Guns and crime
Sorry to be a touch intermittent with the posting this week - quick pre-Pennsylvania holiday in
I find mystifying - and, I have to report, so do other Brits I have met here on the slopes. Talking to a chap originally from south London but living now in New Jersey, we agreed (before seeing this piece) that one of the great pleasures of living in the US is that the underlying sense of low-level violence and nastiness so much in evidence in big English cities - and in small market towns as well - just does not exist here, or to be more precise does not exist outside certain areas. Most Americans can avoid it. In the UK, you cannot.
I note that the number of handguns in circulation is one of the reasons the US scores relatively badly in the assessment: but, if you look at the in the DC case, there is certainly a case to be made that the kind of crime that affects the UK so badly - burglaries where someone is in their home - is simply less common in the US. Have the Jane's people got it wrong?
Hello, I'm 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
Good ,Bad or Indifferent in many areas of the rural U.S. if you are up to No Good ,the Police will be the last of you worries.
Well of course you would think twice about going in to a home that is not yours if you knew that in almost every home in the countryside there is a gun safe with everything from hunting rifles to collectables and novelties such as automatics, and evryone in the household knows how to use it properly. people in america love thier right to bear arms, because knowing in the end that if all else fails you can protect your self and your family from all comers (Even starvation), that is a very comforting feeling. and going out shooting targets and hunting for venison is a family tradition.
The shootings in Philadelphia were averaging nearly one a day in domestic, road rage and gang related violence judging by the local news that flashes before my eyes as I run on the treadmill at the gym in the morning. We have a long way to go to reducing the number of guns in the hands of increasingly young criminals. Living in nearby New Jersey, I have to apply for a firearms purchaser card to buy rifles, shotguns and ammunition, but to buy handguns requires an additional permit handled by the local police for each handgun. You might be interested to know that there is a change of address/gender form to be found for the firearms purchaser card, making sure we arm only well-adjusted (judging by the mental health questions) transgender individuals. Those seeking permission do not appear to be the biggest problem. What is are the number of illegal guns on the streets, some finding their way back after being seized by the police.
Justin,
"Most Americans can avoid it. In the UK, you cannot."
The big difference between US and UK is population DENSITY. Crowding leads directly to discord, violence, and England is the fourth most densely populated country on Earth. Adding the rest of the UK brings it down to seventeenth, but still way above USA.
Well-documented experiments with rats show the effects of overcrowding very clearly. It IS possible to escape by living in the least dense parts of the UK, but please don't tell anybody.
Oh, and by the way, global population grew by 213,000 today (just like yesterday and the day before), a Tsunami's worth every single day.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed
The bottom line is that violence -- like health and wealth -- is more unevenly distributed in the US than in other first world countries. The best off are safer than their UK counterparts; the worst off very much less safe. Perhaps we should see the gun law issue as an example of a familiar trade-off: the price of greater freedom is often greater inequality.
As a 32 year old Brit and having lived and worked in the UK (cities and market towns) as well as in the US, Africa, and Eastern Europe - I struggle to relate to the idea that Britain is full of 'low-level violence and nastiness'. Sure there are times when you see it, often when people are drunk. But the fact is that as well as good decent citizens there are unreasonable, selfish and nasty people everywhere. A problem that transcends culture and politics.
I think the main reason why there is less violence in the US, or we can avoid it better here than it can be avoided by people in the UK is because the US takes up a much larger geographical area. It, I think, has nothing to do with guns. If the US took up the same geographical area as the UK, then guns or no guns, the violence would be around about the same levels I think.
Guns, in my opinion, just increase the risk of violence 10 fold, which is why I will always be against them.
But its sad, is it not, that those who wish to cause harm, will find a way to do so whith whatever means necessary. It doesn't mtter whether guns are legle or not, people who are hell bent on such actions will find a way to take them in any country, unfortionately.
I think this is probably a terrible analysis. Levels of gun ownership have nothing to do with how well off a society is, but levels of crime do. The listing of the top nations mentioned in the article is composed almost exclusively of small nations who don't have to deal with security the same way other nations do. Island nations and landlocked nations with very friendly neighbors dominate the list. It simply doesn't make sense to say that Vatican city is more prosperous than a country like the US, because the US doesn't account for prosperity in the same way.
To get a bit post-modern: the US experience of prosperity is definitively New World, and is composed of personally overcoming adversity and reaping the created wealth that follows. The Vatican experience of prosperity is definitively Old World, and is composed of drawing on already wealth (in this case, via donation) to build up its own financial situation.
I can understand why. I would guess it would be because so many Americans own guns. I live in Cincinnati and just about everyone I know owns at least one gun. I think that there's a good chance that if you walked into someone's home you would be shot so I think that is a good safe bet as to why there isn't a huge home burglar problem in the area here.
25 million law abiding gun owners in the United States avoided killing or injuring anyone yesterday. And the day, month, year, decade before that...
We look to the UK, Australia, pre-WW2 Germany, the Soviet Union, and China and their disarmed citizens as the best evidence AGAINST anything but reasonable gun laws.
Liberal, knee-jerk reactionaries who want to save the world by disarming entire populations should re-examine the logic: criminals will not turn in their weapons or join government sanctioned "gun clubs".
As in the UK and Australia, they will bide their time and wait until the potential victims are unable to defend themselves or their homes with a firearm, and violent crime will skyrocket.
Why is it that this direct relationship is ignored? Because it does not fit the anti-gun, anti-capitalist, "government is the answer to everything" template. The minority populations of pre-WW2 Germany, the Soviet Union, and China all found out why there respective leaders preferred to rule over a disarmed society. An unarmed population is at the mercy of the few, and as we have seen, the few can harbor an unpleasant and murderous agenda.
I'm curious about the second ammendment. As I understand it it guarantees the "right to bear arms" but does not specify the type of arms. Obvioulsy the original framers of the ammendment envisioned muzzle loading muskets and the like not todays higher tech weapons. Would any possible future weapons continue to be OK? If a hand held star trek type phaser is developed capable of leveling city blocks in a single blast, would the constitution allow everyone to carry one? What about billionaires - could Warren Buffet buy a nuclear missle or an aircraft carrier for his own use if he wanted to? Why not if "arms" are unspecified? Is a restriction on carrying handguns onto aeroplanes unconstitutional since it infringes on the right to bear arms?
Justin,
I live in Texas where the death penalty is still enforced, and even with that, more criminals are killed during the act of a crime than are put to death by the state. Unintentionally this saves millions of dollars in court and jail time.
The flip side is that the criminals are more often armed as well, though this is an opinion from news rather than a study!
It may be that we're less likely to be victims of petty crime but the number of incidents that result in violence and homicide is significantly greater. Catching someone in your home and chasing them out into the street while waving a bat is far different then catching someone in your home, who being startled, proceeds to shoot at you fearing that you'll likely do the same.
My home town (Cleveland, OH) has become so violent and weapons so easy to acquire that it's easier for children to purchase handguns then it is alcohol. The links between guns and the sale of narcotics are very real. It's all and all a fairly horrible place.
This further to my post on the passportgate thread about Obama's poorer showing in state-by-state polls, the updated figures today are evn worse for Obama. In an Obama-McCain match-up he loses 218 to 296 (with 24 electoral votes too close to call). Clinton wins a Clinton-McCain match-up 279 to 221 with (with 24 electoral votes too close to call). that has shifted from a statistical tie to a Clinton win in the last week.
The states taken by each of the candidates would be:
Obama
Maine
Vermont
New York
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Delaware
Maryland
DC
Virginia
Illinois
Iowa
Wisconsin
North Dakota
New Mexico
Nevada
Oregon
Washington
California
McCain
Montana
Idaho
Wyoming
Utah
Arizona
South Dakota
Nebraska
Texas
Kansas
Oklahoma
Missouri
Louisiana
Arkansas
Michigan
Indiana
Minnesota
Ohio
Pennsylvania
New Hampshire
West Virginia
Kentucky
Tennessee
Mississippi
Alabama
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
New Jersey and Colorado are virtually tied.
In a McCain-Clinton match-up, Clinton loses Virginia (to a tie), Colorado (from tie), Iowa and North Dakota but gains New Jersey, Minnesota, Arkansas, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and, crucially, Florida.
She also turns Ohio and Tennessee into tied votes.
Looks to me as if the Dems have, yet again picked a loser.
Guns are certainly not the only factor affecting crime, nor even the most prominent, yet it would be foolish to deny they have a role to play. Speaking as someone who has been burgled while at home it seems Canada is not the richer for having adopted more of a British approach to gun control. The book Freakonomics has some interesting thoughts on the matter...
Yes, it depends on where you live. I just moved from a New England city of about 100,000 that averages three gun killings a year. My new city is quite a contrast: the local paper reports several killings every day--news that makes the newcomer supsicious of everyone he runs into in the elevator--including women.
The obsession with guns in America mystifies me. When I was a college student in Indiana a few years ago, a friend of mine would let his two sons (8 and 4 years old) play with his unloaded handguns in his living room, the duo chasing each around the apartment pretending to shoot at each other!
Dear Lord, an empirical approach to the issue of gun control in a editor's piece/blog? I must say, my esteem for the 主播大秀 and Brits in general has risen.
Far too many of us on both sides of the pond simply reach for the nearest ideological bludgeon when confronted by this issue.
~Chicago, USA
I've lived in the US for 20 years and never felt threatened. But I lived in the UK for 25 years and never felt threatened either. I don't know anyone who ownes a gun (at least I don't think I do), but I do know many people who have burglar alarms that call the police and the police have guns. Maybe that's why your US home hasn't been invaded recently. It's just so typically snobby to be vacationing in Colorado and whinging that the poorer people of England, don't realise how fortunate you are. I'd be interested to know if there are any of the "working class" with you on the slopes.
Legal gun-ownership is a double-edged sword. For the many tens of millions of Americans that live in a large city/metropolitan area (1 million residents or more) I think that most would argue that they are more worried about getting shot than having to shoot someone in self-defense.
When you own a gun, self-defense is an option and, depending on the area, you may or may not be put on trial later for shooting someone for the wrong or inadequate reasons.
When you don't own a gun there is a certain sense of ...satisfactory resignation? Obviously you can still be shot but don't have to worry about getting shot with your own gun or having some horrific accident.
Having moved from Oregon to Poland three years ago I can say that while the low-grade sense of animosity and thuggishness is higher here ...there is no sense that it will end in me getting a couple of bullets for bothering to exist. That's a comfort I didn't have while living in Portland, Oregon.
This could well be down to an American's home is his castle. They don't condone burgulary, and like to keep it simple, i.e. the burgular shouldn't be there, consequently Americans are allowed to shoot intruders (although not if they are trying to get away. It would seem it works, whereas the UK policy of one should try and stop them/use of minimum force somehow gives the wrong message!
I live in a state (Texas) where I assume most people have a gun. My guess is that this could lead to a certain politeness when dealing with people. I have been curious for a while about whether rudeness is more prevalent where guns are more restricted.
I don't have any scientific stats to prove it, but I do think one of the reason there's more crime in the cities than in the country is that more rural folk are apt to have a weapon in the house than someone in a city apartment or townhouse. Granted the targets of crime are less dense in the country as well, but since most criminals have no problem boosting a car, it isn't that difficult to rob someone in the country - just more dangerous. BTW, I just moved 10 miles outside of a crime ridden city of 60,000 to a small rural neighborhood of a couple of thousand. And the difference is night and day.
Most Americans can avoid it. In the UK, you cannot.
Just because the bad bits can be made invisible to the sufficiently well off, doesn't mean they shouldn't be counted. Coccooning the privileged is not necessarilty a good thing.
I'd challenge your perception that the UK is rife with burglaries of occupied homes, too. Evidence?
But a conversation with a New Jersey based South Londoner on a ski-lift leads you to think that Jane's may have got it wrong. Don't worry about research. If it feels wrong, it can't be right.
(Have you caught a bad case of the truthiness bug?)
I spent many years selling candy around the world. I was frequently taken aback when someone would exclaim that I lived in a very dangerous country. One day, while in Koln, I asked the gentlmen why he beleived that the US was a very dangerous country. "Because I have been there", he exclaimed. I asked where in the US he had been. He said, "I went to Philidelphia to see the Liberty Bell, Washington to see the US Capital and New York to see the Big Apple". Then it dawned upon me that most international visitors to the US probably go to the more dangerous parts of the cities because that is where many of the tourist attactions are located. So instead of them seeing the better parts of the US, they frequently see only the worst.
Since many types of guns were banned in the UK gun violence has increased. In the US millions legally own firearms and use them legally. Where firearms are over-regulated in the US such as in California, New York and other states with large cities only the criminals have them and that is the problem, it is to difficult for a normal person to legally own or carry a firearm. And if they used one in defence of their life they could be criminally charged. What needs to be done is to take them away from the criminals and let law abiding citizens legally, purchase and carry firearms without over-regulation
I question the idea that the US is somehow less violent in terms of low level disturbances. Segregation by race and class is much more stark in its inner cities. You therefore get ultra safe neighbourhoods and ultra unsafe. In the ultra unsafe (watch The Wire!!) areas, low level and high level crime is rampant, and far more so that your bog-standard London borough.
I agree some of the other postings because population density, segregation, and legal impunity have more to do with the level of crime and violence than do guns. I have not been to the UK, but I know that in America you can move to an relatively exclusive neighborhoods in the suburbs and avoid most of the crime from the inner-city, but if you hail from Camden or Newark, NJ there is little opportunity to avoid the violence no matter how many guns you may own. I am in favor of the second amendment, but I would never claim that it helps deter criminals.
Having lived in three big English cities - London, Manchester and Sheffield (and never in wealthy parts of town) - I just can't understand this comment about low-level violence. We don't live in a haven of peacefulness, obviously, but I don't recognise this country in your description.
Surely, Justin, as a highly skilled journalist you should put aside those initial feelings and look at the hard facts. When you visit or even move to a foreign country, without the experience of being completely immersed in it for a lifetime, it's inevitable that you will fail to pick up on every aspect of that society.
You are more likely to murdered in the US, full stop. Isn't that worth a mention?
Hi Justin, thanks for the tip on Ian McEwan's novels. I was wondering if you were playing the role of Joe in "Enduring Love" which of the 3 candidates left dangling from the rope would you choose to save?
In terms of the UK being one of the safest places to live I remember studying at university how there was a big difference between fear of crime and actual crime figures. A lot of crime is inflicted by and on those in the most disadvantaged areas. In the UK we largely live in very mixed communities so rich and poor live side by side hence crime is more visible to all which heightens fear. It also means that there is pressure on the law enforcement from all levels to tackle crime.
I think in the States classes and races don't mix as easily. You may be very safe in your guarded gatted community but crime is still out there in another area where there is not the political will to tackle it. This has lead to some areas of the bigger cities such as LA becoming ghettos and no go areas to the police. This is effectively means there are whole areas that the government does not control. You may not be as fearful of crime sitting in an affluent suburb but believe me it is out there and it is more of a threat than in the UK.
Blimey Justin - what have you been smoking over there?! You truely have gone native now, havent you? I am a Brit who has also lived in the US and can spot someone like you who is suffering from the "isn't life wonderful in the good old US of A disease" a mile off.
Even so I am stunned that you now seem to be advocating more widespread gun possesion in the UK! Do you really think that's what we need?
Also: why is it so stunning to find the UK ranked highly in a "stability" league? I dont find that at all surprising. Its only the Daily Mail (or Daily Liar as its know in my house) brigade who constantly blow out of proportion every problem we have in the UK who thinks that we live in some sort of war zone.
Perhaps the 主播大秀 can send you home and you can get in touch with reality on both sides of the Atlantic. Then your posts might make a little bit more sense.
I think it's natural for humans to 鈥渞ank鈥 things, even intangible things 鈥 it seems there is nothing we won't put a number on. What bothers me is when a company sets itself up as an 鈥渁uthority鈥 and then declares that their 鈥渇avorites list鈥 is more valid than anyone else's - because they have a 鈥渕ethod鈥.
Well, clearly Jane's believes that guns are 鈥渂ad鈥 - because the mere presence of them is enough to drop a countries rank in their opinion. If I were to rank a country on crime, I would use crime statistics 鈥 only crime statistics. The problem with this method is, the facts sometimes don't agree with the author's preconceptions. How can one explain that crime is lower in the US than the UK? Especially when they have so many 鈥渆vil鈥 guns? Some people try to game the statistics, but Jane's didn't even bother with that . They just added a different category 鈥 gun ownership 鈥 and weighted it so that their 鈥渕ethod鈥 yielded results they agreed with.
鈥淭op lists鈥 by dubious companies aside, here is the truth. In the US, there is crime, but it's pretty much confined to well known areas 鈥 and very rarely leaves those areas. This means that the vast majority of Americans don't deal with crime at all. And some crimes 鈥 like home invasion (burglary while the owner is home)- is extremely rare, even in high crime areas. Simply put, the high gun ownership in the US makes home invasion a VERY bad career choice.
Your not going to start promoting the legalization of guns in the UK are you?. Do you own a gun Justin?
The trouble with statistics is that, generally, one can prove anything one wants by a little diligent twisting of the data. However, it needs to be born in mind that since the banning of handguns in private ownership in the UK, gun crime has increased by something like 500%. Is this because the "good guys" can no longer shoot back? I suspect this to be true, since Australia has a very similar statistic since it also banned guns from private ownership. I am only thankful that, having emigrated from the UK to the US, through "certain inalienable rights", I am able to retaliate with "appropriate force" and not face criminal charges or civil litigation for standing up for myself or my family.
Re: the second ammendment. Unfortunately the type of weapon "arms" has been regulated. For example, fully automatic weapons are banned unless you have a special permit and other types of weapons based on inclusion or exclusion of fairly arbitrary features are banned as well.
It's become a cliche, but "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" has been proven in many cases. Why is a person who is about to assault/kill/rob/rape another person worried about carrying an illegal weapon - they're already breaking the law.
I'd like to see mandatory life/death sentences for anyone convicted of using a gun in any crime. I don't care if they steal $5 from a chip shop; if they use a gun they ought to go away for life.
"one of the great pleasures of living in the U.S."...so what are the other pleasures, pray? America is a violent society founded in a violent revolution from a violent colonial parent. It has a long-standing ugly gun culture. Of course, working-class districts where affluent toffs seldom venture have a differnt crime climate that well-to-do ex-pat's might be able to escape in carefully choosing their new addresses. Even so, there are random shooting sprees at suburban shopping malls and schools and living rooms; it can never really be completely escaped anywhere. Crime however, in general, is viewed more primatively in America. America has far and away, the world's largest prison population, 2.3 million adults behind bars, fully 1% of the adult population is in jail currently. The so-called prison-industrial complex. In more enlightened societies many of these would be in re-hab or never have been prosecuted at all. The conditions they suffer in these dungeons are often barbaric and replete with inescapable violence. The UK, indeed no nation on earth, doesn't come anywhere close to incarcerating and criminalizing so many of its citizens. The alleged "great pleasures of living in the U.S." depend very heavily on your class status.
Several have noted about the lower density of US. I thought it would be interesting to look at the crimes per 100 sq km. For the US there are 21.4 burglaries per 100 sq km (25.9 for the lower 48 only). For the UK it is 341.5.
Believe it or not, India is a far more dangerous place than either the US or the UK. With 37K murders, it is 3 times more deadly than the US. It boasts 1.13 murders per 100sqkm versus the continental US at .16 and the UK at .35.
With regards to the comment about the second amendment, it states in one of its clauses that well trained militias are important. That implies that what the framers had the latest in military technology in mind.
The US has the right approach in this fundamental principal: 'your home is your castle'.
Petty crime is so rife in the UK because people are penalised for defending themselves just as much as the perpetrators are for committing the offence.
The gun laws in the US, in my opinion, are related to that principal. I think the US, or any country, needs regulations on firearms, but the Americans have the law right in as many ways as they have it wrong.
Right on cue, a list of the UK burglary hotspots [and cold spots] emerges..
The fact that Bath has such low crime compared to large cities shows that in the Uk it is also possible to 'escape' crime for those that have the money.
Although we have not yet gone down the route of the 'gated community' there are still areas which are as segregated in terms of income and prospects.
And I suspect that anyone living in Nottingham will not be thinking that our strict gun laws is any sort of panacea against gun crime. But then we don't have a huge percentage of our black youth being incarcerated either.
The UK 主播大秀 Office shows that England and Wales saw burglary victimization with loss fall from 1.9% to 1.5%. The US counts burglary when something is taken, and the victimization rate is about 0.77%. If nothing is taken, the crime gets reported as "breaking and entering" in the US.
Gun control opponents will be disappointed to know that the most burgled large cities are Dallas and Houston, Texas, which endure UK rates around 1.7%.
I've found that almost every statistic that somebody says is related to guns can be shown to actually have to do with something else. Somebody up there mentioned population density. The book "More Guns, Less Crime" almost certainly confused gun laws as having the effects on crime when it was almost certainly just the crack crime boom and bust.
Gated comunities? I'm fairly working class person, or was for a large percentage of my life, and I live in the second largest city in Illinois. Until recently I could not name the location of a "Gated Community". I now know of one. It's a lake front home community and the gate keeps non residence people from fishing and swimming in the lake. Maybe they have some nefarious reason for the fence, perhaps keeping out the riff-raff (people of ill repute for you Brits in the audience). I can say that we working class people own guns too, perhaps because we don't live in gated communities and need to fend for ourselves. You overseas posters should really stop believing in the Hollywood version of life in America. We own weapons because it is our right to own them, we really don't care what Jane's Country Risk Assesment says about the matter. Usually these rating are self fulfilling conclusions that can be summed up as "Hurray for our side".
#28: Yeah, because there are 5 times as many people in the US than the UK, so naturally there is a risk, is there not, that more people will want to kill one here than there. Sorry about that.
#29 David Ginsberg: Thanks for letting me know, I wasn't aware of that!! What, with me being a right wing Christian religious zellot yank, who is ignorant, presumably, of the happenings in the world outside my O-so-wonderful, best thing since sliced bread, utopian nation!! Thanks for educating me!!! your a life savor!! Our classes don't mix as well, sadly, because we haven't been forced to like they are in the UK. This isn't to say that this is the case right across the nation, but in a general sense, people can, and all too offten choose, to live with their own so-called "kind", because of comfort levels, pregidiousness etc. There are many positive things that come out of being forced to live in such close coraders, and co existance in a peaceful mannor is one of them. I do disagree, and this is not having been there mind you, with Justin's asertion that crime is rampant in the UK, however.
# 30 Steve Dennis aserted, rather boldly, I might add, that "Blimey Justin - what have you been smoking over there?! You truely have gone native now, havent you? I am a Brit who has also lived in the US and can spot
someone like you who is suffering from the "isn't life wonderful in the good old US of A disease" a mile off."
First of all, while I do disagree with his rather bleequely painted picture of the gun culture in the UK, there is, in my opinion, a ring of truth to what he says. Though it is due to some ugly things like pregidiousness, population density, etc etc, nevertheless, it is true to some extent. Second, I don't know exactly what you mean by "gone native", but if you are refering to him enjoying certain things that (according to him) one may not find in another country, then I say, "that's great!". Our nation sucks almost all the time with our foreign policy, like I need to tell you that, right? But nevertheless its still an ok place to live, just as is any other western country, and admireing certain aspects of it isn't a fate worss than death. Doing so shows an open mind, which, I'm sad to say, it appears you are severely lacking!!
# 36 Brett: Yes, and I'm sorry to report, that while Europe may od a much better job at lessoning the class gap by careing for its citizens through its wonderful wellfare programs (ones which we might do well to emulate, might I add), nevertheless, "pleasures" experiencd in any country depend on one's class, and of course, that all too important factor, offten overlooked, factor of how kind the natives are to them!!
#39 Bedd Gelert: Yes, I agree with the majority of your post, however might I clarify, that the main reason why we have, sadly, the world's largest prision population is because we incarserate people for drugs much more than any other nation. If we didn't do tthis, then our prision population would be where it should be!!
Legalise drugs!!!
@Brett,
And fully 85% of that prison population can likely be blamed on the "Drug War." A fundamental change in mindset allowing Americans to view narcotics use as a medical rather than a criminal problem is what's really needed.
If you were a burglar with a healthy sense of self-preservation, would you break into a home knowing that the resident had a gun and is legally allowed to kill you with it while you are in the act of invading his home?
Of course not. You'd pick a house in a city like Washinton D.C. or London, where the law abiding citizens aren't allowed to defend themselves. Yes there are a lot more guns in America, but the vast majority of them are in the hands of law-abiding citizens who aren't going to rob a bank or steal a car. They also aren't going to let some stupid thug rob them.
On the other hand, If you like living where violent criminals have all the fire-arms, then continue with your gun bans, While you're afraid for your life I'll be out west where the only thing you have to be afraid of are bears and mountain lions, and mooching relatives.
Justin,
As a young person I'm just about sick and tired of people having a go at the violence inherent in British Society. I am not a naive person, I myself have been mugged, been threatened with the supremely well put together phrase 'I'll bang ya out', followed by an obligitary 'cha' if I'm lucky, but quite frankly, I'll be damned if somebody's going to tell me America's better.
The idea of a country that harbours a penalty of death for a crime not encouraging violence in society, is, quite simply wrong. The gun laws are another example of stupidity - let's stop violence by equiping every citizen with the most dangerous handheld weapon we can muster. That's a REAL deterrent.
At the risk of sounding like a petulant, high school kid, (I'm actually, that dirtiest of things, a no-good, drinkaholic, workshy student) It's just obvious - surely. The less violence there is in our culture, and the less access to weapons, the less violence there will be overall. Yes, there is a hell of a lot of street violence in the UK, but if you look at where places like Moss Side take their inspiration, you'd probably find it in places like Detroit. The only difference is, we still have principles such as no death penalty and no unregistered guns to at least pretend we aspire to something greater.
It's a big problem, for both countries. And I know I've dealt with this in a sloppy, ranty manner. But I feel that this problem, shared by two of the most 'developed' western nations, lies more in social and economic factors, as well as a crisis of national and individual identity, then it does in the leafy suburbs of a North America Editor's Washington Garden.
Apologetically Provokotive,
Mike Tighe
Manchester, UK
I once heard a rap song that said:
"Need some money? Rob a liquor store!"
These lyrics come from a counter-culture that glorifies a life of violent crime. Young people who imersed in this are deceived into beleiving that is their only choice. I think that particular kind of counter-culture is not as prevalent in the UK, and therefore not a significant influence on the choices made by your youth.
Guns are not the only weapons available for a violent man to wreck havoc on his community. Stop focusing on the weapon that happens to be in the hands of the violent and focus your attention on the man instead. maybe then you'll make some headway against violence in your community.
The case of the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin being imprisoned for shooting two home invaders couldn't happen in the UK.
That sort of thing might account for the US-UK discrepancy in house burglaries.
I think disarming the citizenry is a grand idea!
Signed: Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Mao
The comments from the Brits are fascinating! I'm a native Texan, and own a number of firearms. Not one of them has committed a crime(to my knowlege). I have never had to use one in defense of home or family, but I live in a town of 20,000 about 80 miles east of Dallas. The difference between the large cities and rural areas is beyond my ability to describe; I despise having to go into Dallas or Houston for any reason and I always carry a handgun in the car when I go (this isn't legal but I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six)!
From the Times article: "The Jane鈥檚 system differed from government assessments of country risk because it was based entirely on objective analysis." (emphasis added)
Objective analysis? Okay, fair enough, but objectivity is no guarantee Jane's analytical approach is valid. I could, for example, trumpet my totally objective comparison of the QE2 with an inflatable dinghy. Objectively, they're both 'boats', much as Lichtenstein and the USA are both 'nations' That said, any attempt to grade one boat as 'safer' than the other requires substantial assumptions about what 'safer' actually means.
