RE: "Offensive Weapons" in the UK
November 26, 2012 at 4:35 pm
(This post was last modified: November 26, 2012 at 4:43 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Less likely to be shot does not directly equate to "safer" unless the only criteria you're referencing is how many people get shot. Neither does a bare reference to the statistics address the majority of gun crime (which is not John Q shooting John Q). Lower access to firearms in the UK would predictably lead to fewer gun related crimes, but whether or not it leads to less crime...or a "safer" society...well.....
Laying aside the differences in what constitutes any given crime, or what constitutes a violent crime, the UN's reporting would seem to suggest that the UK has a higher rate of violent crime per capita than the US. Now, I don't think (like the gun lobby here in the US, for example) that the UK might have this issue because they dis-armed their populace, I would suggest that the lower population assigns a heavier per capita weight to any crime, and that our much larger "rural" areas compared to theirs further skew the results (not that these two are the only things operating...I'm sure there's a mountain of influences of crime rates in any given area). Even factoring in differences in law (and ignoring statistics about violent crime specifically) the total crime statistics put the UK right behind the US as number 2, with half as much crime (but less than a quarter of the overall population). That's some pretty simple math. On the other hand, the UK has less than half the homicides per capita that the US has. So, less likely to be murdered, less likely to be shot, but more likely to be the victim of a violent crime, and more likely to be the victim of any crime period.
-sourced from The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2002). United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention, so theyre older numbers (but 5 years after the 1997 firearms act...) Others might criticize these numbers on other grounds entirely, such as corruption/lack of reporting or convictions..but if we're going to talk about relative safety I think we'll need to get some numbers somewhere, otherwise it just a war of assertions.
(the majority of the guns "laying around" in the US aren't "laying around" in the areas with the highest incidence of gun related violence btw...they're "laying around" in the "safest" parts of our country- not that I would go so far as to suggest a causal relationship in this either.)
Laying aside the differences in what constitutes any given crime, or what constitutes a violent crime, the UN's reporting would seem to suggest that the UK has a higher rate of violent crime per capita than the US. Now, I don't think (like the gun lobby here in the US, for example) that the UK might have this issue because they dis-armed their populace, I would suggest that the lower population assigns a heavier per capita weight to any crime, and that our much larger "rural" areas compared to theirs further skew the results (not that these two are the only things operating...I'm sure there's a mountain of influences of crime rates in any given area). Even factoring in differences in law (and ignoring statistics about violent crime specifically) the total crime statistics put the UK right behind the US as number 2, with half as much crime (but less than a quarter of the overall population). That's some pretty simple math. On the other hand, the UK has less than half the homicides per capita that the US has. So, less likely to be murdered, less likely to be shot, but more likely to be the victim of a violent crime, and more likely to be the victim of any crime period.
-sourced from The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2002). United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention, so theyre older numbers (but 5 years after the 1997 firearms act...) Others might criticize these numbers on other grounds entirely, such as corruption/lack of reporting or convictions..but if we're going to talk about relative safety I think we'll need to get some numbers somewhere, otherwise it just a war of assertions.
(the majority of the guns "laying around" in the US aren't "laying around" in the areas with the highest incidence of gun related violence btw...they're "laying around" in the "safest" parts of our country- not that I would go so far as to suggest a causal relationship in this either.)
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
