[Lorric]

What is that?

[Nakura]

Here is the homicide rate in England and Wales:
[snip]

There are footnotes on this graph. What are the footnotes on this graph?

Here are the full footnotes:

† Homicide data is published according to the years in which the police initially reported the offenses as homicides, which are not always the same years in which the incidents took place.

‡ Large anomalies unrelated to guns:

2000: 58 Chinese people suffocated to death in a shipping container en route to the UK

2002: 172 homicides reported when Dr. Harold Shipman was exposed for killing his patients

2003: 20 cockle pickers drowned resulting in manslaughter charges

2005: 52 people were killed in the July 7th London subway/bus bombings

 * Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.

Source: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

The above source uses the data directly from Section 1.2 (Page 10) of the Home Office report: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110314171826/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb0110.pdf

[Nakura]

Look Nakura, we already have our own NRA:

http://www.nra.org.uk/

And check the wiki article on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association_of_the_United_Kingdom

Interestingly, it’s older than the American one. And if you scroll to the bottom, it seems at least several other countries have their own NRA. I don’t think they’ll have anything to do with the American one, especially the British one, which came first, but other countries have their own organisations to handle this sort of thing.

Their National Rifle Organization isn't a political organization, it is strictly a sporting body. The United States National Rifle Association is both a sporting body and a civil liberties organization. With that being said, the British National Rifle Association has done some political lobbying to protect the rights of gun owners and hunters, but not to any significant degree.

It's seen a decrease in the past year or two, but the overall trend has been an increasing one and they haven't come close to reaching their previous levels.

You didn't read the link I gave you, did you. I am disappointed in you.

That's for the past 10 years, showing it's fallen by a quarter over that period.

Where are you getting this impression from? Throw it away. Here's another one, for last year, stating violent crime is at it's lowest in 33 years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25858421

*Lorric sees all the other posts*

It's interesting that there was a lower rate of violent crime all those years ago. But it's still going down and has been doing for some time. I also don't know how you'd link the law changes to changes in the data. Violent crime in the UK nearly always does not involve a gun.

Also, if you want to improve the violent crime statistic, why would the introduction of guns have a positive effect on that?

I think we're discussing two different things, I'm discussing homicide rates and homicide rates alone, whereas you're discussing violent crime rates in general; including violent crime rates where the victim survives. Yes, there have been fluctuations as statistics are dynamic and change each year, but the overall trend for the past several years has been an increasing one. Even the lowest numbers possible are still far higher than prior to the implementation of heavy firearms regulation, with the Firearms Act. The European Union, and indeed just about every reliable statistics organization uses trends, rather than data from a specific year or years, when publishing data. Though compared with other first world countries, where firearms are much more available to the public (relatively speaking), Britain is still lagging far behind in regards to both violent crime and homicides, as you can see here: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-13-018/EN/KS-SF-13-018-EN.PDF

Though note that this data is for Europe only, and doesn't include countries outside of Europe, such as the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, etc.

[Grizzly]

The graph is not in there. Neither is the text.

[karajorma]

Nakura's graph is highly disingenuous. Notice how it starts immediately after the gun ban? Get a graph which includes crime from the 50's onwards and you'll see that rising violence is a trend on that graph from years before the ban. To say that this proves his argument is at best misguided but more likely a deliberate attempt to deceive.

EDIT: I got suspicious about this particular set of evidence being used so I did a little digging. Turns out I'm correct, I did point out the reason why that particular statistic was misleading back when Nakura posted them as Swazi Spring

So I'm definitely inclined to say that this is a deliberate attempt to mislead.

[Nakura]

Sorry, I almost forgot to address a portion of your post. Do I believe that the introduction of guns into Britain would decrease violent crime rates? Probably not. In fact, it wouldn't have any noticeable impact one way or the other. Guns don't cause crime, nor do they stop it; just as gun control laws don't cause crime, nor do they stop it. Though with that being said, the Center for Disease Control reports that handguns save far more lives than they take. I personally don't think it would make a noticeable difference on crime statistics.

[Grizzly]

It's not in there.

[Lorric]

Nakura, homicide is on it’s way down also:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-20219375

I looked at “Table 3: Crimes recorded by the police: Homicide, 2004-2010” in the 8th page of your link. Looking at the rate per 100,000 inhabitants column, we’re not lagging behind at all, we’re somewhere around the middle.

[Nakura]

Nakura's graph is highly disingenuous. Notice how it starts immediately after the gun ban? Get a graph which includes crime from the 50's onwards and you'll see that rising violence is a trend on that graph from years before the ban. To say that this proves his argument is at best misguided but more likely a deliberate attempt to deceive.

The graph starts in 1967, which is two years before reliable data could be obtained concerning the impact of the 1968 law. Besides, Karajorma, I'm afraid that you're going to have to cite your sources. The British Home Office does not provide homicide rates prior to 1967; go to page 20 of the report. Though even if you were right, you'd merely be supporting my argument, as it would show that the laws did nothing to prevent or weaken the rise of homicide rates, which increased even further after the Firearms Act.

[karajorma]

I addressed those points last time you posted them. Read my edited post.

[Nakura]

It's not in there.

Try the eleventh page.

