Pre 1997 it was nothing like America. You're talking bollocks.

but it was still higher then when you had no gun control at all. True not at all like the US, but most of the US has a murders have murder rates similar to the UK. What pushes it off balance are the Mexico and Brazil level of gang violence in places like Baltimore and Trenton.

Comparing 1967 UK to now? That has so many issues, from gun cost, availability (Poirot is not the only thing shipped from Belgium to the UK), ammo, gun types, media saturation...etc.

But way more importantly 1968 was not the start of their laws.

where the murder rate was even lower. The primary purpose of the laws, like other gun control laws enacted across Europe at the time, had more to do with the "Red Scare" than "public safety". Small pistols, revolvers and semi automatic, of various quality and prices were made throughout Europe were made in fairly large quantities and by companies that no longer exist. Based on your your Poirot reference, I'm guessing you are referring to the Baby Browning designed by John Browning and made by FNH.
I don't believe I made a logical fallacy. If so, please name it. If I claimed there was a cause and effect, that would be a logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Guns in English culture is an interesting study. While citizens did carry pistols for self defense, and there are documented cases of police officers borrowing a firearm from a nonLE to chase suspects, the English criminal element had a code of ethics that basically said don't harm cops and a knife is more badass than a gun. Outside of immigrant gangs, that is still largely true today.

Many people met with accidents or were never on the books back in those days...on the other hand James Herriot (Alf) was in his prime...not really relevant, but just had to add that second part.

But as they said in the articles, many of the laws came in to effect after something happened...meaning they are not doing preventative fixes...also if you compare the UK with other areas like the us...


http://www.humanosphere.org/science/2015/10/visualizing-gun-deaths-comparing-u-s-rest-world/
You can see that the issue is less the gun control (shown here as hands down the MOST effective)...it has to do with the times and the accessibility of guns. Belgium is way up there because they are a producer in the EU along with Finland.

http://yle.fi/uutiset/gun_expert_finland_needs_to_accept_it_has_a_firearms_problem/7954813

and I have no reason to doubt their accuracy. Unless you have some valid evidence to the contrary, I really don't care if you trust it or not. I have reason to doubt Japan's accuracy mostly because murder/suicides are labeled as all suicides, and cold cases are often written off as suicides.

Speaking of logical fallacies, see the previous post about logical fallacies. You committed the one mentioned. The second link falsely claims the guy is a "gun expert", which I doubt he is. I doubt he knows the difference between a Lathi and a Luger. It clearly states he is an advocate for a gun prohibition lobby group. Since the headline writer didn't take the time to read the article, or it was intentionally dishonest, I didn't waste my time reading the rest of it.
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--k-cSoxQ0--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/19bm94ui3v59fpng.png

I did not post one on Belgium since we are all aware of how bad they are with guns after all of the recent attacks. Finland on the other hand is less known for guns production. What is the fallacy I committed?

As for accuracy, my issue is in early medicine people often were misdiagnosed. Sherlock Holmes was not there to catch every death, murder, or missing person. The further we go back the easier it was for people to disappear or to die of unknown or natural causes that were actually foul play. People that were minorities or the like were not as high a priority back in the day...you know race riots and all. My statement is that one can easily surmise on that alone that early crime statics were not as accurate. If you want me to give you facts, well can you please fund me to do a study on the records of early 20th century crime statistics and I will get back to you with the details.

Also we are wondering off the fact that the UK has the lowest gun murder statics...so the They are doing something right.

that is the fallacy you committed. Sticking to "gun murders" instead of "murders" is also cherry picking. Your graph cherry picked a few countries to get the effect they wanted. It is a propaganda technique called "card stacking".
The UK only counts murder if someone is convicted of the crime. Using the UK definition, Chicago has a low murder rate, which has nothing to do with homicide rate.

The US also includes and doesn't include others. I posted a simple article on the US compared to other locations. If you think that the UK has more, and that other countries don't include or do include other types of run deaths can you release a article that shows them all compared evenly.

BTW, when it comes to murder rates, we are far below the average and the mean.
Actually, we don't. When you get them from different government sources and look at what they are actually measuring. They are, however, often misused and slanted for propaganda purposes.
When you include "gun deaths" you include suicides. Mexico has fewer gun deaths, never mind that their murder rate five times ours. Most of their murders are not with guns. Neither are their suicides.
The real issue, as criminologist Gary Kleck once pointed out, it isn't the number of guns, it is who has them. In parts of Norway, gun ownership is not only mandatory, you are required to carry it when you go on a nature hike. Probably not something like an AR-15, but I wouldn't carry one there anyway. Or any semi automatic in general. In extreme cold, they tend to freeze, which is why the Danish Marines Sirus patrols still use bolt actions, so the the Canadian Rangers. Besides, I doubt the effectiveness the round would have on a hungry polar bear.

I seriously doubt they have higher murder rate than the rest of the country.

We don't have mass killings like you do, (8 in Ohio only yesterday). This is a far safer place than America.

