Britain’s Failed Weapons-Control Laws Show Why the Second Amendment Matters

Liberals know ... and they're envious.

 

The police crime statistics are going up while the crime survey is going down because the level of under-reporting is reducing all the time and to a lesser extent because of changes to the way in which the statistics are compiled (for example historically if one person was attacked by two others, it would be counted as a single assault, now it is counted as two).

Twenty years ago there was a huge gulf between the two numbers which meant that the police crime statistics were widely derided.

 

No under reporting is occuring, but it there is then the supposed "huge gulf" cannot be validated.

UK is much safer than the US in which to live.

 

Many claim such, but that makes me wonder about the UK citizens I encounter who have chosen to emigrate to the US... because they're looking for a safer place to live.

 

I can't blame people for wanting to rely on a crime poll instead of hard data with the way things are going there.

At least you'll feel better about the large violent crime increase.

 

Underreporting, however, will always be an issue. We know, for example, that reporting rates change over the business cycle. This makes them completely useless for trend analysis or testing of hypothesis (e.g. it's not possible to use official stats to test unemployment effects on crime, given endogeneity problems)

 

The above is nothing more than weak, meaningless excuses. Whenever it is pointed out that a nation held up as an example of what the united states should strive for, actually has significantly higher rates of violence than is publicly admitted, it is blamed on a different method of defining, counting and recording violence being recently implemented that artificially inflates the numbers to a higher level. It is nothing more than an effort at blaming reality on paperwork technicalities, and pretending that other nations simply cannot possibly be as dangerous and violent as the united states, when in fact they are.

Whether or not the fact is liked or accepted, violence is not unique to the united states, but is wholly universal across the entire world, in every country and every continent. An absence of firearms does not make violence go away, nor does it make instances of violence any less likely to be committed. Firearms are nothing more than a scapegoat by those who do not wish to admit that the people themselves are problems, especially people from specific regions known for violence who emigrate and bring their violent culture with them.

 

Your anti intellectualism does not interest me. My comment was 100% correct. We know that underreporting and the business cycle are linked. You won't find one British crimnologist testing hypothesis using official data. It would be stupidity.

 

Meaning the criminologists of the nation of Britain reject official data and figures, and instead operate on the assumption that the government is deliberately engaging in the practice of intellectual dishonesty to keep the public in the dark about what the truth really is. So instead of relying on official data, they instead make up their own data to support their positions and validate their preconceived notions.

 

Meaning the obvious: time series analysis requires consistent definition where under-reporting is avoided. Are you telling me all of the criminologists are wrong?

 

England homicide rate, 1898 to 1997

http://www.blog.murdermap.co.uk/statistics/homicide-in-england-and-wales-1898-to-2012/

There was obviously a big jump beginning in the 60s and it hasn't come down since.



https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

 

"Graph proves nothing" shock!

 

When those making the presentation deliberately sabotage the data to support a specific, politically-motivated narrative, rather than what is actually the truth, they are indeed wrong.

 

So all criminologists are wrong and you, without actually knowing anything about the data, are right? That's pathetic. Get back to me when you can derive grown up argument.

 

No claim of being right was presented on the part of myself. It is not necessary for myself to be right to demonstrate that the so-called "experts" are wrong in their presented message and narrative. They wish to believe that violence does not occur where weapons are restricted or otherwise prohibited, rather than being the fault of people themselves. They wish to believe that different definitions for crime recording is responsible for increased levels of crimes being committed, rather than it being a matter of more violent crimes being committed. They wish to deny reality and substitute it with their own perceived notions of the world.

 

Then you even failed to answer a simple question. Criminologist rejection of official figures is just good sense. Using data which guarantees empirical bias I would be silly.

The truth here is ugly. Right wing online sources have informed pro gunner position. Rather than checking the coherency of the stories, they have been willing sheep.

 

Thus meaning they reject reality outright, and instead substitute it with their own preconceived notions.

The truth of the matter would qualify as being far "uglier" than is believed by yourself. Academia has still not recovered from the credibility lost by the dishonest actions of Arthur Kellermann, and the flawed methodology of his study on firearms within the home. He willingly, knowingly, and deliberately engaged in intellectual dishonesty when he conducted his study. It was peer reviewed and published, meaning those tasked with doing the review either saw nothing wrong with the dishonest methodology that was utilized, or they agreed with the message and chose to ignore the methodology entirely as it furthered a political narrative.

What the truth of the matter is, is that academia no longer has any interest in facts, nor in sound science. Rather it is interested only in furthering a politically-based narrative above all other costs.

 

Back to the pathetic 'its a conspiracy!' claim. Are there any pro-gunners with sensible views?

 

You have never been able to explain how his methodology was flawed. You're just regurgitating an NRA talking point. The NRA was furious when Kellermann published his research and got their buddies in Congress to prohibit the CDC from funding further research on gun violence.

 

From what population did Kellerman draw his study and control groups? Was criminal possession conflated with that of lawful possession? Did he count guns brought into the home by an assailant as a "gun in the house"?

Did he determine that living alone or renting were much more risky with regards to homicides than a gun in the home?

 

The most populous counties in Washington, Ohio, and Tennessee.

A relationship between gun ownership and an increased risk of homicide was found regardless of whether or not anyone in the home had an arrest record.

No.

Those variables were in his final statistical model along with gun ownership, drug use, being arrested, and a history of domestic violence. Each of those six variables was found to be independently associated with an increased risk of homicide.

 

Nope. Kellermann's malfeasance and agenda of cooking the numbers and skewing his stats to achieve the desired result has been documented extensively. This isn't a "NRA talking point"; it's simple fact, and he has been thoroughly discredited as a result.

That you continue to defend him only destroys your own already nonexistent credibility here.

 

Arthur Kellermann intentionally counted criminal individuals in compiling his presented statistics, which is why the so-called "study" pointed out that factors such as engaging in illegal activity was more likely to lead to one being murdered than simple firearms possession or ownership. Living alone, renting as opposed to owning a residence, substance abuse, and domestic violence were all admitted to have a greater statistical likelihood of leading to murder than firearms ownership.

Further, Arthur Kellermann only counted incidents where there was a firearm-related death, but not injuries or incidents where there were no injuries despite a firearm being used. He further counted incidents where the assailant brought a firearm into the home for the express purpose of using against someone else, and regarded such as being a firearm in the home.

 

He counted cases in which people had been murdered in their homes whether the victims were criminals or not. Regardless, Kellermann found an independent relationship between an increased risk of homicide and keeping a gun at home meaning that the relationship could not be explained by other factors such as prior arrests. Otherwise, gun ownership would have been eliminated from his final statistical model.

He did study injuries in a later study.

"Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.... For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides."
http://www.gvpedia.org/study/injuries-and-deaths-due-to-firearms-in-the-home/

So there are way more gun accidents, gun assaults, gun homicides, and attempted/completed gun suicides than defensive uses of guns.

That's simply untrue. I think you're confusing this with another criticism which I don't think is significant. A gun homicide was counted as a gun homicide whether it was committed with a gun that was kept in the home or a second gun brought in by someone else. He did not make a distinction. Regardless, a gun brought in by someone else was never counted as a gun being kept in the home.

 

Quote the disclaimer in the 1993 study that states that guns brought in front outside weren't counted.

Explain why we aren't trying to prevent renting or living alone as they are riskier behaviors for homicide than owning a gun.