Gun Control/Is the US more violent than Europe?

[sgtmac_46]

I've been doing some research on violent crime and the corellation to private ownership of firearms, and i've come to some conclusions. Conventional wisdom of the past few decades has been that availability of firearms was the reason the US had such a high crime rate and murder rate. Some recently events and research has brought some SERIOUS questioning to that conclusion.

"The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn’t subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible."

http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml

What to make of this? Is it possible that what we've been hearing about "violent american society" is over-blown?

"The London-based Office of Health Economics, after a careful international study, found that while "one reason often given for the high numbers of murders and manslaughters in the United States is the easy availability of firearms...the strong correlation with racial and socio-economic variables suggests that the underlying determinants of the homicide rate are related to particular cultural factors."

http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml

"Cultural differences and more-permissive legal standards notwithstanding, the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991. Over the same period, America’s has been falling dramatically. In 1999 The Boston Globe reported that the American murder rate, which had fluctuated by about 20 percent between 1974 and 1991, was "in startling free-fall." We have had nine consecutive years of sharply declining violent crime. As a result the English and American murder rates are converging. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times. "

http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml

This conclusion corresponds with Bureau of Justice Statistics that show the following.

"Approximately 16,000 cases of murder or nonnegligent homicide occur each year in the US according to official FBI crime statistics; among solved cases, almost half of murders are committed by a narrow social group of black males age 17 to 50 (constituting less than 3% of general US population)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

In terms of over-all violent crime, England WAY surpasses the US, and in terms of the homicide rate, despite increasingly draconian gun control laws, England's MURDER rate has been on the increase, while that of the US, with increasing concealed-carry laws, has been plumeting. What gives?

Of course, this was written in 2002, what since then?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13175111_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-UK-VIOLENT-CRIME-RATE-SOARING-name_page.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3419401.stm
http://thewoman.blogspot.com/2005/07/us-violent-crime-rates-much-lower-than.html
Violent crime went up 14% between 2003 and 2004. According to government officials, the increase is only 3%, but still...

Apparently some in the UK, feeling that the problem is that they haven't passed enough laws restricting law abiding citizens, apparently decided that what is needed now, is a ban on sharp instruments. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Fortunately, this 'brilliant' piece of legislation hasn't gone anywhere.....yet.

The news is even worse in Scotland, which was labelled the most violent country in the industrialized world (Again, I thought that was the US...I guess they did too). http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1786945,00.html

The reason for the falling crime rate in the US and the rising one in Scotland, UK, Wales and others, is likely complex.

Some may argue that it isn't the relatively unrestrictive availability of private ownership of firearms in the US that is causing a LOWERING of crime in the US, one things IS clear....It certainly isn't causing an increase in violence. At WORST, private ownership is irrelavent in the violent crime rate, which is dropping for 'whatever' reason in the US, despite nearly 300 million firearms (and climbing) being in circulation. At best, that availability is helping reduce the violent crime rate in the US. Moreover, as UK and others are indicating, more restrictive laws will, at BEST, have no effect in reducing violent crime, and MAY increase violent crime.

What's more, in the areas that possess the most number of private firearms per person, the crime is FAR lower than even the national average, as high-rates of violence tend to be centered in the most restrictive areas of the US (who's gun laws closely reflect those of the UK). While those citizens that live in less-restrictive areas enjoy a relatively crime violence free environment.

Take the case of Washington DC, which enjoys one of the most restrictive firearms laws in the country, virtually banning private ownership of firearms inside the city. While the national average is 4 murders per 100,000, Washington DC enjoys a homicide rate of 45.8 per 100,000. The list of the most restrictive cities are a who's who of gun control legislation. Detroit, 42 per 100,000. Baltimore, 38.3 per 100,000. On and on. What's more, these large urban areas 'pump up' the national average to make US society appear more violent than it is, while the reasons the world blames the US for being violent, the legal private ownership of firearms, is virtually non-existent in these ultra-violent areas.

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/21/camden.crime.ap/
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8999837/

"According to FBI crime statistics, before the ban in 1976, Washington's murder rate was declining. In the 15 years that followed the ban, Washington's murder rate climbed 200 percent, while the national rate climbed only 12 percent."

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/11-05/11-17-05/a16op849.htm

In light of this information, I believe it's time some in the US stop proposing that we apply the failed confiscatory social programs of Europe to the US. Just my opinion, I could be wrong. The mistake is rooted in the desire to half-heartedly deal with the problem of violence by attacking inanimate objects, with the purpose of avoiding having to deal with the TRUE cause of violence....human beings. The sociological view has been that people are not responsible for their actions, therefore, if we just take their toys away, they'll behave. Well, that hasn't happened.