Moving on, and trying to find a practical use for Jane's analysis, what do we do with the old Darwinian notion that too much 'stability' might actually be bad? The argument being that an easy life renders the individual less able to fend for themselves when things head south. I've lived in the US for ten years now and, believe me, Americans are impressively able to adapt to life's trials - and even profit from them.
No pain, no gain - as they say.
I grew up in a gun owning home and I own several now. I've also attended dozens of hours in gun safety and feel utterly confident and comfortable around them.
Sadly, both my father and myself have been forced to draw a weapon on someone trying to enter our homes. Nothing came of it in either case, thank goodness, but god knows what might have happened had we not had personal protection.
In my case it was a crack addict who came around every night asking for money. On the third night, my wallet happened to be in view and he decided to push his way in to come after it. What he didn't see was I answered the door with a gun hidden behind it this time. Even a crack addict knows the sound a shotgun makes when it is pumped two feet away. He froze and after a few tense seconds turned and ran. I called the police and they found him just one apartment building over raging at another tenant who wouldn't give him money by throwing cinder blocks through his window.
Personally, I fully believe that the Second Amendment exists in order to protect the existance of the other Amendments.
An American view on gun qownership. Government is the servant, not the master. A free adult holds the responsibility to protect their own life (at least until the police arrive), while a slave (or child) must look to their master (or parent) for protection. So, many in the US feel that banning their guns is taking away their natural responsibility and freedom, thus making them slaves (or children) to the government. BTW, the roots of modern gun-control in the US began after the Civil War, in an attempt to keep firearms out of the hands of the newly-freed black slaves. I guess they thought it would be too hard to exercise control over armed folks.
Hope you enjoy your Colorado vacation Justin!
It is totally valid to try to estimate the risk of living, working, or investing in a country as Jane's has done. Insurance firms do this kind of thing all the time.
And it is valid to factor in the proliferation of guns -- they do indeed make rural areas safer but this is irrelevant. America and the world are urbanizing over time and urban areas are the focus of investment and economic growth. And it is in urban areas -- due to intertwined issues of poverty, geography, policy, and race -- that weapon proliferation has done the most damage and been the most lethal to Americans.
It's interesting that you should post about the "safety" of Americans so soon after your posting on Rev Wrigh's sermons. With both issues, black and white America have opposite perspectives, and in particular, most white people are shocked when exposed to the world most black people actually live in.
It is great that you, Justin, bring up these basic issues that American media won't touch. Keep up the great work. More and more Americans are turning to British media to get the real news about our own country.
I suspect Justin,that You are using this Blog to set up an even more lucrative job in The USA ,by painting a flattering picture of the Country.
The last thing we want in the UK is more guns thank-you very much,we can do without a Columbine or a Virginia Tech once a month.
For the record,in The USA their might be fewer burglers but they are more likely to have guns.An American Friend of mine has been burgled twice (when she was at home),By armed men as well as being assaulted at gun-point in Her own shop.
I realise that there is ery little chance of this Post being published.
I can only point you towards Tim Dowling's masterly American-in-the-UK summary of this British vice:
"Despite its comparative cosiness, Britain has an unshakable view of itself as a nation that is forever falling to pieces. If you watch the television you see a crumbling health service, falling educational standards, rampant gun crime, infrastructural chaos, economic meltdown and a fractured civilisation well beyond repair. Look out the window, and you see someone throwing a stick for a dog. This might not seem like such a great advertisement for a country, unless you have lived some place where it's the other way round."
What utter rubbish to say that you cannot avoid violence in the UK. Antisocial behaviour is almost unknown here in rural Wales and crime is still minimal. This comment sounds like someone who has never lived outside urban surroundings, probably in the south east of the country!
Population density does not explain everything: here in Belgium, Dutch-speaking Flanders has a population density of 430 people/km虏, more than Holland itself, and the lowest rate of burglaries, hold-ups, muggings, robberies, car-jackings and home-jackings in spite of having the country's most populous cities (Antwerp and Ghent) as well as all the inner suburbs of Brussels.
Mostly rural French-speaking Wallonia has a population density of 188 people/km虏, less than cosy little Luxembourg, and the highest crime rate in every aspect except burglaries.
The burglary capital of Belgium is not the bilingual federal district of inner city Brussels (7000 people/km虏), but the uber-rural German-speaking bit, most of which is a national park...
Having lived in Spain for many years, I could say the same comparing the regions of Madrid and Extremadura...
That said, I like strict gun laws. In Spain and Belgium it works. The problem in the UK seems to be the drunken, agressive lager louts...
So Justin finds a relation between Guns and Crime?
I eagerly await tomorrow's dissertation:
'Sex Affects Men and Women'.
Norway is not even mentioned??
The best standard of living in the world for years running.
the Human Development Report which is published annually by the United Nations indexed for high levels of education, democracy, income and public health.
Norway can claim the most millionaires in the world.
Swedes now seek work in Norway
.
Ok the oil is going bye bye, but the gains from it are "stable".
Whoever wrote that list should rethink their own priorities.
As a UK resident I find the level of occupied home invasion here startling. Now on the other hand I have to say that I personally think wide ranging gun ownership, and more importantly the right to use them in defense of your home is a BAD idea. Why? well quite frankly because the wast majority of criminals are interested in personal inrichment, no violence- yes they will go to violence if they HAVE to but really it's an unwanted risk. SO once you have wideranging gun ownership the level of violence that your ordinary criminal will go to not to expose himself to risk is far higher, if the risk was getting shot I would bring a gun to my burglary (that is if I was committing one), I'd use it too if confronted with someone who had the right and means to kill me- I mean shot i allways worse than imprisoned. So yearh wide ranging gun ownership reduces the amount of violence in return for making i more deadly, and personally, I'd rather have a high risk of a punch in the face than a small one of death. I think you could preserve gun ownership if you just removed the right to kill someone for trying to steal you wallet, because it would remove the criminals fear of death.
Actually, the people at Jane's Intelligence Group, which conducted the study, admit that ranking the top 30 most secure countries in the world in order was essentially a toss-up in most cases, since whether your business is headquartered in Paris or Chicago, the odds of being killed on the way to work (with intent, not accidentally) are very, very low, and it would make much more sense to make a location decision based on other factors. The list becomes more useful as you go down it towards the countries with higher crime rates, smuggling, civil unrest, etc. It's not that hard to see for yourself that personal security isn't appreciably different between the US, UK, Canada, Sweden, or any other Western European nation.
Look at this article (link below) from the Daily Mail and you will understand a lot about why the UK has a serious crime problem.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I think the Second Amendment is completely misunderstood. The reason to keep and bear arms is to defend the freedom of the State through the Militia, not to keep burglars outside home.
Of course, if I had a gun and my family were in danger, I'd use it to defend them. But I think that gun control should be enforced much more stronger.
The more guns, the more shots, the more deaths. It's a fact. And no State has been in danger of losing its freedom in the process. Sad. Very sad.
