(a) I don't consider the Daily Mail to be a reliable source. More than once I've seen it report nonsense because its writers are hasty and sloppy in understanding stats, especially when they seem to fit their biases.
(b) the _murder_ rate in the US is much higher than the UK. If you stop and think about it, suggesting the violent crime rate in the UK is higher than the US can cut both ways as far as guns are concerned.
You could certainly argue that the presence of guns reduces violent crime.
You could also argue that the stats show Brits are more violent than Americans yet still don't manage to kill anywhere near as many people. Which could imply that guns make violent people worse by enabling them to kill far more effectively.
(I'd rather argue that the US and UK are simply not comparable societies in many ways so such comparisons don't show anything either way.)
(c) as far as I am aware, unless this study somehow allows for it, the stats are not meaured the same way. For example, 'assault' in the UK includes 'verbal assault', meaning you've said something to make someone fear you will become violent. No actual physical violence has to occur. In the US, correct me if I'm wrong, the definition is more restrictive.
(d) even ignoring (b), the fact that murder stats are so out-of-line with the others is surely a bit odd? The UK is 13th in Europe for murder - which seems odd if its first in other violent crimes. How come people get really violent but suddenly stop short of killing, where elsewhere they manage to kill more despite being less violent in general?
I believe murder is one of the easier crimes to compare rates for, as its relatively unambigious in definition compared to others, and is less likely to go completely undetected or unreported. Maybe this is why its figures are out-of-step with those for other forms of violent crime?
(b) the _murder_ rate in the US is much higher than the UK. If you stop and think about it, suggesting the violent crime rate in the UK is higher than the US can cut both ways as far as guns are concerned.
You could certainly argue that the presence of guns reduces violent crime.
You could also argue that the stats show Brits are more violent than Americans yet still don't manage to kill anywhere near as many people. Which could imply that guns make violent people worse by enabling them to kill far more effectively.
(I'd rather argue that the US and UK are simply not comparable societies in many ways so such comparisons don't show anything either way.)
(c) as far as I am aware, unless this study somehow allows for it, the stats are not meaured the same way. For example, 'assault' in the UK includes 'verbal assault', meaning you've said something to make someone fear you will become violent. No actual physical violence has to occur. In the US, correct me if I'm wrong, the definition is more restrictive.
(d) even ignoring (b), the fact that murder stats are so out-of-line with the others is surely a bit odd? The UK is 13th in Europe for murder - which seems odd if its first in other violent crimes. How come people get really violent but suddenly stop short of killing, where elsewhere they manage to kill more despite being less violent in general?
I believe murder is one of the easier crimes to compare rates for, as its relatively unambigious in definition compared to others, and is less likely to go completely undetected or unreported. Maybe this is why its figures are out-of-step with those for other forms of violent crime?
