| I feel that this argument is lacking in scope when deferring to areas of the world where there are few to no guns in circulation. Of course there will be fewer gun crimes if there aren't any guns. What should be compared is violent crime in general. Weapons or not, the numbers are quite astounding. Then again, my argument may not take into account how crime is truly defined although I simply want to make a point that the argument in the article is fairly shallow and should push the boundaries of journalism by asking and answering more questions. UK Violent crime rates per 10,000 people, since ~2000, has been between 400 and 600. That's 4-6%. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Violent-crime-rates-UK-198...) US Violent crime rates per 100,000, since ~2000, has been between 400 and 500. That's .4-.5%. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Violent_Crime_Rates_in_the...) In my opinion, it appears there is a correlation between 300MM guns in circulation vs no guns. Not causation, simply correlation. Unproven correlation at that. I feel my argument is somewhat weak here because I have more questions: What about the number of victims? What about those crimes committed with a weapon vs without? In the UK, what weapons are used for crime if not guns? How do those weapon-based crimes compare to the same weapon in the US? Edit: Added the corresponding wiki image to the US stats above. |
