The American Police

=XDC=FluphyBunny said:
It tells us the homicide rate is drastically reduced by removing the huge amount of guns on the street. Or were you ignoring that oh so obvious fact.
Click to expand...

It is, but not by a factor of 60,000.

Therefore we can say that there must be some other factors at work.

Infact Israel is estimated to have over 500,000 citizens licenced to carry/own fire arms yet, they homicide rate is within 10-20% that of the UK despite the obvious issues with their neighbours.

So maybe its not the guns per se'

Could you explain for example why the intentional homicide rate in the bahamas is so high compared to the USA despite the gun ownership being 5/100 in the bahamas vs 88/100 in the US?
 
Last edited:
The high murder rate in the USA is not just because of the widespread ownership of firearms by civilians there though. The USA's murder rate by knives alone is higher than the UK's total murder rate! There are socioeconomic and cultural factors at work there too.

Also, compare this data:

All countries compared for Crime > Violent crime > Gun crime > Guns per 100 residents (nationmaster.com)

All countries compared for Crime > Violent crime > Murders per million people (nationmaster.com)

- Serbia has the second highest civilian gun ownership level (CGOL) in the world (after the USA) but its murder rate is 140th in the world and a quarter of that in the USA.

- Switzerland is 4th for CGOL but its murder rate is 183rd in the world (about a sixth of the USA's).

- Cyprus, Saudi Arabia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Canada and Austria all have high CGOLs but much lower murder rates than the USA and some of them regularly have lower murder rates than the UK!

- On the other hand, Russia and Mexico have strict gun control laws, (CGOLs of 65 and 40, respectively), but their murder rates are double and 5 times the USA's murder rate, respectively. Brazil and Jamaica have CGOLs of 71 and 72, respectively, but 4 and 12 times higher murder rates than the USA, respectively.

We have tougher gun control laws here than Russia now. However, even when we had no gun control laws, London's murder rate was still roughly one fifth of New York City's murder rate for a period of over 150 years. British gun control legislation has been driven for a century by media created moral panics and exaggerated fears of criminal misuse of firearms.

There's an interesting essay on this subject here: All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America, by (libertarian.co.uk)
 
Graetzbridge said:
It's not. It is 223 times that of the UK. Yes - 223 times the US homicide rate. Think about that.
Click to expand...

That figure is miles out. Where did you get your data? According to the most recent data published by the United Nations, the UK homicide rate in 2016 was 1.2 per 100,000 people and the homicide rate in the USA that year was 5.35 per 100,000 people: Intentional Homicide Victims | dataUNODC

Therefore, in 2016 the homicide rate in the USA was 4.46 times higher than that in the UK.

According to the CDC the homicide rate was a bit higher in the USA in 2018 at 5.8 per 100,000: FastStats - Homicide (cdc.gov) But that's still less than 5 times the last published UK homicide rate.

Graetzbridge said:
Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year
USA - 12.21
UK - 0.20

That is USA is 60 times the rate of UK
Click to expand...

According to the CDC, the suicide by firearms rate in the USA in 2018 was 7.5 per 100,000 people: FastStats - Suicide and Self-Inflicted Injury (cdc.gov)

The homicide by firearms rate in the USA was 4.3 per 100,000: FastStats - Homicide (cdc.gov)

That accounts for 11.8 per 100,000, so presumably 0.41 per 100,000 deaths were due to accidents with firearms.

Hence, over 61% of deaths in the USA related to firearms in a single year were from suicide. If the person who committed suicide with a gun did not have access to a gun then do you honestly think that they would still be alive? Given that they have all the time in the world to select a method for suicide I suggest that they would have used another method to do it.
 
Maple Leaf said:
Access to a gun then do you honestly think that they would still be alive? Given that they have all the time in the world to select a method for suicide I suggest that they would have used another method to do it.
Click to expand...

In fact there are many studies on this and in general they show that restricting the means of suicide does actually reduce overall suicides.
 
The Running Man said:
It is, but not by a factor of 60,000.

Therefore we can say that there must be some other factors at work.

Infact Israel is estimated to have over 500,000 citizens licenced to carry/own fire arms yet, they homicide rate is within 10-20% that of the UK despite the obvious issues with their neighbours.

So maybe its not the guns per se'

Could you explain for example why the intentional homicide rate in the bahamas is so high compared to the USA despite the gun ownership being 5/100 in the bahamas vs 88/100 in the US?
Click to expand...

Obviously there are socioeconomic reasons that exacerbate the figures but that doesn't change the fact that guns are a significant factor in US homicide and crime in general. Handing out guns to anyone (bar a very few restrictions) is still the overwhelming issue.
 
BennoUK said:
Just for info, on the last count there was approximately 600k section 2 (shotgun certificate) holders and 150k section 1 (Firearms certificate) holders in the U.K. - some people have both so you can’t add them together, but probably about 650-700k people with legally held gun in the U.K. Between them they hold 1.3 million section 2 shotguns and 250k section 1 firearms which includes everything from AR-15s, cannons, mortars, flare guns to tanks (yes you can have a firing tank in the U.K. so long as you have a reason and it’s not self loading). So approximately 1.55 million guns in a pop of 65 million in the U.K. - 1 gun for every 42 people.
Click to expand...

What possible reason would there be for someone to be allowed to have a firing tank?
 
Last edited:
Maple Leaf said:
The homicide by firearms rate in the USA was 4.3 per 100,000: FastStats - Homicide (cdc.gov)

That accounts for 11.8 per 100,000, so presumably 0.41 per 100,000 deaths were due to accidents with firearms.

Hence, over 61% of deaths in the USA related to firearms in a single year were from suicide. If the person who committed suicide with a gun did not have access to a gun then do you honestly think that they would still be alive? Given that they have all the time in the world to select a method for suicide I suggest that they would have used another method to do it.
Click to expand...
Yes, USA suicide rate is 4.3 per 100,000. My figures are actually 7.32 at 2017 rate so some what higher.
So would these suicides used another method? Suicide rate for UK was 0.16. That is almost 500 times the US rate. Difficult to dispute the figures.
 
It really depends on the person.

The fact is that a gunshot to the head is an exceptionally simple method of suicide, it often succeeds where other methods might give the person time to rethink their emotional distress.

However, if the person has been planning it for awhile... highly unlikely that it matters much without essentially ending that person's liberty. I believe there are actually very few gunstores that try to deal with suicide awareness, goodness knows whether it's just uncomfortable to discuss or whether they just don't care since a sales a sale, but the culture clearly has to change.
 
Last edited:
=XDC=FluphyBunny said:
Obviously there are socioeconomic reasons that exacerbate the figures but that doesn't change the fact that guns are a significant factor in US homicide and crime in general. Handing out guns to anyone (bar a very few restrictions) is still the overwhelming issue.
Click to expand...

Handing them out to the wrong people seems to be the biggest issue.

Some countries have 1 gun for every 3 people, for example Finland yet their homicide rate is the same as ours.

How would you explain this?
 
Roar87 said:
Demonstrators, people who put on private shows or let members of the public pay to shoot it? Why not?
Click to expand...

Do such a thing happen though? I don't think we should have the public shooting tanks (nor did I think that you could, I've seen plenty of tank driving experiences but not actually shooting them), nor do I think the public should be shooting AK47s. It's completely unnecessary. I guess what I'm also asking as @BennoUK said that a member of the public can get a licence to have a tank capable of firing shells is has anyone actually got said licence and what are they using it for? I'm happy to be proved wrong but I don't believe there are any public demonstrations of tank shooting? Indeed, I don't think there should be (again, in the same way there aren't public displays of AK47 shooting)...
I'm just amazed that the law allows a member of the public to be able to get a licence to shoot tank shells. It's completely unnecessary.
 
Maple Leaf said:
Hence, over 61% of deaths in the USA related to firearms in a single year were from suicide. If the person who committed suicide with a gun did not have access to a gun then do you honestly think that they would still be alive? Given that they have all the time in the world to select a method for suicide I suggest that they would have used another method to do it.
Click to expand...
Given the US's male suicide rate is approximately double the UK's.... yes, a lot of them might well still be alive. Suicide by firearm is a lot more straightforward, and irreversible, than many other methods.

Graetzbridge said:
Yes, USA suicide rate is 4.3 per 100,000. My figures are actually 7.32 at 2017 rate so some what higher.
So would these suicides used another method? Suicide rate for UK was 0.16. That is almost 500 times the US rate. Difficult to dispute the figures.
Click to expand...
Your figures look wrong, tbh. Can't imagine only 105 people (0.16/100k x 66million) kill themselves in the UK every year.
 
Ahleckz said:
Do such a thing happen though? I don't think we should have the public shooting tanks (nor did I think that you could, I've seen plenty of tank driving experiences but not actually shooting them), nor do I think the public should be shooting AK47s. It's completely unnecessary. I guess what I'm also asking as @BennoUK said that a member of the public can get a licence to have a tank capable of firing shells is has anyone actually got said licence and what are they using it for? I'm happy to be proved wrong but I don't believe there are any public demonstrations of tank shooting? Indeed, I don't think there should be (again, in the same way there aren't public displays of AK47 shooting)...
I'm just amazed that the law allows a member of the public to be able to get a licence to shoot tank shells. It's completely unnecessary.
Click to expand...

The argument that things should be banned if they're "unnecessary", like is that a serious position you're adopting? This forum isn't necessary. Banning things you find unnecessary is disgusting Authoritarian behaviour, it's illiberal and evil.
 
Roar87 said:
The argument that things should be banned if they're "unnecessary", like is that a serious position you're adopting? This forum isn't necessary. Banning things you find unnecessary is disgusting Authoritarian behaviour, it's illiberal and evil.
Click to expand...

So every single person should have access to nuclear weapons then?

Otherwise it's illiberal and evil.
 
StriderX said:
So every single person should have access to nuclear weapons then?

Otherwise it's illiberal and evil.
Click to expand...

So we should ban anything that isn't necessary? Define necessary please.

Quite obviously to anyone with an above room temperature IQ we should allow private citizens the maximum amount of personal freedom where reasonable, reasonable wouldn't include nuclear weapons, it may include a tank whereby it is used on private property and the owner has reasonable grounds to own and operate it and they've obtained a license and a risk assessment has been performed, etc. I don't think people owning tanks is much of a problem since the cost of obtaining and running one is fairly prohibitive.
 
Roar87 said:
Demonstrators, people who put on private shows or let members of the public pay to shoot it? Why not?
Click to expand...
I think we should draw a line somewhere.

"These activities are strictly for the military."
"These activities are fine for civilians for recreational purposes."

Firing a live munition from a tank should (imho) be in the first category, and not the second.

Of course that's just an opinion, but civilians have plenty of ways to entertain themselves before needing to fire live rounds from a tank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom