The OP is comparing per capita numbers, so the population argument wouldn't apply.
Originally Posted by xaviar007
To give an example of what I was saying earlier, imagine if someone broke into your house, threatened you with a gun, stole your stuff, and left. Or, imagine someone robbed a convenience store using a gun. Both of these guys get away. In the US, we would report both of these as gun crimes, even if we didn't catch or convict the criminals, but the UK wouldn't report them as such. They are merely "incidents," not "crimes," until someone is arrested and convicted. Now think about how abhorrent police response times are, and how hard it would be to track someone down using only video footage after they've already left. 3D facial recognition systems only find criminals in Hollywood. It's not surprising that most gun crimes in the UK don't result in arrests or convictions.
Source: Fear in Britain, Gallant, Hills, Kopel, Independence Institute, July 18, 2000.
To top it off, the cops have admitted that they lie about gun crime all the freakin' time to promote tourism.
Source: Crime Figures a Sham, Say Police, Daily Telegraph, April 1, 1996.
If we compare the number of convictions in the US for violent crimes to the number of convictions in the UK, the numbers make a lot more sense. In 2008, Britain had a violent crime rate nearly five times higher than the United States (446 vs. 2034 per 100,000).
Source: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S., Daily Mail, July 3, 2009, citing a joint report of the European Commission and United Nations.
Ironically, firearm use in crimes in the UK has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned.
Source: Weapons sell for just £50 as suspects and victims grow ever younger, The Times, August 24, 2007.
Go to GunFacts.info for more.