UK Crime Rates-worse than reported

H

HarrySchell

New member
Here's a lesson in the effectiveness of strict gun controls

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article2710596.ece

Government figures 'missing' two million violent crimes
By David Barrett, PA Home Affairs Correspondent
Published: 26 June 2007
An extra two million violent crimes a year are committed in Britain than previously thought because of a bizarre distortion in the Government's flagship crime figures, it was claimed yesterday.

A former Home Office research expert said that across all types of crime, three million offences a year are excluded from the British Crime Survey (BCS).

The poll caps the number of times a victim can be targeted by an offender at five incidents a year.

If anyone interviewed for the survey says they have been targeted more than five times a year, the sixth incident and beyond are not included in the BCS.

The authors of a report by think-tank Civitas said the five-crimes limit is " truly bizarre" and "misleading".

Professor Graham Farrell of Loughborough University and the former acting head of the Home Office's Police Research Group, Professor Ken Pease, calculated that if the cap is ignored, the overall number of BCS crimes is more than 14 million rather than the current 11 million a year estimate.

Violent crime is 82 per cent higher at 4.4 million offences compared with 2.4 million in the BCS, the survey claims, including a 156 per cent rise in " acquaintance violence" from 817,000 incidents to 2.1 million.

Domestic violence is 140 per cent higher, up from 357,000 incidents a year to 857,000, the authors said, while there are nearly three million common assaults a year rather than the 1.5 million estimated by the BCS, a rise of 98 per cent.

Burglary is 20 per cent higher than currently estimated, at 877,000 a year, and vandalism is 24 per cent higher, the report calculated.

Robbery is 7 per cent up on the official estimates, or an extra 22,000 crimes bringing the yearly total to 333,000.

"If the people who say they suffered 10 incidents really did, it is capping the series at five that distorts the rate," the authors said.

"It is truly bizarre that the victimisation survey, based as it is on the assumption that people will by and large tell the truth about what happened to them, ... suddenly withdraws its trust in their honesty when what they are told does not chime with their own experience.

"Yet the reality is that some people are very frequently victimised, and that frequent victimisation is what they suffer rather than being an invention or exaggeration."

The cap of five crimes for repeat victims has operated ever since the inception of the BCS in 1981.

Ministers claim the survey - which now polls 40,000 people a year about their experiences of crime, is the most reliable indicator of crime levels,

The authors said: "The unwillingness to believe the facts of chronic victimisation means that crime control, police training and criminal justice action are now substantially misdirected."

In particular, the system means that the most vulnerable people in society may not be getting the police protection they require from repeat offenders, the report said.
 
There is no correlation in and of itself between gun control or lack thereof and crime rates or lack thereof.

WildhowsthatAlaska
 
There is no correlation in and of itself between gun control or lack thereof and crime rates or lack thereof.
Click to expand...

I think you missed a step. I contend that there is correlation. However, correlations and trends do not necessarily imply causality.
 
I'm making it a personal mission to use the TFL "search" function before I say something that's already been said, or ask a question that's already been answered.

Today, I'm going to quote a gem from the guy who used to make McMillan Stocks before he died - Gale McMillan, from a related thread he started:

Gale McMillan said:
It has happened again! Another sword attack in England. When they outlaw swords it will be pitchforks next!
Click to expand...

and a few years later, we have knife control!

Doctors' kitchen knives ban call

_41186745_knife203.jpg

Doctors say knives are too pointed​

A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings. [....]The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.[...]The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault [....]

In contrast, a pointed long blade pierces the body like "cutting into a ripe melon". [...]The study found links between easy access to domestic knives and violent assault are long established. [...]A century later, forks and blunt-ended table knives were introduced in the UK in an effort to reduce injuries during arguments in public eating houses.

_41186725_wound203.jpg

Kitchen knives can inflict appalling wounds​

The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.

"The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime. [...]We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect."

Government response

Home Office spokesperson said there were already extensive restrictions in place to control the sale and possession of knives.

"The law already prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of knives in public without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade not exceeding three inches.