Couple of notes about the second amendment:
Craig opined that the writers of the Constitution did not envision citizens having "hi-tech" weapons. Back then the musket was very "hi-tech". Leading edge.
The second amendment does NOT talk about a well-trained militia, but a well-REGULATED one. Just as the common thread of checks and balances in the Constitution exists to make sure a government does not violate the citizen's right to freedom, the authors of this amendment knew that an armed populace was the best insurance against a mmilitia's overstepping its bounds.
As one who has spent most of his adult life in South London - and all bar 3 months of it in london, full stop, i struggle to recognise where the 'low-level crime and nastiness' is; I'd say stroppiness (in a "oi! 'oo you lookin' at' sorta way) and plebbishness, fuelled by drink, is closer to the mark. I have never once known any trouble in all the times I've been to nearby Brixton, f'rinstance, bar the time I wound up a street preacher/enlister-for-jesus by trying to convert him to satanism.
first time I was stateside, tho', the pop-pop of guns terrified me as much as the rudeness of NYcers bewildered me.
just a personal perpective, tho'
The murder rate however...
So, Justin has become another of the British ex-pats who looks back at the UK (but really London) with a condescending view that the "country where I am now living is so much better than where I came from". So much of a cliche and so very anticipated. Unfortunately he seems to equate his relative safety with the view that widespead gun ownership means that everyone will be safer. The report he quotes comes to the not very surprising fact that burglars in the US are less likely to invade an occupied home because of the chances that he will be shot - quelle surprise!
I have lived in the UK for 48 of my my 52 years and have never been burgled, had my car stolen or suffered any other crime. I spent 3 weeks in prosperous California and had a car stolen and my hotel room burgled. However, I am sensible enough to know that this is not representative of life in the US but neither is some daft US report quoting 1982 statistics representative of life in the UK....If there is a problem in the UK it is that the Police service do not take low-level crime seriously and do not operate a zero-tolerance such as exists in many US cities...It is a perseption thing - most UK crime is low-level and that is what creates the fear in the ordinary citizen here. Until we get the Police service that we deserve (or maybe we have it) then this perseption of a crime-ridden society will continue.
A touch hard on the mother country Justin?
I know what you mean about the 'underlying' violence - just go through any UK town centre, sober, on a Friday or Saturday night. It is menacing: everyone's tanked up, and there is the feeling that everything is going to kick off any second.
As someone has said, the problem is the UK drinking culture. It's not going to change as, at some level, we're proud of it: it distinguishes us from the Americans and from the Europeans (the southern ones anyway), and we like to think of ourselves as hardened drinkers. Even the fighting we're proud of - it's raw and tough.
The other reason it's not going to change is because booze is to Brits what guns are to Americans - culturally entrenched, an identity marker, and stubbornly immovable. The US 'dry' counties and the restrictions on selling booze are unimaginable here. Imagine the South rising again if you tried to take away their guns - ditto if a government ever tried to close down all the pubs.
On another note, could people please stop peddling the disgusting fiction that gun ownership could have prevented the Third Reich. What's this, the NRA would have saved the Jews? Charlton Heston as Moses (again)? Ugh. Aside from this being an absurd, Rambo-inspired fantasy (the lone, heroic individual holding out against the German army? I think not), it cynically uses the holocaust as a mere adjunct to the argument. Do you say that because of your desire to prevent the holocaust? Or do you say it just as a means to make gun ownership look good?
An American's home is his castle. Does this also mean that an American's right to own his DVD player is more important than a thief's right to life? Sure the thief's a scumbag, but the answer is 'no' a thousand times over. This is the same mindset that says the govt doesn't have the right to take my takes, but it does have the right his life, because he is a criminal. With guns, we become more separated from each other, more fearful, and have a distorted moral vision focusing narrowly on ourselves and the space around us. The animated section in Bowling for Columbine argues this brilliantly.
Britain is placed way too high on that list; but one good thing here is the recognition that freedom from fear is a necessary part of freedom itself. To paraphrase H Rap Brown, self-suggested fear and paranoia are as American as cherry pie; guns ain't helping.
The Burglary hotspots is flawed as it is based on insurance claims.
Are people in Manchester less likely to have an accident at home or are they less likely to have home insurance.
I note that Bournemouth, home to "millionaires row" has a fair few claims. Maybe a Red wine on a Persian rug is more of a disaster than coffee on a Tecso鈥檚 主播大秀 runner?
I have never been directly or indirectly affected by any 'low-level' violence in the UK and would say it is rare. What does happen is when any sort of incident happens, our scum tabloids and gutter press seize it and ram it down our throats giving us the feeling that our contry is going down the pan.
Actually, America maintains one of the highest murder rates in the developed world, almost three times the murder rate of Britain, according to the most recent statistics. The perception that Britain is more violent is precisely a *perception*. However, America's violent crime rate has been steadily declining since the early 1990s, and this has been attributed to tougher laws and policing, not to widespread gun ownership. But at the same time, when 1% of the adult population is incarcerated, there's no doubt that American society has deep social problems that are yet to be resolved.
All this talk about violence in the UK. I have lived in this town for over fourty years and have never come across any violence. one or two burglaries yes and a bit of graphiti but in fourty odd years thats not bad. It just depends on the area you live in. Where there is no work for youngsters there seems to be more violence. but in my town just twenty three miles from London life is very good. people smile at one another as they pass in the street and I love it here.
I live near Glasgow - guns are not a huge issue. However, when I lived in Lewisham, they were. It's about people, not guns.
Incidentally, I saw an early episode of Spitting Image the other night, which featured Ronald Reagan:
Bodyguard:"Wake up Mr President!"
Reagan: "Am I dead?"
Bodyguard: "Well not until November sir."
I don't know the exact date for the edition I was watching, but you'll remember how well the 1984 election went for the Mondale campaign.
I think we forget what a great place to live Britain is in so many ways.
Just spent a very interesting weekend in Brussels (which was closed by the way) and for the first time in a while I felt really pleased to be back in England. It is easy to overdo the self deprecation - its what we're good at.
We have had Dunblane and Hungerford, despite our much tighter gun laws. However, neither of these incidents would have been stopped by everybody having a gun under their pillow - we would just have had more of them. Society shall always throw up its nut-cases and, if they all have access to guns, then they shall use them.
Living in Cardiff I feel very lucky there's very little if any gun crime or even knife crime the worst problems we have is the valley commando's coming to town on the weekend!
"This has lead to some areas of the bigger cities such as LA becoming ghettos and no go areas to the police. This is effectively means there are whole areas that the government does not control."
I live in Los Angeles and work in Compton (you know, the oft-mentioned South Central), and no, you don't know what you are talking about. Police are *omnipresent* in poorer parts of American cities. This brings into play a whole other discussion which I will not start here. You obviously make the incorrect assumption that the American reaction to high-crime areas is somehow analogous to the European one. It isn't.
We don't have an equivalent for Malmo or the fringes of Paris, no matter what you think. That's not a boast, either, just the truth....
