Firearms amnesty as UK gun crime rises 27% this year

' Anybody taking guns and ammunition to police stations across the UK over the next fortnight will not face automatic criminal charges, but will if they are later connected to a crime.
The National Gun Surrender started on Monday and will run until 26 November.
Air guns, rifles, BB guns, shotguns and pistols, including antiques and ex-military, are among the weapons police said should be handed in.
The amnesty comes less than a month after national figures revealed the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased by 27% to 6,696 in the year ending June 2017'

But...I thought they had a master plan...yet crime increases and they are having repeated amnesties ...


Source: https://news.sky.com/story/firearms-amnesty-as-uk-gun-crime-rises-27-this-year-11124745

 

27 Percent Increase In Gun Crime Proves Impotence of UK Laws
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2017/...ase-in-gun-crime-proves-impotence-of-uk-laws/

 

But, but, but, gun bans always work. Criminals always turn in their guns if asked, It's impossible to smuggle banned things in once they have been banned. I just don't understand this. How is this possible?

That was sarcasm for humor deficient Liberals.

 

And now there is evidence to be had.

 

Gun apologists sure love to cherry pick.


https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...apons#individual-weapon-types-non-air-weapons

 

Do you have only one speed check of vehicles?

Laws are upheld by repeated interventions

 

When your numbers are already low it does not take much to increase the percentage

 

Ends in 2015, the increase apparently happened in 2016 and 2017.

 

So why would increasing our violent crime massively by the addition of unrestrcted guns into our society help ?

 

Panic panic I'm now only 40 times less likely to be shot here than in the US. Our gun laws must have failed

 

why the obsession over our gun laws and why do you claim to be banned?

your gun laws are a reactionary mass hysteria towards war and the rampage of one nut case

 

And you're far more likely to be stabbed and robbed there than here. In fact, your overall violent crime rate is far higher, per capita, than ours. There are places in the U.S. where not only our violent crime rate but also our homicide rate is lower than yours... and the gun laws are far more lax here than there. Since your gun laws were supposed to make you safer.... yeah, they've failed, and in a BIG way.

 

But why weren't gun apologists saying anything when gun crime was decreasing? They conveniently ignore the stats that don't support their agenda. And there are a lot of things we don't know about this recent rise in gun crime. The UK counts crime committed with fake guns as gun crime. So the rise in gun crime could be due to more fake guns being used in crime.

"Three 12-year-old children were arrested by five police officers who then fingerprinted them and took DNA samples, after the youngsters were seen playing with a toy gun.

"Northumbria Police said new government guidelines on recording crime brought in on 1 April forced officers to take a strict line on weapons incidents.

"They said highly realistic mock firearms now made it harder for officers to tell whether the gun was genuine or not."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2168430.stm

 

Gun apologists? I've never seen someone apologize for the actions on an inantimate object.

 

Nonsense. The US is the most violent developed country on earth because of your guns and its the endless denial of that stark fact that keeps it that way

 

then stay there and huzzah to to your heart's content

 

Wrong.

AUS has fewer homicides (and always have, and it has nothing to do with guns) but more violent crime than the USA.

 

Nonsense. Australia has much lower violent crime rates than the US does

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime

As does the UK

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

 

Yeah.

Rates that increased after every gun ban. Congratulations.

 

Because of our free press and it’s decidedly anti 2A bias, that perception is propogated, however, few Americans, other than those in the gang infested areas where the drug trade is the major contributor to violence and crime see much in the way of violent crime. Those those that agree with that statement are focusing on crime in those areas and most, if they can avoid them. There are not massive amounts of Americans leaving the US because of the so called characterization you gleefully offer. I don’t see massive amounts of people from elsewhere avoiding traveling or immigrating to the US because of it’s supposed violent nature. When I came, I expected people to be openly carrying guns in the West based on similar stories, but, somewhat disappointed, I didn’t meet or see the expected John Waynes. Geez, I doubt even Tom444 would agree with you since he suggests people don’t need to carry guns for self defense in the US. I was raised in the UK where I witnessed far more violence.

 

The obvious question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above. Even assuming it is factually correct, what ultimate, meaningful difference, is made by such?

 

Nationmaster has been discredited many times in the forum. It compares different years and different sources, and its sources are never original data but massaged data from third party sources. In many cases, when I try to track down the actual source used in Nationmaster, the true source cannot be found.

Here is the real data, USA data (violent crime rate per 100,000 people) from the FBI UCR, AUS data from the AUS Bureau of Statistics Crime Reports. The AUS gun ban went into full effect in 1996. AUS has fewer homicides but is much more violent than the USA.

 

Victims of violent crime (rate per 100,000)

I see a 10+ year spike post ban in most areas with improvement only in the last 4-5 years , I have to wonder if the post ban spike was criminals feeling emboldened and I wonder if the numbers post ban spike are worth it

http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/vicViolentRate.html

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics

and this shows little change in use of firearms in homicide

http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/weaponSpecified.html

 

Errr ... because tolerating such violence is a bad thing perhaps

 

What is your evidence for this given its exhaustive list of sources at the foot of each page and where in its subsequent analysis is it in error ?

Please show how the different national priorities methodolgies and variations in tabulation of violent crime have been taken into account here so that apples can be compared with apples?