Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Any citation on fewer handguns, fewer deaths? Violent crime actually increased in the UK after they banned guns despite near simultaneous expansion of police funding.

These issues aren’t as simple as you might imply. The demographics of Sweden are different than those of Chicago or Matamoros. Conroe, Texas has very high gun ownership and very low violent crime. New York has very low gun ownership and relatively low violent crime.

Cancer death rates are higher in the UK compared to the US despite “universal” healthcare in the UK.

It’s naïve to draw simplistic cause-effect conclusions and it’s intellectually dishonest to suggest that policies that work in Lisbon would work at a similar level of success in Los Angeles.

To be clear, I am all for decriminalization of drugs, however suggesting that policies will have similar effects in different regions or countries is to ignore the thousands of other variables at play.




Here's a study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/

> Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.

Firearms ownership rate doesn't correlate directly to firearms crime rates, but the change in ownership does.


Switzerland is proof that gun ownership and homicides are not necessarily related. Education and intelligence are probably the main factors here. So if there is a measurable relation between the two, it says more about the sad state of the society where the tests were conducted.



Causes? The numbers don't show that at all and you don't seem to be very good at interpreting them. If anything, it might just be a better (easier) way to go.

Switzerland also allow assisted suicide. They have a different attitude in that regard. Why make it difficult for someone who wants to go?


First of all that research is correlation study, so equally well we can argue that increasing number of homicides in some area made people to buy more guns to defend themselves.

Secondly, this research looks only on guns vs. homicides, I would say that there could be a few other factors that might be more stronger then guns (poverty level, drugs abuse level, local society structure, etc.) - this is speculation, but I don't see that researches even looked on possible other factors that can potentially explain higer/lower homicide rate.


> so equally well we can argue that increasing number of homicides in some area made people to buy more guns to defend themselves.

And taking that reasoning one step further I'm going to argue that in places where guns are prevalent/accepted, people might think a gun can be used for self defense, so more guns actually lead to even more guns.

Whereas in places where guns are scarce and unaccepted, they are less likely to be seen as tools for self defense, so a neighborhood having more guns does not lead to others buying guns.

So I'm arguing both things happen. If you have a culture of gun ownership then more guns will lead to both more homicides and more guns.

But if there is no cultural belief in guns as self protection, then that correlation doesn't occur.


Hmm - do you have a cite on your claims about the UK? It's hardly fair to ask for citations when you give none.


From what I remember the year handguns were banned was the year Harold Shipman's 100 odd patient deaths were reclassified as murders, leading to a spike that was characterized by the NRA as an increase in murder caused by banning handguns.


I would naively assume that better healthcare means that people live longer and thusly the exposure to cancer risk runs for longer.

Effect: More people get cancer


Strictly speaking, Mexico has the lowest cancer rate (not death rate) of the OECD, so the USA should emulate them for healthcare.

On the flip side, Denmark has the highest cancer rate, so they must be doing something wrong.

The alternative explanation is that people in Mexico generally die before they can get cancer.


Or could be cancer is not detected as well in Mexico before death or in autopsies. And perhaps Denmark is much better at that.


edit: I'd like to see the people downvoting my facts, counter how this doesn't amount to a wave or big surge of crime, these numbers are huge increases in a short amount of time.

---

Crime has seen a huge increase in Britain and it appears set to keep getting worse. Crime in London has increased dramatically. I'm not going to claim that's due to gun laws, however it is factually correct that crime is surging big time.

Acid attacks alone have skyrocketed in the last three years in London, tripling in that time to around 500 annually.

Jul 2017

"Police record 10% rise in crime in England and Wales, with 18% increase in violent crime and significant rise in murder rate"

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/20/official-fig...

April 2017

"Gun crime offences in London surged by 42% in the last year, according to official statistics. The Met Police's figures showed there were 2,544 gun crime offences from April 2016 to April 2017 compared to 1,793 offences from 2015 until 2016."

"Knife crime also increased by 24% with 12,074 recorded offences from 2016 to 2017."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-39578500

Oct 2017

"Violent crime soars by fifth as total offences recorded by police push past five million. ... The data, published by the Office for National Statistics, showed the number of violence against the person crimes logged by police went up by a fifth (19 per cent) to 1.2 million."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/20/london-now-danger...


> Crime has seen a huge increase in Britain

No, it hasn't. We've seen better recording, different definitions, better detection, and there have been several operations targetting gangs and street violence and weapons.

Importantly: police recorded crime statistics are not reliable, and so we don't use them in the UK. We use the ONS, which doesn't rely on police recording.

> "Knife crime also increased by 24% with 12,074 recorded offences from 2016 to 2017."

Does this only mean wounding using a knife, or does it include people carrying a knife?

We have strict knife laws in the UK, and there have been several police operations targetting people who carry knives. So the figure you quote includes people who were carrying, but not using, knives.

Here's what ONS says: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeand...

> This fairly flat trend continues that seen in recent years, with no significant year-on-year change since the survey year ending March 2014. However, the cumulative effect of this downward trend has seen a statistically significant decrease of 25% in the latest survey year compared with the year ending March 2013. The longer-term reductions in violent crime, as shown by the CSEW, are also reflected in the findings of research conducted by the Violence and Society Research Group at Cardiff University. Findings from their annual survey, covering a sample of hospital emergency departments and walk-in centers in England and Wales, show that serious violence-related attendances in 2016 showed a 10% fall compared with 2015 and continue a generally long-term downward trend.


>knife laws

Solve nothing.


what do you mean?


Funny, I must have missed this massive wave of crime.

From the same Guardian article:

"The policing minister, Nick Hurd, said that crime, as measured by the crime survey, was down by a third since 2010 and by 69% since its 1995 peak."

From the BBC article:

Martin Hewitt, assistant commissioner responsible for territorial policing, said: "Similar to the rest of England and Wales, crime rates in London are rising, but many of these are still at a much lower level than five years ago and are against the backdrop of significant reductions in resources.


You don't think a tripling of acid attacks, a 20% increase in violent offenses, a 24% increase in knife attacks, a 42% jump in gun offenses - all in such a short amount of time, amounts to a wave of crime?


The acid attacks seem to have been a consequence of loosening regulations on acid sales: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-aci...


No.


Please enlighten as to what would qualify as a wave of crime then, in your opinion.

A 600% increase in acid attacks? A 200% increase in gun offenses? A 70% increase in knife crimes?


A 600% increase in what was a tiny number to start with is not a "crime wave"


~500 acid attacks annually in London, growing as rapidly as it has been the last three years, is not a tiny number nor a trivial matter.

London has a lot of knife crime. A 24% increase in such a short amount of time is not a tiny increase in that either.


So from 80, to 500, in a population of almost 9 million?

That's not to mention that we need to look at numbers in a long term trend, looking at 1 or 2 years of data doesn't show the full story.


Something not based on cherry-picking statistics.


You show figures for the past year, yet the most recent legislative acts were both 10 (VCRA) and 20 (Firearms act) years ago.

I agree both that you're factually correct and that your data does not at all support your earlier assertion that "banning guns increased gun crime".

So % are increasing, but the overall per-capita UK gun crime and death is still woefully below the good ol US of A as per: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/06/16/gun-vio...


> I agree both that you're factually correct and that your data does not at all support your earlier assertion that "banning guns increased gun crime".

You just made a mistake there.

I didn't assert earlier that banning guns increases gun crime. Someone else said that.


So you're just presenting random facts that don't relate to the conversation?




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: