Shocking: Soaring Violent Crime Rates in Gun-FREE UK! Just Shocking!!
Ray
http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/02/cracking_crime/my_area/html/london_list.stm
http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/02/cracking_crime/my_area/results/html/aa.stm
93.1 violent crimes per 1,000 population!! Also in the UK many crimes
go unreported because the police do NOTHING in many cases!
http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/02/cracking_crime/my_area/results/html/am.stm
33 violent crimes per 1,000!
I just could not go back to the UK. Too violent and dangerous! My
friends have said Moscow is much safer!
Compare the UK to Kennsaw, GA where all residents MUST have a gun at
home. Kennesaw has been doing this for 20 years and the results are
staggering.
http://www.gunowners.org/op0220.htm
1 property crime per thousand versus 6.5 avg for all of England and
Wales and 15.3 for London!! Shocking!!
Mike D
"Ray" <rayda...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6e39148.02091...@posting.google.com...
On 18 Sep 2002 15:23:55 -0700, rayda...@yahoo.com (Ray) wrote:
OK baby I think we got the message that you're easily shocked
Joke stats baby. I looked up those sites and they said the City of London
has a population of ~6000! Doesn't say much for the credibility of the rest
of your assertions.
What those stats don't tell you is the context. For example, when it comes
to assaults in the UK most of the incidents are young men fighting each
other in the pub or on the way out of the pub on a Friday/Saturday night.
It's a British tradition baby. Hardly something for the population as a
whole to be very worried about. But I forgot you're easily shocked and
probably very timid too aren't you baby?
As for saying 'many crimes go unreported'. So what - that could mean
anything or nothing. Definitely not a statement that could be viewed as
having any validity.
Crime may have increased in the UK since the time when Margaret Thatcher
came into power but the increases have been from a low baseline in
comparison with the States. When it comes to serious individual crimes such
as murder and corporate crimes the USA is streets ahead baby. So sort out
your own screwed up country first before you tell us how to run ours.
Take care now
Mike D
Connie
"gun-free UK".. And, somehow I really don't think you are shocked either!!
Hey, criminals are rational people.. and I'm sure they'd prefer to rob
someone, burglarize a home or whatever where they don't have to worry that
their intended victim might shoot at them. One of the things I heard about
the UK after they became "gun-free" was that there was a marked increase in
"hot crimes", i.e. those where burglars have become so emboldened that
they'll enter a home even when the residents are there. I'd say that the
ideologically gun-free activists really don't understand human nature very
well. Have you read Dr. John Lott's book, "More Guns; Less Crime"? If you
haven't, I have a feeling you'd find it worth the price. In no way is that
book a page turner. It can actually be a bit tedious to wade through all
the stuff on research procedures, data collection and analysis of data. I
would say that some background in statistics would help. If I recall
correctly, Lott did include a brief appendix on the terminology used, etc.
But, I must say that, if I didn't already have some understanding of
methodology like regression analysis, etc., I would have found that book
even harder to read. It was, nevertheless, a fascinating book. I was
particularly impressed with the size of this study (which broke data down,
not just be state, but by counties across the US) and with the infinite
trouble Lott went to to play his own devil's advocate.. always looking for
demographic and other differences between counties to explain the diffeences
in crime rate. At the end, however, he did see a strong association between
areas concealed carry laws and a reduction in crime with the theory being
that, in such areas, even those who don't themselves have a gun are
nevertheless themselves protected by virtue of the fact that noone knows who
does or does not have a gun. You may have already seen this one but, if you
haven't and are willing to wade through the tedious detail, I have a feeling
you'd find that one of interest. C...
Ray wrote in message <6e39148.02091...@posting.google.com>...
>Use this to Navigate:
>http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/02/cracking_crime/my_area/ht
ml/london_list.stm
>http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/02/cracking_crime/my_area/re
Stephan Wirl
Crimes reported to the police, 1992
Number per
100,000 inhabitants
U.S. Germany
Willful homicide 9 2
Forcible rape 43 8
Robbery 264 71
Aggravated assault 442 120
Burglary 1168 747
Other serious theft 1747 2175
Motor vehicle 632 235
Arson 42 17
Drug offenses 418 187
(source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/gap.txt )
I know its not the newest one but I think the numbers are still
interesting ...
Bill Twist
>
>
> Crimes reported to the police, 1992
>
> Number per
> 100,000 inhabitants
> U.S. Germany
> Willful homicide 9 2
> Forcible rape 43 8
> Robbery 264 71
> Aggravated assault 442 120
> Burglary 1168 747
> Other serious theft 1747 2175
> Motor vehicle 632 235
> Arson 42 17
> Drug offenses 418 187
>
>
>
> I know its not the newest one but I think the numbers are still
> interesting ...
People systematically murdered by the government in the last 100 years:
USA: 0
Germany: ~12,000,000
(By the way, if you take America's WORST total number of homicides in the
last 100 years, and multiplied it by 100 years, you only get about
2,625,400 homicides, and that is using numbers from the height of the
crack epidemic, when our homicide rate was 10.4 per 100,000. In 1999,
the latest year I can get data for, the rate was 6.19).
Government officials hung for crimes against humanity:
USA: 0
Germany: 10
(Nuremburg only. Doesn't include others captured later like
Adolf Eichmann.)
To me, it doesn't look too good for Germany, when you consider that
governments are also capable of murder. I'll take my chances with common
criminals.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Real men use flintlocks... In the rain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephan Wirl
>
> > Lets have a look at other nearly gun free countries ... e.g. Germany
> >
> >
> > Crimes reported to the police, 1992
> >
> > Number per
> > 100,000 inhabitants
> > U.S. Germany
> > Willful homicide 9 2
> > Forcible rape 43 8
> > Robbery 264 71
> > Aggravated assault 442 120
> > Burglary 1168 747
> > Other serious theft 1747 2175
> > Motor vehicle 632 235
> > Arson 42 17
> > Drug offenses 418 187
> >
> > (source: [9]http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/gap.txt )
> >
> >
> > I know its not the newest one but I think the numbers are still
> > interesting ...
>
> People systematically murdered by the government in the last 100 years:
>
> USA: 0
> Germany: ~12,000,000
lets be realistic: Germany: 6Mio ... and this was at a time where
Germany was ruled by a dictator ... or do you want to compare democratic
Germany with Hitler Germany ???
>
> USA: 0
> Germany: 10
> (Nuremburg only. Doesn't include others captured later like
> Adolf Eichmann.)
>
In Germany after 1945 NO one was murdered by the german government ...
the 10 people you refer to were sentenced(?) to death by an allied court
(USA, France, UK and Russia)
And Eichmann was captured by Mossad and sentenced to death in Israel ...
dont mix up the facts
Shaun
>Use this to Navigate:
>
>http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/02/cracking_crime/my_area/html/london_list.stm
>
>
>http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/02/cracking_crime/my_area/results/html/aa.stm
>
>93.1 violent crimes per 1,000 population!! Also in the UK many crimes
>go unreported because the police do NOTHING in many cases!
>
The City of London is a business district with large numbers of people
but a very low population. Which give a severe distortion if you
divide crime by population
>http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/02/cracking_crime/my_area/results/html/am.stm
>
>33 violent crimes per 1,000!
>
>I just could not go back to the UK. Too violent and dangerous! My
>friends have said Moscow is much safer!
Hackney is the poorest part of the capital city. Therefore to be fair
you should compare it to the poorest parts of Washington DC with, wait
for it, 40 times the murder rate.
>
>
>Compare the UK to Kennsaw, GA where all residents MUST have a gun at
>home. Kennesaw has been doing this for 20 years and the results are
>staggering.
>
>http://www.gunowners.org/op0220.htm
>
>1 property crime per thousand versus 6.5 avg for all of England and
>Wales and 15.3 for London!! Shocking!!
Kennsaw is a affluent rural area with population of 21,500 people
while London is one of the largest cities in the World.
Isn't demographics fun ?
Bill Twist
> > >
> > >
> > > Crimes reported to the police, 1992
> > >
> > > Number per
> > > 100,000 inhabitants
> > > U.S. Germany
> > > Willful homicide 9 2
> > > Forcible rape 43 8
> > > Robbery 264 71
> > > Aggravated assault 442 120
> > > Burglary 1168 747
> > > Other serious theft 1747 2175
> > > Motor vehicle 632 235
> > > Arson 42 17
> > > Drug offenses 418 187
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I know its not the newest one but I think the numbers are still
> > > interesting ...
> >
> > People systematically murdered by the government in the last 100 years:
> >
> > USA: 0
> > Germany: ~12,000,000
>
> lets be realistic: Germany: 6Mio ... and this was at a time where
> Germany was ruled by a dictator ... or do you want to compare democratic
> Germany with Hitler Germany ???
You need to be realistic. Six million Jews were killed. The other six
million were gypsies, homosexuals, political dissidents, slavs, poles, and
just about every else Hitler didn't like.
Hmmm, I seem to remember that Hitler was elected fair and square (well,
actually he was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg, but the Nazi party
HAD received the most votes in the 1932 election), and grabbed dictatorial
powers AFTER he was in office. Just because a government is democratic
NOW doesn't mean it will be later.
Now, it might seem that I am picking on Germany. Well, I can point to
several others that are similar (or worse). The Soviet Union. Peoples
Republic of China. Zimbabwe. Yugoslavia. Guatemala. Japan. There are
many others. It would be safe to say that just about all of them were NOT
democratic governments at the time the democides occured. But, going back
to Germany, there was a scant 10 years between the 1932 election and the
Wannsee Conference in 1942. Even less time between the election and when
Einsatzgruppen were murdering people.
So, even discounting war deaths, it is apparent that a strong government
is MORE of a danger than the collected deaths of gun abusing criminals.
>
> >
> > USA: 0
> > Germany: 10
> > (Nuremburg only. Doesn't include others captured later like
> > Adolf Eichmann.)
> >
> In Germany after 1945 NO one was murdered by the german government ...
> the 10 people you refer to were sentenced(?) to death by an allied court
> (USA, France, UK and Russia)
Correct. So what?
> And Eichmann was captured by Mossad and sentenced to death in Israel ...
> dont mix up the facts
I'm not. I specifically excluded them. Or do you have a reading
comprehension problem?
>
> > To me, it doesn't look too good for Germany, when you consider that
> > governments are also capable of murder. I'll take my chances with common
> > criminals.
> >
I also note that you snipped portions of my original post without
explicitely saying so. That isn't polite, and might be construed by some
to be a deliberate omission to try and change the point of the post you
are answering.
Shaun
The only problem of comparing the death rates of wars and genocides to
make your domestic murder rate look good, is that some smart arse will
point out modern US gun owners kill Americans at a much higher rate
than either of the Civil War armies managed
Panhead
> The City of London is a business district with large numbers of people
> but a very low population.
> .... London is one of the largest cities in the World.
And somehow, this vast city has a very low population?
Wow!
I didn't know that, :>
Then what are cops doing, and doing there, instead of going to where
the crime is being committed?
AntisDoLie
> Joke stats baby. I looked up those sites and they said the City of London
> has a population of ~6000!
Well, there is the City of London and then there is London, which
includes the City of London, Westminster, The West End (where I stayed
at the Grafton hotel), Victoria, etc, etc, etc.
IIRC, the actual City of London isn't all that big, about one square
mile.
I would definitely recommend going there, crime stats or not. And you
have to go to Ye Olde Cheshire Cheese. Where else can you go to a pub
that was REBUILT in 1666?
Last time I was there, they were still building the (new) Globe
Theater (oops, sorry, TheatRE).
Damn, I gotta get back, that was over 10 years ago.
I'll just have to leave the Desert Eagle at home.
Jim
William Black
>
> Compare the UK to Kennsaw, GA where all residents MUST have a gun at
> home. Kennesaw has been doing this for 20 years and the results are
> staggering.
And why, pray tell, do we want to compare the population of some one horse
town in the back end of the arsehole of nowhere to a major European nation?
Murder rate in the UK is about 5 in 100,000, which is at the top end of the
European rate, but the lowest is only just under 4%. In the USA it's about
10 in 100,000.
About 5% of murder in the UK is in pursuit of another crime, it's running
up at about 25 or 30% in the USA, if you count the drive-by shooting as
drug dealers falling out rather than family squabbles.
The population of the USA slaughters itself at over twice the rate Europeans
do
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Pepe, King Prawn
"Stephan Wirl" <Stepha...@eed.ericsson.se> wrote in message
news:3D89BBFF...@eed.ericsson.se...
Not really. If you want to attempt to prove that more guns = more crime, or
less crime, or no difference then there are plenty of pairs of nations you
can choose to "prove" any of those 3 outcomes (such as the US vs anyone, UK
vs anyone, Jamaica vs anyone, Switzerland vs anyone, etc).
Additionally, 1992 was one of the very worst years for violent crime in
America. Homicide was very close to the all time high of 10ish per 100,000.
It was the second worst year for robbery and the worst for aggravated
assault. Kind of an anomalous year, not one's first choice for even a
primitive comparison. Additionally, homicide had fallen steadily from there
to about 6.4 in 1998.
Also, the difference in rape (which almost never (5% of the time) involves a
firearm), arson, and drug offenses suggests that the US has a much higher
basic rate of crime/violence than Germany. One would logically expect that
the high US-to-Germany ratio for these non-gun crimes would be consistant
within the possibly-gun-involving violent crimes if the extra guns in the US
had zero-effect.
Pepe
Chris Hills
<Wib...@hotmail.com> writes
>Joke stats baby. I looked up those sites and they said the City of London
>has a population of ~6000! Doesn't say much for the credibility of the rest
>of your assertions.
The CITY of London probably does only have about 6000 residents. AFAIK
the City is about a square mile. Greater London is about 6 million
>Crime may have increased in the UK since the time when Margaret Thatcher
>came into power but the increases have been from a low baseline in
>comparison with the States.
Armed crime in the UK has gone up by 25% since guns were banned
according to the police figures.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ ch...@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Chris Hills
writes
>
>People systematically murdered by the government in the last 100 years:
>
>USA: 0
about those killed by Iraq and Israel with US supplied weapons?
I think is comes to quite lot more than:-
>Germany: ~12,000,000
Shaun
wrote:
>In article <amc1br$2be$1...@paris.btinternet.com>, Mike D
><Wib...@hotmail.com> writes
>>Joke stats baby. I looked up those sites and they said the City of London
>>has a population of ~6000! Doesn't say much for the credibility of the rest
>>of your assertions.
>
>The CITY of London probably does only have about 6000 residents. AFAIK
>the City is about a square mile. Greater London is about 6 million
>
>
>>Crime may have increased in the UK since the time when Margaret Thatcher
>>came into power but the increases have been from a low baseline in
>>comparison with the States.
>
>
>Armed crime in the UK has gone up by 25% since guns were banned
>according to the police figures.
>
Guns aren't banned
Stephan Wirl
at least as long as the rest of the world cares a little bit about whats
happening here. As soon as one stone is thrown against a jewish synagoge
world media will point to Germany and say: Evil is rising again. (I
think its good that this incidents are shown everywhere) but on the same
time whole synagoges are burned down in south France ... and no one
cares ...
Imho Germany is a strong democratic country. The german lawmakers and
the US and UK (who both were heavily involved in the german law making
process after 1945) learned from the errors they made before 1933. Many
of the things Hitler did legal after 1933 are no longer possible today.
> Now, it might seem that I am picking on Germany. Well, I can point to
> several others that are similar (or worse). The Soviet Union. Peoples
> Republic of China. Zimbabwe. Yugoslavia. Guatemala. Japan. There are
> many others. It would be safe to say that just about all of them were NOT
> democratic governments at the time the democides occured. But, going back
> to Germany, there was a scant 10 years between the 1932 election and the
> Wannsee Conference in 1942. Even less time between the election and when
> Einsatzgruppen were murdering people.
I dont think that something like this can happen in a democratic
countrie thats involved and respected in the world community. And as far
as I know all these countries that were at war 60 years ago are today
good friends/allies and have secured peace for the longest time in
history in Mid- and Westeurope. Same I think occures for Japan. The
other countries you stated were never democratic countries.
>
> So, even discounting war deaths, it is apparent that a strong government
> is MORE of a danger than the collected deaths of gun abusing criminals.
>
> >
> > >
> > > USA: 0
> > > Germany: 10
> > > (Nuremburg only. Doesn't include others captured later like
> > > Adolf Eichmann.)
> > >
> > In Germany after 1945 NO one was murdered by the german government ...
> > the 10 people you refer to were sentenced(?) to death by an allied court
> > (USA, France, UK and Russia)
>
> Correct. So what?
>
> > And Eichmann was captured by Mossad and sentenced to death in Israel ...
> > dont mix up the facts
>
> I'm not. I specifically excluded them. Or do you have a reading
> comprehension problem?
Sorry, this was a misunderstanding from my side.
>
> >
> > > To me, it doesn't look too good for Germany, when you consider that
> > > governments are also capable of murder. I'll take my chances with common
> > > criminals.
But as I said before: This happened 60 years ago and I dont think that
this can happen again as long as the world community accepts andtreats
countries fair (and before Hitler got to power Germany was treated as
shit from France and the UK)
> > >
>
> I also note that you snipped portions of my original post without
> explicitely saying so. That isn't polite, and might be construed by some
> to be a deliberate omission to try and change the point of the post you
> are answering.
> --
Sorry, didnt want to do that.
Mort
"Chris Hills" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:92FduLAc...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>
>
> Armed crime in the UK has gone up by 25% since guns were banned
> according to the police figures.
>
It also depends on what you define as 'armed crime' or 'gun crime'
I wouldn't be at all surprised if many instances where a gun makes an
appearance actually involve replicas
There are many reasons why crime (or fear of crime) has or may have gone up
including but not limited to: a higher population than in previous times, a
greater population density in certain areas, hysterical media, more portable
wealth (i.e. more things that can be easily stolen and sold on - back in the
good old days we were all too poor to have anything worth nicking).
It certainly hasn't gone up because people aren't allowed to carry concealed
handguns any more in Britain because AFAIK they never were! I can't see why
American posters on here are bothering to go on about that all the time
because it is simply historically and culturally irrelevant to Britain.
I could go on but I can't be arsed.
Tim Lambert
> I'm not a bit shocked, Ray, that violent crime rates have been "soaring" in
> "gun-free UK".. And, somehow I really don't think you are shocked either!!
Follow the links and you find that crime in the UK has decreased
steadily since 1995.
> Hey, criminals are rational people.. and I'm sure they'd prefer to rob
> someone, burglarize a home or whatever where they don't have to worry that
> their intended victim might shoot at them. One of the things I heard about
> the UK after they became "gun-free" was that there was a marked increase in
> "hot crimes", i.e. those where burglars have become so emboldened that
> they'll enter a home even when the residents are there.
You may have heard that, but it isn't true.
> I'd say that the
> ideologically gun-free activists really don't understand human nature very
> well. Have you read Dr. John Lott's book, "More Guns; Less Crime"?
Yes, actually. Lott is wrong.
Tim
Allan Lindsay-O'Neal
> Yes, actually. Lott is wrong.
>
> Tim
Thanks for the personal opinion, Tom. By the way, Lott's last name is
spelled L-O-T-T, not B-R-A-D-Y.
Ray
BBC's figures. City of London is a section of London you fu*king
moron. I don't livet there and I fu*king know that you stupid git!
> What those stats don't tell you is the context. For example, when it comes
> to assaults in the UK most of the incidents are young men fighting each
> other in the pub or on the way out of the pub on a Friday/Saturday night.
> It's a British tradition baby. Hardly something for the population as a
> whole to be very worried about. But I forgot you're easily shocked and
> probably very timid too aren't you baby?
>
Rest of the rubbish snipped!
Please respond to the sky high stats in Hackney and other areas. In
addition, at least 35% of the crime in the UK goes unreported becaus
ethe politically correct police do nothing.
Is it a British tradition that "punters" go down to the pub, get drunk
and steal a car or break into a house? Your arguement is absolute
rubbish "baby. Left wing fuc*wit.
Ray
Thank you for filling in the geographically challenged git face. I do
not live in England and I know that City of London is a very small
section of London. It's even on the bloody bus tour. ;-)
Funny how Blair banned guns and the criminals with guns came out of
the woodwork or wainscotting.
Ratcatcher: Oh, I gather you've got a little rodental problem.
Mrs Concrete: Oh, blimey. You'd think he was awake all the night,
scrabbling down by the wainscotting.
Ratcatcher: Um, that's an interesting word, isn't it?
Mrs Concrete: What?
Ratcatcher: Wainscotting ... Wainscotting ... Wainscotting ... sounds
like a little Dorset village, doesn't it? Wainscotting.
(Cut to the village of Wains Cotting. A woman rushes out of a house.)
Woman: We've been mentioned on telly!
Ray
>
> > I'm not a bit shocked, Ray, that violent crime rates have been "soaring" in
> > "gun-free UK".. And, somehow I really don't think you are shocked either!!
>
> Follow the links and you find that crime in the UK has decreased
> steadily since 1995.
LOL!
> > Hey, criminals are rational people.. and I'm sure they'd prefer to rob
> > someone, burglarize a home or whatever where they don't have to worry that
> > their intended victim might shoot at them. One of the things I heard about
> > the UK after they became "gun-free" was that there was a marked increase in
> > "hot crimes", i.e. those where burglars have become so emboldened that
> > they'll enter a home even when the residents are there.
>
> You may have heard that, but it isn't true.
Oh really. Criminals in America almost never break in when a person
is at home because they are worried they may get shot. They regularly
break into homes in the UK and beat the people up and steal their
valuables.
> > I'd say that the
> > ideologically gun-free activists really don't understand human nature very
> > well. Have you read Dr. John Lott's book, "More Guns; Less Crime"?
>
> Yes, actually. Lott is wrong.
>
> Tim
LOL! You fool. All you can say is Dr. Lott is wrong? He was a
professor at the University of Chicago which may be one of the best
universities in the world for statistics and quantative analysis.
i.e. it is highly doubtful that his research methodology is wrong or
even slightly flawed. He is regularly attacked by clueless lefties
and antigunners but no one have been able to attack his methods - they
just don't like his conclusions.
Lott is so incompetent that he is a now a professor at Yale.
My tip is get a law degree and a PhD like Dr. Lott, teach at two of
the best universities in America for a while and we will review your
results.
Ray
> "Ray" <rayda...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6e39148.02091...@posting.google.com...
>
>
> >
> > Compare the UK to Kennsaw, GA where all residents MUST have a gun at
> > home. Kennesaw has been doing this for 20 years and the results are
> > staggering.
>
> And why, pray tell, do we want to compare the population of some one horse
> town in the back end of the arsehole of nowhere to a major European nation?
LOL! Maybe because the people in Kennesaw have 2 car garages bigger
than most homes or "flats" in the UK. They don't have to pay 500,000
pounds for the pleasure of living in a rabbit hutch and walking out of
their hutch to get robbed or mugged on a daily basis.
Big R
>>>Compare the UK to Kennsaw, GA where all residents MUST have a gun at
>>>home. Kennesaw has been doing this for 20 years and the results are
>>>staggering.
>>
>>And why, pray tell, do we want to compare the population of some one horse
>>town in the back end of the arsehole of nowhere to a major European nation?
>
>
>
> LOL! Maybe because the people in Kennesaw have 2 car garages bigger
> than most homes or "flats" in the UK. They don't have to pay 500,000
> pounds for the pleasure of living in a rabbit hutch and walking out of
> their hutch to get robbed or mugged on a daily basis.
It is also worth mentioning that Kennesaw is very close to Atlanta ...
in fact it could be considered a suburb of Atlanta - not exactly a one
horse town in the middle of nowhere.
-Big R
Yardpilot
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v_Teret/Response_to_Lambert.htm
.
Sean
Ray wrote:
> Tim Lambert <lam...@cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote in message news:<m3sn04n...@cycloid.localdomain>...
>
>>"Connie" <CONH...@prodigy.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>>I'm not a bit shocked, Ray, that violent crime rates have been "soaring" in
>>>"gun-free UK".. And, somehow I really don't think you are shocked either!!
>>>
>>Follow the links and you find that crime in the UK has decreased
>>steadily since 1995.
>>
>
> LOL!
>
>
>>>Hey, criminals are rational people.. and I'm sure they'd prefer to rob
>>>someone, burglarize a home or whatever where they don't have to worry that
>>>their intended victim might shoot at them. One of the things I heard about
>>>the UK after they became "gun-free" was that there was a marked increase in
>>>"hot crimes", i.e. those where burglars have become so emboldened that
>>>they'll enter a home even when the residents are there.
>>>
>>You may have heard that, but it isn't true.
>>
>
> Oh really. Criminals in America almost never break in when a person
> is at home because they are worried they may get shot. They regularly
> break into homes in the UK and beat the people up and steal their
> valuables.
>
"Almost never" and "regularly" are exaggerations. Connie is wrong in
believing that the handgun ban has generated a sudden increase in hot
burglaries; since handguns could not be used in Britain to repel
intruders there was no abrupt removal of a means of defence to incite
burglars to act. What has happened is the gradual rise in violence in
society that has increased the proportion of deliberate hot burglaries
(still very low) and the possibility of a violent response if the
householders encounter burglars (again, still very low). Since the
burglary rate has risen the absolute number of such violent incidents
has increased too but only in the wildest imagination could it be
described as routine behaviour.
Shaun
A middle class bolt hole then for people too scared to live in Atlanta
proper
Shaun
American homes and vehicles are designed to fit their occupants
Tim Lambert
> Tim Lambert <lam...@cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote in message news:<m3sn04n...@cycloid.localdomain>...
> > "Connie" <CONH...@prodigy.net> writes:
> >
> > > I'm not a bit shocked, Ray, that violent crime rates have been "soaring" in
> > > "gun-free UK".. And, somehow I really don't think you are shocked either!!
> >
> > Follow the links and you find that crime in the UK has decreased
> > steadily since 1995.
>
> LOL!
See:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb702.pdf
"Since 1995, BCS crime has reported a fall in every survey. There has
been a 22 per cent fall in the crime measured by the BCS over the last
five years from 1997 to 2001/02."
> > > I'd say that the
> > > ideologically gun-free activists really don't understand human nature very
> > > well. Have you read Dr. John Lott's book, "More Guns; Less Crime"?
> >
> > Yes, actually. Lott is wrong.
> >
> > Tim
>
> LOL! You fool. All you can say is Dr. Lott is wrong?
No, I can say much, much more than that.
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/
> He was a
> professor at the University of Chicago which may be one of the best
> universities in the world for statistics and quantative analysis.
He wasn't a professor at Chicago. He was a visiting fellow.
> i.e. it is highly doubtful that his research methodology is wrong or
> even slightly flawed. He is regularly attacked by clueless lefties
> and antigunners but no one have been able to attack his methods - they
> just don't like his conclusions.
Evidently you have not seen many of the criticisms. You could try
looking at
http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm
There's lots more, but they're fairly technical.
> Lott is so incompetent that he is a now a professor at Yale.
Well, no. He had a position as a research scholar there for a while,
but he was never a professor there. He is no longer associated with
any university, but works for a think tank.
> My tip is get a law degree and a PhD like Dr. Lott, teach at two of
> the best universities in America for a while and we will review your
> results.
Lott does not have a law degree. He does have a PhD, but then, so do
I.
Tim
Mike D
ROFLMAO baby I really touched a nerve with you there didn't I baby.
You feeling insecure or something? :-) I think we should know you can
tell us all about it baby.
>
>BBC's figures. City of London is a section of London you fu*king
>moron. I don't livet there and I fu*king know that you stupid git!
I know they're the BBC's and British Govt's stats but it doesn't mean
they an accurate reflection does it baby. While the BBC does much good
stuff if you knew anything about statistics you would know you can
manipulate data in all sorts of ways to fit your assumptions. You
proved that yourself by selectively citing areas like Hackney which
are the most deprived in the country.So who's the moron now baby.
at least 35% of the crime in the UK goes unreported becaus
>ethe politically correct police do nothing.
Like I said before baby but you were too dense to get the message if
it goes unreported it may or may not ever have happened so noone can
come up with a figure of 35%. DUH! Do you want me to draw you a
picture.
Why don't you septics piss off with your fantasies and sort out your
own fucked up country before giving us bullshit lectures on how to run
ours.
Who said anything about me being left wing baby. I must have been the
only person to vote conservative last time around. I'm also a former
soldier so don't try and tell me about guns you wanker.
Mort
'How am I skydiving?'
Dial 1-800-GET-A-LIFE
Chris Hills
aajnvlcfjymmndomtmmmam.ntlworld.com> writes
>On 20 Sep 2002 12:54:03 -0700, rayda...@yahoo.com (Ray) wrote:
>>>
>>LOL! Maybe because the people in Kennesaw have 2 car garages bigger
>>than most homes or "flats" in the UK.
>American homes and vehicles are designed to fit their occupants
Obese?
:-)
William Black
Ok, if you insist; a cheap one horse town in the back end of the arsehole of
nowhere.
I live in a town of 60,000 people, we've had one murder in the past four
years, which was caused by a couple of tourists having a knife fight at bar
closing time.
