Taxi driver kills 12 in U.K. rampage

wow very tragic. I guess gun control in the UK isn't working out too well.

That's right. They need to loosen up those gun laws. Then law abiding citizens could have shot this guy before he got started. That's why you never hear about this happening in the US.

Actually, interestingly enough. A lot of the most well known shootings have been in "Gun free" zones like schools and such.

Actually, interestingly enough. A lot of the most well known shootings have been in "Gun free" zones like schools and such.

If England was a gun free zone (except for military/police) this event would have been even less likely than shooting sprees already are in England.

England has one of the most restrictive gun ownership laws in the western world.

Uh, just how many shooting sprees have happened in England? I would say their gun control laws are working quite well.

It's 12 dead, and himself.

Interesting you should say that:

a quick search yields this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... y-day.html

which outlines just how bad their gun crime has become.

"The rise is the biggest percentage increase since September 2004, when figures showed a five per cent increase in gun crimes."

This article link directly to the government crime report from 2007 which shows a marked increase in crimes involving guns. It is interesting to note that like NZ and AU, the increase in their gun / violent crime rates all coincide with introduction of very strict gun control legislation. Again, just coincidence?

There are now police in the UK (in London but primarily Manchester) that carry sidearms all the time now, they never used to before.

Compared to the United States of America, the United Kingdom has a slightly higher total crime rate per capita of approximately 85 per 1000 people, while in the USA it is approximately 80.

Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%, from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06. Most of the rise in injuries were in the category slight injuries from the non-air weapons. "Slight" in this context means an injury that was not classified as "serious" (i.e. did not require detention in hospital, did not involve fractures, concussion, severe general shock, penetration by a bullet or multiple shot wounds). In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. In 2007, the British government was accused by Shadow Home Secretary David Davis of making "inaccurate and misleading" statements claiming that gun crime was falling, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries recorded by police had risen more than fourfold since 1998, mainly due to a rise in non-fatal injuries.

Would you like to re-consider your statement now or should I continue??

Only in someones fantasy could any country ever become gun free. Law abiding citizens might be coaxed/coerced into giving up their weapons but the criminals NEVER will, and will always find a way to get firearms.

Like uwish posted, gun crime is increasing in England, thus their gun control has only served to make the criminals more brazen.

Only in someones fantasy could any country ever become gun free. Law abiding citizens might be coaxed/coerced into giving up their weapons but the criminals NEVER will, and will always find a way to get firearms.

Like uwish posted, gun crime is increasing in England, thus their gun control has only served to make the criminals more brazen.

They will always find a way to get guns. But in a country where guns aren't legally sold or kept, the criminals will have a hard time getting guns, since the supply for them would be limited to what they could smuggle in.

1st point - Percentage increase doesn't mean much if the increase is from a very low starting point.

in point b - was the omission of the word gun on purpose or just an error? If the point is dealing with overall crime rate, that has nothing to do with this discussion.

Here are some stats on murder with firearms per capita in various countries:

# 1 South Africa: 31,918
# 2 Colombia: 21,898
# 3 Thailand: 20,032
# 4 United States: 9,369

# 14 Canada: 144

# 39 United Kingdom: 14

I think the above refutes your argument.

% increases when at a low starting point might not mean much in an absolute number case, but that is how you identify trends. Just because you start from a low point, 110% is still a large increase, I think doubling is pretty dramatic. We aren't talking about 1 to 2 or 5 to 10 here or even 1000 to 2000, and considering we are discussing firearms related incidents I believe it is significant.

If you want to draw different conclusions, the link to the 2007 crime report is posted. Feel free to refute it, but I believe their math over yours, even if they 'changed the definition' initially in an attempt to have the appearance that gun crime was going down.

Percentage Increase is a poor measurement in this situation. For eg:

Year 1 = 0
Year 2 = 1
Result: 100% increase? Infinity%? Some big assed number either way.

The US had 670 the gun murder rate vs Britain, per capita, and you want to tell me that Britain is the country with the gun problem? Wow, talk about your ideology blinding you. Whatever the trend is in Britain, it will be a long time before it catches up - and is the trend downward in the US?