.

"And people need to stop being PC and speak the truth!....including this board!!"

Your ignorant misperceptions about race while ignoring socioeconomic factors is not the "truth".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2

If the US didn't have 90% of more violently predisposed minorities, it's crime rate would absolutely plummet.



Is there any indication that middle class blacks have a higher incidence of crime than middle class whites (except for ex-NFL players I mean)?
If you subtract all homicides committed by the poor and immigrants from the German homicide count, the number would probably also drop by 80%.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
So gun play is not a "guns control" issue. Many of it is because of black gangs in the inner city. And crimes involving Mexican drug gangs as well. It's genetics and culture that feedback on themselves. Yes, I said GENETICS. Certainly, whites are involved in crime. But it's nowhere near the crime rate of the minorities. And here's a counterexample...Asians are virtually off-the-charts missing on the violent crime radar.




Whatever you say, Adolf.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
So why do we even have a police force then?

To enforce the laws. You'll note that this is a far different thing that protecting people. Granted putting criminals behind bars does protect people from future crimes committed by said criminals (while they're behind bars at least, which is often for far less time than they should be but I digress). However, you'll also note that someone had to be victimized for the criminal to be put behind bars. Law enforcement is, by definition, reactionary. That doesn't do you much good if a criminal is beating down your door now. You're on your own at that moment... your choices in the US are to be armed and able to defend yourself or to be unarmed and hope for the best. In the UK your choice is limited to being unarmed and hoping the Bobbies arrive before you are hurt or killed. That's a pretty lousy scenario if you ask me.

There has to be some kind of controls, or everybody will be running around killing everybody because you bumped their cart in the grocery store, or whatever. It is insane out there and getting crazier every day as more and more people buy weapons and carry them everywhere.

Odd that you think that EVERYBODY would be running around killing everybody because their cart was bumped. I've had my cart bumped many times while I was armed. I've had my CAR bumped (not lightly) in the city of Detroit (not the nice part) while armed. In neither case did I draw my weapon, let alone shoot anyone. As it happens the vast majority of people don't react with violence to what are actually minor annoyances, even if they're armed and more than capable of doing so. This suggests your concern is either projection (perhaps you're afraid that you would react with violence if someone bumped your cart while armed?) or a grave misconception that has somehow been implanted in your head.

I'm surrounded by armed people all day long. Armed cops at that. Listening to some of the threads around TMF lately you'd think I was liable to be shot if I sneezed in my office at the wrong time (cops are dangerous you know!) As it happens the only danger I'm in is someone changing the password on my desktop if I leave it open and walk away. Likewise most of the people I know outside of work have CPL's here in Michigan and are invariably armed while I'm with them. I've never been particularly concerned about any of them attacking me (unless it's to pull a prank on me or something like that). These are all people I opt to spend time with, to expose my family to, etc. Do you honestly think I'd do that if they were truly dangerous people? No, not at all. A big part of my job is to document who the dangerous people in society are... "has a CPL" has NEVER appeared in the description of any of the people I've documented for some odd reason.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Yeah, nothing like starting a gun fight over the last box of Wheaties...

That would be ridiculous. Now the last package of bacon on the other hand... ;-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Death rate by firearms per 100,000 people:

UK: 0.25
US: 10.30.

Yes, that's correct. The number is forty times higher in the United States.


You may want to try reading comprehension some time.

We're talking about ALL violence, not narrowed down to "death rate by firearms" (which would certainly include suicides and justified homicides I'd note, suicides make up 50% of the total in fact). If one is murdered by a knife, strangled, bludgeoned to death or shot and killed you're just as dead. The fact remains that you're far more likely to be the victim of a violent crime (rape, aggravated assault, murder, some robberies and burglaries, etc.) in the UK than anywhere else in Europe or even in the US. Declaring victory in one type of violent assault (death by firearms) hardly makes for the exploding rates of ALL OF THE OTHER KINDS.

In other words... the fact that you're less likely to be shot and killed in the UK doesn't make up for the fact that you're far more likely to be raped, stabbed, beheaded, poisoned, bludgeoned, burgled, robbed, beaten, strangled or incinerated... especially since your being disarmed is the REASON you're more likely to be stabbed, beheaded, etc.