My family has and will always own guns (sorry UN). One of the most important rights of being a free man (or woman)is the right to self defence. The right to protect ones family, loved ones and property. If someone feels they have the right to take away any of these then they better be ready to pay the price. We probably own more guns than most police departments in the UK. All family members have been trained, and know how to safely use them if the need arises. The last thing any of us want is to have to take anothers life, but if threaten no problem. I know many in the UK believe they are safer now after the gun ban, but it is a very scary thought to know that the only people in your nation with guns are the Government and Criminals. Are you really SAFE? I wish all my brothers in the UK a safe and happy life. Your cousins in the free States are praying for you.
Maybe this is a simplistic approach to take but surely the fact that gun crime has risen in the UK since guns have been so heavily restricted is because having a gun is now a crime except for in very specific circumstances. Granted I know the following cannot be used everywhere in the US but if a 30 year old male from a certain state shoots somebody, they have committed one crime. In the UK, if I decided to go and shoot somebody, I would have committed two crimes in having the gun in the first place and then with the shooting. Then when the police question me I tell them I got the gun from John Smith. He is promptly arrested as he has also committed a crime. So there we go, three crimes to put in the statistics.
It's extraordinary to me that in the suburb of Philadelphia I live in, everyone I know leaves their door unlocked during the day, whether they're at home or not. I can't think of any part of the UK, except possible some extremely rural areas, where you'd do that.
This might come as a shocker to non-US people, but the areas in the US with the most guns tend to be the most peaceful and crime-free. Cities with the most guncrimestend to have the most gun laws in the US. Is there a corelation?
In the US criminals fear a lawfully-armed citizenry. 主播大秀 invasions with the homeowner home often end in dead invaders or said invaders running for their lives -- even running from small children who have been trained in safe firearms use by their parents. Yes we might be barbarians, but we are barbarians who can leave our doors unlocked! Personally, I don't even know where our house keys are.
I have a question. The "gun crime" satistics, when compared before and after the ban on guns, does the "after" statistic include prosecutions made under the new law? It strikes me as common sense that "gun-related" crime would increase massively after you ban guns, because many people would be prosecuted for breaking the new laws that would not have been committing any sort of crime before. An example of diligent statistical gerrymandering, perhaps?
I personally believe that a peaceable citizen has no need for guns. For such a Christian country (I'm an atheist being sarcastic here), America seems unable to swallow the concept of turning the other cheek. I've lived in all parts of London, Swindon, and rural Northern Ireland, and I can honestly say that I have never been afraid of being shot. I know it's a possibility, but I also know that it's a statistical improbability, especially when you take into account that I'm not involved in dealing cocaine or paramilitarism! Fear of crime and its rate of incidence are not rationally correlated, as someone pointed out above. Our media are forever guilty of scaremongering-we are supposed to be afraid, it makes us a more malleable population. Different governments achieve this in different ways (America created a situation whereby you can't trust anyone not to be carrying a piece, the UK constantly harps on about violent crime statistics etc), but the net outcome is always the same-a population more willing to give up its civil liberties for reasons advantageous to governments and the banking system that funds and manipulates the political system. Neo-Marxist rant over and out, have yourselves a really nice day!
Having lived in the US for nearly a year (and before that, 37 years in the UK) I have to say that I have felt much safer here in Kansas City, MO (America's 18th most violent city, according to recent reports) than I do walking round my home town of Reading. I do think population density has a lot to do with it, but I also agree with Justin's point that you can much more easily avoid problems here by simply staying out of certain areas. I also think the type of violence back in the UK has changed - from my daily scouring of the 主播大秀 news, the level of mindless, unprovoked violence seems to have risen dramatically - ie: gangs of youths attacking and beating strangers 'for the fun of it'. Also teenager stabbings seem to be much more prevalent now. I return to the UK at the end of this week, so I'll have to see if the reality lives up to the reports.
Brett
you say
America has far and away, the world's largest prison population, 2.3 million adults behind bars, fully 1% of the adult population is in jail currently.
That is due to the US government's prohibitionist policy called "THE WAR ON DRUGS" In the US, they are incarcerating non-violent marijuana smokers at a pretty fast clip. Rep Barney Frank has just introduced a bill wanting to decriminalize marijuana:
a quote from Franks appearance on "Real Time with Bill Maher"
"I now think it's time for the politicians to catch up to the public," Frank said. "The notion that you lock people up for smoking marijuana is pretty silly. I'm going to call it the 'Make Room for Serious Criminals' bill."
I grew up and still live in Nassau County on Long Island. The county is known for many things including strict gun laws. It is also known for it's has a very low crime rate, large police force and tough, conservative judges. The next county over is NYC. They have a huge police force, tough gun laws, liberal judges and a much higher crime rate.
New federal gun laws are not needed in the US. We need judges that will enforce the existing laws. Changing the laws will have little effect over crime if our judges are not willing to bring down stiff penalties for criminals that carry illegal (or legal)guns.
Re comment 37
obviously there are going to be less crimes per 100sqkm in the US. 1/2 the land is uninhabited or sparsely populated!
Justin,
I'm a US citizen who lived in the UK for five years, until just recently. I did feel a bit more vulnerable in the Uk than I do here, but not because we have easier access to guns to defend ourselves. It's because we have laws that allow us to defend ourselves in our own homes, and we have police, for the most part, that are very well trained to protect others using their guns, and are willing to take these risks on a daily basis. When I was living in the Thame's Valley, I was appalled when I learned how the police would not allow an ambulance to approach a murder scene for two hours because they didn't want to put anyone at risk, including their own. The woman died when she may have survived. No one will ever know.
I work for a trauma department in a medium sized city. Law abiding citizens don't come in stabbed and shot. What about a trauma center in England (just wondering because I don't know).
I've lived in the US most of my life, with a few years in Greece and Lithuania thrown in, and I've never had a problem with violence or crime. I don't own a gun, in fact I don't know anybody who has one and apart from a few bikes stolen and a few cars broken into, I don't know anybody who has been victimized by crime.
So sorry to some Brits here (like Brett, #36) who need to pretend the US is some overly violent and dangerous place. I think the reality of living here isn't quite what you desperately need to believe to feel superior to us. If you're not in a street gang or a drug dealer in a shady place, you'll be fine. Sorry to disappoint you. I think it's quite funny how you get all offended and aggressive and rattle off statistics with no depth or context when somebody *DARES* suggest that the US may be a better place to live in some ways! Ha Ha. I'll stay put and take my chances with the oh-so-violent society around me!
Isn't Jane's a British publication?
Go figure...
I'm a US citizen, and I'm thoroughly convinced that all of this has to do with gun control. I agree with Kari -- a burglar simply would not rob the house of a gun-wielding patriot. Here, the crimes are different but the death toll is just as severe.
I don't know much about UK gun laws, but I do know about the US. People fear crime and death, so they go out and buy protection in the sleekest, most compact form. One might recall the murder of Yoshihiro Hattori, a Japanese exchange student shot and killed by a Louisiana man who believed Hattori to be an intruder. (There were no convictions, by the way.)