Punishing people for behavior works......What Jeff Cooper calls "Hopolophobia: fear of weapons" is, however, a failure.

 

[Satt]

Excellent post!!! There was some really good info there. Thanks.

 

[MartialIntent]

Difficult topic! I would state first of all that the "violent American society" that's so widely reported has it's counterpart over here in the UK. Obviously no one gives us any right to bear arms over here and yet we're still beaten over the head with the notion that gun law here needs to be reformed - so take some comfort in that. And as if to pour salt on the wounds that violent UK society has to bear, one of the most perverse situations exists here in the UK - the wrong people have the guns! Criminals have them, ordinary cops do not carry firearms! Get that...

I'm often compelled to simply turn off news broadcasts in despair because it can appear that not only is our wider society continually pushing the limits of violence but also that the law is becoming more impotent in its ability to handle the perpetrators. I think the "violent American society" is a matter of perception - if you live in a nice neighbourhood, that notion won't make sense but if you yourself have been a victim of violent crime, you'll certainly have had your views influenced. For the rest of us, we believe what we want to believe [or what we're persuaded to believe] in the wake of broadcasters whose output seems to prove that only the most sanguinary stories are newsworthy.

I'm not at all sure the best approach is to compare US with Europe - after all, legality of firearms in the US has no point of reference elsewhere. I believe undoubtedly we are living in increasingly violent times and my own research would certainly agree with one of the articles you quote regarding violence ignited by racial and socio-economic factors - look at the recent rioting in France for example:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/11/07/france.riots/

Personally I think US gun law has been made scapegoat by those with varying agendas: electoral candidates who believe that to be a winner at the polls; broadcasters who can sell advertising on the back of gun crime stories; authors; musicians - you name it. And I think it's wholly incorrect for said US politicians / media etc. to compare and cite UK and European crime rates as leverage to have all you guys stateside to abandon your guns [and constitution]. A gun is a slice of metal - it's not the guns that kill people. Will someone with homicidal intent or capability, be concerned that their firearm is illegally held? And let's say they do suddenly develop a sense of legality - a gun could easily be replaced by a bladed weapon [or by a stick, a bottle, a brick etc. etc.] This is the situation in Scotland at the moment where blade attacks have risen to unprecedented levels. So what have we done? Banned kitchen knives. Hmmm, good thinking Downing Street. Sorry, enough ranting...

At the end of the day though, we've all got to face it, there is an increase in the willingness of people to commit violence and that's the real, serious and deadly problem that needs to be addressed.

 

[andy]

excellant post. the facts of the issue will not be denied.

 

[Tgace]

Is violence really increasing per capita or is it just a case of increased reporting? Are we really more violent than the "wild west" days or NYC of the labor gangs? Our population has increased but has the violence rate increased proportionately beyond the population expansion?

 

[Tgace]

America: The Most Violent Nation?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Put simply, crime of all sorts, especially violent crime, has been in a free-fall for the last 15 years in the US. Every year shows a drop in overall crime and violent crime in the US. This, despite ever more legal guns, available to ever more people in the US, with more states handing out concealed carry permits.

Contrast this with the UK, where violent crime and overall crime has been at a steady climb, despite ever more restrictive laws against, not only firearms, but self-defense. It became doctrine in the UK that defending the citizen was the job of the state, not the individual, therefore, self-defense is not a right in the UK.

All of this must have the gun-grabbers and hoplophobes pounding the dirt in frustration and confusion.

Even that (self)esteemed leftist, Michael Moore, was forced to make some contradictory conclusions in his hatchet piece "Bowling for Columbine" when he simultaneously stated that:

A) America IS a violent society. Guns and the "white" gun culture are what make America so violent and

B) America is NOT a violent society. Violence in the US is a myth created by the media, designed to "Keep the black man down".

Huh?! Confused? You should be. :erg:


At any rate, the tentative conclusion regarding this data seems to point to the fact that strong laws against CRIME (and hence criminals), not guns, reduce violence. Two of the things Europeans despise about Americans, private ownership of firearms and incarceration rates, are what are reducing crime and violence.

 

[Tgace]

The problem is that they let them out again. Kind of a "catch and release" program. Good job security for us, but not so good for our employers.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The problem is that they let them out again. Kind of a "catch and release" program. Good job security for us, but not so good for our employers.

Exactly. I think my local prosecutor ONLY believes in 'catch-and-release'.

I don't where exactly 'unprecedented numbers of people are being incarcerated' is occurring, but it certainly isn't here. I arrest people for serious felonies, and drive them to the county detention center. The majority of them beat me back to the city limits.

What's more, my (ahem)...'prosecutor' is terrific at finding creative ways to pad his 'conviction numbers', usually through creative plea-bargaining. This prosecutor will approach offenders who have committed a serious crime, but are going to prison anyway on an unrelated charge, and approach them, offering them a plea agreement. The agreement is as follows:

"You plead guilt to this charge, and i'll recommend a 5 year sentence to run concurrent with the 5 year sentence you are already on....meaning you won't serve ONE DAY longer than you are going to now." Of course the guy says "SURE, why not!"

Then, my prosecutor goes to the victims and tells them "HEY, good news, we got 5 years on this guy." I shake my head. Crime in our area is cheaper by the dozen, I guess. A real "Commit one, get one free" sale.

What many people list as 'being incarcerated' is Probation and Parole, which is technically listed under Department of Corrections. All those Parolees are listed as being in the Department of Corrections, but the truth is, most of them are wondering the streets. When people come out with statistics like "More Americans are locked up than anywhere else" what they really mean is, there are a lot of people on Probation or Parole. When people do go to jail, they don't stay long.

 

[Tgace]

The brutal truth...if I could go out and "round up" a select list of people, and keep them locked up, crime would drop like a stone....

But short of that I just have to wait to catch them....again. Hey it pays the bills.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The brutal truth...if I could go out and "round up" a select list of people, and keep them locked up, crime would drop like a stone....

But short of that I just have to wait to catch them....again. Hey it pays the bills.

Yep, job security. If we solved the crime problem like we wanted to, we'd be out of a job.

 

[arnisador]

The brutal truth...if I could go out and "round up" a select list of people, and keep them locked up, crime would drop like a stone....

I believe you. Alas, we all know why the system must be followed...as frustrating as it can be.

 

[deadhand31]

I'm not sure if I'm remembering right, someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Didn't Australia ban guns, and still see crime? Haven't they also been toying with a sword ban? Anybody hear of this?

 

[sgtmac_46]

I'm not sure if I'm remembering right, someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Didn't Australia ban guns, and still see crime? Haven't they also been toying with a sword ban? Anybody hear of this?

Toyed? They did ban swords.


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3623/is_200410/ai_n9415852

As that article puts it, perhaps the next step is banning rocks. Perhaps a three day (cooling off) waiting period when buying 'dangerous' sporting equipment, back-ground checks, and baseball bat registration.

http://lestdarknessfall.blogspot.com/2005/10/british-swordmaker-fights-sword-ban.html

The UK is soon to follow. These folks make fun of US?! At least we're adult enough to be trusted....with SWORDS!!!! How can any people take themselves seriously, that feel they need to be mothered by the state to feel secure? Let this be a lesson, many of our own socialist clowns want this kind of mommy culture nanny state here. What's worse, it's not only NOT working, it's backfiring.

It never occurred to them that banning guns, would result in more stabbings. Banning knives will only result in more assaults with other weapons. Again, the crime rate in the US with ALL our guns is DROPPING. That's because guns are a force multiplier, meaning they grant an advantage to the skilled user, whether 18 or 80, not to who is the most physically superior. That grants a legal gun owner a distinct advantage over a criminal, who would otherwise have an advantage in any other type of physical confrontation. Since the invention of the gun, no more could the physical stronger and more powerful be guaranteed dominance over the weaker and smaller.

Without guns, what criminal would fear breaking in to the home of an 80 year old woman? The only fear would come from the small likelyhood that they MIGHT get caught by the police, and MIGHT get prosecuted, and MIGHT (Big might here) get convicted. Then, they might do time (though, in the increasingly socialist cultures, they'll most likely get 'treatment'). No, in the US, burglars and robbers think grandma might treat them to a heaping helping of 00 Buck shot, something they fear FAR MORE than 'treatment'.

 

[arnisador]

I think the sword ban was discussed in either the Sword or Knife Arts forum. The British medical community is actually talking about restrictning kitchen knives as they figure in so much domestic violence--there's a thread in the Knife Arts forum on it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

It seems the concerns expressed over school shootings might be hype as well. According to research done by the National School Safety Center, high school football is more likely to kill students than school violence, including guns.

According to research, in the school year 2000-2001, there were 0 school related shooting deaths, and at least 11 football deaths. Another had catastrophic injuries.