"Offensive weapons are defined as any weapon designed or adapted to cause injury, or intended by the person possessing them to do so. [....]

"The manufacture, sale and importation of 17 bladed, pointed and other offensive weapons have been banned,[...]A spokesperson for the Association of Chief Police Officers said: "ACPO supports any move to reduce the number of knife related incidents, however, it is important to consider the practicalities of enforcing such changes."
Click to expand...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2368467.stm

Chief Superintendent Mike Roe said: "This initiative has a simple message - knives kill....We are appealing to young people who may carry a knife for protection or as part of an image to bring them in and get rid of them.
Click to expand...
 
WildAlaska:

I suspect there's correlation, but there are other variables that are even more important than private gun ownership. Crimes are caused by criminals, so the presence or absence of criminals is perhaps the most important variable. The presence of criminals can, of course, be reduced by long prison sentences and that sort of thing. The presence of criminals can also be lower based on the people who live in a particular vicinity and their culture (Japan is different from South Africa).
 
So Britians violent crime is higher than reported. Hmmm, the have strict gun control laws. How do these two facts relate to each other?

Is the new higher rate actually higher than a country like ours where there is much less gun control? Is there crime rate higher than that in the middle east where virtually every single citizen owns an AK47?

I'm really not getting the point here.
 
Government response

Home Office spokesperson said there were already extensive restrictions in place to control the sale and possession of knives.

"The law already prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of knives in public without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade not exceeding three inches.
Click to expand...

That BRITISH knife length restriction of 3 INCHES is fishy..
 
The Brit's speed limits are in MPH, they drink pints of beer, yet their milk and orange juice is in liters. They basically have an even more confusled hybrid measuring system than we do.
 
Put into proper context, the UK has suffered a sharp increase in violent crime committed with firearms, AFTER the restriction of firearms ownership. This is a pre vs. post comparison of the UK. There has also been a sharp increase in the burglary of occupied homes since the UK determined that there is no responsibility of self-defense. Again, a pre vs. post comparison.

The UK also has a different method of measuring homicides, or other violent crimes. They don't publish raw data. Homicides that do not result in a conviction aren't totaled. Violent crimes without conviction aren't totaled. Crimes involving political groups are tallied in different catagories, as well. Ever wonder how the UK had such low homicide rates, yet hit the news regularly with murders in Nothern Ireland? Or the casualties of IRA bank robberies and assassinations?

While the relationship of firearms ownership and firearms crime may be questioned, the information given here is not quite as casual. These are quotes of crime rates before and after a significant change in ownership was mandated politically.

Just to help, the same sharp increases in both catagories were noted in Australia, after the same changes were enacted. While you may wish to say that there is no proven relationship, it still remains that, a wish.
 
If you have criminals and make their trade safer, criminality seems to increase. the UK has gone so far to imprison people who act in self-defense. One such man's parole was denied by the judge as the man represented a "menace to burglars".

As noted above, the incidence of hot burglaries has shot up and remained high since the last great disarmings in the UK, Australia and NZ. Gun crime in the UK is rising, though it is an island surrounded by coastlines of countries with strict (though not to UK standards) gun controls.

Cultural differences do play in terms of gun violence and violent crime generally, Japan being an example. I am reasonably sure there are examples of lots of guns and not much gun violence (Switzerland) but not much of the inverse.

These examples belie the theory behind gun control, that crime will fall if guns are taken away (from law-abiding people). In the UK, that theory should produce a veritable Eden, but the opposite is what has happened. Washington DC should not have a murder rate at all, nor should NYC. Shall Issue states should have much more crime than states like CA. None of these things are happening, which causes me to think our solons and the Brady Campaign are looking in the wrong direction, the conlcusion of the article on the UK, too.

One thing that seems logical is if you make criminals uncomfortable, make their jobs harder, they will be incentivized to be more careful, go elsewhere or look for other ways to make a living. They will be less likely to engage targets if they have to deal with the idea of retun fire. This seems to be borne out by two decades of data relating to crime rates in shall issue states, where crime tends to fall faster or riser slower than in states with restrictive gun controls. I refer you to the work of John Lott, Gary Kleck and others. Their data is hard and peer-reviewed.

