UK knife crime

[Fermionic]

l_Shamrock_l

Fermionic

l_Shamrock_l

Fermionic

l_Shamrock_l

Fermionic

So, we include subtracting the majority of offences that inherently are "non-violent"?

I will continue tomorrow, if I remember to. I am far too drunk at the moment to hold a cogent conversation.

That's fine. I thought I should also mention that "threat or force of threat" is defined by the the Office of National Statistics as immediately preceding or following a crime or attempted crime. I believe this makes it a rather arbitrary qualifier.

Probably why the Office of National Statistics is a poor statistics institution?

I should have clarified: The definition of "threat or force of threat" is arbitrary in that it is a part of the actual crime itself and is not a separate occurrence. It's as if you said "I'm going to punch you in the face" and then actually punched me in the face, would constitute "threat or force of threat". If you just saw me across the street and yelled "I'm going to kick you in the balls!" that is not a crime.

No, it is that if a crime is committed in which force is threatened, but not executed, that would then be classed as a violent crime.

Like threatening a cashier with a knife for the contents of their till.

That is a violent crime in America as well, lol

"lol"

No, the UK has a wider definition of "violent crime".

I'm unwilling to discuss this further, also.

[Glorious Leader Luna]

l_Shamrock_l

Glorious Leader Luna

l_Shamrock_l

License does not equal ownership nor is it a reliable source for handguns or rifles at all considering these licenses are for shotguns and rifles used by either the police force or by competition shooters and hunters and in no way reflects ownership by the common people. Additionally, firearms statistics in England include air guns and imitation guns as well. Additionally again, licenses are still in affect even after the gun the license is for is banned. This is a proper indication of gun ownership before-and-after the gun ban in the same way gym membership numbers properly indicate the amount of physically fit people there are.

The certificates are the best for showing ownership levels because to quote the Home office

Quote:

According to the Firearms Act 1968, a firearm means a lethal barrelled weapon of any description
from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged. It includes any prohibited weapon,
any component part of such a weapon and any accessory to such a weapon designed or adapted
to diminish the noise or flash caused by the firing of the weapon.
It is – with certain statutory exceptions – an offence to possess, purchase, or acquire any firearm or
ammunition to which section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968 applies without holding a firearm
certificate.
Section 1 of the 1968 Act applies to all firearms except a shotgun or an air gun.

A shotgun is defined as a smooth-bore gun (not being an air gun) which: (i) has a barrel not less
than 24 inches in length and does not have any barrel with a bore exceeding 2 inches in diameter;
(ii) either has no magazine or has a non-detachable magazine incapable of holding more than 2
cartridges; and (iii) is not a revolver gun. Other smooth-bore guns may require a firearm certificate.
It is – with certain statutory exceptions – an offence for a person to possess, purchase, or acquire
any shotgun without holding a shotgun certificate.

Thus if one has a gun you have a certificate

The renewal cycle for FACs was five years

thus why from 1997 to 2002 certificates dropped because you had a bunch of firearms certificates not being renewed because they could not be.

So you're saying that if it's illegal to purchase a certain item without a certificate, that certificate count can be used to accurately indicate how many people own that item? Makes sense, what with all the meth and cocaine certificates out there.

Well part from archaic flintlock pistols and retrofitted flare guns there is not a lot of illegal weapons

Modern firearms are way way out of the price range for nearly all illegal elements given the UK is a island (because your going to hire some mercs with a top of the range boat to illegally import a pistol)

That and using a firearm in petty crime is not worth the "heat" it generates compared to US nor the risk given that said flintlock pistol and retrofitted flare gun might not work and a gun makes no amount of force excessive in relation to UK self defense laws.

[chainmailleman]

theothermanoverthere

new statistics so that knife crime in the UK is worse then talked about. The numbers show that up to a 1000 people a year are the victims of knife crimes ever month. So it seems the idea "that if people want to kill they will" holds true. what do you think of this?



http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/1000-knife-crime-victims-in-london-each-month-shocking-new-figures-show-8681511.html

for the some of you that think that on link isnt enough here is one parliament

BAN KNIVES!!! OMG THEY ARE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! VERY DANGEROUS IN THE HANDS OF ORDINARY PEOPLE!

Might as well ban baseball bats, cars, and foods larger than 3/4" diameter.

