OK, what the hell has happened to the Brits?

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
In article , "Paul Sengupta"
writes:

As pointed out, gun crime only really affects those "in or related to
the business". The general population can go about their business
without even thinking that anyone else has a gun. Before or after.

You have to realise that the way of life is different over here.


Yes, it is. Strongarm robberies, home invasion robberies, assualt and
battery,
and stranger rape are far more common than here in the states.

Don

Don't think so.

This is quoted from a Home Office Report (Like Justice Dept)

a firearm offence is any offence in which a firearm is 'used', whether
fired, used as a blunt instrument or in a threat. Two thirds of these
offences (6950), involved the firearm being used as a 'threat', but in
around 17% (1750) the firearm was fired at a person and an injury resulted.
Three quarters of these cases the injury was slight, but in one quarter it
was more serious, including 80 incidents where the injury proved fatal (down
from 95 recorded in 2001-2). Nearly two thirds of firearms offences occurred
in just three metropolitan forces, The Metropolitan Police, Greater
Manchester Police and West Midlands Police.

In most parts of England and Wales the incidence of firearm offences is very
low, and the chances of becoming a victim of a shooting are very low. The
risk of a fatal shooting in England and Wales is still one of the lowest in
the world.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/pdf/1sectionone.pdf

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
In article , "Paul Sengupta"
writes:

As pointed out, gun crime only really affects those "in or related to
the business". The general population can go about their business
without even thinking that anyone else has a gun. Before or after.

You have to realise that the way of life is different over here.


Yes, it is. Strongarm robberies, home invasion robberies, assualt and
battery,
and stranger rape are far more common than here in the states.

Don

Don't think so.

This is quoted from a Home Office Report (Like Justice Dept)

a firearm offence is any offence in which a firearm is 'used', whether
fired, used as a blunt instrument or in a threat. Two thirds of these
offences (6950), involved the firearm being used as a 'threat', but in
around 17% (1750) the firearm was fired at a person and an injury
resulted.
Three quarters of these cases the injury was slight, but in one quarter it
was more serious, including 80 incidents where the injury proved fatal
(down
from 95 recorded in 2001-2). Nearly two thirds of firearms offences
occurred
in just three metropolitan forces, The Metropolitan Police, Greater
Manchester Police and West Midlands Police.

In most parts of England and Wales the incidence of firearm offences is
very
low, and the chances of becoming a victim of a shooting are very low. The
risk of a fatal shooting in England and Wales is still one of the lowest
in
the world.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/pdf/1sectionone.pdf

Murder Victims USA






by Weapon, 1998-2002





Weapons
1998
1999
2000
20011
2002















Total
14,209
13,011
13,230
14,061
14,054

Total firearms:
9,220
8,480
8,661
8,890
9,369

Handguns
7,405
6,658
6,778
6,931
7,176

Rifles
546
400
411
386
480

Shotguns
626
531
485
511
476

Other guns
16
92
53
59
74

Firearms, type not stated
627
799
934
1,003
1,163

Knives or cutting






instruments
1,890
1,712
1,782
1,831
1,767

Blunt objects (clubs,






hammers, etc.)
750
756
617
680
666

Personal weapons (hands,






fists, feet, etc.)2
959
885
927
961
933

Poison
6
11
8
12
23

Explosives
10
0
9
4
11

Fire
132
133
134
109
104

Narcotics
33
26
20
37
48

Drowning
28
28
15
23
18

Strangulation
213
190
166
153
143

Asphyxiation
99
106
92
116
103

Other weapons or






weapons not stated
869
684
799
1,245
869

Dave, you forgot to mention Automobiles.. USA = 110 deaths per day, times
365 days a year, times however many years you want to compare...
You are orders of magnitude more likely to die just crossing the street for
a newspaper at noon than you are to get shot walking through the worst part
of town at 3AM...
denny

Dave wrote:

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
Strongarm robberies, home invasion robberies, assualt and battery,
and stranger rape are far more common than here in the states.


a firearm offence is any offence in which a firearm is 'used', whether
fired, used as a blunt instrument or in a threat.

What does that have to do with Don's statement?

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...

Yes, it is. Strongarm robberies, home invasion robberies, assualt and
battery,
and stranger rape are far more common than here in the states.

Don

Don't think so.

a firearm offence is any offence in which a firearm is 'used', whether...

Don is talking about the lower rate of other crimes, not firearm
crimes. Since (IIRC) the night-time burglary rate in New York is
about 20% of that in London, he has a point -- few people are
likely to climb through a window if they think the occupant has
a shotgun on the other side.

What the Brits have traded (mostly without realizing it) is a
slightly lower gun homicide rate (those previously-legal-gun
owners who go postal) in exchange for a vastly enhanced
rate for burglary and other crime. It seems like a bad bargain
to me.

But I'm surprised no one has mentioned Tony Martin. He
was a home owner who dispatched a low-life home invader
with his shotgun. He was convicted of murder, reduced to
manslaughter on appeal, and denied parole as he was deemed
"a danger to burglars". The public outcry is such that now
37% (BBC Radio 4 poll) think that a law to allow householders
to use any means to confront burglars is called for. So things
may well change for the better.

