Friday, September 2, 2011

The Straight Dope: Have Great Britain's restrictive gun laws contributed to the rise in violent crime?

It should be noted that the methodologies in collecting crime statistics between the US and UK are different and do not have a 1:1 correlation. The latest British Crime Survey (BCS) said there had been a "notable" drop in theft, burglary and fraud.

From The Straight Dope

November 5, 2004

Dear Cecil:

I read an article claiming that as weapon-control laws in England become ever tighter, the crime rate is increasing--that over the past 80 or so years the British government has enacted policies making it harder for individuals to carry any kind of weapon for self-defense, with the result, it was claimed, that you are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York. In addition, you can receive a stiff sentence for defending yourself even if a burglar has invaded your home. One case cited was that of Tony Martin, who lived alone in a rural area. He had been robbed six times before. Mr. Martin's home was broken into again, and he shot and killed one burglar and wounded the other. He was jailed for harming the burglars and later was denied parole because he posed a danger to burglars. Given that the author was an American, and the article in a somewhat conservative periodical, I wondered how much spin had been put on the facts. Is England indeed becoming a haven for burglars while aged pensioners cower in their cottages?

Complicated topic. We proceed in our usual methodical manner:

(1) No doubt about it, crimewise the UK has pretty much gone to the dogs. Violent crime jumped by two-thirds between 1998 and 2003. Crime is higher in the UK than the U.S. in every category except rape and murder.

(2) Some say Britain's increase in crime is a result of disarming the populace. One advocate of this view is U.S. history professor Joyce Lee Malcolm, author of the article you saw as well as the book Guns and Violence: The English Experience (2002). Malcolm claims the British government has virtually eliminated the right to self-defense.

(3) Whatever Malcolm may think, there's no direct correlation between weapons restrictions and crime. As she points out, the UK began requiring gun permits in 1920 and in 1953 prohibited the carrying of concealed weapons, even things like Mace. While a slow rise in the UK crime rate began in the mid-1950s, the rate didn't increase sharply until the 80s. Handguns were banned altogether in 1997.

(4) The Tony Martin case, a cause celebre in Britain, may not be as clear-cut as some claim, but it's still pretty outrageous. The eccentric Martin lived in a dilapidated Norfolk farmhouse with only three rottweilers for company. One night in 1999 the place was broken into by Brendan Fearon, 29, and Fred Barras, 16, both of whom had long criminal records. Martin claims he heard a noise, grabbed a shotgun, headed downstairs, had a flashlight shone in his face, and began shooting. The following afternoon Barras was found dead in the garden; the wounded Fearon was arrested nearby. Martin was convicted of murder and given a mandatory life sentence, but an appeals court reduced the charge to manslaughter on grounds of mental illness. Martin was denied parole, in part because probation officers feared he would shoot additional burglars; he's out now. Fearon, who did time for burglary, was granted legal-aid funding to sue Martin, although the suit failed. OK, the burglars weren't armed, Martin had previously expressed a hatred of Gypsies (Barras was one), and Barras was shot in the back, but many Americans would say: Come on--it was dark and they were in the guy's house.

(5) Although it's an exaggeration to say there's no right to self-defense in Britain, the law there is more restrictive and, in contrast to typical U.S. practice, cuts you no slack if you're defending your home. UK householders who injure a home invader are often hauled up on charges (although they may be acquitted), whereas in the U.S. more commonly you'll get a pass. Malcolm claims that because UK crooks don't fear disarmed householders, half of burglaries there take place while someone is home, a much larger fraction than in the U.S. Not so--close analysis of the data suggests "hot" burglary rates in the two countries aren't dramatically different.

(6) Rising crime in Britain surely has a lot to do with the lousy economy. From 1974 to 1999 the UK unemployment rate averaged more than 10 percent. It's lower now, but a lot of antisocial behavior became entrenched during that time. Soccer hooliganism is one example; I'd say crime in general is another.

(7) A case can be made that folks in the UK are too nice for their own good. In reading parliamentary transcripts and such you're struck by how exasperatingly fair-minded and decent everyone is--not just the lefties, either. One detects little appetite for the draconian measures that some believe have reduced crime in the U.S., notably the harsh sentencing laws that have given us one of the highest imprisonment rates in the world. If present trends continue, though, no doubt the Brits will learn to be assholes just like us.


17 comments:

  1. Wrong. The BCS showed a decline in violent crime.

    Further, its important to note violent crime in the UK and US are classified quite differently. So, its not a 1:1 correlation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world. As of year-end 2009 the rate was 743 adults incarcerated in prisons and jails per 100,000 population.[4][2] At year-end 2007 the United States had less than 5% of the world's population[26] and 23.4% of the world's prison and jail population (adult inmates).[5]

    By comparison the incarceration rate in England and Wales[clarification needed] in February 2011 was 154 people imprisoned per 100,000 residents[27]; the rate for Norway in May 2010 was 71 inmates per 100,000[28]; Netherlands in April 2010 was 94 per 100,000[29]; Australia in June 2010 was 133 per 100,000[30]; and New Zealand in October 2010 was 203 per 100,000.[31]

    A 2008 New York Times article[32] points out:

    Still, it is the length of sentences that truly distinguishes American prison policy. Indeed, the mere number of sentences imposed here would not place the United States at the top of the incarceration lists. If lists were compiled based on annual admissions to prison per capita, several European countries would outpace the United States. But American prison stays are much longer, so the total incarceration rate is higher. ... "Rises and falls in Canada's crime rate have closely paralleled America's for 40 years," Mr. Tonry wrote last year. "But its imprisonment rate has remained stable."

    The U.S. had, at the time of the above citation, five times as many people in prison as the U.K.--FIVE times as many in prison.

    As the riots amply demonstrated a month or so ago, there are a lot of extremely pissed off poor people in the U.K. Crime is a not a result of having gunz, gunzcrimez sure as hell are.

    ReplyDelete
  3. JadeGold duly noted at the start of this post. That is one problem with the commonplace book aspect of blogging--in this case grabbing an article without adding commentary.

    Good points, Democommie.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Demo,

    We also have the highest rate of incarcerated mayors that were members of an anti-gun organization.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow, I just realized something. If you are a member of MAIG, you are more than 3 times likely to be incarcerated than if you are a member of the general population.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "If present trends continue, though, no doubt the Brits will learn to be assholes just like us. — Cecil Adams"

    I doubt it. The British don't have the collective testicular fortitude to shuck off their nanny/police state.

    ReplyDelete
  7. RedAz wrote:
    ... The British don't have the collective testicular fortitude to shuck off their nanny/police state.


    The Brits are far from a police state - oh, the horror of unarmed, polite Constables on patrol, either on foot or bicycle...ah....no, not.

    As to the so-called 'nanny' state, I would call you attention to the indomitable Iron Maiden, Maggie Thatcher herself --------- who was a strong supporter of beneficial programs like national health care.

    Or were you going to insult the name and political legacy of the UK's female version of Ronald Reagan?

    I have a tremendous respect for the ability of the Brits to hold up cooly, and calmly, under the most terrifying of circumstances, including terrorist attacks.

    We, with all our chickenshit scaredy-cat gun loons, gripping their guns like talismans against the scary things in the dark, should try being as brave - without guns.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "We, with all our chickenshit scaredy-cat gun loons, gripping their guns like talismans against the scary things in the dark, should try being as brave - without guns."

    Nah, we don't have to.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "The Brits are far from a police state.."

    It sure doesn't look that way.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6108496.stm

    The UK has almost 34000 times as many cameras per person as China, which no one argue against being a police state.

    "Or were you going to insult the name and political legacy of the UK's female version of Ronald Reagan?"

    If she's the female version of Reagan, then she deserves to be insulted. Reagan is no hero of mine.

    "I have a tremendous respect for the ability of the Brits to hold up cooly, and calmly, under the most terrifying of circumstances, including terrorist attacks."

    When you've been completely neutered as a society, do you really have any choice but to be cool and calm? Where would any passion and emotion come from?

    "should try being as brave - without guns."

    I do it everyday. It's not nearly as hard as you anti-gunners think.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lack The Dog:

    Sorry, I thought that I had put quotes and a link in for that first part which is right out Wiki. I do not consider Wiki to be a primary source but there are plenty of them at that spot.
    "
    When you've been completely neutered as a society, do you really have any choice but to be cool and calm? Where would any passion and emotion come from?

    "should try being as brave - without guns."

    I do it everyday. It's not nearly as hard as you anti-gunners think.

    September 3, 2011 5:14 AM"

    Hmmm, So the SAS are all foreign contractors?

    And as for surveillance cameras:

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/4236865

    just sayin!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Azred writes: "The UK has almost 34000 times as many cameras per person as China, which no one argue against being a police state."

    Do you have any idea Azred how many cameras we have here in the U.S. both public and private, indoors and out? They are for practical purposes, things like security against theft, traffic management.

    Cameras do not equate to a police state. They do appear to equate to an efficient, and very secure society in the ability to oppose criminality, including terrorism, without unduly intruding on our privacy.

    The UK is a free country. Cameras, or the absence of cameras, is not what defines a police state. The things the government restricts or arrests one for IS. The UK has tremendously more freedom, on a par with the U.S., while China does not - we can peacefully protest, as witnessed by any number of rallies on the capital mall, town halls, letters to the editor of every paper, etc. You don't have that in China; you do in the UK.

    If you think passions come from guns, if you think having a gun is the basis for courage, you are a fool.

    I will give you two examples Azred.

    The first, my father, a decorated naval aviator. He was top of his class when training to be a pilot, and because of his skill, he took on the assignments to fly unusually dangerous UNARMED reconnaissance flights. In our home he never relied on a firearm for protection, or anywhere else. He didn't feel he needed one, anywhere, ever. His phrase - that is what your brain is for, if you rely too much on a weapon, you are relying on something that might NOT work as well.

    The second example, when I was twelve, home with my younger sibling baby sitting. Two men attempted entry to the house through my father's den window.
    Because of a combination of circumstances, I was not able to call for police assistance before responding. I did not use a gun; I relied on an unusually aggressive pet, a Miniature Schnauzer, and a baseball bat that happened to be stored in the den closet. The window was the type that cranks open, rather narrow. The den was dark. The first man was caught half in, half out of the window, although regretably the screen was damaged in the process. And the Schnauzer had a small chip off one canine tooth, but none of the blood on her muzzle after the fracas turned out to be hers.

    My father and I had a long discussion about my actions, and I impressed on him my ability to act cooly under pressure, not panic, but most of all my capacity to think, both tactically and strategically. He also had a very healthy appreciation for my intelligence, including my ability at risk assessment. We had something of a code phrase between us, "Dad, I'm brave, but not stupid."
    Courage does not come from a gun Azred, nor do passions. You cannot buy either off the rack in a sporting goods store.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Do you have any idea Azred how many cameras we have here in the U.S. both public and private, indoors and out?"

    Not nearly as many cameras per person as the UK. Using the UK as a baseline, the US would probably be a very distant 2nd or 3rd place. And if you omitted liberal enclaves like NYC and Chicago, we'd probably rank around 10th place.

    "Cameras do not equate to a police state. They do appear to equate to an efficient, and very secure society in the ability to oppose criminality, including terrorism, without unduly intruding on our privacy."

    Is that you, Dick Cheney? If not, you'd definitely make him proud with that statement.

    "The UK is a free country."

    Freedom is relative. Compared to China, they are more free. Compared to the US, they are less free.

    "If you think passions come from guns, if you think having a gun is the basis for courage, you are a fool."

    That must be your belief, because it is not mine. I believe passion comes from something else. Maybe it's genetic. Maybe all of the good British genes emigrated to the colonies leaving behind those genetically predispositioned to be passionless. But whatever it is, it is something that the British now lack. We saw that lack demonstrated just weeks during the riots.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Red Az, I doubt the UK has more cameras than the US.

    In neither case however are those cameras used in any way which is restrictive of political freedom.

    Your criticsm that the residents of the UK somehow lack passion is distinctly at odd from my own experience, or from any objective measurement.

    It is one of those vague, nebulous statements that are meaningless, just empty, silly drivel.

    Btw, Redass, when WAS the last time you were in the UK? Or are you just pulling that observation out of your red arse?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Red Az, I doubt the UK has more cameras than the US."

    When it comes to cameras per person, the UK has the US beat. They are the originators of the surveillance state.

    "Or are you just pulling that observation out of your red arse?"

    I pull it from the same place you, Jade, Laci, and mikeb pull your information from.

    ReplyDelete
  15. FWM, What's with the disruption commetning about MAIG? I like your sense of humor but that's just plain disruption.

    About the UK / US comparison, I noticed something. Even in the reports which Jadegold pointed out are erroneous, they say England is worse "except for rape and murder."

    If disarming the poor defenseless masses in Great Britain were the cause of increased violence, why wouldn't it apply to rape and murder?

    ReplyDelete
  16. "When it comes to cameras per person, the UK has the US beat. They are the originators of the surveillance state."

    Umm, I think you might be a bit confused. Russia, Nazi Germany, Albania, Egypt under Mubarak, East Germany, Romania, North Korea--maybe a couple of dozen others. Cameras do not a "security state" make.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Actually, AZtecRed, I usually provide sources for my comments.

    You don't.

    In this case, you are admitting that your statement is bullshit.

    ReplyDelete