Counts muddled with things like drive-by's killing bystanders. Initiation killings.krazed wrote:
i wish they would have a different category for gun homicides
one for "regular" people
and one for criminal on criminal/gang related
or do they and i just havent found it yet?
Who told you that it was?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Isn't England supposed to be gun-free and perfectly safe?SEREMAKER wrote:
12 Dead in Shooting
" LONDON - A taxi driver went on a shooting spree across rural northwestern England on Wednesday, killing 12 people and wounding 25 others before shooting himself, police said. "
it's the way a lot of people act/come acrossmikkel wrote:
Who told you that it was?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Isn't England supposed to be gun-free and perfectly safe?SEREMAKER wrote:
12 Dead in Shooting
" LONDON - A taxi driver went on a shooting spree across rural northwestern England on Wednesday, killing 12 people and wounding 25 others before shooting himself, police said. "
And strangely enough, I've heard it more from US gun control activists than actual Englishmen.krazed wrote:
it's the way a lot of people act/come acrossmikkel wrote:
Who told you that it was?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Isn't England supposed to be gun-free and perfectly safe?
Gun free? UK folks love shooting game birds. A relative of my wife owns a shooting club in the UK, trains the rich how to hunt/shoot game birds, and goes on expeditions to South America ever so often.krazed wrote:
it's the way a lot of people act/come acrossmikkel wrote:
Who told you that it was?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Isn't England supposed to be gun-free and perfectly safe?
This issue turns up every month or so in D&ST, and I've read through most of the threads. I can tell you from observation that it most certainly is not how people act or come across. What unnamednewbie posted is the hyperbolic interpretation derived by many people who are uncomfortable with the relatively positive statistics regarding gun-related violence in the United Kingdom.krazed wrote:
it's the way a lot of people act/come acrossmikkel wrote:
Who told you that it was?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Isn't England supposed to be gun-free and perfectly safe?
Sure, in the ghetto, which I do not enter. Most of the gun related deaths in NYC are from illegal weapons because guess what? Handguns have been banned here.Bertster7 wrote:
However you look at it, in NYC, your chances of being killed by being shot are far greater than your chances of being killed by terrorists.
Far, far greater.
As Vilham keeps saying, one mass shooting in 14 years sounds pretty gun free to me.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Isn't England supposed to be gun-free and perfectly safe?SEREMAKER wrote:
12 Dead in Shooting
" LONDON - A taxi driver went on a shooting spree across rural northwestern England on Wednesday, killing 12 people and wounding 25 others before shooting himself, police said. "
The same is true for gun crime everywhere. You always see increased rates in more deprived areas, just like all other crime. Not that that is remotely relevant. Laws are there to protect society as a whole, not just some individuals.JohnG@lt wrote:
Sure, in the ghetto, which I do not enter. Most of the gun related deaths in NYC are from illegal weapons because guess what? Handguns have been banned here.Bertster7 wrote:
However you look at it, in NYC, your chances of being killed by being shot are far greater than your chances of being killed by terrorists.
Far, far greater.
The only result of the handgun ban has been a threefold increase in the police force.
Which was done with legally obtained, licensed guns. You can't stop every random nutter going on a rampage.ghettoperson wrote:
As Vilham keeps saying, one mass shooting in 14 years sounds pretty gun free to me.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Isn't England supposed to be gun-free and perfectly safe?SEREMAKER wrote:
12 Dead in Shooting
" LONDON - A taxi driver went on a shooting spree across rural northwestern England on Wednesday, killing 12 people and wounding 25 others before shooting himself, police said. "
This doesn't really look like a "tumble spanning decades" to me.Bertster7 wrote:
Which was done with legally obtained, licensed guns. You can't stop every random nutter going on a rampage.ghettoperson wrote:
As Vilham keeps saying, one mass shooting in 14 years sounds pretty gun free to me.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Isn't England supposed to be gun-free and perfectly safe?
Compare about 50 gun related homicides (almost all of which are swiftly solved and people have been convicted of, due to the emphasis placed on them) to more than 10,000. It's hardly a favourable comparison for the US.
Gun control is working very nicely here. Violent crime in general has also been tumbling for decades. When I was a teenager the streets were far more dangerous than they are now.
Last edited by nlsme1 (2010-06-03 05:24:46)
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-06-03 05:46:46)
He legally obtained them.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Isn't England supposed to be gun-free and perfectly safe?SEREMAKER wrote:
12 Dead in Shooting
" LONDON - A taxi driver went on a shooting spree across rural northwestern England on Wednesday, killing 12 people and wounding 25 others before shooting himself, police said. "
London has a population of around 10 million. I would say 200 homicides a year is pretty good, regardless of the rate of decline/incline.nlsme1 wrote:
This doesn't really look like a "tumble spanning decades" to me.Bertster7 wrote:
Which was done with legally obtained, licensed guns. You can't stop every random nutter going on a rampage.ghettoperson wrote:
As Vilham keeps saying, one mass shooting in 14 years sounds pretty gun free to me.
Compare about 50 gun related homicides (almost all of which are swiftly solved and people have been convicted of, due to the emphasis placed on them) to more than 10,000. It's hardly a favourable comparison for the US.