KM #93: 'I don't know about UK gun laws, but I do know about the US. People fear crime and death, so they go out and buy protection in the sleekest, most compact form.'
Isn't this the problem? If you are letting yourself feel so much fear that you go out and buy a lethal weapon (possibly endangering oneself &, god forbid, one's children), then your freedom is compromised.
Freedom is knowing the odds, and then taking the risk and defying them. I was once a victim of 'low-level crime', coming out with no more than cuts and bruises. My American girlfriend was distraught when she heard - she assumed a 'mugging' involved guns or knives. Instructive in itself. Immediately afterwards, I was nervous to walk the same route, especially at night. But I had to walk that way regularly to go see my girlfriend, and I had no car.
Also, I am a free man and I live in a free country. I had the right to walk the streets without fear; because part of my freedom is freedom from intimidation.
Barricading yourself at home, cradling your rifle, and fearing the outside world might come crashing through your door is not freedom. The Americans talk and think about freedom more than any other nation, and I applaud this; but narrowly defining it as the relation between individual and state won't do. We have to live and think like free people to be free. Someone so cowed by intimidation that he buys a gun is not free.
Incidentally, one of the best arguments against gun ownership is that it avoids an armed police force. Amid all the grime and gloom of the UK, its non-armed police force is a ray of light. Why is the libertarian USA okay with gun-happy state enforcers? It doesn't jive. I remember seeing a US cop walking over to a car he had flagged down on the highway. As he walked up to the driver's window, he had his hand ready on his holstered pistol. He struck me as a posturing macho fool, more given to gung-ho swaggering than the quiet professionalism desirable in a policeman.
Gina #89: how confident can you really be about armed police? Using a gun in a civilian environment requires the most careful firearm skills of all. I am not at all sure that every police officer can be trained in these skills - especially given the extremely low tax yield in some parts of the US. Much better it be in the hands of specialists. UK police may be mainly unarmed, but when armed, heavily armed (i.e. with high-quality German automatic carbines).
I have to disagree with the idea that American culture is a culture of fear. I don't own a gun, but I grew up in close proximity to them, having grown up in a family of avid hunters, and I know how to use one. I am not afraid of them, but I have enough sense to have a healthy respect for them. Have accidents sometimes happened? Of course. Have people been shot deliberately? Yes. Despite this, and despite living in cities where "good" neighborhoods are only separated by "bad" neighborhoods by one street (if that), I've also never felt like I was in danger, regardless of the time of day or which side of that street I was crossing.
I think that feeling may be largely a matter of choice. I fully accept that there is always going to be one person out there who poses a threat to my safety, but I also have found that given the opportunity, most will leave you alone and might even be kind, with or without a weapon handy.
Bad things will happen to you no matter what, but you have to make your own decision about how you want to live your life.
Others commenting on this thread seem to have forgotten that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution was, indeed, intended to keep unwanted intruders from homes.
However, those intruders were the King's regiments, and the framers of the Constitution recalled the anger engendered in America by the Quartering Act (1774), passed by Parliament to give commanding General Gage and other colonial governors further standing to billet British soldiers in private homes.
That legislation, along with the other so called 'intolerable acts,' such as the taxes imposed by the Crown on stamps and tea, led to the Revolution, and a permanent American culture of disgust at the presumptions of an all-powerful State.
So, while it is now outdated and we here in the States have no excuse for not having rational gun control laws, one could see the 2nd Amendment as a direct result of rampant British colonialism, which has created problems extant even now.
funny how other countries think an american gives a hoot what they thnk about our guns.
there is a saying in rual america it goes you can have my gun when you pry from my cold dead fingers..thats that.
and yes to a former poster if i wake and someone is robbing my house
or endangering my family they are dead or i will be and i am a real good shot
you know the first country to have full gun registration was hitlers germany and we saw how that turned out.
basicly the founding fathers put the right to bear arms in on purpose
and the idiots who say it was fro national gaurd are morons and have no idea or even a clue of history
the miltia back then WAS the people of the communities and it goes hand in hand with the clause that states if the govt get out of hand ie hitler or going against the constitution we have the right to rise up and remove them if they dont follow the commands of the poeples vote. that would be a bit hard if the govt only had weapons dont ya think.
proud gun owner forever
In 2006 there were over 17,000 murders in america (a large proportion of with firearms) and over 2m (less than one per 100 people) burglaries
in the UK in a similar period (05/06) there were less than 800 murders, but 600,000 burglaries (over 1 for every 100 people)
on the basis i'd rather get burgled than killed i prefer the UK approach to guns... although is the number of killings related to guns or based on potentially more disturbing cultural differences?
So how come Canada has a higher rate of gun ownership than the US and yet the statistics for people being killed by guns, deliberately or accidently are far lower? This surely speaks to some sort of cultural effect? Owning guns leads to innocent people dying -suicide and accidental deaths. Handguns are bad news and gun control is necessary. Is there some sort of US attitude that all problems can be solved by using weapons?
Not all Americans are happy with the liberal aditude towards private weapons ownership in the US. The 2nd ammendment has been highjacked over the years by gun manufactures and right wing fanatics. However respect for the consitution is the gremlin. Our only hope is that the US is a young country and over time failed state style senseless violence will make the citizens of the US weary.
Socialist are against guns but for letting their criminal agents of change out of jail, all in order to demand more laws to control the population at large.
This is no different than when Stalinist Russia invented Couter-Revolution purges as threats to the public peace to purge the country time and time again. Today the evil/NAZI Socialist/Commies want to invent problems for them to purge and control the people ( the masses in Soclialsit/commie talk ). They claim to represent "the masses", while degrading them to the status of cattle; it' funny 'Animal Rights Activists' are usually socialist/commie in political bent.
I'm an individual human, not part of the masses and I can make up my own mind and I have the inherent right to do so and the inherent right to self-defense, yes using firearms which the forefathers of the US knew would be required to do so, even if it's against the nanny government which I have to defend myself against.
I don't think Justin is being all that scientific about it. For a start, he asks a guy from south London if crime is less bad in the US from his experience in a normal state (what a surprise, it is!) then says that the types of crime that are particularly bad in the UK are less bad than the US (shocking!).
The point isn't that there's no aspect of US life that is better than for the UK, but that in general things are worse. If there's 10% (say) more burglaries in the UK, that's a negative against the UK, but if lots of the burglars in the US have guns (as they will do) then that's an enormous negative against the US. If there's more examples like this then I'm not surprised that the US comes out lower (93/100 is hardly bad).
Coming from London I know what crime is, but keep away from dodgy areas, don't look like a tourist (tourists walk slowly and look up, locals walk fast and look down) and you'll be fine. I've never been attacked, mugged, pick-pocketed in my 28 years here. Government figures show that crime is falling but fear of crime is rising. So the main point is, are Justin and his sarf London mate typical media-junkies who believe whatever the Sun scream at them?
One example I have of sleepy suburbian sprawl in the US is visiting Durham, NC, where in the week of me being there one girl had been raped and another (the student president) shot in the head. I'd rather get mugged twice by some chav than once by a guy with a gun who might use it.