Once again, Loud Whispers. The Harold Shipman and terrorist murders are the pink line. They were removed from the main chart. How can this be made clearer to you? When I pointed out that my chart was essentially yours in a different format, you removed yours, declaring it wrong. This is becoming a farce.
Now I am interested in your pink line as much as the next average Joe, but your data is wrong. There's no getting around that fact. You are using falsified data and calling everyone else a liar for pointing that out.
[1][4] No, it is easy to say what caused the decline.
Famous last words. Then you ramble in a wall-of-text non sequitur about American and Trinidad, as if gangs in those countries had the same culture and history as British gangs. 170 gangs in Britain? Small-time compared to America.
1. You really don't know anything about the UK.
2. We have organized crime and petty crime. A gang in the UK means to us hoodlums, thug and muggers.
Except when it doesn't."London was the first city documented as the world's gang capital."
It's a good thing our criminals didn't try to disobey the law or anything, otherwise we'd be living in a society where everyone but law abiding citizens get to shoot people!
The gun ban hit them hard rather effectively. Nowadays the big criminals tend to get their guns from American import
*Also note, even that's rare. Law enforcement has gotten more effective. Hence the lowest crime in the past 30 years. Our police walk around unarmed.
Our petty criminals don't find it easy to kill people. Stab wounds are a lot easier to save someone from than a gunshot to the head. And they're rarer - you can flee from anyone with a knife, you can't if they've got a firearm.
Murder rates in America are due to many factors, and they've always been higher than Britain's rate because we're a diverse melting pot full of ambitious people wanting to get ahead, and that background causes friction sometimes.
REALLY don't know the UK then.
Nothing in that verbiage goes to the point. The preceding data in Britain, to compare apples to apples, itself shows crime staying level or rising slightly after the Dublane-inspired bans. Only recently, fifteen years later, has there been a drop.
Unless you look at the graph given by the Office of National Statistics. By the way my main point about guns being used in homicides - where I pointed to gang violence, is that your country's gangs are using them to murder. And this is an upward trend; whereas ours has been a decreasing. And this isn't a drop after 15 years of increases - this is 30 years of decreases.
If bans are to be accorded any meaning, it would seem that their effect should be noticeable before 13 years had passed.
/Unless there are significant numbers of weapons still in circulation. But of course, instant results
MUST be expected otherwise it does not compute.
And please, absorb the fact that your incessant whining about the terrorist attacks and SHipman being counted in the data is not actually true. The adjusted data without those murder still show level or slight increase for twelve years until a recent fall.
/Unless you look at the graph provided by the Office of National Statistics.
I think you could try more to improve the tone of this thread.
Would you like to say I'm whining about an event where lots of people died one more time? I feel like it could improve the tone of this thread.