The two main drivers of gun crime in the capital are said to be drug and gang activity. The Met has said that “the gun is very much a tool of the drug dealer […] to enforce their territory and to enforce their business” and the National Crime Agency (NCA) has highlighted that “with firearms, drugs are very prevalent within that, either seized at the time or as a precursor or as a factor within that crime group’s operating model”.8
Yes. Like we have always said. If you get rid of legal guns the only ones with guns will be criminals and government.
When you get to this point even discharging a legal weapon becomes a crime because its just wrong to protect yourself and property against the nice criminals!/s
Yes. Like we have always said. If you get rid of legal guns the only ones with guns will be criminals and government.
Well, it may have "always been said", but there's something else in these crime statistics.
Let's start with London, a city of 8.788 million - the model posted here to "prove" that Britain's tight gun laws result in helpless victims succumbing to crime.
Now let's look at New York City, a US city with tight (though by no means the tightest) gun laws. New York, with 8.538 million people, is slightly smaller than London. 2017 statistics: Murder: 292 Felony Assault: 20,052 Robbery: 13,956.
Now let's look at Houston, the biggest city in open-carry Texas. Houston is 1/4 the size of London or New York City. 2017 Statistics: Murder: 302 Felony Assault: 10,027 Robbery: 12,641.
Correlation is not causation, but one can see that tight gun laws are correlated to lower violent crime, and loose gun laws are correlated to much higher (4x higher) murder and other violent crime rates.
The statistics don't bear out the argument that an urban population living under strict gun control is less safe from crime than one with very loose gun laws, so it is perilous to make such arguments because they can so easily be refuted by the numbers.
The real truth, I think is the culture.
London has MUCH greater social support and higher social welfare payments than the US, and therefore the desperation level is lower and crime is, accordingly, lower.
New York has a much more robust system of social welfare and support than Texas. That's why the crime rate in Texas is four times the crime rate in New York. You end up paying for poverty and desperation one way or the other. In New York, they pay a lot more in taxes. In Texas, they pay a lot less in taxes and get shot more.
Now let's look at New York City,---- Robbery: 13,956.
London has MUCH greater social support and higher social welfare payments than the US, and therefore the desperation level is lower and crime is, accordingly, lower.
Apparently so, though it's always difficult to separate robbery from violent assault. I suppose it's just a robbery if the victim doesn't fight, but becomes a violent assault or a murder if he does. The best measure is to add the three crimes together. London and New York are similar in size and have similar violent crime rates. More likely to get killed in New York, though. Guns are deadlier than knives and bats, obviously.
A losing lawyer attacks the measurements and statistics?
You think I'm losing. I don't. I think I've won my point. Houston has a quarter of the population and fewer foreign born than New York (or London, which has 36.7% of its people foreign born), and it has the loosest gun laws of the three by far. It also has four times the violent crime rate. My point was that the idea that London is particularly violent BECAUSE it has tight gun laws is piffle.
