Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade (UK, 1998-2008)

[^_^ 5,021]

27th October 2009

Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold.

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.

In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.

The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place.

Last week, police in London revealed they had begun carrying out armed patrols on some streets.

The move means officers armed with sub-machine guns are engaged in routine policing for the first time.

Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, said last night: 'In areas dominated by gang culture, we're now seeing guns used to settle scores between rivals as well as turf wars between rival drug dealers.

He added: 'These figures are all the more alarming given that it is only a week since the Metropolitan Police said it was increasing regular armed patrols in some areas of the capital'.

...

Lancashire suffered the single largest rise in gun crime, with recorded offences increasing from 50 in 1998/99 to 349 in 2007/08, an increase of 598 per cent.

...

The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent .

The figures follow a warning by Mr Grayling that U.S.-style gang culture has reached some parts of the UK.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

[slim 1,530]

This can't be right.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Thought that the U.K. was perfect and never had gun violence?

[Danno 1,228]

Just when so many were so sold on: Less guns, Less gun violence.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

UK has a long way to go to get into our league, they are pee wee level and the US is the NFL baby! But do keep driveling on...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Thought that the U.K. was perfect and never had gun violence?

Why would you think that?

UK has a long way to go to get into our league, they are pee wee level and the US is the NFL baby! But do keep driveling on...

Indeed, as bait attempts go this is pretty pathetic

[Ban Hammer 13,407]

guns don't cause crime, labour being in power does!

[ready4ONE 5,400]

guns don't cause crime, labour being in power does!

I bow, ever humbled, before thee. You truly are the Master Baiter! ;-)

[mawilson 2,133]

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

Yet in the US, crime rates continue decline while gun ownership continues to rise.

[^_^ 5,021]

Yet in the US, crime rates continue decline while gun ownership continues to rise.

Yes.

Although the purpose of this article was to demonstrate to certain posters that the utopian delusions they have of life in the UK are just that - delusions.

Or they're lying. I'd rather believe it's a medical issue, at least that can be treated.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

UK has a long way to go to get into our league, they are pee wee level and the US is the NFL baby! But do keep driveling on...

Their's is going up, ours is going down. Who should copy who?

Edited January 25, 2011 by Gary and Alla

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Their's is going up, ours is going down. Who should copy who?

Too early to tell. We need a few more decades of data.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yet in the US, crime rates continue decline while gun ownership continues to rise.

The flaw in that is the inherent assumption and quite deliberate agenda on the behalf of the writer that the sole reason of crime is the number of guns that are available and are in the wrong hands - this is simply not the case. The comparatively easy (compared to other countries) explanation is that it may well be a factor that has a direct negative effect in some areas and no effect in others. It might be a benefit in others - however, if the best you can do is take two arguably unrelated things and draw conclusions by way of preconceived belief, you don't have a terribly convincing argument.

I doubt very much that one can credibly take a complex phenomena such as crime - with multiple inter-related sociological and economic causes and reduce it down to a single causative factor. Life generally isn't that simple - unless you live in a children's cartoon.

Here's another perspective - says absolutely nothing about guns.

Edited January 25, 2011 by Ron Burgundy

[mawilson 2,133]

The flaw in that is the inherent assumption and quite deliberate agenda on the behalf of the writer that the sole reason of crime is the number of guns that are available and are in the wrong hands - this is simply not the case. The comparatively easy (compared to other countries) explanation is that it may well be a factor that has a direct negative effect in some areas and no effect in others. It might be a benefit in others - however, if the best you can do is take two arguably unrelated things and draw conclusions by way of preconceived belief, you don't have a terribly convincing argument.

Where did the writer say that?

His main point was that "the gun prohibitionist lobby has been proven wrong in its alarmist predictions that more guns in more hands will result in more violent crime".

"The bottom line is that more guns have not led to more crime, and if anything, may be a contributing factor in the decline of crime."

"If anything", "may be a contributing factor" hardly equates to a deliberate agenda.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

He's biased, he refutes no specific claims made by any named person who represents an anti gun position. The premise of his article is made up of his own assumptions and personal biases.

You don't see that he has an obvious agenda?