There are two cops with guns in their cars (locked in a box in the boot) to
cover a county of about 5,000 square miles
They got called twice last year, once for a robbery, and once for a kid
with a toy, nobody got shot either time.
In London there are about 100 murders a year, in New York, through huge and
expensive efforts, they've managed to reduce the murders to 3000 a year.
Sean
Mike D wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2002 12:35:12 -0700, rayda...@yahoo.com (Ray) farted:
>
> ROFLMAO baby I really touched a nerve with you there didn't I baby.
> You feeling insecure or something? :-) I think we should know you can
> tell us all about it baby.
>
>>BBC's figures. City of London is a section of London you fu*king
>>moron. I don't livet there and I fu*king know that you stupid git!
>>
>
> I know they're the BBC's and British Govt's stats but it doesn't mean
> they an accurate reflection does it baby. While the BBC does much good
> stuff if you knew anything about statistics you would know you can
> manipulate data in all sorts of ways to fit your assumptions. You
> proved that yourself by selectively citing areas like Hackney which
> are the most deprived in the country.So who's the moron now baby.
>
> at least 35% of the crime in the UK goes unreported becaus
>
>>ethe politically correct police do nothing.
>>
>
> Like I said before baby but you were too dense to get the message if
> it goes unreported it may or may not ever have happened so noone can
> come up with a figure of 35%. DUH! Do you want me to draw you a
> picture.
It's the kind of difference between recorded crime and the levels found
in the British Crime Survey. See Appendix 1, Table 2.01 in
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb702.pdf where 35% is a
conservative estimate. Surely you must have seen something in the last
few years musing about why people are increasingly disinclined to report
crimes?
Sean
ThorII
wrote:
Oh well, in that case I guess all the propoganda put out by the press in YOUR
country is wrong then and you are right...OK sounds good to me.
Now crawl back under that rock you came from and shut up.
Ray
LOL! Lived in small apartment (flat) like most Brits when I was
younger and prefer a nice big house now. I am sure you enjoy your
bedsitter provided by the local council.
Mary Rosh
Lott when he taught at the Wharton Business School. He was a
professor there. Let's see. Prominent research positions at
Stanford, University of Chicago, Yale, and Wharton. I am sure that
you are just as qualified to do research as Lott and I will probably
agree that it doesn't matter that your Ph.D. is in computer science,
but let's get past these types of arguments, please.
As to your link to goertzel, I don't know who this guy is, but the
page is a joke. One only has to read it for a second to see obviously
false claims. For example, "As it happens, none of these very large
counties have "shall issue" gun control laws." Do you agree with
that? Would you agree that Houston, Dallas, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh,
Atlanta, Miami, Seattle, Pheonix, etc are in "large counties"?
Tim Lambert <lam...@cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote in message news:<m3elbn8...@cycloid.localdomain>...
Tim Lambert
> As to your link to goertzel, I don't know who this guy is, but the
> page is a joke. One only has to read it for a second to see obviously
> false claims. For example, "As it happens, none of these very large
> counties have "shall issue" gun control laws." Do you agree with
> that? Would you agree that Houston, Dallas, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh,
> Atlanta, Miami, Seattle, Pheonix, etc are in "large counties"?
The majority of those places introduced carry laws after the end of
the period covered in Lott's original study.
In any case, the most important point Goertzel makes is that for
any study that involves a multiple regression that finds a significant
association, it seems that there is another study that applies a
different model to the same data and gets a different answer. There
are several examples of this happening with Lott's study.
Goertzel argues convincingly that "When presented with an econometric
model, consumers should insist on evidence that it can predict trends
in data other than the data used to create it. Models that fail this
test are junk science, no matter how complex the analysis."
In the case of Lott's model we are in the fortunate position of being
able to test its predictive power. Lott's original data set ended in
1992. Between 1992 and 1996, 14 more jurisdictions (13 states and
Philadelphia) adopted carry laws. We can test the predictive power of
Lott's model by seeing if it finds less crime in those
jurisdictions. Ayres and Donahue [1] have done this test. They found
that, using Lott's model, in those jurisdictions carry laws were
associated with more crime in all crime categories . Lott's model
fails the predictive test.
Ayres and Donahue go on to examine all the states adopting carry laws
using data up to 1997 and found that carry laws were associated with
crime increases in more states than they were associated with
decreases. They rather pointedly observe that
"Those who were swayed by the statistical evidence previously
offered by Lott and Mustard to believe the more guns, less crime
hypothesis should now be more strongly inclined to accept the even
stronger statistical evidence suggesting the crime-inducing effect
of shall issue laws."
Tim
[1] Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III.
Shooting down the more guns, less crime hypothesis.
Stanford Law Review, to appear, 2002.
http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/
William Black
"ThorII" <gu...@whatever.com> wrote in message
news:ffspouk0e669gc6ho...@4ax.com...
> Now crawl back under that rock you came from and shut up.
I'll take that as 'I'm sorry sir, I was wrong, you are right, but if
you'll let me have the last word it'll stop me looking like a complete
idiot'.
Now go out and read a book about crime and statistics you ill educated fool.
ThorII
wrote:
>
>"ThorII" <gu...@whatever.com> wrote in message
>news:ffspouk0e669gc6ho...@4ax.com...
>
>> Now crawl back under that rock you came from and shut up.
>
>I'll take that as 'I'm sorry sir, I was wrong, you are right, but if
>you'll let me have the last word it'll stop me looking like a complete
>idiot'.
>
>Now go out and read a book about crime and statistics you ill educated fool.
I already have, your example of what happens when firearms are removed from
the hands of honest law abiding citizens is all the knowledge I need.
You must not be reading your papers.....and you call ME uneducated.
Get a job, earn some money...buy a clue you overeducated buffoon.
Joe Bridgehouse
Irrelevant NG's trimmed.
