Brits on Vegas shooting.

S

Sweet Shooter

New member
Lordy lordy. I am a Brit ex-pat' (and sorry today for this) and this just gets my blood up! This is a cultural piece, Anthony Zurcher made it so. I'm not trying to exacerbate a divide, but this is just unfortunate. What the (young) U.K. doesn't realize is that they live in a vacuum, an idealistic, overcrowded, confused vacuum. My opinion is that Anthony Zurcher knows nothing about these things and is just scoring spiteful column inches. What an embarrassment he is to the BBC, and the British abroad. I don't like him right now.
-SS-
 
My opinion is that Anthony Zurcher knows nothing about these things and is just scoring spiteful column inches.
Click to expand...
Most of which are lifted from other people's work; that alone makes it a shoddy piece of "journalism."
 
As another British Ex-Pat I feel the same, it was a poor article that cherry-picked others' work to make a fairly predictable point - there will be another shooting.

In the two instances of CCers mentioned, Wilcox died trying to save others and for all we know he did, it's impossible to say for sure either way. He definitely knew he was putting himself in danger confronting one gunman, he just didn't know about the gun woman.

In the Meli incident he chose NOT to fire, but it's clear the gunman was aware that there was an armed citizen nearby, and that changed the gunman's actions and probably saved lives.

In the Zamudio/Giffords incident, again the CCer didn't fire, so someone CCing didn't hurt anybody and probably have saved lives.




So it feels like the article is a downer on CC, yet in every event the CCer intervention improved the situation for everyone except the killers.
 
I've often wondered how I'd be perceived if I strutted around London wearing an NRA cap and a T-Shirt that said "PROTECTED BY SMITH AND WESSON (post Tomkins, PLC)" handing out pro-gun literature and NRA patches to folks on the street.
 
I've often wondered how I'd be perceived if I strutted around London wearing an NRA cap
Click to expand...

To give a little slice of home to our British Ex-Pats in here-

I suspect you'd be perceived as a bloody barmy bugger with codswallop between your ears for trying to brass off the good Queen's subjects. :eek:
 
The fact that he uses a Rand Corporation study on NYPD discharge statistics to make a point about civilian firearms use really muddies the waters.
 
I really am sick to death of being lectured by the English about gun control.

They serially ignore the fact that the UK has a much, much higher rates of violent crime while telling us how violent we are in the US.
 
That and the international assumption disconnect. I was just talking to a Dane who appears to think the Hudson River snakes its way through all 50 states in such a way that ANYBODY and EVERYBODY lives on it.

Not that we're necessarily any better at it. Some of the stuff I've read about UK "super-injunctions" boggles my mind enough I'm not sure someone's not pulling my leg. Likewise, I'd have very little concept of the extent of Rome/Vatican City as a country vs a city, especially as it relates to things like terrain, and farming.
 
I really am sick to death of being lectured by the English about gun control.

They serially ignore the fact that the UK has a much, much higher rates of violent crime while telling us how violent we are in the US.
Click to expand...

Just a clarification, this much touted 'fact', first appearing in a Daily Mail article in 2009 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html ignores the fact the violent crime is defined differently in the UK and the USA.

A closer look shows the U.S. has more burglaries, rapes, and murders than the U.K.

http://rayrayallday.com/2013/01/11/...rates-depends-on-definition-of-violent-crime/

The FBI UCR states that, "violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and non negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force."
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri...

Then for England & Wales,
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication...
From pg 20 of the above link - The UK Government definition of Violent Crimes - “Violent crimes are those where the victim is intentionally stabbed, punched, kicked, pushed, jostled, etc. or threatened with violence whether or not there is any injury.” … whether or not there is any injury.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stat...
“Violent crime contains a wide range of offences, around a half of which involve no injury to the victim. “... that bears repeating as well, “around a half of which involve no injury to the victim”. “The latest police recorded violence figures show a reduction in volume of 7 per cent, down from 822,000 offences in 2010/11 to 763,000 offences in 2011/12.”. So around 385,000 violent offences in which the victim was injured. Still appalling, but nowhere near the figures generally being bandied about.

According to the Crime Survey of England and Wales for 2010/11, there was no injury in 51% of violent crime, and no weapon of any type was used in 79% of all violent crime.

There were also changes to methods of recording crime in England & Wales in 1998 & 2002/03...
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.u...

There was a change in recording methods in 1998 (NCRS), and again in 2002/03 which, again, makes it difficult to fairly compare data from either side of those dates.

The changes increased the crimes being recorded, "For many police forces, the introduction of the NCRS required a move to a more prima facie approach to crime recording, that is recording based more on the victim’s perception of a crime occurring rather than the police satisfying themselves that a crime had indeed taken place..


You will notice that in the UK If I say in a threatening manner "I'm going to punch you on the nose" I have committed a violent crime. In the US the punch has to land.

The original Daily Mail article was a set up to make Britain look bad so the Conservative Government could look good by improving the crime statistics.
 
The FBI UCR states that, "violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and non negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force."
Click to expand...

From pg 20 of the above link - The UK Government definition of Violent Crimes - “Violent crimes are those where the victim is intentionally stabbed, punched, kicked, pushed, jostled, etc. or threatened with violence whether or not there is any injury.
Click to expand...

The definitions are identical.
 
A closer look shows the U.S. has more burglaries, rapes, and murders than the U.K.
Click to expand...

More total, or more per capita. Most people compare the rate per 100,000 people because it's only natural for a higher population country to usually have a higher total incidence of something.
 
Tom Servo said:
The fact that he uses a Rand Corporation study on NYPD discharge statistics to make a point about civilian firearms use really muddies the waters.
Click to expand...
Although I find the editorial's theme to be somewhat opaque, I think that Mr. Zurcher's main point is that civilian CHL holders see themselves as some sort of quasi-legal auxiliary police force, but that they're ineffective in this role, and therefore licensed CCW is pointless and likely counterproductive. He tries to point to the inability of CHL holders to stop recent mass shootings as proof of his hypothesis.

I surmise that his citation of the NYPD discharge study is intended to demonstrate that a lone gunman can't do much when faced with a mass shooter, particularly a group of them.

Never mind that the primary point of licensed CCW is personal protection, and NOT the creation of a sort of plainclothes police auxiliary.

I find it interesting, and at the same time distressing, that the gun control crowd seems to be shifting tactics in opposing licensed CCW. Since the prediction that blood would run in the streets has clearly been proven illusory, the new argument seems to be that CHL holders are merely endangering ourselves, and therefore society has a moral imperative not to let us do it.
 
More total, or more per capita. Most people compare the rate per 100,000 people because it's only natural for a higher population country to usually have a higher total incidence of something.
Click to expand...

You are correct. In fact, you are also statistically supported: England has higher violent crime per capita than the US.

UN office on drugs and crime, 2011 stats:
http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/CTS_Robbery.xls
England & Wales Robbery/ 100k pop: 133.19
US Robbery/100k pop: 113.67

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/CTS_Assault.xls
England & Wales Assault/ 100k pop: 600.96
US Assault/100k pop: 239.91

Rape stats are tricky, since the definitions of rape/sexual assault do differ between the US and UK. But, these 2 sourced quotes about the TREND line of sexual assaults are very telling:

England & Wales (2010-2011 study):
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116417/hosb1011.pdf
"Police recorded rapes of a female increased by five per cent to 14,624 offences and sexual assaults on a female increased by four per cent to 20,659 offences."
Click to expand...

US:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf
"In 2010, females nationwide experienced about 270,000 rape or sexual assault victimizations, compared to about 556,000 in 1995."
Click to expand...

Murder rates cannot be conclusively compared, since the UK does not count a murder as a murder UNLESS THERE IS A CONVICTION:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap25.htm

"Homicide statistics too vary widely. In some developing countries, the statistics are known to be far from complete. Figures for crimes labelled as homicide in various countries are simply not comparable. Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise."
Click to expand...
 
the new argument seems to be that CHL holders are merely endangering ourselves, and therefore society has a moral imperative not to let us do it.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what it is. One of the new memes for the other side is "where was the good guy with the gun when ____ happened?"

I really wish LaPierre hadn't given that awful speech.
 
I wish La Pierre wouldn't have given a lot of speeches. His heart may be in the right place, but he's an awful awful public speaker.
 
I've had many anti gun folks claim that concealed carry does not reduce the crime rate. I respond saying that it doesn't matter if it does or not. CCW allows me to protect myself, and is my RIGHT. Even if ultimately the private ownership of firearms increases gun crime it would not diminish the legal and moral right of an individual to defend themself and their family. Even if having guns in my home increases the chances of me having a gun related accident it does not preclude me from choosing to take that risk in return for what it does for me.
 
And it really ticks off the anti-gun people when you tell them that you could not care less for their "feelings" about guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top