I do vaguely recall hearing the UK has a higher rate of violent crime, but once you delved into it it was due to the UK including more things in that statistic than the US does. And all of this thread is an important reminded that figures and statistics alone are...sketchy.
London is a 2,000 year old city with a murder history like few cities on earth, right? But today it's so safe. The recent stats still show that it's safer than ever, like NYC is safer than it has been in a long time. It's interesting how the topic of guns came up, though. Two cities, safer than in 60+ years, and few guns. Is someone trying to use the recent surge in London to promote an agenda on the gun issue? You see that a lot when people try to equate gun-free areas with crime rates, in order to argue against gun control, meanwhile gun control is at the heart of London's and NYC's diminishing murder rate according to the authorities. The recent surge is then used to convince people controlling guns doesn't work, when it clearly does in the most densely populated areas in the world.
FactCheck: Is London really deadlier than New York? More fact checks, NY has revised there data, and overall NY is much much much safer then many other US cities...... Maybe there is something to be said with keeping criminals away from guns aka gun control. " But even if the original reports had remained accurate, it’s important to remember that the Big Apple isn’t as dangerous as you might think. In fact, with a murder rate of 3.4 homicides per 100,000 people, New York is only the 67th most deadly city in the US. America’s most dangerous cities – St Louis, Missouri and Baltimore, Maryland – suffer murders at nearly 20 times that rate."
Crime rates in American cities, and within areas of America as a whole, are closely tied to urban poverty, not so much to gun laws or rates of gun ownership. Destitute inner cities often start at 10 homicides per 100,000 and when hitting a rough patch can approach 50 per 100,000 (like Washington DC in the 1980s-90s), even when rates of firearms ownership is statistically very low. The rural American west--especially places like Utah, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, rural Oregon (where I live), etc will have firearms ownership rates an order of magnitude higher than American major metro areas, but often average homicide rates of 2 or 3 per 100,000 (comparable to places like Belgium). (Compare gun ownership rates and murder rates on this state-by-state chart; the results are even more striking when you look up individual towns and cities and compare). New York City is a far, far, far safer place than it was a couple decades ago, but that has to do with social services, better job markets, etc. Not some dramatic change in municipal gun laws. In fact, Washington DC's homicide rate has dropped 60% in the past two decades despite the repeal of the DC handgun ban in 2008. It's all due to the correlation of homicide rates and urban poverty. So NYC has had a good year, and London has had a bad year. So what? Local economic trends will shift and they'll flip-flop again. NYC hasn't been the worst of the worst in America since the 70s or 80s, though, so it's not that damning of a comparison. If you were doing worse than Detroit or Baltimore, I'd worry a lot more. The final thing I will say when making this point is that I am NOT using "urban poverty" as a euphemism for race. Rural middle-class folks have low homicide rates, despite significant gun ownership, regardless of their race. People trapped in inner cities surrounded by drugs and joblessness and a lack of social services suffer high homicide rates regardless of their race (just look at Russia). There are some people who try to use the concentration of violent crime in America's inner cities as a way to make disgusting racist insinuations. I am not one of those people.
If gun control doesn't effect things, and gun control in the main is stopping criminals getting guns and also limiting the type of guns allowed, why not get rid of your current low level Of gun control, 1) why not allow felons to own guns 2) take away the cooling off period for handguns 3) allow fully auto guns again 4) maybe allow explosives/rockets and mortors? If the above seem stupid, it's because gun control has its place, and it should be fact driven, so the CDC should be allowed the study the problem, and background checks should be computerised.
I did ask in a previous thread whether nuclear arms, nerve gas, grenades, etc, should all be freely available to any private citizen wanting them, but the question was - oddly - ignored completely.
The US Constitution doesn't give you the right to own explosives. That's a stupid question. We do have a constitutional right to own firearms.
No it isn't. Read it again. Aegis asked if they should be available. A perfectly valid question, whatever the US Constitution says.
I love how as soon as I respond to the argument that the mere presence of firearms causes crime, and all of a sudden people say I support felons owning nukes. My ideal model for firearms legislation is the Czech model. Not prohibition--and allowances for home defense and conceal carry--but not a complete absence of legislation either. Gun laws in the Czech Republic - Wikipedia
They already are available. I could build a pipe bomb if I wanted. I wouldn't because its illegal and I have no use for it. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, the constitution was written to control government behavior not to control the people. Of course I lost my right the day I pled guilty to a felony.
I know how you hate the idea of a free society but you could at least make some effort to understand it.
A complete assumption, as you have no idea of what my likes and hates are. However, it's a common theme with you.
Please don't judge all US firearms owners by the silly offensive rhetoric of Anjelica in this thread (or non-owners...did I just read that Anjelica is a felon?).