"We solved the problem!" Uh, no, you didn't. You not only failed to eradicate the problem you wanted to solve entirely (why isn't the number for the UK 0?) but you made all the other violent crimes MUCH MORE PREVALENT. If that's your idea of "success" I'd hate to see your definition of utter failure.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Yep. Has there ever been a documented case of a CHL holder losing it, going berserk leading to a shooting?"


A quick sample from a Google search:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/09/two-michigan-d...

http://www.marinij.com/crimebeat/ci_26604501/doctor-faces-ma...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
The fact that the UK has a homicide rate of 1.5 per 100,000 residents, while the US has a homicide rate of 4.7 per 100,000 should demonstrate conclusively that something can't be right with Breitbart's "violent crime" numbers.

Not really... because there are indeed differences in how countries count homicides. In the UK they count the number of homicides that lead to a conviction. The the US we count the number of people killed. Thus in the UK if someone is killed but the crime is never solved that homicide doesn't appear on their official stats. This leads to a grossly understated homicide rate. For example if Detroit counted homicides the same way the UK does their number would be about 70% lower than it actually is... we're talking hundreds of murders in Detroit alone (a rather noticeable percentage of the overall total for the entire country in any given year in fact) that wouldn't appear on the official stats.

Plus, again, not all violent crime leads to death. Rape, for example, doesn't lead to death (if someone did die it would be a rape and a murder, two separate violent crimes)... would you like to explain to all the rape survivors how their rapes don't count because they didn't die? I would advise against making that argument.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
Seems like you need to first find out the truth before opening up your computer and writing nonsense!

Seems that your "study" left out a pretty crucial aspect... who actually committed the crimes. Unless you're asserting that only white people commit crimes in poor white areas, in which case you can feel free to present the evidence for that or apologize to LordFoolman for your false accusation against him.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Not really... because there are indeed differences in how countries count homicides. In the UK they count the number of homicides that lead to a conviction.

That is just not true, as I explained already in this thread, and the contention is obviously absurd. Please stop repeating was is obviously not true.

http://boards.fool.com/crime-stats-here-great-britain-306600...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
>In the UK they count the number of homicides that lead to a conviction.

When the police initially record an offence as a homicide it remains classified as such unless the police or courts decide that a lesser offence, or no offence, took place. In all, 559 deaths were initially recorded as homicides by the police in 2012/13. This means that by 8 November 2013, 8 were no longer recorded as homicides2, giving the total 551 offences currently recorded as homicides.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/f...

They way I read this the POLICE record the homicide, not the courts.

Do you have any evidence for your assertion?

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 29
>Amazing how when there's a post that Goofy is truly politically threatened by on this board (or any board), and when he responds, his posts gets so many recs, so quickly...

He gets a lot of recs because he speaks the truth and there are a lot of people at TMF who detest bullcrap.

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
For future reference, how crime gets recorded in the UK by the police for statistical reasons:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specif...

Pages 19 to 22

The important bit is this:

To determine whether an incident is a crime, the HOCR state that:
“An incident will be recorded as a crime (notifiable to the Home Secretary) for offences against an identified victim if, on the balance of probability:
A. The circumstances as reported amount to a crime defined by law (the police will determine this, based on their knowledge of the law and counting rules), and
B. There is no credible evidence to the contrary.”
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The UK holds that distinction, and it is pretty clear why the hold it... gun control...

It's not at all clear that's the reason.

In fact, only by including burglary and sexual harassment as a violent crimes does England top the list. If you exclude those -- neither is considered a violent crime in the U.S. -- then the U.K is nowhere near the top of the list.

If you look only at murder rates:

U.S. 4.7/100,000 population
Norway 2.2
Greece 1.7
Belgium 1.6
France 1.0
United Kingdom 1.0
Italy 0.9
Austria 0.9
Germany 0.8
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
"perhaps you're afraid that you would react with violence if someone bumped your cart while armed"

No - I'm worried about the other guy/gal out there with guns. The posters in this forum are tactically trained experts by definition; I'm not worried about you. It's Hot Rod Harry or Pistol Packin' Annie, the weekend gun totin' warriors, who think they know what they're doing with a weapon, and want to effect citizen justice, that scare me.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Not really... because there are indeed differences in how countries count homicides. In the UK they count the number of homicides that lead to a conviction. The the US we count the number of people killed. Thus in the UK if someone is killed but the crime is never solved that homicide doesn't appear on their official stats. This leads to a grossly understated homicide rate. For example if Detroit counted homicides the same way the UK does their number would be about 70% lower than it actually is... we're talking hundreds of murders in Detroit alone (a rather noticeable percentage of the overall total for the entire country in any given year in fact) that wouldn't appear on the official stats.