Gun control is working very nicely here. Violent crime in general has also been tumbling for decades. When I was a teenager the streets were far more dangerous than they are now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LOndonHomicide.jpg
In fact, you are just below where you were 20 years ago. Add that in with the fact your prison population has doubled in the same time, while your population has seen a 10% growth, and you might just rethink the "tumble".
Not bad, let's compare NYC.Vilham wrote:
London has a population of around 10 million. I would say 200 homicides a year is pretty good, regardless of the rate of decline/incline.nlsme1 wrote:
This doesn't really look like a "tumble spanning decades" to me.Bertster7 wrote:
Which was done with legally obtained, licensed guns. You can't stop every random nutter going on a rampage.
Compare about 50 gun related homicides (almost all of which are swiftly solved and people have been convicted of, due to the emphasis placed on them) to more than 10,000. It's hardly a favourable comparison for the US.
Gun control is working very nicely here. Violent crime in general has also been tumbling for decades. When I was a teenager the streets were far more dangerous than they are now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LOndonHomicide.jpg
In fact, you are just below where you were 20 years ago. Add that in with the fact your prison population has doubled in the same time, while your population has seen a 10% growth, and you might just rethink the "tumble".
Last edited by nlsme1 (2010-06-03 07:28:01)
Compare it to LAnlsme1 wrote:
Not bad, let's compare NYC.Vilham wrote:
London has a population of around 10 million. I would say 200 homicides a year is pretty good, regardless of the rate of decline/incline.nlsme1 wrote:
This doesn't really look like a "tumble spanning decades" to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LOndonHomicide.jpg
In fact, you are just below where you were 20 years ago. Add that in with the fact your prison population has doubled in the same time, while your population has seen a 10% growth, and you might just rethink the "tumble".
New York City
Population= 8,363,710 (2008)
Pop. Dens.= 66,940/sq. mi. (2008)
Homicides= 497 in 2007 (first time ever below 500 since 1963 when he statistics were made public)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City#Crime
London
Population=7,556,900 (2007)
Pop. dens.12,331/sq. mi. (2007)
Homicides=162 in 2007 (Although it peaked in 2003-04, while publicly available statistics are only availabe after 1990. In 1990 there were 184 homicides. The lowest year for homicides was 1996, with 139.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_London
I would say that population density has at least SOME effect on crime. So does ethnic diversity. Both of wich New York holds the title. However, New York homicide rates have been at record lows. Londons, not so much.
See edit.pace51 wrote:
Compare it to LAnlsme1 wrote:
Not bad, let's compare NYC.Vilham wrote:
London has a population of around 10 million. I would say 200 homicides a year is pretty good, regardless of the rate of decline/incline.
New York City
Population= 8,363,710 (2008)
Pop. Dens.= 66,940/sq. mi. (2008)
Homicides= 497 in 2007 (first time ever below 500 since 1963 when he statistics were made public)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City#Crime
London
Population=7,556,900 (2007)
Pop. dens.12,331/sq. mi. (2007)
Homicides=162 in 2007 (Although it peaked in 2003-04, while publicly available statistics are only availabe after 1990. In 1990 there were 184 homicides. The lowest year for homicides was 1996, with 139.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_London
I would say that population density has at least SOME effect on crime. So does ethnic diversity. Both of wich New York holds the title. However, New York homicide rates have been at record lows. Londons, not so much.
Our prisons are filled with non violent criminals.mcminty wrote:
nlsme1 - I'm assuming you are from the US, in which case you shouldn't talk about prison statistics, given the USA's credentials in that area..
As for the OP, read about it this morning. Tragic.
For start, all the figures are completely out of whack, because you've got the population of London quite wrong. It's almost double that, getting on for 14 million (or at the very least 8.5 million - depends on the area you look at).nlsme1 wrote:
Not bad, let's compare NYC.Vilham wrote:
London has a population of around 10 million. I would say 200 homicides a year is pretty good, regardless of the rate of decline/incline.nlsme1 wrote:
This doesn't really look like a "tumble spanning decades" to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LOndonHomicide.jpg
In fact, you are just below where you were 20 years ago. Add that in with the fact your prison population has doubled in the same time, while your population has seen a 10% growth, and you might just rethink the "tumble".
New York City
Population= 8,363,710 (2008)
Pop. Dens.= 66,940/sq. mi. (2008)
Homicides= 497 in 2007 (first time ever below 500 since 1963 when he statistics were made public)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City#Crime
London
Population=7,556,900 (2007)
Pop. Dens.=12,331/sq. mi. (2007)
Homicides=162 in 2007 (Although it peaked in 2003-04, while publicly available statistics are only availabe after 1990. In 1990 there were 184 homicides. The lowest year for homicides was 1996, with 139.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_London
Los Angelas
Population=3,833,995 (2008)
Pop. Dens.=8,205/sq. mi. (2008)
Homicides=314 in 2009 (a FIFTY year low)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_angela … and_safety
I would say that population density has at least SOME effect on crime. So does ethnic diversity. New York holds the title. However, New York homicide rates have been at record lows. Londons, not so much. L.A. is doing good too. Fifty year low and all.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-06-03 12:52:20)
Last edited by nlsme1 (2010-06-03 13:38:42)
According to WikipediaBertster7 wrote:
For start, all the figures are completely out of whack, because you've got the population of London quite wrong. It's almost double that, getting on for 14 million (or at the very least 8.5 million - depends on the area you look at).
?
Last edited by Macbeth (2010-06-03 14:03:39)
