We have yet another child criminally charged for something that at one time would have been treated as a mere conduct issue warranting a note to a parent. In Pikesville, Maryland, a 13-year-old will be charged with second-degree assault for kissing a 14-year-old girl on a dare. This absurd case began with school officials calling police who pursued the minor on criminal assault charges.
The child is now facing a second-degree assault charge as a juvenile.
There is no question that this warrants discipline but a criminal charge?
What do you think?
312 thoughts on “Police Charge 13-Year-old Boy With Assault for Kissing Girl On A Dare”
Annie: Doesn’t look like it….
If there are lots of guns there are lots of chances to get shot.
Remove the guns the risk gets lower. Especially in shooting yourself. There is no argument about this…..
Just do the maths.
The endless discussion we have heard in to disprove this concept is dysfunctional and made by dysfunctional people.
ninian – ask your armed police to give up their weapon and your unarmed officers can start storming buildings again.
Paul C. Schulte: Yes its true that we much had less gun crime when our police were unarmed. The SAS storm buildings in the UK.
When gun control becomes a reality in the US, they will disarm you starting with the lunatic reactionaries. Your dysfunctional arguments will be dismissed and the power based of the unelected NRA dismantled.
It may take time, and a lot of manovering, but that’s what will happen.
ninian – Washington, DC, which has very strict gun control was the murder capital of the United States. Chicago keeps trying to have strict gun control and they have a very high murder rate.
Another load of misinformation from Paul. C. Schulte.
As far as I am concerned I have won this argument. It’s up to readers to agree or disagree. The important thing is to make up your own mind.
As far as I am concerned I haven’t even come close to being wounded. And I am disappointed in the standard of opposition which has more place in an episode of Sesame Street.
Like your Guardian poll graphs? Malarkey. Let me give you a good example of skewed stats. Unemployment, it down right? Wrong, unemployment according to Stieglitz and many other economists is well over 11 percent and has been for quite some time. Even higher in many areas especially those with high crime rates. Coincidental?
What the liars a spewing out is the decline in people on unemployment compensation, which is true, not because unemployment is really declining, it is true because all those that have been unemployed can only collect unemployment for a specific period of time and then they are off the roles.
Viet Nam was even fought over a lie; the domino theory. Legalized murder under false pretenses. When individuals in government and their corporate cronies have such little regard for human life, how do you think that is going to play out in our society.
You should be calling for the abolition of the income tax which would help defund the military industrial complex and increase the pursuit of happiness within the middle class by allowing them to have more money in their pockets. You understand that much of our crime involves domestic violence.
No, you argue and give worthless stats to take way our guns in a period of time when economic conditions are poor. Let’s disarm honest citizens so that the cops and criminals can run around with less fear of their actions. Cops kill a lot of people, and many of them are not bad people. Do you want that stat to even go higher?
You need to convince your countrymen – not me…..
The debate is over and the pro gun argument is destroyed.
Some form of disarmament will happen despite attempts to wreck – and lives will be saved…. probably yours.
Ninian, that is not a logical argument, it is simple your opinion and it is wrong. This threat has provided all the necessary arguments for a rational person to conclude that gun ownership is a very foolish liberty to acquiesce.
ninianpeckitt wrote: “The debate is over and the pro gun argument is destroyed.”
You only arrive at this by ignoring facts and data. You google strange articles on the internet and think that is proper research? You ignore facts we present to you as if they were never presented. Something is very wrong with how you process information. You look only for data that confirms your preconceived ideas.
I offered you a link to a book earlier in this thread by John Lott. Here is the book on the UK Amazon website so you can readily purchase it yourself:
I recommend you read a well researched book like this and then come back and tell me whether you won the debate. I think you will instead be like the following reviewer on the American Amazon website:
First, some background about me: I am a Ph.D.-holder and tenured professor whose immersion in the insular politics of academia had led me to harbor many negative perceptions about firearms. Though I was never staunchly “anti-gun,” I was not a gun owner, did not understand the appeal of firearms, and generally believed that gun control legislation was only common sense. That changed four years ago when I (finally) decided to look into the data on guns, crime, and public safety for myself. I am a trained researcher, but I conducted my research for personal not professional reasons. My wife was pregnant and I wanted hard facts–not talking point from the political parties–so I could make an informed decision about what to teach my children about firearms, and whether it would be prudent or dangerous to have one in our house.
I was drawn into that research almost immediately by the sheer force of my own disbelief. I discovered fact after fact that starkly disproved the claims and “facts” so many teachers and colleagues had expressed about firearms and their relationship to violence, and which, during my long trip through academia, had led me to believe stricter gun control was just plain common sense. For two years, I read thousands of pages of information, starting with raw data from the FBI and CDC so that I would be better able to assess the claims I subsequently read in books, peer-reviewed journals, news publications, blogs, and so forth. In the course of that research, I came across numerous references to John Lott’s studies, but so many of them suggested there were “fatal flaws” in his methodology (and questions about his motives) that I never bothered to read him. I simply assumed based on the sheer number of such comments that his work was indeed more propaganda than serious study. Nonetheless, I turned up enough information over the course of two years to completely change my view about guns. I now believe wholeheartedly in the right to carry, the wisdom of the 2nd Amendment, the particularly important benefits of concealed carry for women, and the notion that more firearms in law-abiding hands does make society demonstrably safer.
Now that I have finally read John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime” (3rd edition, 2010), I am ashamed that I did not consult it earlier instead of accepting at face value the facile criticisms of his work. Lott’s research and claims are astonishingly thorough–meticulously explained and documented. At every turn, he (accurately and clearly) explains the challenges, assumptions, and variables that inform his findings. Often, just to cover his bases, he runs the data with, and then without, certain questionable variables (arrest rates, county sizes, etc.). Again and again, he shows that with only slight variations in the magnitude of the results, more concealed carry permits equals less violent crime (murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robberies involving direct contact with the victim, such as muggings). He also observes that those permits may contribute to a smaller “substitution effect” that displaces criminal activity into less-confrontational forms, such as property theft. On all counts, this constitutes powerful evidence that the likely presence of a defensive firearm has a statistically significant deterrence effect on criminal behavior. More concealed carry permits lead to a net decline in assaults and deaths, and a net decline in the financial costs to society. Moreover, these benefits apply to all citizens–not just those who are armed–and they increase over time, as the number of carry permits rises. They also have the greatest positive impact on African Americans and women.
Why should you take Lott’s study seriously? Because it is the most comprehensive study of crime–let alone firearms–ever conducted. In retrospect, I am stunned that any commentator has dared to fault the quality of his data. If anything can be said for Lott, it is that he is meticulous in recognizing and accounting for the variables at stake. Indeed, like a responsible analyst testing a hypothesis with appropriate rigor, he tends to control in ways that actually minimize (i.e., underestimate, and perhaps even artificially suppress) the benefits of non-discretionary (“shall issue”) concealed carry laws. His is the only gun control study I’ve seen that takes all counties into consideration (not some selective sample) and then meticulously controls for population density, arrest rates, rising/falling trends in crime prior to the passing of the carry laws, demographic factors, the number of permits issued, and so forth. Although his expansive, county-level approach is clearly the most precise way to analyze the impact of carry laws, he also consistently re-runs the regressions using state-level (aggregate) data to show that, while the precise results vary, the trends remain the same: more guns, less crime. Indeed, the scope and depth of his study is so far beyond any other peer-reviewed study of guns I’ve ever encountered that any blanket dismissal either of his findings or his methodology is manifestly disingenuous.