Plus, again, not all violent crime leads to death. Rape, for example, doesn't lead to death (if someone did die it would be a rape and a murder, two separate violent crimes)... would you like to explain to all the rape survivors how their rapes don't count because they didn't die? I would advise against making that argument.


That has never been the case Colovion. Here is the User Guide to Home Office Crime Statistics of the UK. Please look through here and point to the page and paragraph that supports your contention. I have read it and have not seen it. I would also point out, that every country comparison of crime worth reading always has footnotes that explains where certain countries have significant reporting differences and I have never read that about the UK.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Do you have any evidence for your assertion?

http://www.theendrun.com/larry-pratt-british-gun-crime-stats...

Excerpt:

“American homicide rates are based on initial data, but British homicide rates are based on the final disposition.” Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. “With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham,” the report concludes.

...

Figures to be published by the Home Office this week will massively understate the scale of the problem.

Data provided to The Sunday Telegraph by nearly every police force in England and Wales, under freedom of information laws, show that the number of firearms incidents dealt with by officers annually is 60 per cent higher than figures stated by the Home Office.

Last year 5,600 firearms offences were excluded from the official figures. It means that, whereas the Home Office said there were only 9,800 offences in 2007/8, the real total was around 15,400. The latest quarterly figures, due to be released on Thursday, will again exclude a significant number of incidents.


Official crime stats in Britain are, shall we say, "massaged" to a fairly shocking degree, and they certainly don't tweak them to make it seem worse than it is (quite the opposite).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
http://www.theendrun.com/larry-pratt-british-gun-crime-stats...

Colovion, rather than quoting an American gun nut, I would expect that you could point to something in the UK which substantiates your claim that homicides are not recorded unless there is a conviction.

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Ia there anything else other than the short column Britain from Bad to Worse that supports the claim, or is that it?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
There are now more "British" Muslims serving with ISIS than are serving in the Queen's army.



Mason




Where did you get this incredibly wrong notion? For that to be, ALL members of ISIS would have to be British AND Her Majesty's Army would have to have 30,000 or fewer members (and I'm not even talking about British Reservists).

Absurd.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Colovion, rather than quoting an American gun nut, I would expect that you could point to something in the UK which substantiates your claim that homicides are not recorded unless there is a conviction.

The Sunday Telegraph is a gun nut?!? That would be news to them I presume...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Where did you get this incredibly wrong notion?

From the UK Telegraph.

More British Muslims Fight In Syria Than In The UK Armed Services:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11049851/More...


An estimated 1500 British Muslims fighting jihad.
650 Muslims are currently serving in the British armed forces.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Don't worry, I'm sure the Goofatti know more about the UK than the UK Telegraph does ;-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I concede to you Mason. The way I first read that was British Muslims in ISIS outnumbering British Army members. I stand corrected. I see now that you were talking about British Muslim members of ISIS vs. British Muslims in Her Majesty's Army.

Now to investigate these numbers to see if they hold up . . .
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
So while the US is something like 30% comprised of black and Hispanic high violent crime offending residents, most of Europe is like less than 5% of this demographic?

Wow.
That is the most stunningly racist remark I have ever seen on these boards, in 11 years. Just - wow.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
PR >Colovion, rather than quoting an American gun nut, I would expect that you could point to something in the UK which substantiates your claim that homicides are not recorded unless there is a conviction.

Col >The Sunday Telegraph is a gun nut?!? That would be news to them I presume...

Do you mean this article?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/3222063...

This article does not contain the word "homicide".

I'm still waiting for substantiation of your claim.

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>Now to investigate these numbers to see if they hold up . . .

Here is a clue:

Only about 12 Americans fighting with ISIS, other terrorists in Syria, FBI says — not 100
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/12-americans-fighti...

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So while the US is something like 30% comprised of black and Hispanic high violent crime offending residents, most of Europe is like less than 5% of this demographic?

Yeah, but Europe's got a lot more Muslims and real-life Africans. What about them colored people?
Print the post Back To Top