Content deleted Content added
FrancisTyers (talk | contribs) refactor |
FrancisTyers (talk | contribs) signing comments |
||
Line 4:
"This is approximately double what it was fifty years ago, when gun laws were much more tolerant, and comparable with Switzerland today, where, again, gun laws are extremely tolerant."
Otherwise it should be removed. {{unsigned|213.54.170.127|22:49, 18 August 2005}}
: The homicide rate figures are from the UK Home Office, which you could check for yourself by asking for them (that's how I got them). The figure for Switzerland I can't remember the source for, but it's reliable. The facts that UK laws were much more tolerant fifty years ago, and that Switzerland has extremely tolerant laws today, are well known to anyone seriously interested in the subject. [[User:AlexSwanson|Alex Swanson]] 00:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
What relevance do the violent crime statistics have to gun politics? It is possible to be violent without a gun and 50% of violent crimes involve no injury to the victim.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4348766.stm#10things|BBC News] {{unsigned|129.31.85.54|11:42, 22 October 2005}}
: The relevance is that you cannot separate out gun crimes in particular from crime in general. For example, it would be pointless to pass laws which reduced the number of homicides committed with firearms if the offenders simply used knives instead. Also, it is arguable that gun crime simply represents the extreme end of a general spectrum of crime which includes violent crime in general; thus, if you could make society as a whole more peaceful, then the number of gun crimes in particular would go down even without any specific action in that area. [[User:AlexSwanson|Alex Swanson]] 21:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC).
Line 30 ⟶ 31:
::Dunno, check out his site: http://www.thehomegunsmith.com - [[User:FrancisTyers|FrancisTyers]] 16:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
== Exports ==
Line 43:
==Homicide involving firearms figures==
These come from [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4457402.stm|the BBC], to pre-emptively defend them. {{unsigned|129.31.85.54|19:54, 21 November 2005}}
==General use of statistics==
"From June 2003 to June 2004, recorded gun crime in the UK rose by 3% to 10,590 incidents. There was also a 14% rise in violent crime in the April-June period (265,800 incidents compared to 223,600 the previous year). Advocates on both sides of the gun control debate have argued how this is correctly interpreted with no consensus."
This extract in particular shows a use of statistics biased towards gun liberties. 3% is not a significant change. Similarly the quote of the April-June period of 2004 is poor statistics. It implies that small samples were taken until a trend was found which fits the author's viewpoint. The British Crime Survey figures also are ignored. These, coincidentally, show that violent and gun crime has decreased since 1997. Other factors excluded are the fact that a new system of counting and several new offences were introduced by the Home Office in 1998, making it difficult to compare statistics before and after. {{unsigned|129.31.85.54|21:49, 21 November 2005}}
: While I take your general point, whether a 3% rise is significant or not is a matter of opinion. In my experience, very few people on either side of the argument dispute that gun crime has risen steadily in recent years, and is still rising. Anti-liberty campaigners argue that this shows the need for further new laws; pro-liberty groups argue that it demonstrates the ineffectiveness of past laws, which were, indisputably, justified at the time on the basis that they would improve public safety. Incidentally, wouldn't it be sociable to include your name and the date in your comment? [[User:AlexSwanson|Alex Swanson]] 22:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
| |||