Too bad you folks are so civilized... You would only have to have a mob tar
and feather one magistrate, to put an end to such rulings... It is terrible
to see our staunch allies in two world wars, emasculated so...

Denny
"Tony Cox" wrote in message
. net...
"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...

Yes, it is. Strongarm robberies, home invasion robberies, assualt and
battery,
and stranger rape are far more common than here in the states.

Don

Don't think so.

a firearm offence is any offence in which a firearm is 'used',
whether...

Don is talking about the lower rate of other crimes, not firearm
crimes. Since (IIRC) the night-time burglary rate in New York is
about 20% of that in London, he has a point -- few people are
likely to climb through a window if they think the occupant has
a shotgun on the other side.

What the Brits have traded (mostly without realizing it) is a
slightly lower gun homicide rate (those previously-legal-gun
owners who go postal) in exchange for a vastly enhanced
rate for burglary and other crime. It seems like a bad bargain
to me.

But I'm surprised no one has mentioned Tony Martin. He
was a home owner who dispatched a low-life home invader
with his shotgun. He was convicted of murder, reduced to
manslaughter on appeal, and denied parole as he was deemed
"a danger to burglars". The public outcry is such that now
37% (BBC Radio 4 poll) think that a law to allow householders
to use any means to confront burglars is called for. So things
may well change for the better.

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...
Too bad you folks are so civilized... You would only have to have a mob
tar
and feather one magistrate, to put an end to such rulings... It is
terrible
to see our staunch allies in two world wars, emasculated so...

It's not the magistrates so much as the liberal judges. Anyway,
the Brits aren't doing badly in Iraq, so there's still fire there.


"Tony Cox" wrote in message
. net...

But I'm surprised no one has mentioned Tony Martin. He
was a home owner who dispatched a low-life home invader
with his shotgun. He was convicted of murder, reduced to
manslaughter on appeal, and denied parole as he was deemed
"a danger to burglars". The public outcry is such that now
37% (BBC Radio 4 poll) think that a law to allow householders
to use any means to confront burglars is called for. So things
may well change for the better.

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
. net...
What the Brits have traded (mostly without realizing it) is a
slightly lower gun homicide rate (those previously-legal-gun
owners who go postal) in exchange for a vastly enhanced
rate for burglary and other crime. It seems like a bad bargain
to me.

No, no, there is no trade. The British have never had handguns
in the home or concealed on their person for protection. Never.
Not before, not after. The law didn't come in and make everyone
give up their handguns. We didn't have them before. This is not
the reason for burglary figures.

In fact (repeating again)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/975561.stm

Since handguns were banned in 1997, crime went down by
10%, with burglary down by 21%. I don't know where people
keep getting the idea that burglaries, etc, went up, let alone
be "vastly enhanced". I'd be the first person to say that the
drop had absolutely nothing to do with banning handguns
though.

But I'm surprised no one has mentioned Tony Martin. He
was a home owner who dispatched a low-life home invader
with his shotgun. He was convicted of murder, reduced to
manslaughter on appeal, and denied parole as he was deemed
"a danger to burglars". The public outcry is such that now
37% (BBC Radio 4 poll) think that a law to allow householders
to use any means to confront burglars is called for. So things
may well change for the better.

Tony Martin was a farmer and had a shotgun. Farmers (and
anyone else who has a locked gun cabinet) could own a shotgun
before. And they still can. I think Mr Martin should have been
acquitted. In my opinion he was fearful of his safety. However
I think the conviction had something to do with the fact that he
shot the burglar in the back while he was running away. When
he was first acquitted (before appeal) there was huge public
support for him.

The other burglar was going to sue him, but dropped the case
because of a huge public outcry.

As for what's happened since WWII, I think you'll find people
didn't have guns in the house back then either. But you'll find the
British forces are just as good as they ever were.

Paul

In article , "Paul Sengupta"
writes:

When
he was first acquitted (before appeal) there was huge public
support for him.

The Government can appeal an aquittal in Britain?

Here, in the States, if you are aquitted, that's it. No double jeopardy, no
second guessing of a finding of fact by a jury, only appeals of procedural
error.

Don


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Paul Sengupta" wrote in message
...

No, no, there is no trade. The British have never had handguns
in the home or concealed on their person for protection. Never.

My grandfather did. So did most of his friends. As I remember,
the restrictions started shortly after the "Red letter scare" in the
20's when the government became worried about communists.


Tony Martin was a farmer and had a shotgun. Farmers (and
anyone else who has a locked gun cabinet) could own a shotgun
before. And they still can. I think Mr Martin should have been
acquitted. In my opinion he was fearful of his safety. However
I think the conviction had something to do with the fact that he
shot the burglar in the back while he was running away. When
he was first acquitted (before appeal) there was huge public
support for him.

The other burglar was going to sue him, but dropped the case
because of a huge public outcry.

The other burglar was going to sue because Martin allegedly
disabled him. He dropped the case only because a some tabloid
newspaper reporter caught him doing press-ups in the gym.
His 'case' was financed by legal aid (free for the poor). Martin
had to pay his own costs for defense.