UK crime statistics revealed as a "sham"

[Rainbow Demon]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-crime-60pc-higher-than-official-figures.html

Last year 5,600 firearms offences were excluded from the official figures. It means that, whereas the Home Office said there were only 9,800 offences in 2007/8, the real total was around 15,400. The latest quarterly figures, due to be released on Thursday, will again exclude a significant number of incidents.

I have a few business associates in the UK and over the years what they have told me about everyday life over there has been at odds with the public face put on life there by the media.

I've run across other articles revealing just how bogus some claims by the UK correspondents in recent debates really are.

I'll try to sort through those and add them later.

 

[manta49]

Your point. ? We can all put on statistics The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States' 3.0 (over 40 times higher) and to Germany's 0.21 (3 times higher).

 

[rickyrick]

The almost non existent gun violence in the UK is touted as example to remove guns from the US.

Certain US media outlet are claiming low crime in the UK as a result of gun bans.

 

[manta49]

Certain US media outlet are claiming low crime in the UK as a result of gun bans

I don't think the gun laws in the UK are anything to do with the crime rate one way or another. Handguns that were baned in certin parts of the uk were for target shooting only and not carried for self defence. The higher violent crime rates in the uk compared with other countries are for all sorts of reasons but nothing to do with gun control.

 

[rickyrick]

Yes, the US citizens are being told that the UK and other countries are nearly crime free due to the ban on guns.

 

[Pond James Pond]

Certain US media outlet are claiming low crime in the UK as a result of gun bans.

As I outlined in some detail in another thread, looking at UK crime figures as a means of justifying actions, one way or the other, in the US is pointless for anything other than scoring PR points.
And even those don't stand up to much scrutiny.

So... rather than trying to discredit such unproductive statistics or the conclusions drawn from them, why does the pro-gun movement instead not try to dissuade such comparison in the first place.

That would be far more effective at taking the wind out of anti-gun sails...

 

[Scouse]

Are you referring to the correspondents on TFL Rainbow?

As Pond says, comparing the two is a fruitless exercise. Like it or not gun crime is bloody rare in the UK, which means absolutely nothing for the US debate.

Do not use the same intellectually dishonest methods as those who claim the UK's crime rates have any relationship to our gun laws. Surely it is better to point out that these comparisons are pretty pointless.

 

[Nathan]

Comparing gun crime numbers from country to country is always pointless. It ignores the cultural factors.

For example, Japan has low crime rates because there is one main criminal enterprise and they keep the street crime low and the homicides under wraps to improve business with regular people. They have more people on the street policing than the police do by 100 times! ....and, yes they have guns!

 

[reloader28]

Lower crime rate in Europe is a lie plain and simple.
The "violent crimes" is 3 times higher than what it is here.

 

[Rainbow Demon]

Your point. ? We can all put on statistics The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009

Since practically all crimes in the UK are under reported by police agencies, and only cases that are resolved make the statistics, how can you be sure those numbers are correct?

Violent crimes in the UK are far more prevalent than the low number of gun murders suggest them to be.
As mentioned on another thread knifings are fairly common in some areas.
Would you rather be shot or beaten to death with an iron pipe?

I've long heard that violent crime of all sorts rose steadily immediately after the ban on handguns took effect.

Criminal gangs in the UK obtain firearms by circuitous routes, conversions of blank , tear gas, and airguns have been the choice for street gangs.

Some US cities are virtual cesspools of violent crime, while other entire states have very little violent crime.
The level of violence in those cities is not related to availability of legal guns, but it is directly related to the availability of illegal drugs.

High crime levels resulted in the need for more legally owned firearms for self defense.
In those cities where draconian gun laws prevent the private citizen from obtaining a gun legally crime runs rampant.
In those cities where crime is pervasive and citizens can buy firearms they can at least make an attempt to defend themselves.

 

[manta49]

I've long heard that violent crime of all sorts rose steadily immediately after the ban on handguns took effect.

Why do you think that would be the case as handguns were for target shooting only.

Violent crimes in the UK are far more prevalent than the low number of gun murders suggest them to be.
As mentioned on another thread knifings are fairly common in some areas.
Would you rather be shot or beaten to death with an iron pipe?

UNODC murder rates most recent year. United States

deaths per 100,000 population

Northern Europe

1.5



1,432

Europe



Southern Europe

1.4

1,669

Europe



Western Europe

1.0

1,852

Northern America

3.9

13,558

 

[rickyrick]

Sorry,
I didn't specify whether or not the data was true, I was only answering to the point of the OP. Thats what Americans are being told by media outlets. I don't know what the crime rates are in other countries, nor do I really don't care. I can assume that crime is high in Mexico because I hear things and see reports.

Media in the US doesn't represent the population and has become increasingly difficult to find the truth. Therefore, many are seeking out information on their own.

Every law enforcement officer I've ever talked to, want responsible responsible citizens armed. They encourage and endorse concealed carry programs. Why is that? One 30 year officer told me there were countless cases in which he felt an armed victim would have been saved. But yet, when someone gets on the air and says something like that, they are treated like a nut-job.

 

[Alabama Shooter]

I didn't specify whether or not the data was true, I was only answering to the point of the OP. Thats what Americans are being told by media outlets. I don't know what the crime rates are in other countries, nor do I really don't care. I can assume that crime is high in Mexico because I hear things and see reports.

Crime in Mexico is very low when compared to everything South of it. Funny how we never hear about that even though there is near universal gun control down there.

