bart,
Its rubbish, for the same reason that so many other of these "studies" are - it has such an obvious axe to grind that the conclusion of looking objectively at the facts (that there is no link between guns and violent crime) is used to demonstrate the theory that taking away guns from the public increases crime (thus showing there is a link between guns and violent crime).
Specifically, there is a number of problematic areas:
The United Kingdom is an English speaking democracy with a bicameral legislature, similar enough for our litmus test.
this summary of the British political system is both laughably simplistic and laughably wrong - one of the two houses is in no way "democratic", we (in essence) have two executives (the Crown, and the Government), and the judiciary is blended in with the legislature (the House of Lords is the highest court in the land).
First, it is important to establish a pre-ban baseline and then compare it to similar research after the ban to determine crime trends. For that, we will reference the International Crime Victimization Surveys of 1992 and 2000.
this is utterly wrong because it assumes that in 1992 there was a comparable situation in terms of gun control between the US and the UK. There wasnt - there were (with very few exceptions) no "self defence" licenced firearms, and the Firearms Act post-Hungerford pre-Dunblane was probably the strictest set of controls in the world at that time.
During this time, Britain outlawed private ownership of firearms
this is a statement that is demonstrably wrong - shotguns and rifles remain in private ownership here.
For those who believe that gun control benefits women and children, who are generally smaller and less physically capable of protecting themselves, it is interesting to note that during this time period female rape increased 129%, child abduction rose 143%, and cruelty to or neglect of children increased 79%.
Increases in rape (which are accepted across the world to be chronically underreported) show increased confidence in the system in its ability to prosecute rapists. Child abduction and Child Neglect are offences which are in very many cases committed by those known to the child - parents, family members etc - and not the random stranger, as the author so desperately tries to claim.
The key point to remember is that murder is a statistic that is hard to fudge, and therefore a reliable indicator of crime trends. The police actually under-report murder rates, because if the court reduces the sentence, the police subtract that case from murder totals.
this again is utterly wrong - the official statistics show murders initially classified as a murder, as well as those convicted as such.
The English experience proves that guns and violence have no corresponding relationship that justifies gun control. Do we want to go down the same road as the UK when the evidence is so alarming? When the consequences could be so deadly?
see the top of my post.
''Tell me exactly how you expect me to defend my children against violent predators? If gun control is so wonderful, how come more women are being raped and children being abused in England since guns were banned?..."
its for the children