That the average Brit is unarmed and every criminal knows it, and that they can be prosecuted for resisting criminal predation removes any disincentive for criminals to engage whoever they want as violently as they choose whenever the opportunity presents itself. There is no other reasonable conclusion, IMO, but perhaps someone here can provide one.

I do not advocate making every person arm themselves. There are people who cannot or should not have firearms around them, various reasons. For those who can effectively discharge (pun not meant) the responsibility, a shall issue program benefits the whole as criminals don't know who is armed or not.

Finally, I would point toward the Parker decision as a primer on what 2A is really about, which is the inalienable right of the individual to effective self-defense. That firearms then and now are the most effective means to get to that point is not the issue. The word "arms" is a term of art used well before the US and the broad use of firearms, to indicate the mechanical means used for self-defense. A hundred years from now, phasers might have replaced my Kimber, but the framework and intent of 2A will not have changed.

In the face of predation, disarming the potential victim population can only promote further predation. There is no historical record FWIK that proves otherwise. If anyone has something, please bring it forth.
 
The recient terrorist attacks and the outbreak of radical fascist a-hole Muslims in Londonstan make the case stone cold towards arming up the national popullace. These whacko freaks dare not start their s**t on the ground in America because a ton of them will end up dead.
 
The recient terrorist attacks and the outbreak of radical fascist a-hole Muslims in Londonstan make the case stone cold towards arming up the national popullace. These whacko freaks dare not start their s**t on the ground in America because a ton of them will end up dead.
Click to expand...

Sigh.....:barf:

WildherewegoAlaska
 
The recient terrorist attacks and the outbreak of radical fascist a-hole Muslims in Londonstan make the case stone cold towards arming up the national popullace. These whacko freaks dare not start their s**t on the ground in America because a ton of them will end up dead.
Click to expand...

I was gonna say something, but why bother? Your response would probably go somewhere along the lines of, "some of my best friends are Muslim!"

P.S. take your finger off the trigger.
 
The recient terrorist attacks and the outbreak of radical fascist a-hole Muslims in Londonstan make the case stone cold towards arming up the national popullace. These whacko freaks dare not start their s**t on the ground in America because a ton of them will end up dead.
Click to expand...

Shooting a car bomb won't help. This is asymmetrical warfare. If they attack here, it will be unexpected, cowardly, and likely nothing you can shoot at to stop. They'll probably favor bombs in public venues, and yes, they WILL do that here.

Be careful with that sort of attitude. That sort of thing tends to lead to Sikhs being killed because they "look like threats".

Sure, if a jihadist, who would look like anyone else until they take action, pulls out a gun in a mall and starts yelling about "allah" while taking shots at shoppers, it's good if there's a CCW nearby that can take them down. That's why we're armed. That would be on a case by case individual basis.

But there won't be any things "on the ground". There won't be any wild-eyed insurgents running through your neighborhood with an AK. There's not going to be any opportunities to run around yelling "Wolverines!" :rolleyes:

Do we need to be deporting anyone who has evidence against them that they're a radical? At this point, yes. Dearborn, MI needs some serious investigations and raids. London's going to get a lot now. But the idea is to stop people before they blow up a mall, not to fantasize about killing "a ton" of them. If you want to do that, enlist. Otherwise, just go to the range, practice a lot, and if a threat, a single threat ever presents itself, defend the lives of innocents by stopping it. That's it.
 
"Defend the lives of innocents."

See how nice that sounds, much nicer than

"A ton of them will end up dead"

Need I remind you that they did indeed "start" something on US soil, they killed a whole bunch of people with a couple of hijacked airplanes. CCW would not have helped, unless we started allowing concealed carry on aircraft.

Hey, maybe that's the ticket. No more metal detectors and long lines at security, let's just have concealed carry by anyone who wants on airlines. Heck why not just go all the way and encourage open carry on all flights. Wild west at 30,000 feet that should solve everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top