 

[sigcurious]

Since practically all crimes in the UK are under reported by police agencies

Rainbow you didn't fully read the article,

The explanation for the gulf is that the Government figures only include cases where guns are fired, used to "pistol whip" victims, or brandished as a threat.
Thousands of offences including gun-smuggling and illegal possession of a firearm - which normally carries a minimum five-year jail sentence - are omitted from the Home Office's headline count, raising questions about the reliability of Government crime data.

Gun crime is not under reported...They make a differentiation between when guns are used violently or with the threat of violence in the commission of a crime and when guns are the crime by virtue of possession.

That's not poor statistics or under reporting, it just classifying things in a way that the author of the article finds disingenuous.

Personally, I think it's far more disingenuous for the author of the article to imply that there is far more violent gun crime with no proof other than, "well I don't like the way they classify things, by separating the violent gun crimes from the non-violent gun crimes"

 

[Come and take it.]

One reason for the flawed data is the way they are recorded.

In the US this incident would have resulted in the recording of at the very least 4 violent crimes.

In the UK it will only be recorded as one crime in their statistics.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15803860

Furthermore why do we not see these statistics?

http://www.ukcrimestats.com/Police_Forces/

Looks like 2012 was a busy year in violent crime in the UK to me.

Furthermore the US media has a lot to gain by bloating US crime statistics for the sake of the drama to push gun control legislation.

One thing is for sure that the crime rate for rape is higher in the UK than in any developed country. Explain this?

 

[Scouse]

Rainbow - the link between UK handgun legislation and any change in crime rates is a false one. They may have happened around the same time, but there is no causation there. This is obvious to people familiar with the historical shooting culture and the criminal culture in British cities. The guns that were banned were not kept for home or self defence, they were sporting guns and would never have threatened the people who commit crime, with the possible exception of people burgling farmhouses. Firearms were and are stored locked away, with ammo separate, not for ready use. Changes in crime rates can be explained by other factors, societal, demographic, economic factors.

As sigcurious points out, it isn't a case of under reporting, just of different criteria. Perfectly reasonable criteria, too.

Edit - I would add that as far as I know, violent offences committed with air guns count towards the gun crime count in the UK, so maybe it goes both ways.

 

[Rainbow Demon]

The guns that were banned were not kept for home or self defence, they were sporting guns and would never have threatened the people who commit crime, with the possible exception of people burgling farmhouses.

What brings you to that conclusion?
Could it be due to very few who kept guns for defense of the home actually turning theirs in?

I can remember several articles on gun turn in amnesties in the UK where the huge piles of handguns and other weapons turned in included many military handguns often war souveniers, and more than a few SMGs, the MP40 being the most commonly found in those piles.

How well did strict gun laws work in keeping automatic weapons out of the hands of the IRA?
Why is the murder rate in the British Virgin Islands four times as high as in the USA?

Immediately after the UK banned handguns gun related crime rose by 40%.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.

It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession.

Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime.

And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average.

 

[Scouse]

No, because to keep firearms for the purpose of defence has been illegal in Britain since the late 1940's. Forgive me, I forget the exact year, but I assure you as long as myself and either of my parents have been alive, it has been a crime to keep a gun for home defence. This is reflects the culture.

I am sure there were plenty of war bring-backs, they still pop up from time to time, even a few .45s taken in the South Atlantic in 1982. None of this changes that to link changes in violent crime rates with gun laws in this country is unsupportable.

I am not arguing for gun laws here, you are missing the point. The IRA got their weapons largely from the USA in the early days, then later from Libya and contacts in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union - that was a war and has minimal relevance here.

Edit - the stats regarding rates in areas with high/low legal gun ownership are simply because gun crime is an inner city problem, legal gun ownership is broadly a rural pursuit in the UK.

 

[manta49]

How well did strict gun laws work in keeping automatic weapons out of the hands of the IRA?

Because they got guns from their friends in America. That were then used to murder innocent civilians in N Ireland.

The IRA's main gun runner in the USA was George Harrison, an IRA veteran, resident in New York since 1938. Harrison bought guns for the IRA from a Corsican arms dealer named George de Meo, who had connections in organised crime. Joe Cahill acted as the contact between NORAID and Harrison. In 1971, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) had already seized 700 modern weapons from the IRA, including 2 tonnes of high explosive and 157,000 rounds of ammunition, most of which were US made. PS You did ask.

Could it be due to very few who kept guns for defense of the home actually turning theirs in?

If they didn't turn them in the police would have being at their door looking them. Also most shooting enthusiasts in the uk have more than one gun. So removing their handguns would still leave the shotguns etc they own.

 

[Rainbow Demon]

The increase goes back further than the more recent banns.

also from the above article.

He said the rise was largely down to successful smuggling of illegal guns into the country.

Weapons have even been disguised as key rings no larger than a matchbox to get them in, he said.

Other sources of guns include battlefield trophies brought back by soldiers, the illegal conversion of replica firearms including blank firing pistols and the reactivation of weapons which had been deactivated.

Since the UK is not bordered by a southern neighbor with out of control drug cartels exporting armed gangsters along with cocaine and a country who's customs and police have been unable to halt the transhipment of european and asian produced designer drugs and heroin across our northern borders, thats a factor that plays less of a part in motive for UK crime.

The Scots and Irish are less of a problem for the UK than the thousands of criminals hiding amongst the twelve million illegal aliens residing in this country.