Joe B
Mary Rosh
> mary...@aol.com (Mary Rosh) writes:
>
> > As to your link to goertzel, I don't know who this guy is, but the
> > page is a joke. One only has to read it for a second to see obviously
> > false claims. For example, "As it happens, none of these very large
> > counties have "shall issue" gun control laws." Do you agree with
> > that? Would you agree that Houston, Dallas, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh,
> > Atlanta, Miami, Seattle, Pheonix, etc are in "large counties"?
>
> The majority of those places introduced carry laws after the end of
> the period covered in Lott's original study.
Boy, some defense. He says that "none" of the large counties in the
country and the best response that you have is that the "majority" of
the list that I gave you weren't in Lott and Mustard's orginal study.
So you agree that even if he was six years behind the times his "none"
still wasn't quite right even then. Goertzel can't even get such a
basic point right about what data is covered.
>
> In any case, the most important point Goertzel makes is that for
> any study that involves a multiple regression that finds a significant
> association, it seems that there is another study that applies a
> different model to the same data and gets a different answer. There
> are several examples of this happening with Lott's study.
If you think that is an important point, you are the one who needs
help.
I have read a lot of academic debates, but I have found it very
interesting how hard the gun control academics have tried to show that
guns are bad and the worst that they can show is that there is no
cost.
>
> Goertzel argues convincingly that "When presented with an econometric
> model, consumers should insist on evidence that it can predict trends
> in data other than the data used to create it. Models that fail this
> test are junk science, no matter how complex the analysis."
>
> In the case of Lott's model we are in the fortunate position of being
> able to test its predictive power. Lott's original data set ended in
> 1992. Between 1992 and 1996, 14 more jurisdictions (13 states and
> Philadelphia) adopted carry laws. We can test the predictive power of
> Lott's model by seeing if it finds less crime in those
> jurisdictions. Ayres and Donahue [1] have done this test. They found
> that, using Lott's model, in those jurisdictions carry laws were
> associated with more crime in all crime categories . Lott's model
> fails the predictive test.
>
> Ayres and Donahue go on to examine all the states adopting carry laws
> using data up to 1997 and found that carry laws were associated with
> crime increases in more states than they were associated with
> decreases. They rather pointedly observe that
>
> "Those who were swayed by the statistical evidence previously
> offered by Lott and Mustard to believe the more guns, less crime
> hypothesis should now be more strongly inclined to accept the even
> stronger statistical evidence suggesting the crime-inducing effect
> of shall issue laws."
>
> Tim
The Ayres and Donohue piece is a joke. I saw it a while ago. Their
own county level data that did the year by year breakdown actually
showed that Lott and Mustard were correct, but they weren't smart
enough to know it. A friend at the Harvard Law School said that
Donohue gave the paper there and he was demolished on this and other
points. I haven't checked their paper again, but do they still have
the county level breakdown by year or did they remove it because it
was the most general test and it went the wrong way from their
perspective? What academic journal are they going to get it publshed
in?
Tim Lambert
> Tim Lambert <lam...@cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote in message news:<m3n0qa4...@cycloid.localdomain>...
> > mary...@aol.com (Mary Rosh) writes:
> >
> > > As to your link to goertzel, I don't know who this guy is, but the
> > > page is a joke. One only has to read it for a second to see obviously
> > > false claims. For example, "As it happens, none of these very large
> > > counties have "shall issue" gun control laws." Do you agree with
> > > that? Would you agree that Houston, Dallas, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh,
> > > Atlanta, Miami, Seattle, Pheonix, etc are in "large counties"?
> >
> > The majority of those places introduced carry laws after the end of
> > the period covered in Lott's original study.
>
> Boy, some defense. He says that "none" of the large counties in the
> country and the best response that you have is that the "majority" of
> the list that I gave you weren't in Lott and Mustard's orginal study.
> So you agree that even if he was six years behind the times his "none"
> still wasn't quite right even then.
Goertzel was referring to Lott's original study. That just leaves
Atlanta, Miami and Pittsburgh from your list. He also said "very
large counties", which you cleverly changed to "large counties".
None of the ten largest cities in the US introduced carry laws in the
period covered by Lott's original study.
> > Goertzel argues convincingly that "When presented with an econometric
> > model, consumers should insist on evidence that it can predict trends
> > in data other than the data used to create it. Models that fail this
> > test are junk science, no matter how complex the analysis."
> >
> > In the case of Lott's model we are in the fortunate position of being
> > able to test its predictive power. Lott's original data set ended in
> > 1992. Between 1992 and 1996, 14 more jurisdictions (13 states and
> > Philadelphia) adopted carry laws. We can test the predictive power of
> > Lott's model by seeing if it finds less crime in those
> > jurisdictions. Ayres and Donahue [1] have done this test. They found
> > that, using Lott's model, in those jurisdictions carry laws were
> > associated with more crime in all crime categories . Lott's model
> > fails the predictive test.
> >
> > Ayres and Donahue go on to examine all the states adopting carry laws
> > using data up to 1997 and found that carry laws were associated with
> > crime increases in more states than they were associated with
> > decreases. They rather pointedly observe that
> >
> > "Those who were swayed by the statistical evidence previously
> > offered by Lott and Mustard to believe the more guns, less crime
> > hypothesis should now be more strongly inclined to accept the even
> > stronger statistical evidence suggesting the crime-inducing effect
> The Ayres and Donohue piece is a joke. I saw it a while ago. Their
> own county level data that did the year by year breakdown actually
> showed that Lott and Mustard were correct, but they weren't smart
> enough to know it.
Fascinating. Care to explain how crime going up following carry laws
proves Lott and Mustard correct?
> A friend at the Harvard Law School said that
> Donohue gave the paper there and he was demolished on this and other
> points. I haven't checked their paper again, but do they still have
> the county level breakdown by year or did they remove it because it
> was the most general test and it went the wrong way from their
> perspective? What academic journal are they going to get it publshed
> in?
Here's the reference, AGAIN.
Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III.
Shooting down the more guns, less crime hypothesis.
Stanford Law Review, page to appear, 2002.
http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/
Feel free to read it and post something that bears some relation to
the actual content of the paper.