[l_Shamrock_l]

Glorious Leader Luna

l_Shamrock_l

Glorious Leader Luna

l_Shamrock_l

License does not equal ownership nor is it a reliable source for handguns or rifles at all considering these licenses are for shotguns and rifles used by either the police force or by competition shooters and hunters and in no way reflects ownership by the common people. Additionally, firearms statistics in England include air guns and imitation guns as well. Additionally again, licenses are still in affect even after the gun the license is for is banned. This is a proper indication of gun ownership before-and-after the gun ban in the same way gym membership numbers properly indicate the amount of physically fit people there are.

The certificates are the best for showing ownership levels because to quote the Home office

Quote:

According to the Firearms Act 1968, a firearm means a lethal barrelled weapon of any description
from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged. It includes any prohibited weapon,
any component part of such a weapon and any accessory to such a weapon designed or adapted
to diminish the noise or flash caused by the firing of the weapon.
It is – with certain statutory exceptions – an offence to possess, purchase, or acquire any firearm or
ammunition to which section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968 applies without holding a firearm
certificate.
Section 1 of the 1968 Act applies to all firearms except a shotgun or an air gun.

A shotgun is defined as a smooth-bore gun (not being an air gun) which: (i) has a barrel not less
than 24 inches in length and does not have any barrel with a bore exceeding 2 inches in diameter;
(ii) either has no magazine or has a non-detachable magazine incapable of holding more than 2
cartridges; and (iii) is not a revolver gun. Other smooth-bore guns may require a firearm certificate.
It is – with certain statutory exceptions – an offence for a person to possess, purchase, or acquire
any shotgun without holding a shotgun certificate.

Thus if one has a gun you have a certificate

The renewal cycle for FACs was five years

thus why from 1997 to 2002 certificates dropped because you had a bunch of firearms certificates not being renewed because they could not be.

So you're saying that if it's illegal to purchase a certain item without a certificate, that certificate count can be used to accurately indicate how many people own that item? Makes sense, what with all the meth and cocaine certificates out there.

Well part from archaic flintlock pistols and retrofitted flare guns there is not a lot of illegal weapons

Modern firearms are way way out of the price range for nearly all illegal elements given the UK is a island (because your going to hire some mercs with a top of the range boat to illegally import a pistol)

That and using a firearm in petty crime is not worth the "heat" it generates compared to US nor the risk given that said flintlock pistol and retrofitted flare gun might not work and a gun makes no amount of force excessive in relation to UK self defense laws.

I'm very certain that at this point you're intentionally twisting the laws to side your argument. I just wrote most of them down for you, you don't exactly have the "Play on their ignorance" card in your hand at the moment. Flintlock pistols? retrofitted flare guns? I'm asking this in all seriousness, but: Are you kidding me? I just recited to you how it would be banned as per the 1988 Firearms Amendment Act, as they would be at least semi automatic. In fact, based on these laws, flintlock handguns are probably your best bet for a legal handgun.

In fact I'm not even sure how your reply even merits a response considering I just recited to you most of the major laws that effectively banned all weapons you're trying to say are still legal. Hire mercenaries and smugglers to bring you a weapon? You realize this contradicts the claim you just made, right? Also, do you realize how rampant gangs are running in the UK right now? If you find the right person you can buy a Midnight Special for $200 (I don't have the sign for the "pound" on my keyboard), and that's just one of the cheap ones. Gangs tend to have plenty of money and operators to smuggle their goods in, including drugs, weapons, people, etc.. and make money off of it. Saying people will have to hire other private parties when there's already an operation in progress, assuming it would even be necessary to go through all that, is just... naive.

And as far as making it worth the effort in relation to the punishment, criminals normally make it a point not to get caught...

[l_Shamrock_l]

Fermionic

l_Shamrock_l

Fermionic

l_Shamrock_l

Fermionic

Probably why the Office of National Statistics is a poor statistics institution?

I should have clarified: The definition of "threat or force of threat" is arbitrary in that it is a part of the actual crime itself and is not a separate occurrence. It's as if you said "I'm going to punch you in the face" and then actually punched me in the face, would constitute "threat or force of threat". If you just saw me across the street and yelled "I'm going to kick you in the balls!" that is not a crime.

No, it is that if a crime is committed in which force is threatened, but not executed, that would then be classed as a violent crime.

Like threatening a cashier with a knife for the contents of their till.

That is a violent crime in America as well, lol

"lol"

No, the UK has a wider definition of "violent crime".

I'm unwilling to discuss this further, also.

I understand they have a wider definition of violent crime. That's why I referred you to the previous link in which the crimes were broken down by type and number and said you can actually manually take each crime into account. But if you do not want to discuss it I can't stop you from stopping.

[theothermanoverthere]

Brothern

l_Shamrock_l

Brothern

You can breathe easy. Violent crime is higher in the UK than it is in (e.g.) contential Europe, but the UK is still on the low end of the scale for violent crime.

At least you aren't in the US. Then you'd be dealing with shootings instead of stabbings, and a violent crime rate that is averaged out to 4x more than the UK. sweatdrop

Clearly you're trolling.

Edit: I think it's worth mentioning that the links contained within the link I provided are what you should be looking at. I feel like I have to mention this, otherwise I would have zero faith in anybody on here actually delving into the information instead of taking it at face-value. Even then I have my doubts.

Nope. The US and UK define "violent crime" differently. The UK's definition is much broader. This website you've linked to glosses over that particular fact. Indeed, this website also seems to have a number of problems, because it is coming from a conspiracy theorist who also believes climate change is fake.

However when you compare the same stats against each other (homocide to homocide, e.g) the US far outranks the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

but we a ******** load more people

[God Emperor Baldur]

theothermanoverthere

Brothern

l_Shamrock_l

Brothern

You can breathe easy. Violent crime is higher in the UK than it is in (e.g.) contential Europe, but the UK is still on the low end of the scale for violent crime.

At least you aren't in the US. Then you'd be dealing with shootings instead of stabbings, and a violent crime rate that is averaged out to 4x more than the UK. sweatdrop

Clearly you're trolling.

Edit: I think it's worth mentioning that the links contained within the link I provided are what you should be looking at. I feel like I have to mention this, otherwise I would have zero faith in anybody on here actually delving into the information instead of taking it at face-value. Even then I have my doubts.

Nope. The US and UK define "violent crime" differently. The UK's definition is much broader. This website you've linked to glosses over that particular fact. Indeed, this website also seems to have a number of problems, because it is coming from a conspiracy theorist who also believes climate change is fake.

However when you compare the same stats against each other (homocide to homocide, e.g) the US far outranks the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

but we a ******** load more people

There is this thing called "Per capita" But all this is irrelevant because statistics are made by people with an agenda.

[Brothern]

theothermanoverthere

Brothern

Nope. The US and UK define "violent crime" differently. The UK's definition is much broader. This website you've linked to glosses over that particular fact. Indeed, this website also seems to have a number of problems, because it is coming from a conspiracy theorist who also believes climate change is fake.

However when you compare the same stats against each other (homocide to homocide, e.g) the US far outranks the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

but we a ******** load more people

Crime rates are usually computed per 1,000 individuals. Thus you get a rate rather than a total count.

[God Emperor Baldur]

chainmailleman

theothermanoverthere

new statistics so that knife crime in the UK is worse then talked about. The numbers show that up to a 1000 people a year are the victims of knife crimes ever month. So it seems the idea "that if people want to kill they will" holds true. what do you think of this?



http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/1000-knife-crime-victims-in-london-each-month-shocking-new-figures-show-8681511.html

for the some of you that think that on link isnt enough here is one parliament

BAN KNIVES!!! OMG THEY ARE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! VERY DANGEROUS IN THE HANDS OF ORDINARY PEOPLE!

Might as well ban baseball bats, cars, and foods larger than 3/4" diameter.

As long as it forces the British vermin to starve to death, I am all for it twisted

[Revolutionary Justice]

People are less afraid of knives than they are of guns with good reason. It's much easier to kill somebody or a group of people with a gun than with a knife. Recently there was a mass stabbing at a school where 20+ kids were injured. How many died? Zero. Now give the kid a gun and we already know how much more lethal it can be in that situation with dozens dead. Nobody wants to rush the guy with a gun from fear of being shot, it's much easier for people to rush a guy with a knife.

Guns don't magically create violence(although they do embolden those with guns to commit it because it's more powerful/easier to scare/hurt/kill than a knife) but when you take guns out of the equation the violence becomes less lethal. When have people been the subject of drive by knifings? How many stray stabs hit innocent bystanders?

Even so I am not in favor of strict gun laws but of ending the root causes of the violence which stains our communities. Violence brought on by black markets, poverty, sexism, etc, etc.