Not only do we have less shootings by criminals we have less shootings by police officers who aren't routinely armed.

You can manipulate figures and fanny about with graphs as much as you like but the simple truth is that our country is not awash with guns like yours and that's why your casualties are so high.

Ohio was not a mass shooting by our definition. They are very rare, just well publicized when the happen. The death toll is a weekend in Chicago or Baltimore, where drug gangs and other criminals regularly kill each other. That has all the marks of a gang execution. While you have fewer shootings, but have more stabbings. When your criminals do use guns, they are more likely to use machine guns that the ones here.
Your country is awash with guns, just not legal ones.

You can't compare our countries for a number of reasons. One being culture. We are a more pluralistic and individualistic culture with a higher gang and drug problem. Yours is more collectivist and is a surveillance state that resembles Air Strip One, something that would never be tolerated here. More people die of heroin than are murdered. That's just heroin.

Which is why the Leave EU Campaign has just been heavily criticised for its misleading use of figures. The fact that you don't even consider eight deaths to be a mass killing shows how crazy it is over there.

four or more deaths, other than the killer, in one place with no apparent motive or specific targets. These murders were execution styles murders in different places, and the victims were specifically targeted.
True any figure can be manipulated. For example, the Home Office defines murder is someone being convicted of murder. We define murder as a unlawful taking of human life. Using the UK definition,, Chicago and Baltimore have very low murder rates, because they are rarely solved. Perhaps you have the same murder rate, as we define it, as 1920 but the graph shows improved forensics.

We stopped that after Dunblane. You can manipulate figures as much as you want but your homicide rate is off the chart in comparison to other liberal democracies.

you can't say you stopped mass shootings or mass murder in general. Our worst mass murders in recent history were not committed with a gun. Kill five people with a gun in the US, it is international news. Kill 78 people with a can of gas and a match, its just a local story.
Oh wait,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings
But then, not even we have had nursery school teachers cut down with a machine guns.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/sabrina-moss-three-guilty-kilburn-murder-142924917.html
I didn't manipulate anything. How about actually looking double checking the statistics from the police?

It seems that the problem is the quality of your news media and your logical fallacies.

As for our homicide rate, most of our country is actually lower than yours. In fact, if these ten cities were to secede or fall off the map, our homicide rate would be closer to Germany's, which is lower than yours.

What is missing in your life?

How long did it take you to find the very tiny incidents of gun violence in the UK?

I'm not going to waste time with you while you try to justify your rather pathetic need to carry a firearm.

This is from today. It happens every day in America.

Shooter injures 2 at Wisconsin school prom, dies in hospital

The shooter, who injured two people at a prom in at Antigo High School in northern Wisconsin, has died in the hospital of wounds inflicted by police during his arrest.


The incident took place at around 11:00 p.m. local time (0400 GMT) at the end of the prom, with multiple gunshots heard in the school building.

Of sad individuals who need to spread lies and disinformation about my country. What's it with you NRA lot and your Anglophobia all the time?

You spend all your time looking all over for other reasons, deliberately misrepresent what happens in other countries in order to avoid the flaming obvious. You have so many shooting in America because you have so many guns.

Now you can avoid that simple fact as much as you want, but don't expect others to play 'Let's pretend' with you.

granted, I knew about Ms. Moss for a couple of years. For every one person murdered with a gun in the US, two die of heroin overdose. It doesn't matter where you are in the world, even Japan and Australia, if you can get a bag of pot or heroin, you can get a gun.

...have for a long stretch had tight control over guns, handguns especially. Those tight controls, it can be seen, didn't work as well as law enforcement efforts to counter gang activity.

when you can just pop down the road and buy an arsenal.

and interstate sales of handguns are illegal. I can not go to a gun store in another state and legally buy a gun. I can't legally by one from an individual either without risking up to a decade in federal prison. All interstate sales must be shipped to a licensed dealer in your state and all of the federal and local laws apply. Maryland's laws are quite strict.

That's what happened in Dunblane. That's why we stopped it.

America's homicide rate is ridiculously high compared to other liberal democracies. It's because of your ridiculous gun laws.

The consensus of most criminologists is that gun laws don't affect crime rates in any way, shape or form. Our problem is actually more complex. Most of our country is just as safe as continental Europe. However, there are pockets like Chicago and Baltimore where drug dealers and gang members kill each other on a regular basis. These pockets have nothing in common with those "liberal democracies". They don't have the poverty, gangs, crumbling infrastructure, extremes in wealth inequality that places like Chicago and Trenton.
When I mean corruption, I mean
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2012/Gangs-and-Politicians-An-Unholy-Alliance/


BTW, why specify "liberal democracies"? Sounds like you are cherry picking, I would argue that many, if not most, are not "liberal". Certainly not Japan or much of continental Europe. Remember, your Bill of Rights can be repealed by Parliament with a jerk of the knee. Is it because our homicide rate is much lower than most countries in the world, all of which have stricter laws than us, and many with stricter laws than the UK?

