I've heard it so many times I'm starting to believe it myself. But it just doesn't make sense. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about it. There's no comparison. The United States wins hands down. Before we go any further, I'd like to point out that disparaging Wikipedia as an unreliable source is sometimes an empty criticism. The articles there usually link to bona fide statistical sources, as in this case.
What then can be the explanation for so much pro-gun rhetoric about this? They say gun laws don't work and the U.K. is proof. They say when there are fewer guns, the people use knives and do the same amount of damage or more. When they provide statistics, they must be taken with a grain of salt, a big grain, because, unfortunately, they just don't make sense.
Recently we've had the pleasure of meeting Laci the Dog. On Laci's blog there is a treasure trove of gun control information, something that is sorely lacking on the internet. There you can find legal analysis as well as moral commentary. It's truly wonderful. But I couldn't find anything on this particular issue. Why do you think that is? Is it because Wikipedia is wrong and the pro-gun guys are right? Laci, please, come to the rescue.
For me it seems clear that violent people who use guns do more damage than violent people who use knives or baseball bats. I find it awfully tedious reading the opposite. But, respond to it I must. Since guns are so much more lethal, minimizing their availability cannot fail but bring about a lessening the in damage caused by violent confrontations. When people come up with statistics that disprove that, I'm sceptical.
What's your opinion? Is the violence worse in the U.K. than in the States? Whatever your opinion is, how do you know? I guess this is the philosophical exercise Joe Huffman refers to as knowing truth from untruth. I wonder if we could get a comment from him?
Please leave a comment.
"What then can be the explanation for so much pro-gun rhetoric about this? They say gun laws don't work and the U.K. is proof. They say when there are fewer guns, the people use knives and do the same amount of damage or more. When they provide statistics, they must be taken with a grain of salt, a big grain, because, unfortunately, they just don't make sense."ReplyDelete
Maybe it's gun control that doesn't make sense.
Statistics seem fine for the anti-freedom crowd to use when it suits their needs but when they do not you dismiss them because "they don't make sense"?
Ah, a Wikipedia statistical link, and Praise given to Laci.ReplyDelete
The tools that will shoot holes in your credibility better than any gun.
Hey Mike, you ever wonder why Laci doesn't allow comments on her blog?
When I worked for GM, they had an internal measurement of overall body fit quality. Originally the number would be prepared by the statistical guy for the plant (me and my counterparts) and given to the Tooling Coordinator who would adjust it and send it to Detroit. The tooling coordinator was judged in part on this number.ReplyDelete
We switched to an automated method where the number was calculated without input from the Tooling Coordinator. Company wide numbers got about 40% worse, while a few plants (including mine) did not change significantly. Our rank went from bottom third to top 10%.
This sort of adjustment is inevitable when the people who are rated on a number are also in charge of reporting it. Read English policeman's blogs--they get told how to report various crimes depending on the current metrics. Crimes aren't counted when they happen, but rather when there is a conviction--If nobody is convicted, then statistically the crime did not happen.
Every non-government source I've seen says that murder is the only violent crime that is not substantially higher in England than the US.
Well Mike, you have two different statements...pick which one to discuss. You claim that you hear that violence is higher in the UK, then link to statistics on GUN violence.ReplyDelete
The claim I have heard is that VIOLENCE (not specifically gun violence) has been increasing since their banning of firearms. Gun advocates claim this is due to the elimination of firearms as defense tools emboldening criminals there.
Looking for VIOLENCE, and not strictly gun violence (you don't believe that even if we banned all guns, all violence would disappear, do you?), I found a discussion of a recent argument within the UK political parties...basically one side claims violence has increased 70% since 1997, while the opposition claims a DECREASE of 41%. Things get really messed up regarding what different countries claim as 'violent crime', so I'd understand an argument from that point of view at least.
Note that, after making firearms more difficult to obtain, England next had to move to knives (you need to be a certain age to be able to buy a dinnerware place setting since it has a butter knife in it), and pub mugs in many locations are being swapped from glass to plastic to prevent the potential creation of sharp edges.
Wow, MikeB continually dismisses statistics from the BJS, FBI UCR and other CREDIBLE sources but sees nothing wrong with citing a dishonest anti-gun blogger and WIKIPEDIA as proof that he's right.ReplyDelete
Unbelievable. You do realize you can't even cite wikipedia for the most basic writing assignment in college right? If I'd used wikipedia for a paper my professors would have thrown my papers right in the trash.
Also note that the British Government has already ADMITTED that they have lied about overall violent crime rates.ReplyDelete
The Brits are under seige. They have essentially lost the right to defend themselves, and I'm not just talking about with guns. Their idea of proportionality, or, more precisely "reasonable" force against an assailant, considered after the fact, for all intents and purposes disarms innocent civilains. And I'm not just talking about cases like Tony Martin. People have been arrested for detaining criminals with toy gunsReplyDelete
The newest designer crime in the UK is for criminals to wait for UEFA or FIFA football games to be played on the continent. The criminals know the rich footballers will be gone with their teams, and the spouses usually stay home. They then break in, knowing these women won't put up much of a fight, and proceed to rob them blind.
As a matter of fact, I was recently watching a story about such a robbery, and when they interviewed the lead investigator he was quite put out that the woman, who was home alone with her children, didn't just give in but put up a struggle. His response what something to the effect of "I can't understand why she just didn't give them what they wanted so they could have been on their way, I'm sure they had no intent on harming her." (paraphrase)
When I heard that I wept for the once great British Empire.
I am sorry, but I find people are getting ruder over here in the UK. I mean bus queues can be horrific events. And football matches!ReplyDelete
I find the UK rather peaceful, but I also see the US as being fairly peaceful with the exception of gun injuries.
If we are going to compare US and UK gun violence rates, you will find that the UKs are negligable compared to the Unnited States.
Mike W, how do you find me dishonest? Because I tell the truth that nowhere within the Second Amendment can one find the words self-defence or fighting government tyranny. On the other hand, it does mention well regulated militias.
Of course, I don't expect you to read my posts. They may cause you to think.
Can't have that happening.
BTW, are you the one who said I used too many words. You may wish to read my response to that one.
On the other hand, maybe you won't.
Weer'd Beard I don't allow comments for many reasons, but you will find I do respond to comments.ReplyDelete
The first, I am a busy person
Secondly, I am under no obligation to listen to what I don't wish to hear.
Thirdly, unless you have something positive to say, I really don't need waste my time.
Thus, you can say and believe whatever you wish, but I don't need to be subjected to it.
I know! God forbid I correct the shitload of factual errors that are on your anti-rights blog!ReplyDelete
That would just be MEAN of me!
BTW help yourself to comment on my blog. Us Pro-Rights types aren't afraid of a little reasoned discourse.
Hell, I'm not even afraid of your crude name-calling.
"Thirdly, unless you have something positive to say, I really don't need waste my time."ReplyDelete
Too bad you don't practice what you preach.
cj made a good point, that if you ask one guy you get one thing, if you ask another you get the opposite.ReplyDelete
This is why I take statistics with a grain of salt and rely more on common sense.
Considering the wildly differing descriptions of the UK vs. the US situation, I'd say it's probably like this. UK gun crime went way down after the gun restrictions. Laci said "negligible." Knife crime went up, but I don't believe it went up so much that it made up for the reduction in gun crime. So you've got an overall winner.
How's that sound?
"I don't believe it went up so much that it made up for the reduction in gun crime. So you've got an overall winner.ReplyDelete
How's that sound?"
Sounds like Blind faith.
Secondly, I am under no obligation to listen to what I don't wish to hear.ReplyDelete
Hey, at least you admit to wanting to remain ignorant.
On the other hand, it does mention well regulated militias.ReplyDelete
Do you know what the term "well-regulated" means in an 18th century context? What about "Militia?"
Ever bothered to read the Federalist Papers? The Declaration of Independence? They both disprove your position quite well.
I just wonder how citizens can come together to form a militia if they aren't allowed to keep and bear their own weapons.ReplyDelete
The point of the militia was to be able to resist a standing army sent by a tyrannical government or to resist an external attack. This mechanisms are completely anachronistic now.ReplyDelete
You can keep saying the 2nd Amendment protects your right to have a gun, but I'm afraid it makes no sense.
MikeB - My right to keep & bear arms is in no way dependent on whether it "makes sense" to bigots like yourself.....thankfully.ReplyDelete
MikeB - The 3rd Amendment is anachronistic now too by your standards, right?ReplyDelete
If however, a future administration (or this one) decided they wanted to house soldiers in your home you'd dust off that 3rd Amendment real quick and say "HELL NO" and you'd use privately held arms to back up that "HELL NO" if need be.
Wouldn't be so anachronistic then would it?
Here are some clues as to how to determine truth from falsity:ReplyDelete
I've given you this link before but perhaps something shorter and more succinct will help you grasp the concept. Try this and this.
That you "rely more on common sense" is damning. If that were the way to determine truth from falsity most people would still believe the earth was flat. Two (or a hundred) people can each have a different "common sense" view of what the correct answer is. But no more than one of them can truly be completely correct. "Common sense" does not separate error from truth. Only numbers based on real world measurements can do that. "Common sense" can generate a good hypothesis to be tested but until they are tested against real world data they are, at best, interesting questions.
You, and many others, assert "common sense" trumps verifiable facts. You adhere to beliefs like a small child hides under his or her blanket that gives it comfort all the while ignoring the fact the house is burning down around them.