Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: UK vs the US - The truth. Actual, factual stats

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    UK vs the US - The truth. Actual, factual stats

    Since it appears to be a favorite pasttime to bash the UK's no-gun policy, I'd like to share with you some stats which I found which directly compare the US and UK. This is an excerpt of conversations I'd had with a friend of mine from the UK (not this forum). I am reprinting with his permission, and as per his request, all references to his identity have been removed.

    OK, I've properly read your message and you have raised a number of very good points. However, between my message and the quotes, it is a bit long and I see the message lengths getting quickly out of hand.

    Perhaps we could focus on a few issues at a time and work through, to get a better understanding of each viewpoint.
    Works for me.

    I have no intention of trying to change your views, simply to provide you with as detailed an opinion as possible.
    Same here. I'm interested in knowing more about why people feel or believe as they do, while explaining the same to others, if they're at all interested in knowing the same about myself.

    Despite my views on guns, I firmly believe in the right to defend yourself. I catch you in my house, I'm not holding back. As far as I'm concerned the intruders rights are forfeited the moment they violate mine.
    Agreed. Here in Colorado, as in many other states, they have what's known as a "castle law," as in "a man's home is his castle, and he has the right to defend it against intrusion, with deadly force, if necessary. I was amazed to learn that California's laws require one to justify (and prove in court) any use of force in self-defense as being necessary given the level of force being used by the intruder. Thus, if an intruder walks in with nothing but his fists, using anything on him other than your own fists can and has been viewed as "excessive" and people have gone to jail for doing so.

    I'd like to look at some comparisons of gun specific crime in the US and UK. And see some numbers for violent crime (attacks, robbery, rape) between the two (your article is good but I'd like some numbers).
    I found an outstanding chapter written by Mike McGuire of the UK, published by the Oxford University Press, concerning crime statistics in general. He's concerned with how "data explosions" and changes in the kinds and types of statistics in general make comparing crime rates over time problematic.

    Nevertheless, CountryRisk.com has numerous links for comparing countries. Am going through them now to see if there's a source of significant, comparable data.

    ...Ah, here we go. NationMaster.com has a Crime Statistics by Country section. Instead of my peppering our dialogue with unwanted stats, why don't you have a look yourself and let me know what you think might be meaningful.

    I'll include just a few stats below which correspond to the points you raised.

    I don't accept the argument of needing a gun to defend your home. If you are going to give everyone the opportunity to own a gun, then yes, you need it. But as per the UK, people cannot own a gun and so there is no need to defend against it.
    Are knives also forbidden in the UK? For women especially, attempting to defend oneself against an intruder armed with a knife is problematic, particularly if the intruder knows how to use the knife. The amount of training required to successively and consistantly defeat your average knife attack with one's bare hands or a knife requires thousands of hours. As you up the lethality of a weapon (baseball /cricket bat, tire iron), the amount of time drops precipitously.

    I have not seen any figures which show a need for people in the UK to consider illegal firearms a problem. Their occurrence is too insignificant to pose a true threat to the general population.
    Murder per capita with firearms stats (from NationMaster.com):

    UK: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people
    US: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people

    Our's is 27 times greater than yours.

    I consider knives a true threat given how easy they are obtained, in this case, a gun may prove an effective defence, but then my 3ft steel bar gives a more than adequate defensive range.
    Murder per capita (all types):
    UK: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
    US: 0.042802 per 1,000 people

    The US is 3.0 times greater than the UK

    However, that includes by firearms, so subtracting that out:

    Murders per capita by means other than firearms:
    UK: 0.013038 per 1,000 people
    US: 0.014875 per 1,000 people

    The US is 14% higher than the UK.

    Comparing the non-specific murder rates with the ones specifically for "by firearms" and "by means other than firearms," there's some stats we can readily discern:

    1. The murder rate in the US is 3 times greater than it is in the UK.

    2. The murder rate by firearms in the US is 27 times greater than it is in the UK.

    3. The murder rate by means other than firearms is on par (slightly higher).

    The conclusion we can draw from this is that the difference between the murder rates in the US and the UK is due largely to firearms. If so, we should see this reflected in a nearly identical rate of assaults per capita between the US and the UK:

    Assaults per capita:
    UK: 7.45959 per 1,000 people
    US: 7.56923 per 1,000 people

    Yep - we're just 1.4% ahead of you.

