Note that those are total murders by all methods
Now lets look at those committed with firearms
Seems that you have more than your fair share of murders by means
other than firearms.
So a murder by blunt object is superior to murder by bullet eh?
Oh..it should be noted that the UK has been under reporting its crime
rate by a significant number of incidents. Millions in fact.
Now..lets look at gun crime in the UK shall we?
"By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than
America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape.
You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New
York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed
individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but
criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A
study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the
police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when
people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England. "
"A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New
York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although
for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted
access to firearms.
When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A
government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun
homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for
both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7
times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and
by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in
startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest
for 100 years the two are on a path to converge. "
Geeze..seems like its (murder) is out of control ..and they want to
redefine it in the UK....
2006 totals of murders by country (by all methods)
United States: 12,658
United Kingdom: 850
US population 302,849,527
UK population 60,600,00
US population is nearly 5 times that of the UK
Adjusted UK murder rate is 4250
Murders committed by gang members in the US (ages 12- 30yrs)
12,658 minus 8239 = 4419 or 169 more in the US than in the UK.
Odd..shouldnt the numbers be radically different? Odd that with so
many guns in the US, as opposed to so few in the UK...why is there
only 169 more in the US than in the UK?
The numbers of course should be zero or close to it in the UK, with
their draconian gun ban.
Why isnt it?
But then..that explains why rape, hot burglarly and assaults are
higher in the UK, by an order of magntude than those in the US.
Because its illegal to defend oneself in the UK.Ne?
Odd..while the crime rate in the US is falling like a rock..it seems
to be skyrocketing in the UK, along with gun crime.
Strange how that happens
And other countries don't do that?
I betya they do.
You might find
to be of interest. Among other things, they point out that in the UK
the national crime reporting system has only been in place since 2002.
In the US it has been in places since some time in the 1930s and it is
generally accepted (at least among those who have been involved with
the development of that system) that it initially badly underestimated
the amount of crime that went on as the local departments on whose
data it relies didn't bother to file reports--now it's mostly
automated and tied into the National Crime Information Center. Still,
some of the issues raised in the UK report also apply to the US--if
nobody reports the crime then it doesn't go into the system for
Would be very interesting if the difference in US and worldwide crime
rates turned out to be an artifact of the reporting.
This thread has wandered way off topic, but the issue is important.
There is great political benefit, in all kinds of arenas, for crime not
to be reported. I have had a couple of experiences with that issue -
once, a cop outright refused to acknowledge that damage had been done
per my complaint. On two occasions, I was very intimidated - not
normally easy to accomplish - by hostile cops when I called re: assault.
Given the racial issues lots of cops have (and which I have personal
knowledge of), if I was of another race I probably would have worse
treatment to relate. I once had almost sacred respect for police
officers, but those who are deserving have been hard to find in recent
years. And I'm not a loud-mouthed juvenile delinquent - far from it :o)
So you're only 3 times more likely to be murdered in the US - so much
for guns keeping crime down...
Your stats are working great - we're only 27 times less likely to be
murdered by a gun toting luntic
27 times more likely to be murdered by a gun - I wonder why...
And then it's the "nutter", the ownership or possession of firearm by
which is unlawful everywhere in the United States, who commits the
Now, why it is that killing someone with underwear is OK with you but
not if a firearm is used?
The bigest problems with having so many guns is that.
1) the nutters can get them more easily.
2) borderline nutters can get them easily.
3) young kids can, and do, get them to play with and kill others by
mistake much too often.
4) killing or injuring someone at a distance is so easy,
And the reason that guns should be much more closely controlled is that
with almost all other weapons you have to get close to the person you
But by controlled I mean that all guns and ammunition should be easily
identifiable and the original owner made equally responsible for their
use or misuse, with no exceptions at all, unless that owner could prove
that they had sold the gun/ammo to another identifiable responsible
Regrettably at this time that could not happen in any country where the
law often lets people totally avoid responsibility.
However if it could be achieved the level of gun related crime/accidents
would drop at an amazing rate.
-- >replace spamblock with my family name to e-mail me >Pics at http://www.meekings.net/diving/index.shtml
On Sep 12, 9:16 pm, firstname.lastname@example.org (Jerome Meekings)
I do not know you, but I assure you that killing another human being,
either takes a 'flash' decision, or a calculated one.
If I need to keep the supply lines open to my brothers in the field,
I'd take out the opposition with a .50 caliber.
Even from 2000 yards. No need to be close-up and personal.
If I need to rid the neighbourhood from a low-life who raped my ( or
anybody's) 14-year-old daughter...I'd prefer to use my bare hands. I
wouldn't want a weapon. I'd want his last view of the world to be my
Killing is either strategic, or personal.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.