[maxerickson]

What about the criminals in the UK that do not obtain any firearm?

Someone carrying a cheap pistol is still more heavily armed than someone carrying brass knuckles.

I'm not going to go find the facts and figures, still, I'm pretty sure that the incidence of gun crime is higher in the US, pointing out that gun buying criminals in the UK probably buy nicer guns doesn't change that.

[LyndsySimon]

> What about the criminals in the UK that do not obtain any firearm?

There are likely a greater portion of unarmed criminals in the UK. Since their potential victims are also unarmed, that means that are at the mercy of physically dominating criminals. I fail to see how this is an improvement.

> Someone carrying a cheap pistol is still more heavily armed than someone carrying brass knuckles.

Practically speaking, a person with a 6" knife can do far more damage to a person and have a higher likelihood of inflicting a mortal wound than someone with a .38 revolver.

> I'm not going to go find the facts and figures, still, I'm pretty sure that the incidence of gun crime is higher in the US, pointing out that gun buying criminals in the UK probably buy nicer guns doesn't change that.

Yeah, me neither, and rates don't really factor into this thread. My entire point is that more restrictions means that it's in the best interest of an armed criminal to obtain the most effective firearm possible.

[maxerickson]

A statement like I don't believe that US criminals are more heavily-armed than those in other countries. sure sounds like a statement that is inclusive of rates to me.

Say 1 guy uses a legitimate high caliber machine gun to commit some crime, is that the only crime that gets used when describing how criminals are armed in that country?

[LyndsySimon]

OK, let me rephrase then - "I believe that the average effectiveness of the weapons possessed by those criminals who are armed with firearms in jurisdictions where firearms are heavily restricted is almost certainly much greater than the average effectiveness of the weapons possessed by those criminals who are armed with firearms in jurisdictions with comparatively permissive firearms laws"

[bazzargh]

Without wanting to weigh in on the rest of the gun debate issues, statistics don't show criminals in the UK having more effective firearms, in fact just the opposite.

More than half of the firearms offences in England&Wales involved the use of air weapons, a substantial number of the rest are imitation weapons, and only 12 of over 8,000 recorded violent crimes involved a machine gun (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/htt... table 3.02)

A study by the police of the gun crime market (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/htt...) concluded that automatic weapons were mostly used in gang warfare and as a status symbol; they're more expensive and the study noted that ammunition for all weapons was in short supply, which would make a bullet-hungry gun less attractive for other criminal usage (which is mainly to threaten).

With an imitation gun going for £20 and an automatic costing £1000, why would you choose the real gun to commit a robbery?

[maxerickson]

Cool beans, my mission is accomplished. This is a much softer claim than the one in your comment above.

edit: I changed 'weaker' to 'softer', because it's a stronger claim, it's likely to stand up to scrutiny, it's almost a banality.

[jahewson]

As someone who spent most of their life in the UK, allow me to explain why you are utterly wrong.

> There are likely a greater portion of unarmed criminals in the UK. Since their potential victims are also unarmed, that means that they are at the mercy of physically dominating criminals.

It's certainly true that most criminals in the UK are unarmed, but the "physically dominating" bit is way off the mark because most criminals are not physically dominating - anyone can be a criminal - the factors driving people towards crime have nothing to do with physical stature. This means that the majority of criminals are actually not particularly threatening, I have a friend who was mugged and simply picked up his assailant and threw him over a wall, another just laughed in the face of the teenager who threatened to mug him and walked off. Pepper spray and some knowledge of self defence will make you well prepared to handle the vast majority of criminals in the UK.

> Practically speaking, a person with a 6" knife can do far more damage to a person and have a higher likelihood of inflicting a mortal wound than someone with a .38 revolver.

First of all, knifes are also tightly controlled in the UK, though obviously smaller knifes are not particularly hard to come by. No doubt a skilful knife wielder can do a lot of damage to a person, but most criminals also are not skilful. At all. An inept gun wielder of any physical stature can effortlessly kill someone from yards away, in an instant. It's so easy, a toddler can do it. Also it's a lot harder to accidentally stab someone than to accidentally shoot them. Furthermore, those so inclined can (and do) learn how to fendoff a knife attack - you can't do that with a gun attack.

> my entire point is that more restrictions means that it's in the best interest of an armed criminal to obtain the most effective firearm possible.

That's completely backwards. You could hold up pretty much anywhere in the UK using a fake gun or an air rifle. There's absolutely no need for criminals to have actual weapons when their victims and the police too, are unarmed, because they pose no threat. Contrast this with the non-restrictive environment in the US where an unarmed or poorly armed criminal risks being shot by their victim, a responder, or the police. I live in the US now and my local ATM has an armed guard for crying out loud. That's an incredible incentive for criminals to turn up very well armed.

> rates don't really factor in to this thread

Oh but they do, because criminals with guns don't just wave them around for show: they use them. The per-capita homicide rate in the US is 5x higher than the UK and that difference is almost entirely composed of gun crime [1]. Take a moment to think about that.

So in conclusion, the U.K. is much, much safer because criminals don't have access to lethal weapons that are effortlessly easy to use and the statistics spell this out as clear as day.

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604

[knz]

> The per-capita homicide rate in the US is 5x higher than the UK and that difference is almost entirely composed of gun crime.

Is this because of the accessibility of firearms or other factors (specifically inequality and poverty)? While it's true that the US has a higher per capita rate of homicide, the impacts are not evenly distributed across society. Most Americans live in safe communities with crimes rates similar to other OECD countries. Even within cities with high rates of crime, homicide is usually restricted to a small geographic area.

[jahewson]

That's a good question. The US is only marginally more unequal than the UK, and has a considerably higher GDP per capita. Much like the US, cities in the UK are a mix of wealth and grittier post-industrial areas, and poverty is often rural and multi-generational. So, it would look like the answer is a fairly strong "no". The US has more money than Britain, and it's distributed in almost the same manner.

[yrro]

> Practically speaking, a person with a 6" knife can do far more damage to a person and have a higher likelihood of inflicting a mortal wound than someone with a .38 revolver.

What complete crap.