    So far as street crime goes, I believe a good knowledge of self defence techniques is perfect. As you have demonstrated. Giving a gun to an untrained person isn't a wise idea in my opinion, although without seeing accurate figures showing rape and attack crimes I can't say how true my opinion is and whether or not carrying a gun is a good deterrent.
    Rapes per capita:
    UK: 0.142172 per 1,000 people
    US: 0.301318 per 1,000 people

    Ours is about double yours.

    I concur that knowing self-defense techniques is critical. However, they take a long, long time of study before they're very. I, for example, have had 240 hours of training in Aikido with an 8th Dan master, and I would never attempt to defend myself against a guy with a knife! Unless I absolutely had to. This summer I was assaulted at our pool complex by two inebriated individuals, one of who was rather large. When the pipsqueak attacked me I reached for the large one who'd pressed his face into mine and was making threats and threw him out of the way first, before turning to the pipsqueak, whom I merely shoved back on his butt. Fortunately, that was enough to end it, but if the larger one had gone for a tackle, I'm doubtful I'd have been the victor.

    Those 240 hours of instruction, by the way, cost $840!

    I don't agree that lower instances of violent crime can be attributed completely to gun ownership. Your report shows England to have a high violent crime rate, but I can't accept America's rate is lower because of gun ownership. That's basically ignoring all other possible factors.
    As we see from the NationMaster.com data, our murder rate by guns is far higher than yours, and the rape data says ours is double yours. No doubt about it, we Americans tend to be more violent than those of you in the UK. This same trend, however, is repeated throughout most of the countries from whom our citizens immigrated. The obvious exception, of course, is Mexico, whose murder rate per capita is 4 times greater than here in the US.

    Right, I've started with a general response to your message and I'll leave it there for now and let you respond to that. Don't want to over do it. If we can get some views on this and then once we're happy, we'll continue with other points in your message.

    Regards,
    Sounds good!
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    That was quite incoherent.

  3. #3
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    That was quite incoherent.
    Agreed

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Basic statistics don't get any more straightforward this, folks. If you find them incoherent, you might not want to go around advertising it.

    Put another way: Why do you find it "incoherent?" Is it because you didn't understand them? If so, what is it about them you didn't understand? Or is it because you disagree with them? If the latter, then what might you disagree with?
    Last edited by since9; 09-19-2010 at 11:50 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  5. #5
    Regular Member gsx1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, United States
    Posts
    884
    Let me summarize:

    The U.S. rocks and the UK sucks when it comes to gun laws.

    What those statistics don't show is where the large portion of the murders are taking place. It is in cities that have stricter gun laws or outright bans.

    I can only take what some guys who have moved here from the UK say and that is, they 'feel much safer here in the U.S. than back home'.

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Numbers, facts and statistics can be made to say almost anything and therefore should not be accepted as stand alone data.

    For a more thorough look at the interpolation of the "facts" consider the research and books by John Lott - he has a new one out now.
    http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=5818
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Statistics about crime rates are essentially meaningless when looked at in an "overall, nationwide" way. They mean little--if anything about how safe the vast majority of a nation is, for the most part.

    The vast majority of gun-related crime in the US (and ANY 1st world nation, for that matter) happens in tiny isolated, insular areas--inner cities--and very little of it spills out to small towns, suburbs, or the "nice" neighborhoods. If you take the violent crime statistics from every city where handgun ownership is banned, or tightly controlled (which would be less than 5% of the land mass of the US, and less than 10% of the total population), the violent crime rates of the rest of the US are on par with most European countries, and are in fact lower than some European cities.

    The concentration of criminals, gangs, corrupt courts, and rogue LEAs in these urban trouble spots in the US create a statistical anomaly that adversely effects the entire nation. People in Europe believe that the entire US is some sort of war zone, crawling with drug gangs, drive by shootings, and general mayhem. What they don't realize is that about 95% of the country is as peaceful as most of Europe, an some parts of the US are actually MORE law-abiding than Europe.