Nakura, homicide is on it’s way down also:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-20219375

I looked at “Table 3: Crimes recorded by the police: Homicide, 2004-2010” in the 8th page of your link. Looking at the rate per 100,000 inhabitants column, we’re not lagging behind at all, we’re somewhere around the middle.

Britain is still lagging behind other Western European countries, such as France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, etc.

As seen in Table 3 (Page 8): http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-13-018/EN/KS-SF-13-018-EN.PDF

[Grizzly]

On January 16, 2013, President Barack Obama announced Now Is the Time, a plan to address firearm violence1 in order “to better protect our children and our communities from tragic mass shootings like those in Newtown, Aurora, Oak Creek, and Tucson” (White House, 2013a, p. 2). These multiple-victim homicides, because of their shocking nature, have commanded the attention of the public, the media, and policy officials, even though they are relatively rare and account for a small proportion of all firearm-related injuries and deaths in the United States. Mass shootings are part of a larger, complex firearm violence burden that encompasses nonfatal and unintentional injuries, homicides, suicides, and crimes involving firearms. In the past decade, firearm-related violence has claimed the lives of more than a quarter-million people in the United States.2 By their sheer magnitude, injuries and deaths involving firearms constitute a pressing public health problem.

Firearm-related injuries and deaths have devastating health consequences for individuals, families, and communities. In addition to these individual, familial, and community effects, public mass shootings have huge consequences for the larger society as it attempts to respond to such

Nope, not there. Do you even read your sources before you post them? And if you do, why do you consistently lie about their contents?

[Nakura]

I addressed those points last time you posted them. Read my edited post.

And I disproved your claim last time, just as I did here. I responded to your post and am waiting for you to reply to mine.

[Phantom Hoover]

highly suggest everyone hop over to the bill nye thread and read battuta's posts for an eloquent explanation of why you should not be engaging with nakura's **** in earnest

[karajorma]

Funnily enough that's what I tried to do earlier in the thread and what I'm going to do now.

And I disproved your claim last time, just as I did here. I responded to your post and am waiting for you to reply to mine.

You disproved nothing. You never actually replied to my last post either.

Your attempts to talk about murder rates rather than gun homicide rates or violent crime in general are basically a deliberate, bad faith argument and I'll have nothing further to do with them.

[Lorric]

Britain is still lagging behind other Western European countries, such as France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, etc.

As seen in Table 3 (Page 8): http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-13-018/EN/KS-SF-13-018-EN.PDF

Before you just said lagging far behind other countries, and we're not. We're behind those you list, but France only barely. And we're ahead of others, such as Belgium.

Anyway, what we really need is figures on gun crime, all of it. A law about guns is going to have no impact on a knifeman. I don't see how the homicide stats can prove anything.

[Nakura]

On January 16, 2013, President Barack Obama announced Now Is the Time, a plan to address firearm violence1 in order “to better protect our children and our communities from tragic mass shootings like those in Newtown, Aurora, Oak Creek, and Tucson” (White House, 2013a, p. 2). These multiple-victim homicides, because of their shocking nature, have commanded the attention of the public, the media, and policy officials, even though they are relatively rare and account for a small proportion of all firearm-related injuries and deaths in the United States. Mass shootings are part of a larger, complex firearm violence burden that encompasses nonfatal and unintentional injuries, homicides, suicides, and crimes involving firearms. In the past decade, firearm-related violence has claimed the lives of more than a quarter-million people in the United States.2 By their sheer magnitude, injuries and deaths involving firearms constitute a pressing public health problem.

Firearm-related injuries and deaths have devastating health consequences for individuals, families, and communities. In addition to these individual, familial, and community effects, public mass shootings have huge consequences for the larger society as it attempts to respond to such

Nope, not there. Do you even read your sources before you post them? And if you do, why do you consistently lie about their contents?

I do believe you owe me an apology.

[AdmiralRalwood]

I do believe you owe me an apology.

Defensive Use of Guns

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual

That does not match what you said.

[Black Wolf]

Karajorma has the right idea. This thread has, from the start, been a transparent attempt by Nakura to yet again bring up and talk about his favourite subject. Does anyone really believe he actually thought that HLP was the place to go for career advice about joining the NRA? Does that seem logical to any of you? Or does it perhaps make more sense that he was just looking for a reason to start having the same conversation he's enjoyed having so many times before?

Stop engaging with him!

Nakura: This was the exact kind of thread that brought you to grief before. I'm leaving it open because several mods and admins have posted in it already, and I'm trusting their judgement, but consider this a further repetition of the statements made when your ban was lifted, and a warning about threads of this type in the future.

[Nakura]

Funnily enough that's what I tried to do earlier in the thread and what I'm going to do now.

And I disproved your claim last time, just as I did here. I responded to your post and am waiting for you to reply to mine.

You disproved nothing. You never actually replied to my last post either.

Your attempts to talk about murder rates rather than gun homicide rates or violent crime in general are basically a deliberate, bad faith argument and I'll have nothing further to do with them.

Because homicide rates are what's important, it's not a "bad faith argument." Dead is dead, whether someone kills you with a knife, a gun or a baseball bat. Though if you really want to delve into that area, you'll be surprised to learn that you're far more likely to be killed with a hammer than you are a scary looking rifle (or any rifle for that matter). You accuse me of acting in bad faith, but you're the one who is completely ignoring homicide data and trying to pretend that it is impossible for firearms to ever be used for defensive purposes.