In 1999-2000, there were 15 students killed by guns, while another 15 were killed playing football.

http://keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=831

http://www.nssc1.org/

Again, as Michael Moore said in Bowling for Columbine, there seems to be a concerted effort on the part of the media to spread fear among the American people.....He's just lying about who's doing it and why.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I will add to the pot, the fact that the state with the lowest violent crime rate, Vermont, allows citizens to carry concealed weapons without even applying for a permit. Vermont is ranked 47th in the nation for crime.

http://www.doc.state.ok.us/MAPS/incrimUS.htm

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..."
William Jefferson Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993.

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is
best for society." Hillary Clinton, 1993

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny
individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." Mahatma Ghandi

"Armas para que?" ("Guns, for what?") (response to a Cuban citizens who said the people might need to keep their guns, after Castro announced strict gun control in Cuba)

That one always makes me laugh, especially when I see ALL those pictures of Che Guevarra hoisting his rifle high being celebrated by leftists. I guess they're fine with guns...so long as they're in the hands of communist guerilla's. Once they get power, though..... Much like Robert Mugabi, who came to power on the "One Bullet/One Vote" platform. Once in power, though, the only guns to be possessed, belong to the fearless leader.

""I don't believe gun owners have rights." Sarah Brady

"Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions will be punished with imprisonment and a fine." (Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons, 11 Nov 1938, German Minister of the Interior) http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/kristallnacht.html


"In debating what would become 42 USC Sec. 1983, today's federal civil rights statute, Representative Butler explained "This provision seemed to your committee to be necessary, because they had observed that, before these midnight marauders [the KKK] made attacks upon peaceful citizens, there were very many instances in the South where the sheriff of the county had preceded them and taken away the arms of their victims. This was especially noticeable in Union County, where all the negro population were disarmed by the sheriff only a few months ago under the order of the judge...; and then, the sheriff having disarmed the citizens, the five hundred masked men rode at nights and murdered and otherwise maltreated the ten persons who were in jail in that county." [1464 H.R. REP. No. 37, 41st Cong., 3rd Sess. p. 7-8 (20 Feb. 1871)] "

http://www.mcsm.org/racist.html


"Individually, we do not bear arms because we are afraid. We bear arms
as a declaration of capacity. An armed man can cope - either in the city
or in the wilderness - and because he is armed, he is not afraid."

"The hoplophobe fears and, yes, hates us, because we are not afraid. We
are overwhelmingly "other" than he, and in a way that emphasizes his
afflictions."

"That may be a reason why we have this struggle continuously on our hands. We shooters constitute no hazard to the decent people of our community, but this does not prevent some from seeking to reduce that peace of mind which makes them uncomfortable. So we keep up the struggle, and by keeping track of political winds as they blow, we maintain our rights as well as our guns."

"hoplophobia - n. - an irrational and morbid fear of guns, a term coined
by Jeff Cooper, from Greek "hoplites," weapon. Symptoms may include
discomfort, disorientation, rapid pulse, sweating, faintness and more,
at the mere sight or even thought of guns. Hoplophobes are common and
should never be involved in setting gun policies, though many are hard
at work in the rights-denial movement, and are arguably the greatest
threat in the debate. Point out hoplophobic behavior when you see it, it
is dangerous, and sufferers deserve pity. A hoplophobe (HOP-li-fobe) can
often be cured by training, or by a day at the range."

Jeff Cooper http://users2.ev1.net/~mkreynolds/jeff/

 

[andy]

years ago, New York City and D.C. made the residents register guns. Of cousre, it was promised at the time that registration would never be used to take away the guns.Politicians then began to ban the ownership of some guns alltogether-and they had a ready made list of owners.
Decades after the bans were put in place, murder rates in D.C. and New York city remain among the highest in the country.


http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

 

[deadhand31]

Without guns, what criminal would fear breaking in to the home of an 80 year old woman? The only fear would come from the small likelyhood that they MIGHT get caught by the police, and MIGHT get prosecuted, and MIGHT (Big might here) get convicted.

Brings up a good test you can do. Call a for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. Then see who shows up first.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Brings up a good test you can do. Call a for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. Then see who shows up first.

It's a toss-up. If it's anything violence related, though, the ambulance won't show up until the officer gets there. So, if the officers is tied up, you may get the pizza first.

I work in a city, but I live in the middle of nowhere. I'd be better off having someone Fed-Ex me help. When you live where I live, you're on your own. We're our own police, fire and ambulance service. We prepare accordingly. I'm actually considering buying one of the newer home defibrilator's being marketed. Defibrilation is one of the few things that you need ambulance in order to insure survival as far as first aid is concerned. If we have one of those, we may be even more self-sufficient.