Skip to main content

Most stringent gun control laws in the West=89% rise in gun violence over a decade

If we are going to have this discussion, we need to consider this:

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year  -  a rise of 89 per cent.
In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold. 
 
In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.  
The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place. 
One wonders where all these firearms come from in a country that had large-scale gun confiscation as a government policy.

Oh, yes, I forgot:  the government can only confiscate legal guns, because it generally cannot find the illegal ones.

Comments

Anonymous said…
The sad situation is Conn. could have changed if the shooter's mother has better common sense. Just say if the son was prohibited from possessing guns would that restrict all persons in the household? But to your point, guns are available on the streets and criminal who disregard the laws will obtain them. I do have reservations about assault type weapons and perhaps semi-automatics. Sure they come in handy if under attack but don't see them being used as hunting weapons and at that legally they can't be.
Anonymous said…
I truely believe that if the Govt. ever decided that they were going to overide the SCOTUS and just start confiscating firearms, there would be a civil war in this country. Of course, it wouldnt last long. The Federal Goverments weapons are far superior to anything civilians can buy on the street. The only way a civilian force could hang in against a govt. bent on crushing a rebellion would be to employee tactics like were used against US Troops in Iraq. Pure gurilla warfare.

That being said, the shooting still would still start and I would support the resistance movement. Our right to bear arms is the last check we have to fend off an ever-growing Federal expansion of control. If our liberal friends wish to see gun violence go down, the last thing they would want to happen is see the Feds try to take them away from law-abiding citizens.
NCSDad said…
Its funny that folks want to ban guns despite the constitution and the fact it won't work. The more bureaucracy and laws they pass beyond a certain point, the more folks who can't handle complexity will turn to violence.
This is a dynamic largely unrecognized.
pandora said…
The more bureaucracy and laws they pass beyond a certain point, the more folks who can't handle complexity will turn to violence.

Can you prove that statement?
Hube said…
Anon: You're overlooking the fact that the gov., despite the fact it has overwhelming firepower, would only be successful if the people that make up its forces support it. And if the gov. attempted to confiscate people's guns, I don't think that would happen.
Hube said…
Can you prove that statement?

I second that. Please elaborate. I find the tax code ridiculously complex but I've never turned to violence. Yet. ;-)
Anonymous said…
"despite the fact it has overwhelming firepower, would only be successful if the people that make up its forces support it"

I agree!
NCSDad said…
I'm shocked you would not see this as self-evident. Start here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=anger-management-self-control
Maybe you need to hang out with more '"powerless people"?
NCSDad said…
Link problem?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=anger-management-self-control
delacrat said…



The number of homicides in the UK has actually dropped from 750 in 1998/99 to 550 in 2011/12.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9411649/Graphic-how-the-murder-rate-has-fallen.html
pandora said…
NCSDad claimed that:

"The more bureaucracy and laws they pass beyond a certain point, the more folks who can't handle complexity will turn to violence."

I read the article you linked to and I don't see where it backs up your claim.
NCSDad said…
P:
I have not had a chance to do more than a quick Google search and I am dismayed to find so little. Maybe I'm wrong. I'll look more later.
I draw on personal experience specifically with alcoholics. They frequently take the frustration of dealing with bureaucracy personally. I have known many "thug" types that do the same. I think what I am describing is along the lines of Robin Good and vigilante justice.
delacrat said…
Despite the "89% rise in gun violence over a decade", allegedly because of the "Most stringent gun control laws in the West",

The firearm homicide rate in the UK is only 1/30th of the US.

An even more interesting comparison are the non-firearm homicide rates.

Back of the envelope math from the link below, gives:

Non-firearm homicides in US = 4,221

Non-firearm homicides in UK = 580 (equivalent to 2,900 US)


The non-firearm homicide rate in the US is 45% higher in the US vs. the UK.

So what's wrong with Amerika, ain't just guns.

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/335-156/12554-58-murders-a-year-by-firearms-in-britain-8775-in-us
NCSDad said…
From Reason:
New York Daily News reporter Douglas Feiden suggests one option for the new legislation that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has promised: Feiden defines "assault weapons" as "flesh-piercing, fast-firing, killing machines." There is another term for that kind of weapon: a gun.
Jeez, could we have an intelligent conversation?

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...