You can fool yourself into thinking that America's incredible homicide rate has nothing to do with your need to carry a gun. That the deaths of children at Sandy Hook and places like that are either an acceptable price to pay or the fault of something else, like mental health provision, religion, race, sunspots, anything other than deal with reality. The fact that you take umbrage with America being compared to liberal democracies and would rather compare yourselves to somewhere like Syria shows how divorced you are from reality. Your guns don't safeguard democracy or freedom or any nonsense like that, all they do is give the authorities the green light to use extreme force like in Waco. And if you think a bunch of NRA sadsacks could stand up to the US military you really are living in a fantasy world. By arguing with your delusional nonsense I'm giving you the impression that you have a legitimate argument, you don't, it's nothing but self serving fantasy, and I'm not going to indulge your delusions any more.

as states liberalized carry laws, crime rates have been decreasing. Most people own them for sport. Since when were you anti science?
Connecticut gun laws are more like Europe's, even at the time.
I said we are liberal, Europe not so much. We don't arrest people for dissenting against taking in migrants, like Germany.
Waco isn't relevant because they were suspected of having illegal machine guns, that was part of the warrant. The US military would not go against the population regardless of the rants by people like Alex Jones.

Public policy should be based on empirical evidence, not some European's bigotry. The only difference between ideology and religion is the lack of a "sky daddy". You still haven't provided any empirical evidence that supports your claim.

...that the US NON-FIREARM homicide rate exceeds the UK TOTAL homicide rate?

That anyone who needs to point out their sarcasm has no concept of what irony is.

Which in itself is rather ironic.

...that you're making me ?

Without border control it is meaningless when someone can just pop down the road and buy an arsenal.

...there's a candidate who's keen on border control but I can't remember which one...

Or Canada, but from other parts of America. But you talk about Trump and think you're actually making a legitimate point, it certainly beats dealing with the truth.

...which I inferred meant state border control.

Reasonable folks that I know believe that securing the Southern US border would be huge and expensive task.
If you want to secure the borders between states you're just having some off the wall fantasy.

I was pointing out that having gun free zones is rather pointless when you can just drive a few miles down the road to get as many guns as you want. It's like expecting kids to eat healthily because the school canteen sells fresh fruit even though there's a McDonalds next to the school.

Nonsense, you are repeatedly engaging in putdown after putdown.

I haven't read anything that could be seen as constructive in the majority of your posts.
Do you have suggestions or not?

There's only one suggestion that works, but you spend all your time trying to undermine it.

Do I have to spell it out?

..."assault weapon", yes that would be nice.
Please elaborate.

Then your homicide rate will drop.

And it won't happen, too many vested interests, but it's the only solution that will work. Unfortunately your gun control lobby doesn't even want to meet people half way.

I think you mean the gun rights lobby; that's the one that's against gun control. They probably don't want to meet halfway. They're making plenty of money doing what they're doing.

So, what's a country to do?

If the NRA donate to a politician's campaign, said politician should not be able to vote on gun control because they have a vested interest. Not just guns though, across the board. We have a register of member's interests over here.

Our system needs strengthening, but it's a start.

I'm not well informed as to the implications and issues but my thumbnail view has me agreeing that it ought to be a priority.

The Tories always help their chums in the City.

Its the 5-7 million member voters and easily 25+ million supporters ranging from lukewarm to rabid, that give the nra its power.

And theres the matter of their favorability, with mainstream America:

https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=nra+favorability&oq=nra+favorability&gs_l=hp.3..0.1373.5580.0.5673.18.11.1.6.7.0.137.1241.0j11.11.0....0...1c.1.64.hp..0.18.1257...5j0i131j0i155i3j0i22i30.7yMqlbiiVbs

Seems like a generational echo of the baby boom.

Might be another slight uptick in the homicide rate when that generation's kids turn 16-20 in a few years.

Demographics is destiny, it seems.

are other variables included?

if you are talking about the available empirical evidence. Yes, if you are talking about speculation. The consensus among criminologists is that gun control does not affect murder or crime rates at all. The smallest minority is the more guns equals more crime. What does tend to happen after laws are passed there is sometimes a spike up and return to what the rate was doing before the law. Australia is a perfect example of this.

Sure, there are exceptions. But there seems to be a significant trend toward fewer homicides over the last 25 years. Perhaps the same factors, popularly identified with the Freakonomics crew, are at play around the "Western/Liberalized world." Frankly, when progressives are so quick to point to an object as the root cause, instead of dealing with increasing societal breakdowns, they are retreating to a reactionary and prohibitionist model. That's little more than joining the march away from a political philosophy that tries to ascertain causes of well-defined problems, then sets out to effect real policy changes to deal with those problems.

The more I see of gun-control, the more I am convinced that the position is conservative, elite-oriented and comports with many more conservative and reactionary elements who aren't really concerned with societal ills beyond bulking up LEOs and expanding executive authority's powers to effect law enforcement at ALL levels. After all, elites of any stripe can always get guns or hire those with them.