• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

But there were only 42 gun deaths in England, and they don't have guns.

HighFlyingA380

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
301
Location
West St. Louis County (Ellisville)
"But there were only 42 gun deaths in the U.K., and they don't have guns."

There are a couple "acquaintances" in particular who constantly use this as their argument for me/us not having guns. Now, obviously you can't compare the numbers directly, because the U.S. has a lot more citizens, but their percentage is still quite a bit lower. (Don't worry, they're not making me change my stance on owning guns.) So, what's a good response to that? (Any pertinent citations would be very helpful. These close-minded individuals wouldn't believe the sky is blue without seeing a credible citation.)
 
Last edited:
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
We declared independence and fought the Revolutionary War to escape their heritage of serfdom and all it implies.
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
Um, logic 101?

They have no guns. So HOW exactly were there 42 gun deaths?????

It only proves what most of us say ... the criminal element will get their guns in some way. So unless you can guarantee that NO ONE has access to guns (and, by inference, any materials that could be used to fabricate one), gun bans promote societies where the biggest, baddest guy wins. Is that what you want for your family?
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
I can't recall correctly at the moment, as I still haven't had my coffee, but doesn't the UK have a very funky scale about how they count murders? Like, they only count murders they can solve, murders that only happen to a certain demographic, things like that. It was explained to me (iirc) that they did it that way to keep the official numbers low so tourists would still feel safe about going to jolly ol' England.
 

09jisaac

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
1,692
Location
Louisa, Kentucky
Look at violent crime as a whole. Murder isn't the only crime that should be accounted. But trying to compare two groups of people is naive to say the least. They are two groups of thinking individuals that have their own thoughts and notions. Just because we may have a higher murder rate does not mean that our access to firearms effects this much.
 

Sig229

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
926
Location
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
What makes you think they don't have firearms in Great Britain?
A fellow moderator a C&R forum
http://curioandrelicfirearmsforum.yuku.com/directory
lives there and has numerous weapons. He hunts with them and also shoots them on ranges.

Very true.

Granted the UK doesn't allow its citizens all the cool guns like we have here.

But they do have AR15's that are not semi auto, pump action shot guns and plenty of bolt guns.
Handguns are pretty much out of the question though.

They do not have any laws on magazine capacity like some states and I think they can buy suppressors over the counter with no paperwork.

As a matter of fact, most of the EU nations allow suppressors without paperwork. They believe its better for the shooter to use a suppressor rather than make noise disturbances.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
As a matter of fact, most of the EU nations allow suppressors without paperwork. They believe its better for the shooter to use a suppressor rather than make noise disturbances.

I know that in the Nordic countries, use of a suppressor is part of proper range etiquette. Shooters who don't use them are considered rude.
 

Ballistic Otters

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2012
Messages
23
You have to consider that Americans are, as a rule, way more violent. At least statistically. From what I understand, we have higher violence across the board, gun related or not.

Even if guns make society more dangerous, a safe response is to state that it's a matter of principle. As long as the police and military still have firearms, you should too. It doesn't matter if their widespread availability makes society slightly less safe, we have the same problem with automobiles. Our constitution and our basic human rights permit us to defend ourselves with firearms, from criminals who wish us harm, or a government that wishes us to be subjugated. We do our best to keep guns away from criminals, but their bad decisions don't mean we need to look to the country that tosses people in prison for the possession of ammunition.
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
You have to consider that Americans are, as a rule, way more violent.

Um, maybe you meant criminals? :uhoh:

At least statistically.

There are two things I don't trust; lies and statistics. But I repeat myself :p

From what I understand, we have higher violence across the board, gun related or not.

Do you have a cite for this?

Even if guns make society more dangerous, a safe response is to state that it's a matter of principle. As long as the police and military still have firearms, you should too.

Nothing personal, sugar, but I don't give a damn if the police and military lost all their weapons tomorrow. That doesn't mean I should lose my RKBA.

It doesn't matter if their widespread availability makes society slightly less safe, we have the same problem with automobiles. Our constitution and our basic human rights permit us to defend ourselves with firearms, from criminals who wish us harm, or a government that wishes us to be subjugated. We do our best to keep guns away from criminals, but their bad decisions don't mean we need to look to the country that tosses people in prison for the possession of ammunition.

I agree with everything except the underlined.
The Constitution does not permit us anything; it merely recognizes the rights we have and *protects them from intrusive government. (*to an extent. We must still be vigilant defending our rights, and not rely on the Constitution or any other document as a one all cure.)

You are absolutely correct that we have a human right to self defense, and that England is no example to follow, in any regard.

:D
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
The arguement of fewer gun deaths being a good thing and even the mentioning of stats for it is a red herring. What matters violent crime, or being killed by a bullet fired from a firearm? For the sane world the answer is violent crime, and they do not have lower violent crime.
 

Ballistic Otters

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2012
Messages
23
RE: PistolPackingMomma

I do have a citation! I meant Americans, not criminals. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the USA has an intentional homicide rate of 4.8/100,000, and the UK has 1.23/100,000. There's always some overlap, and statistics don't mean all too much in the grand scheme of things, but they're a pretty good thing to cite when arguing against UK policy.

So, what I was trying to say is this; if this person wants to argue with someone citing the UK as a model for crime reduction, she has to compare the homicide rates of the two countries. 65% of homicides in the USA are carried out by use of firearms. So, the argument is, even if none of the firearms murders happened, we'd still have a higher murder rate at 1.68 to the 1.23 in the UK. That's not counting all of the murders that were deterred by firearms, all of the murders that would use a less efficient weapon, any of that. Even removing every firearm murder, we've got a higher murder rate. Which is what I meant by saying that Americans are statistically more violent. Poor choice of words on my part, but I don't think I'm incorrect or out of bounds with what I said.

I also won't argue with your RKBA disagreement. I take a different political philosophy than you, it would seem. We give up some natural rights and defer to the government and constitution. We mean the same thing (in practical terms,) just say it in carefully different ways.
 
Last edited:

Sig229

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
926
Location
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Its very difficult to compare violent crime in the US to the UK's crime.

First of all, the UK doesn't have the extensive black on black crime problem we have here.

Also, the UK is a complete nanny welfare state and there is less poverty. And as we all know, poverty does influence crime to SOME extent.

One other noticeable trait are the gangs like MS13, Bloods, Crips and many more.

The UK doesn't have that.

And although the UK does have strict drug laws like here in the US. Here in America the police actually think they are waging a "war on drugs" and that only increases violence.
 

Ballistic Otters

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2012
Messages
23
I agree, Sig! As I've said, they aren't truly comparable, but it's good fodder to toss into an argument if the opponent brings up statistics that are equally inapplicable. Debate is just as much about seeming correct as it is being correct. Particularly with an argument and movement like ours that relies heavily on image.
 

MyWifeSaidYes

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
1,028
Location
Logan, OH
I do have a citation! I meant Americans, not criminals. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the USA has an intentional homicide rate of 4.8/100,000, and the UK has 1.23/100,000...

...So, what I was trying to say is this; if this person wants to argue with someone citing the UK as a model for crime reduction, she has to compare the homicide rates of the two countries. 65% of homicides in the USA are carried out by use of firearms. So, the argument is, even if none of the firearms murders happened, we'd still have a higher murder rate at 1.68 to the 1.23 in the UK. That's not counting all of the murders that were deterred by firearms, all of the murders that would use a less efficient weapon, any of that. Even removing every firearm murder, we've got a higher murder rate. Which is what I meant by saying that Americans are statistically more violent. Poor choice of words on my part, but I don't think I'm incorrect or out of bounds with what I said...

Your poor choice of words includes using the word "violent" and then only considering homicides. Using the same USODC source you cited, I would conclude that the UK is way more "violent" even though we have higher firearm usage:

Assaults per 100,000
US 262.2
UK 729.8

Robbery per 100,000
US 132.7
UK 137.0

Theft per 100,000
US 2056.4
UK 2581.0

Burglary per 100,000
US 714.7
UK 986.4
 

Ballistic Otters

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2012
Messages
23
Was just discussing homicides. OP was discussing the 42 gun deaths. Was just answering his question is all! - Thank you for clarifying my point, though, I do appreciate constructive criticism. You guys on this forum are actually pretty darn nice about it, compared to some other places I've been on. Thanks again!
 
Last edited:
Top