Tim
Ricky
concealed
handguns any more in Britain because AFAIK they never were!"
You are wrong! Up until 1920 every citizen in the UK were entitled to arm
themselves as of right. The fact that the vast majority chose not to do so
is a different matter altogether but the fact remains that prior to 1920
there was no legislation on the statute books preventing an individual from
doing so if they so wished.
Now, what was the incidence of armed crime prior to 1920?????
Ricky
"Mort" <noemail...@mindyourownbusiness.com> wrote in message
news:ameu79$b93$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
>
> "Chris Hills" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
> news:92FduLAc...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> >>
> >
> > Armed crime in the UK has gone up by 25% since guns were banned
> > according to the police figures.
> >
> Guns aren't banned in the UK only certain types AFAIK
>
> It also depends on what you define as 'armed crime' or 'gun crime'
>
> I wouldn't be at all surprised if many instances where a gun makes an
> appearance actually involve replicas
>
> There are many reasons why crime (or fear of crime) has or may have gone
up
> including but not limited to: a higher population than in previous times,
a
> greater population density in certain areas, hysterical media, more
portable
> wealth (i.e. more things that can be easily stolen and sold on - back in
the
> good old days we were all too poor to have anything worth nicking).
> It certainly hasn't gone up because people aren't allowed to carry
concealed
> handguns any more in Britain because AFAIK they never were! I can't see
why
> American posters on here are bothering to go on about that all the time
> because it is simply historically and culturally irrelevant to Britain.
> I could go on but I can't be arsed.
>
>
>
William Black
about you than it does about me.
I still want to know how removing a few target pistols from a small number
of people who had to keep them locked in a safe when they weren't at the
range has changed criminal behaviour.
William Black
"Joe Bridgehouse" <J.Brid...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:amlf9a$ov0$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> Its just Willie suffering a Guardian overload.
> Irrelevant NG's trimmed.
I've told you before, I don't read the Guardian.
JHBennett
Cheers,
Jack B *USA*
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
ThorII
wrote:
>
>"ThorII" <gu...@whatever.com> wrote in message
>news:mg8sous821qgbqjrg...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 19:38:59 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
><black_...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Get a job, earn some money...buy a clue you overeducated buffoon.
>>
>I've got a job, it pays quite well. That you assume I haven't says more
>about you than it does about me.
>
> I still want to know how removing a few target pistols from a small number
>of people who had to keep them locked in a safe when they weren't at the
>range has changed criminal behaviour.
It hasnt and thats the point, or have you missed a class? Please pay attention.
Joe Bridgehouse
Joe B
Sean
ThorII wrote:
You're maintaining that a handgun ban doesn't alter criminal behaviour
but the crime William described is "what happens when firearms are
removed from the hands of honest law abiding citizens"? Which is it to be?
William Black
>
> "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:amo21i$8s8$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> >
> >
> >
Sorry Joe, It's because I don't want anything to do with any periodical
that has something as reactionary as a 'Women's Page' :-)
Went shooting BP pistol the other day and had a lot of fun (local club had
an open day)
I think I might start shooting pistol again.
Joe Bridgehouse
time.
:-)))))))))))))
Joe B
William Black
>
> "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:amqen0$7se$6...@paris.btinternet.com...
> >
> > "Joe Bridgehouse" <J.Brid...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:amo6aj$h11$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> > >
> > > "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:amo21i$8s8$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've told you before, I don't read the Guardian.
> > > >
> > > I don't remember but its a plus, perhaps all is not lost.
> >
> > Sorry Joe, It's because I don't want anything to do with any periodical
> > that has something as reactionary as a 'Women's Page' :-)
> >
> > Went shooting BP pistol the other day and had a lot of fun (local club
had
> > an open day)
> >
> > I think I might start shooting pistol again.
> >
> time.
> :-)))))))))))))
Sorry Joe, I don't follow snooker...
Joe Bridgehouse
good fun, and it helps line the pocket.
Joe B
>
martinwoodhead
rather compare homicide rates think you will find slightly more ercentge
wise in the states.
We have a problem with Gun crime in Camden where I work 6 murders in
the last 2 months 4 of those shootings by drug dealers of other drug dealers
one possible homosexual killing (victimn was cut up put in plastic bags and
left outside for the domestic to take away she has gone sick with stress.
and one street robbery.) Armed police patrols are now going to be on the
beat Semi-auto MP5s more accurate than a handgun and 99.5% think there
machine guns :).
Its not really a gun problem its a drug problem the money to be made
dealing drugs is vast and its cash addicts need cash and dealers are either
fighting for turf or defending there stash. The war on drugs was lost years
ago why do I say that. I work with homeless drug addicts (streetscum If
you like) In the last 5 years I've never known a user complain they
could'nt find drugs and these are the people who have lost everything and
have the motivation and detemination of jello.> Use this to Navigate:
>
>
http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/02/cracking_crime/my_area/htm
l/london_list.stm
>
>
>
http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/02/cracking_crime/my_area/res
ults/html/aa.stm
>
> 93.1 violent crimes per 1,000 population!! Also in the UK many crimes
> go unreported because the police do NOTHING in many cases!
>
>
http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/02/cracking_crime/my_area/res
ults/html/am.stm
>
> 33 violent crimes per 1,000!
>
> I just could not go back to the UK. Too violent and dangerous! My
> friends have said Moscow is much safer!
>
>
> Compare the UK to Kennsaw, GA where all residents MUST have a gun at
> home. Kennesaw has been doing this for 20 years and the results are
> staggering.
>
>
> 1 property crime per thousand versus 6.5 avg for all of England and
> Wales and 15.3 for London!! Shocking!!
Geoff M
shaun....@spaajnvlcfjymmndomtmmmam.ntlworld.com (Shaun) wrote:
>Guns aren't banned
There are bans and there are bans. Bureaucrats re good at making
rules so stupid and tough that it is effectively impossible to get
through them. Sure, it isn't banned, but it effectively is.
G