    What it boils down to is that there a handful of crime-ridden, gang-controlled neighborhoods in a few large cities that are radically skewing the crime statistics of the ENTIRE nation. If we take Chicago (Cook County), NYC, DC, Baltimore, LA county, Philadelphia, St. Louis, New Orleans, and a few other large cities out of the statistics, the USA is a pretty darn peaceful, law-abiding place.

    And what these UK boot-lickers don't tell you is that in the VAST majority of the USA where crime rates are VERY low, there are a metric butt-load of LEGALLY OWNED firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens. More guns does not correlate to more crime. If you want to make correlations, then it would be more accurate to say that more repressive gun laws create more crime. Or restrictive carry laws create more crime. Or making it nearly impossible for law-abiding citizens to own firearms creates crime. But legal, lawful gun ownership, in fact seems to GREATLY reduce crime, because the parts of the US where lawful gun ownership is highest have extremely low violent crime rates, and the places that have the lowest levels of legal gun ownership have he highest violent crime rates.

    There is a tiny segment of the population of the US (less than 5%), living in isolated, poverty-stricken, drug-crime-laden areas in possession of ILLEGALLY POSSESSED firearms that are committing about 95% of the gun-related violent crimes in the nation. And the vast majority of gun-related violent crimes in the US are committed by people who have ALREADY been incarcerated at least once for a violent crime in the past.

    It's not guns. It's not poverty. It's not education. It's RECIDIVISM. When you let violent bag guys out of prison, as a general rule, they NEVER reintegrate into normal society in any productive lawful way. They become repeat offenders, and usually escalate their violent behavior. This is the dirty little secret about gun crime in the US, and nobody wants to talk about it. The vast majority of gun-related crimes are committed by repeat offenders, against other criminals, using illegally possessed firearms that were stolen or illegally purchased. NOT legally possessed guns in the hands of otherwise law-abiding citizens. Instances of people with no criminal background using legally-obtained firearms to commit crimes in the US are so comparatively rare as to essentially be statistically anomalous.


    If illegal gun crime in England is so infrequent as to be statistically insignificant, then why have the police in England started carrying full-auto MP5s after literally CENTURIES of being unarmed? Either they are lying about the crime rates, or they are carrying those sub-machine guns purely to intimidate the public--either of which are not acceptable behavior for LE...

    Since the near-complete ban on personal firearms ownership in England, home invasions have skyrocketed. Rape is up. Assault is up. Drug traffic is up. B&Es are up.

    London is the most surveilled city on the planet. And yet, after a decade of near blanket-coverage of the city with video cameras, this system has not helped solve a SINGLE crime. Why are those cameras there then?

    In London, all cars are GPS tracked, and at the end of the month, they send you a bill if you drive too many miles, or if you drive too much during "peak hours", or if your car doesn't get high enough mileage figures. (of course, the ruling elite are exempt from these taxes)

    England is quickly becoming the 2-tiered control-grid Serfdom that Orwell tried to warn us about. There is one set of laws for the ruling class, and another, VERY repressive set of rules that everyone else is expected to live under.

    The near ban on private ownership of firearms in the UK was just the first step in reining in the populace. Just like in the US, the PRIMARY reason for the populace to own firearms isn't about hunting, or sport shooting, or even self defense against criminals.

    It is about POWER, and the ruling elite in England know that a completely disarmed public is MUCH easier to control, because being disarmed creates a cascading chain of events in the thought processes of the public--they feel helpless, so they will depend on the government for their safety, but the government has no obligation to provide that, so the people feel MORE helpless, and then ASK the government for more restrictive measures to "protect" them, which the government happily obliges.

    A population that feels helpless, defenseless, and hopeless has two choices--either volunteer to live under tyranny, or rise up and reclaim their rights. Time will tell which way the UK goes. If history is any indicator, England should be reaching 3rd world status culturally, socially, politically, and economically within the next 10 years. And the US should follow a few short years after that if people don't start waking up...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	a6b2a_Police_armed_uk.jpg 
Views:	84 
Size:	67.6 KB 
ID:	3968  
    Last edited by Dreamer; 09-19-2010 at 02:04 PM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Well articulated argument Dreamer
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Basic statistics don't get any more straightforward this, folks. If you find them incoherent, you might not want to go around advertising it.

    Put another way: Why do you find it "incoherent?" Is it because you didn't understand them? If so, what is it about them you didn't understand? Or is it because you disagree with them? If the latter, then what might you disagree with?
    Aside from the points the others made about stand alone statistics being worth all of nothing. It's because your 'conversation' did not follow. He made points, then you made irrelevant points, not even counter. You weren't having a discussion, the 'conversation' followed more along the lines of you two either trying to educate a third party or simply were agreeing with each other in the guise of a 'discussion'.

    Either way it wasn't a discussion. Which you claimed it was. I don't care what the conclusion was, the problem was that the post and quoted conversation did not cohere to the proper structures of a discussion, it was just a bunch of random points and 'facts' being tossed out and not really any back and forth. Therefor incoherent.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Tomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    705
    Just a side note on defending oneself against an armed, or even unarmed attacker: Neither I nor my 85 year old mother would stand a chance defending ourselves against an attacker without some device that greatly leveraged our abilities, Currently the only item that fits that need is a firearm...

    Unarmed combat? Against an armed attacker? Not feasible.

    Not everyone defending themselves is hale and hardy, and in fact those that are NOT hale and hardy are actually sought after targets because of their ease.
    No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: The officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets. -- Edward Abbey

    • • • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Faciémus!• • •

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    comparing one country to another is comparing apples and lettuce. Countries are just too different to compare like that. What is a better comparison is one country compared to itself. Take stats from before arms bans and after the bans.

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    comparing one country to another is comparing apples and lettuce. Countries are just too different to compare like that. What is a better comparison is one country compared to itself. Take stats from before arms bans and after the bans.
    Valid point and well taken.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    277

    since9, There is a difference between statistics and numbers...

    Statistics can be manipulated to prove either side of an argument. Numbers, however, never lie. Like Dreamer and others have pointed out, you need to take specific locations into account. Also, there are quite a few more people living in the U.S. Just think about the fluctuating number of illegals that ebb and flow...



    -Gruu

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by gsx1138 View Post
    The U.S. rocks and the UK sucks when it comes to gun laws.
    No arguement with you on this point.

    What those statistics don't show is where the large portion of the murders are taking place. It is in cities that have stricter gun laws or outright bans.
    Or here, provided you're limiting that point to American cities, and aren't trying to compare American cities with UK cities.

    I can only take what some guys who have moved here from the UK say and that is, they 'feel much safer here in the U.S. than back home'.
    Personal anecdote is inadmissible when it comes to objective discussions about widespread events, particularly when highly reputable data is available from many sources.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Numbers, facts and statistics can be made to say almost anything and therefore should not be accepted as stand alone data.
    Facts from reputable sources are subject to wide and in-depth scrutiny. They can not be made to "say almost anything" without escaping immediate and intense notice and retaliation.

    For a more thorough look at the interpolation of the "facts" consider the research and books by John Lott - he has a new one out now.
    http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=5818
    Thanks for the link, Grapeshot. I'll look at it in a few minutes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    Statistics about crime rates are essentially meaningless when looked at in an "overall, nationwide" way. They mean little--if anything about how safe the vast majority of a nation is, for the most part.

    The vast majority of gun-related crime in the US (and ANY 1st world nation, for that matter) happens in tiny isolated, insular areas--inner cities--and very little of it spills out to small towns, suburbs, or the "nice" neighborhoods.
    You may have a point, and the stats which I referenced do not look at the distribution of crimes.

    The concentration of criminals, gangs, corrupt courts, and rogue LEAs in these urban trouble spots in the US create a statistical anomaly that adversely effects the entire nation.
    Do you believe this phenomenon is absent in the UK? Are you absolutely certain?

    Please do your research before you make such sweeping generalizations (a logical fallacy) when abundant facts exist which say otherwise.

    As the remainder of your lengthy post (I did you the courtesy of reading through it thoroughly) is a rant based on your fallacious (and untrue) premise, it deserves no further attention, here.

    The OP and this thread is about disparate crime statistics between the US and the UK. It's not a soapbox for off-topic rants.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    comparing one country to another is comparing apples and lettuce. Countries are just too different to compare like that. What is a better comparison is one country compared to itself. Take stats from before arms bans and after the bans.
    Have you ever been to the UK? I have. In fact, I've lived in seven countries over the last 47 years, including a 4-year stint in Germany. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq are apples and oranges. S. Korea is more like an apple-orange hybrid.

    Compared to the US, the UK and Germany are more like the difference between a acintosh, a red delicious, and a cortland.
    Last edited by since9; 09-20-2010 at 05:36 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Germany, Switzerland, Lichtenstien, Austria.

    I don't really think its so helpful even comparing one US state to another. I'd say some areas of the US are very similar to UK, or Germany and others. But other areas of the US are not by any means similar.

    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    No arguement with you on this point.



    Or here, provided you're limiting that point to American cities, and aren't trying to compare American cities with UK cities.



    Personal anecdote is inadmissible when it comes to objective discussions about widespread events, particularly when highly reputable data is available from many sources.



    Facts from reputable sources are subject to wide and in-depth scrutiny. They can not be made to "say almost anything" without escaping immediate and intense notice and retaliation.



    Thanks for the link, Grapeshot. I'll look at it in a few minutes.



    You may have a point, and the stats which I referenced do not look at the distribution of crimes.



    Do you believe this phenomenon is absent in the UK? Are you absolutely certain?

    Please do your research before you make such sweeping generalizations (a logical fallacy) when abundant facts exist which say otherwise.

    As the remainder of your lengthy post (I did you the courtesy of reading through it thoroughly) is a rant based on your fallacious (and untrue) premise, it deserves no further attention, here.

    The OP and this thread is about disparate crime statistics between the US and the UK. It's not a soapbox for off-topic rants.



    Have you ever been to the UK? I have. In fact, I've lived in seven countries over the last 47 years, including a 4-year stint in Germany. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq are apples and oranges. S. Korea is more like an apple-orange hybrid.

    Compared to the US, the UK and Germany are more like the difference between a acintosh, a red delicious, and a cortland.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Germany, Switzerland, Lichtenstien, Austria.
    You're not only dodging the issue, Daylen, you're specifically dodging my question and comment:

    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Have you ever been to the UK? I have. In fact, I've lived in seven countries over the last 47 years, including a 4-year stint in Germany. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq are apples and oranges. S. Korea is more like an apple-orange hybrid.

    Compared to the US, the UK and Germany are more like the difference between a acintosh, a red delicious, and a cortland.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    I don't really think its so helpful even comparing one US state to another. I'd say some areas of the US are very similar to UK, or Germany and others. But other areas of the US are not by any means similar.
    Having visited hundreds of cities in all but two states in our Union, as well as hundreds of cities throughout more than thirty countries around the world...

    I disagree with you!
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    You're not only dodging the issue, Daylen, you're specifically dodging my question and comment:
    I thought I did answer it, but I guess I wasn't clear. No I have not been to UK.


    Having visited hundreds of cities in all but two states in our Union, as well as hundreds of cities throughout more than thirty countries around the world...

    I disagree with you!
    Good for, have a cookie and pat yourself on the back.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    No matter what stats the ant- group makes up,i will still never live in a country like the UK that refuses to allow me to protect my family and if I do they toss me in jail for using a firearm in self defense.
    Last edited by zack991; 09-24-2010 at 11:39 AM.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by zack991 View Post
    No matter what stats the ant- group makes up,i will still never live in a country like the UK that refuses to allow me to protect my family and if I do they toss me in jail for using a firearm in self defense.
    Which is why we must be vigilant in the protection of our RKBA. If there is no country left that recognizes this right that no government can morally issue nor revoke, but can only proclaim and promote, then you will have no choice but to live in such a country.

    We are the last best hope for the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan
    This is it - this is the last stand for freedom in the world. If we lose freedom here, there's no place else to go.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Which is why we must be vigilant in the protection of our RKBA. If there is no country left that recognizes this right that no government can morally issue nor revoke, but can only proclaim and promote, then you will have no choice but to live in such a country.