Of course, given the amount of criticism his work has received, Lott is (rightly) concerned to defend his integrity as a scholar. His seventh chapter thus quotes a series of 23 direct criticisms by other academics–each of which he capably rebuts. Whenever possible, Lott first politely plays devil’s advocate: re-running his regressions in the alternative manner some critics have suggested, only to show that the results consistently yield the same conclusion: more guns, less crime. He also exposes some critics’ blatant ignorance of certain statistical categories (such as what it means for victims to “know” their shooters) and then lays bare salient points or critical factors those critics ignore. One devastating effect of these clear, well-reasoned rebuttals is to expose the patently un-scientific anti-gun bias that drives most critical “concerns” about Lott’s study. Yet Lott never dispenses with civility or stoops to base political jabs. A few times, he briefly speculates on the kinds of credible concerns that could be raised about his work–politely leaving it for the reader to note, in unflattering contrast, that the criticisms that have actually been leveled at him fall very short of that standard. Ever the responsible scholar, he chiefly defends his integrity by clarifying his robust methodology and letting the data speak for itself.
I can’t say enough about the importance of this book. Do not trust the claim that Lott’s work has been “discredited”, “fatally flawed,” or “funded by the gun lobby.” Lott explicitly refutes those attacks in this book, and I have verified to my own satisfaction that those are indeed false claims designed to deflect attention away from his compelling pro-gun findings. Read this book for yourself. It matches the findings of my own personal two-year study into these issues, though I might have saved myself a lot of time and work by consulting Lott’s book sooner. He explains the variables and various analytical concepts very clearly (the substitution effect, the endogeneity problem, the perils of looking only at raw measures instead of slopes/trends over time, etc.). This diligent effort to empower (non-expert) readers by allowing them to understand what is at stake in the measures before delving into the data is one clear sign that his intention is to inform readers truthfully, not manipulate their political views. His habit of checking, re-checking, and checking his regressions again–verifying how the results change as certain variables are included or excluded–is another good sign. And yet another is the modest and precise way he reports his results: never engaging in bombastic or exaggerated claims, but always frankly acknowledging the limits of what can be reasonably concluded from the data. By the end of the book, you will understand many of the flawed assumptions and misunderstandings which underlie the oft-cited “evidence” that stricter gun control enhances public safety.
If you’re anti-gun and Lott’s book does not give you pause and force you to reconsider the potential benefits of an armed society, you either did not read the book with an open mind, or you do not know how to distinguish a precisely-reasoned argument from a merely political one.
Well done Mr. Lott. I cannot fathom the amount of energy and intellectual rigor you must have invested in this massive project, but I am grateful to you for this impressive and substantial contribution to knowledge.
ninian – you need to read more carefully. I am giving you the crime stats for Washington DC thru 2013. They have not reported 2014 yet.
Check out their murder rate per capita.
It is socialistic government polices that cause higher murder rates and the pure concentration of people has to have some affect. Studies show that the greater the protections of private property rights the wealthier the society is and the wealthier the society is, the less crime. Go figure, unhappy people under government oppression and financial duress commit more crime and kill more people.
ninian is also a clairvoyant prognosticator. He is predicting the future based on erroneous arguments some of which are flat out lies that he is not obviously smart enough to detect or he is the enemy with some other ulterior motive. Perhaps a paid troll. It is always hard to tell why some people for social reasons want to take away a right to protect ourselves based on obviously skewed stats.
It is obviously worthless arguing with him. I am for one done wasting my time on him.
This is an example of why I have won this debate. If I present stats that refute the progun argument they are “skewed” when in fact they refute anecdotal pro gun statements, which are proven to be untrue to the point of manipulative deception.
An argument cannot be won if based on fantasy. The truth is always revealed in the end.
So don’t shoot the Messenger…..
Two college shootings on two different university campuses today. Two dead. I wonder if these campuses were gun free zones?
Inga – NAU is a gun-free zone, cannot speak for the other school.
Peckitt – Does the American, British, and French Revolutions means anything to you? Come one man, I ‘ve personally read enough history to prove you’re dead wrong. Just read the history of America and it will show you that an well armed and regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state; our 2nd Amendment and here’s why: You don’t think the British tried to take the arms from the Colonists? My family was entrenched in one of the originally conflicts and they were well armed. The British actually tried to take the arms held in my grandfathers barn, the armory for both the Continental Army and the Green Mountain Boys. That was the Battle of Bennington but the British had tried it through legislation and enforcement much earlier, well before the Declaration of Independence. Remember me telling you that my Grandfathers were put in jail.
Doesn’t it sound logical to you that when the Citizens are able to fight back, that government tyranny can and has been reduced. We had a recent conflict here in the US. where Citizens brought their guns to the conflict and the government backed down. The Federal Government was trying to confiscate land used by these folks as pasture for decades, for some sort of commercial project. It was government land held by the City/Country and the Fed’s tried to say it was under their jurisdiction. The gun in this case, as is other is, was mightier than the pen. It doesn’t even necessarily matter if the Citizens are right or wrong, but only that they stop the tyranny of government from prevailing. The truth will eventually prevail if left in the hands of the private sector. That is the part that statist just can rap their heads around because you are not willing to except imperfections, as there are sometimes in free enterprise. You prefer the alternative, the confiscatory cartel, known as the nation state that will eventually bankrupt your society. It has every single one in world history. Statist keep doing the same thing and expect different results. Each generation arrogantly believing they are the chosen ones who will improve the performance of government. Our alleged Greatest Generation which they called themselves, ended doing more harm to our country than any other previous generation, leaving our society with more debt and government interventions then any society will even be able to correct.
You have to understand how a militia was created and intended to protect the community(ies). It is not sanctioned or a government franchise of any kind. It is a private organization of Citizens of which all the able prominent individuals within the community belonged to.
I just crushed your entire premise. The nation state is a scam and always has been. It is always a group of wealthy people trying to steal the wealth of the majority. It becomes both a confiscatory and protection cartel for those in power.
Every government official in every prominent position of power is today protect by government security. Judges, prosecutors, politicians, etc. and those that don’t have direct security are probably carrying a weapon. Try walking into a State Prosecutors Office with a gun and see what happens.
A bit long but interesting:
CAPT. SAMUEL ROBINSON’S MISSION
TO THE KING OF ENGLAND
Samuel Robinson sailed on Christmas Day, 1766, from New York City. He was accompanied by William Samuel Johnson, an eminent lawyer and statesman of Connecticut, who was the agent for that colony to the home government. He was employed by the petitioners to assist Mr. Robinson in his mission. After a six weeks’ passage, they landed at Falmouth, England, on the 30th of January and reached London a few days later.
Mr. Robinson was much hindered in his mission by the aristocratic prejudices at the royal court against the republican settlers on the New Hampshire Grants, also by want of money and prestige. Nevertheless he was, though not completely, in a very important degree successful. He seems to have shrewdly discerned the situation, and to have given the settlers at home sound advice as to the wise course for them to pursue under their difficulties. But, most valuable of all, “he so far procured the aid of the crown that Lord Shelburne, on April 11, 1767, addressed a letter to Sir Henry Moore, who had then become governor of the province of New York, forbidding him in the most positive terms from making any more grants of land in the disputed territory, and from molesting any person in possession under a New Hampshire title. And on the 24th of July, 1767, upon a report of the case by the Lords of Trade, a formal order of the king in council was made commanding the Governor of New York ‘upon pain of His Majesty’s highest displeasure’ to make no grants whatever of any part of the controverted lands, ‘until His Majesty’s further pleasure should be known concerning the same’”. (For a copy of the petition sent by the settlers for Mr. Robinson to present to the king, and other documents of the correspondence between the crown and the New York government, and details of Mr. Robinson’s efforts, see Early History of Vermont, pp. 85-97).
That was not the end of the matter and there were delays and some opposition. In a letter to his family in August 1767, Samuel seemed confident that the whole of the privy council were of opinion that the New Hampshire grantees ought not to be disturbed by New York patents, though they differed in regard to the mode in which a remedy should be furnished. Lord Shelburne, the colonial secretary, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, among others, were active and firm friends and willing to grant speedy relief by the action of the crown; but Lord Northington, the president of the council, who was old, gouty and irritable, and averse to any further hearing before that body, insisted that the parties should be left to seek their remedy at law by instituting suits in the New York courts, with perhaps an ultimate appeal to the king in council.
All this seemed likely to prevent the further consideration of the subject for a long period, and Samuel was running out of money to continue his stay in London. He determined to return home, leaving the interests of his constituents in the charge of his assistant, Mr. Johnson. But before he was ready to embark he took the small-pox, from which he died in London on the 27th of October 1767. Whether, had he lived, he would have been able to prosecute his labors, as agent of the settlers, to a complete and successful issue, we cannot be sure. His past success and his sound judgment and skill would seem to have warranted high expectations. His death was felt by the settlers to be a great calamity.
Upon his decease Mr. Johnson wrote a letter of condolence to his widow. This letter shows clearly that Mr. Robinson was high in the esteem of Mr. Johnson and others in London; and, on that account, and as containing interesting particulars, it is inserted here. The original is in the possession of G. W. Robinson. The letter is as follows:
London, Nov. 2, 1767
It is with the deepest concern and grief that I find myself obliged to communicate to you the sad intelligence of your dear husband’s decease. He had enjoyed very good health, since he left America, till at length the misfortune which I always feared for him overtook him. He was seized with the small-pox, which but too generally proves fatal to Americans in this climate, and his appeared to be of a bad kind and very severe. Yet he bore up against the distemper, in all its rage, with great fortitude and patience; and, till the twelfth day, we had hopes of his recovery (as the pocks had begun to turn), but the next day it took a sudden and fatal turn, and it appeared that he had not strength of constitution sufficient to throw off the disease; and, on the 27th of October, at half past ten at night, he was no more! Such was the will of God. He was sensible to the last; was calmly resigned to the will of Heaven, and died full of faith. We have, therefore, – which must afford you the greatest consolation, – good reason to believe that he has exchanged this life for a better, and rests in eternal felicity.
He is much lamented by his friends and acquaintances here, who are many. You may rest assured that no attention, care, or expense was spared for his comfort, and to have saved his life, had it been consistent with the designs of Providence. He had two excellent nurses constantly by him. A skilful apothecary saw, and administered to, him every three or four hours. He was visited every day by an eminent physician, and his friends afforded him every consolation in their power. After his death, as the last act of friendship to his memory, I took care to furnish him a decent funeral, at which Gen. Lyman and the other gentlemen here from America attended with me as mourners.
He is interred in the burying-ground belonging to Mr. Whitfield’s church, where he usually attended public worship. A club of American merchants and gentlemen, to whom he was known generously contributed eight pounds sterling toward defraying the expenses of his funeral, etc.; and the remainder, as the accounts come in, – the amount of which I cannot yet determine, – I shall advance, not doubting that it will be, somehow or other, refunded me.
I most sincerely condole with you in this great affliction, and pray God to give you comfort and to sanctify this melancholy event to you and all his family and friends, to whom I beg leave to present my compliments, and am,
Madam, your most obedient
And very humble servant,
William Samuel Johnson.
Please document the facts that are wrong in my posting and verify
Everything I have posted has been checked for accuracy and verified.
This campagin of misinformation is part of the problem in the United States.
This is what you said and you are dead wrong.
“There is no evidenced that an armed general public promotes freedom and liberty.”
If even one person is able to deny the attack of an unlawfully motivate aggressor, then their liberty by the result has been preserved. Is this not self evident enough for a statist?
The history of the American Revolution and the use of militia groups and privateering is well documented.
The best evidence is the 2nd Amendment itself. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
They didn’t win the revolution with bow and arrows, now did they.
You want me to spend the time providing this to you as bibliographies. I should go back and try to find everything that I have read on the subject over my last 35 years of study. The only way I could possibly have that is to have written a book on the subject myself. This is an absurd request.
You should however already know this and if you don’t then you do not know enough on the subject to be arguing against it.
Your provide me the evidence that the Citizens are better off without Arms then with them. Provide the evidence to me that you and your cronies have the right to regulate my affairs?
There are few nation states in the world that have and remain lawfully constituted. The are mostly defacto criminal cartels operating under the guise of a valid rule of law.
The evidence is the laws and enforcement of it.
One only has to look at the unlawful abrogations of U.S. Constitution itself.
Let’s start with the 2nd Amendment. What part of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”, don’t you understand?
I have read your [post now and dont accept your conclusions. I have covered much of this in my previous posting. Your arguments are unhinged and detached from reality. Your lack of insight is typical in a discussion on this subject. I have given answers already and won’t blog anymore. You cannot have a reasonable discussion with an unreasonable person.
I have made my point.
Gun control will come, it will be a slow process and the format will be supported by the majority of Americans.
Not by you….. but by the majority.
Ninian – thank goodness your personal opinions mean nothing. Your opinion are the ones that are unsupported.
Sorry if you and other statist do not like the use of logic and common sense. You should try reading Common Sense and the Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. Perhaps it will help.
If greater gun controls are coming, it will no bode well for our world and we have a lot of the “over my dead body” types in this country.
It is clear that current rights to bear arms isn’t doing anything to reduce violence.
I’m more interested that this young man survives than continuing this futile discussion with you.
I’m puzzled why your first question was about “a knife being registered” and not if this young man is going to survive.
It is interesting that the private arsenal of around 350? million firearms has done nothing to protect this man. But there again you knew this anyway.
I understand he went to the help of someone else who was being attacked.
There is no doubt that this young man is a fearless hero.
If knives or any offensive weapons are carried in the UK the person will be arrested.
It reduces the risk but never to zero.
When I was a boy in the 1950s and 1960s it was very very rare that a murder was committed in the UK. The police were unarmed and villains rarely carried weapons. If a policeman was murdered the Death Penalty was enforced. I just viewed an interesting BBC documentary on the brain structure of murderers and learned that now there are an average of 2 murders a day in the UK.
Our police are still unarmed generally speaking but armed squads also exist now. I think they are a bit like your SWAT Teams. In terrorist cases they usually call in the Army’s SAS. So we are slowly drifting into an armed conflict with the police/army and armed felons. And the policy here is to keep tight control on guns to prevent an accelerated escalation of this problem. Gun murders in Britain in 2011/12 represent 6% of the murder cases, (0.72 gun homicides per million population). In comparison the USA has 29.7 gun homicides per million population.
Here is a very interesting link with lots of data. I should have posted it before.
I feel very upset and angry about what happened to Spencer Stone and I am going to sign off now.
I am not wrong about the issues I have posted. Absolutely Definiately and Positively. The facts are checked and verified.
Peckitt, Because I believe that people should have the “RIGHT” to protect themselves, I am without compassion. Really? The registered knife comment was obviously sarcasm. I thought it was the government police who are supposed to protect us?
“It reduces the risk but never to zero.”
England does not fair that well on crime and violence compared to most of western Europe – You all need to reinstate gun and knife ownership and right to carry.
The WHO also believes your law enforcement is under reporting crimes rates. We know they are in American, but we don’t want to talk about that do we.
Ninian you bad boy!!!. The one graph from the link above was from a survey conducted by the most statist rag in the UK, the Guardian. The other Mother Jones, the other, the New York Times and the other Pew Research, who ranked Trump as leading the Republicans in their latest poll. Great resources. LOL.
I am beginning to question everything you write. Wake up my friend, you’re on the wrong team if you are a man of truth.
Have you not noticed that the majority of statists are either ignorant of the truth or liars. Most are either war mongers or want you to pay them for the privilege of conducting commerce. That is the nature of government and that truth is unescapable.
Professor Ninian Peckitt wrote: “It is clear that current rights to bear arms isn’t doing anything to reduce violence.”
That is not clear at all. I don’t know what is going on in your head when you quote the statistics that you do, but obviously it is something that is not logical. My mind looks at your facts in a very different way.
For example, when you quote statistics showing a correlation between gun ownership and gun violence, you apparently assume that means gun ownership causes more violence. This is a non-sequitur in logic and it simply is not true. For example, in your country when they were disarming the citizens, the homicide rate went up by 50%.
You might find the following article informative:
“Every place that has been banned guns has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether it’s Chicago or D.C. or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland.”
I also recommend John Lott’s book, More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws
Here are some more statistics this time reported by the BBC with sourced references.
The numbers of gun deaths (1.4 million) from 1968 – 2011 exceeds that of all US wars since the Civil War (1.2 million).
The Pro-gun arguments are still untenable. They are grasping at straws.
More importantly, they know that the argument is untenable.
That’s why misinformation is posted so frequently.
ninianpeckitt, offering more emotional statistics does not advance your argument. Taking away guns does not save lives. The statistics prove that. You just don’t want to look at the facts.
It’s up to readers to decide for themselves who is right or wrong. They have to make up their own minds. I believe the evidence I have presented is overwhelming. You can’t just reject data because it doesn’t support your case and expect evetyone else to agree with you.
I saw another campus death shooting in Arizona on the news this morning.
Our gun killings in the UK remain much much lower / million population than in the US. So we must be doing something right.
ninianpeckitt wrote: “You can’t just reject data because it doesn’t support your case and expect evetyone else to agree with you.”
I don’t reject any of the data. The data you share agrees with what I have been saying. They do not advance your cause.
For example, you point out that the number of gun deaths from 1968 to 2011 exceeds all the people killed in our wars subsequent to the Civil War. Fine. But how does that advance your argument? It doesn’t. It just makes people emotional about the number of people killed by guns.
If you take all the guns away, it does not stop the homicides. When Britain banned guns, homicide rates went up. Violent crimes went up. Robberies inside homes while the residents were inside went up. You might feel all warm and fuzzy about reducing homicide by gun, but it doesn’t move me knowing that people chose other means to commit murder. It makes you feel safer for some reason that a knife is used instead of a gun, or if someone is strangled instead, but not me. Someone is still being murdered. You don’t seem to care about that. You seem to care only about whether they were murdered by a gun.
By the way, I read recently that Gun Crimes in Britain are rising.
Gun Crime Soars in England where Guns are Banned
I don’t have to advance any cause as I have won this argument.
This Web page has some interesting data on a range of issues.
The incidence of UK gun deaths is so low it is not included in many surveys but it is circa 0.5/ million.
Gun crime / murder has increased in UK especially in Northern Ireland. On the mainland, gun crime has fallen in London and the gun crime centre of activity in the UK is now in the West Midlands.
The situation in the UK is nothing like the problems you have in America. It is as if you are on another planet rather than a different hemisphere.
We all hope America solves this carnage. Turning the USA into a Police State armed to the teeth is not the answer and not what your misguided Founding Father’s intended.
My guess is a lot more of you will be shot to death until someone takes the bull, spouted by the NRA, by the horns, and impliments effective gun control.
The really sad thing about this is that the hamartoma of Modern America could have been so easily prevented with better leadership by the Founding Fathers.
ninianpeckitt, I have concluded that facts don’t matter to you. You don’t know how to interpret data. Confirmation bias plagues every claim you make. You have lost your argument and don’t even know it.
ninian – anyone who know anything about England knows that murder capital of England is Causton
“Homicides in England and Wales are not counted in the same way. Their numbers exclude homicides which do not result in convictions”. -Crime Prevention Research Center
ninianpeckitt wrote: “Our gun killings in the UK remain much much lower / million population than in the US. So we must be doing something right.”
It is true you have less homicide per capita, but we don’t know exactly why that is. There are a myriad of reasons that could explain it, but one thing I know that is not the reason: gun control laws. Your problems increased after you increased your gun control laws.
UK Gun killing is 0.72/million
I have read that only homocides that result in arrest and conviction are included when calculating the murder rate in the U.K.
Is this true?
Here is another interesting link
I should have included President Truman too in the carve up of Europe
Comments are closed.