    We are the last best hope for the world.
    Agreed, everyone needs to be a member of the NRA, GOA ect. and fight to not allow anyone in office who would take these rights away from us. Unlike other country's we have over 80million gun owners and hopefully it never comes to this but we have the ability to send rounds down range if it is ever needed.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Facts from reputable sources are subject to wide and in-depth scrutiny. They can not be made to "say almost anything" without escaping immediate and intense notice and retaliation.
    The fundamental difficulty of doing this sort of research is finding data from reputable sources. Almost ALL surveys, data collection programs, and reporting mechanisms put together by bureaucrats (and biased "academics") are DESIGNED to assemble data sets that support their agenda, therefore, there is almost NO SUCH THING as a reliable data set if you're getting your data from the government.

    This is one of the MAJOR issues with comparing homicide rates between the UK and the US. In the US, a homicide is included in a specific year's statistics if it OCCURS in that year. In the UK, homicides are not entered into the statistics until the investigation is closed. There are thousands of homicides in the UK each year that are not included in their statistics because they are unsolved, or unsolvable. Their data reporting model is inherently flawed, and therefore, ALL homicide statistics from the UK are inherently unreliable...


    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Do you believe this phenomenon is absent in the UK? Are you absolutely certain?
    No, it exists in the UK as well. But because the ENTIRE population of the UK is somewhere around 60,000,000. That is less than the combined population of CA and TX.

    So if we want to be fair, let's choose a set of states with a combined population equal to the UK, that all have gun laws that are the exact opposite of the UK (which would mean NOT CA, NY, DC, IL, TX, FL) and THEN we'll compare the stats and see how much more or less violent the US is compared to the UK.

    The argument is tha tbecause the populace in the UK can't own guns, it's much safer. So let's compare that to US states with a combined population of about 60 million that have VERY constitutional RKBA laws and policies, and THEN it will mean something...


    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    As the remainder of your lengthy post (I did you the courtesy of reading through it thoroughly) is a rant based on your fallacious (and untrue) premise, it deserves no further attention, here.
    No, it is ENTIRELY relevent. Gun control is NOT about crime. It's NOT about guns. Its NOT about safety. It's NOT about a peaceful society. It's about CONTROL. Until folks here in the US get that through their head--that ALL gun control measures of ANY level are fundamentally about CONTROLLING the law-abiding population, subjugating them to tyranny, and forcing them into a recursive spiral of fear-helplessness-dependence--Freedom and Liberty shall never prevail.

    The gun control discussion is--on it's face--fundamentally about POWER and CONTROL. Either you believe that the government should hold the power in a society, or you believe that the PEOPLE hold all the power. Personally, I don;t trust the government--ANY government--with the absolute power that comes from a monopoly of force...


    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    The OP and this thread is about disparate crime statistics between the US and the UK. It's not a soapbox for off-topic rants.
    Not off-topic. Power is the root of the gun control discussion. Understanding the power dynamic on a long-term socio-political level is fundamental to understanding what the REAL agenda of gun-control supporters is.

    England is on it's way to becoming a neo-feudalism, in our lifetime. Lords and serfs, just like the dark ages. Mark my words...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 09-24-2010 at 05:16 PM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    The fundamental difficulty of doing this sort of research is finding data from reputable sources. Almost ALL surveys, data collection programs, and reporting mechanisms put together by bureaucrats (and biased "academics") are DESIGNED to assemble data sets that support their agenda, therefore, there is almost NO SUCH THING as a reliable data set if you're getting your data from the government.
    Dreamer, the facts to which I linked came from none of the sources you mentioned. They came from multiple, mutually corroborating, highly-reputable, peer-reviewed sources.

    I haven't a clue as to what you're arguing about, except that it's not relevant to the OP or this resulting thread. Apparently, you have some phobia against any and all data and the mathmatical science we call statistics which we use to find meaning in that data. One cannot "make statistics say anything they want to" as part of the science includes controls against.

    I'm sorry you believe otherwise. If you'd like to discuss it further, please start a new thread on that topic.

    This is one of the MAJOR issues with comparing homicide rates between the UK and the US. In the US, a homicide is included in a specific year's statistics if it OCCURS in that year. In the UK, homicides are not entered into the statistics until the investigation is closed.
    "Thousands" as compared to what? What percentage of homicides in the UK remain unsolved past, say, the five year point? As for earlier homicides, they're rolled into later years. Assuming the unsolved percentages are low, Long-term homicide averages are reasonably represented, and knowledge of the unsolved rate can be used to reconstructed an even more accurate rate estimate.

    ...therefore, ALL homicide statistics from the UK are inherently unreliable...
    That a huge, and entirely inaccurate stretch of the imagination, Dreamer. Put simply, it's flat out wrong.

    So if we want to be fair, let's choose a set of states with a combined population equal to the UK, that all have gun laws that are the exact opposite of the UK (which would mean NOT CA, NY, DC, IL, TX, FL) and THEN we'll compare the stats and see how much more or less violent the US is compared to the UK.
    The OP consideres the difference between the US and the UK. The approach you propose compares individual states against the UK. That can certainly be done, but it's fairly meaningless, as gun policy in the US is set by both the state and our country. It's an amalgam of both state and federal law, as you well know.

    Furthermore, comparing disparate population sizes is not a problem in statistics. GPAs of graduating classes with populations ranging from 60 to 1,000, for example, are easily compared, and entirely representational of their respective populations.

    Gun control is NOT about crime. It's NOT about guns. Its NOT about safety. It's NOT about a peaceful society. It's about CONTROL. Until folks here in the US get that through their head--that ALL gun control measures of ANY level are fundamentally about CONTROLLING the law-abiding population, subjugating them to tyranny, and forcing them into a recursive spiral of fear-helplessness-dependence--Freedom and Liberty shall never prevail.
    Absolutely. It's nice to see we agree about one thing...

    The gun control discussion is--on it's face--fundamentally about POWER and CONTROL. Either you believe that the government should hold the power in a society, or you believe that the PEOPLE hold all the power. Personally, I don;t trust the government--ANY government--with the absolute power that comes from a monopoly of force...
    I don't either. However, you must realize the beginnings of all countries require force, on the part of whomever is pulling the coup, and the maintaining of those countries requires force, on the part of the government, the people, or both.

    Power is the root of the gun control discussion. Understanding the power dynamic on a long-term socio-political level is fundamental to understanding what the REAL agenda of gun-control supporters is.
    Again, we disagree. A grab for power is the outward result and expression of an inner fear. Power is NOT the root problem. Most anti-gunners go for power grabs as a means of control, a way to help quell their inner fear. Sometimes its fear of guns. Often it's fear of being hurt by guns. Sometimes it's simply the fear of not being in control. I suspect Brady falls into the first category, while Hillary falls into the third.

    If we're ever going to successfully combat the anti-gunner issue, we have to address the root problem.

    England is on it's way to becoming a neo-feudalism, in our lifetime. Lords and serfs, just like the dark ages. Mark my words...
    If so, they do so with the consent of their people. I can't say I'm surprised, as that mentality has been ingrained into their populace over thousands of years. If they choose to return to that road, it's their choice.

    No so with most Americans. We are a fiercely independant people. Oh, not all of us, to be sure,, but more than enough. In part, our independance stems from the fact that our ancestors would rather risk dying in a new country, in the hopes of success, rather than dwindling away in the old world. If there's a gene for adventure, we're the most recent natural selection experiment on the planet.

    And that's the key word: Risk. Is there risk in allowing other citizens to walk around with deadly weapons strapped to their hips?" Absolutely. Most of our citizens are willing to live with that risk, in part because by doing so, they also enjoy the privelages of self-protection.

    Unfortunately, the UN is comprised of many nations whose citizens who remained behind. They neither understand the risk, or the benefits available thereof. They respond to their fear by attempting to exert control over others whom they fear.

    Is their fear rational? No. Do people need to fear the law-abiding citizen who decides to arm themselves against the criminal element? Of course not. That wouldn't be rational.

    But whoever said fear was rational?
    Last edited by since9; 09-24-2010 at 08:53 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •