Well, Dr(?) Kleiman's following paragraph needs to be reconsidered by him: I must say I find the whole tone of this thread rather shocking on a scholarly list. Some people are married to the idea that gun controls cause crime. The UK instituted gun controls, and crime fell, according to the best evidence we have. Instead of questioning their theories, the proponents of "more guns less crime" are questioning the data, even if it means relying on newspaper accounts of what interested and ignorant politicians have to say. I doubt this argument would be happening here if the victimization survey showed crime up, rather than down.
Dr. Kleiman needs to check his facts. First, gun crime has risen in Britain since the ban of handguns (see Crime in England and Wales 2003/04, page 80, Figure 5.6). While it is true that Murder has fallen in the most recent year, a major part of the apparent decline came from 172 murders (by serial killer Dr. Shipman) which were booked in 2002/03 and did not recur in 2003/04. Removing those murders from consideration, there was still a decline year to year, but the figure 1.1 from Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003 shows no decrease in murder since about 1996 (about the date of the ban) and there may have been a significant increase. We shall have wait a few years to see whether the recent reporting decline is a random fluctuation or a reversal of what appears to be an upward trend. As to a survey being the "gold standard", I would advise reserving opinion unless you know that methodology employed and you know it is not subject to political pressures. At least in the U.S. we know both surveys and crime reporting by the police are subject to those pressures. While you can't survey murder victims, and the stigma of rape is likely to distort any survey of those victims, and while drug crimes are not violent, violent crimes against victims under age 16 and businesses (e.g., bank robbery) are also excluded from the survey. At least in the U.S., those two components of violent crimes are significant. So, imagine all robbers shift from holding up little old ladies on the street to robbing banks. Robbery would vanish according to the survey but Bank Managers might disagree. Britain's crime is not really a good test outcome for debunking "more guns, less crime" theories especially relating to handguns and their ban. A point some of us try to make is that banning handguns has bought Britain no benefit we can see. Since the ban on legal ownership of handguns in 1996, firearm crime is up, murder is up, serious violence is up (even according to surveys, although there may have been a reversal of the trend in the past year on robbery). So, where is the value in the ban? And if the handgun ban is so successful, why are the Brits adopting a policy of manditory sentences for gun crimes? Phil > > > Victimization surveys were introduced because trends in crimes reported to > the police are unreliable measures of trends in crime. Many factors, > including the perceived competence of the police, can influence the > proportion of victims who choose to make official reports. Victimization > data are regarded as the gold standard, counting many crimes the official > data miss. > > I'm not familiar with crime survey procedures in the UK, but victimization > surveys in the US never include homicide, for two reasons. First, > homicide, unlike other crimes, is well reflected in official data, since a > homicide usually leaves a body and produces an inquest or medical- examiner > report. Second, it turns out that very few survey respondents have been > victims of homicide. (Think about it.) So what's stunning is that the > shadow HS was willing to parade his ignorance in this fashion, and that > reporters and others were taken in by it. But of course if he considers > "drug-taking" to be among the "categories of violent crime," he's pretty > hopeless to start with. > > Rape is a different matter; since rape is badly under-reported, and since > its under-reporting rate varies significantly with the police practices and > with changes in social attitudes, it is one of the crime categories where > victimization data are most valuable. I don't know whether the UK > victimization survey actually excludes rape or not, but if it does that > would be a surprising omission. One possible explanation: perhaps it > turns out that, in the UK, respondents find even being asked about rape so > offensive that asking drives down the response rate. > > I must say I find the whole tone of this thread rather shocking on a > scholarly list. Some people are married to the idea that gun controls > cause crime. The UK instituted gun controls, and crime fell, according to > the best evidence we have. Instead of questioning their theories, the > proponents of "more guns less crime" are questioning the data, even if it > means relying on newspaper accounts of what interested and ignorant > politicians have to say. I doubt this argument would be happening here if > the victimization survey showed crime up, rather than down. > > At 12:17 AM 7/30/2004, C. D. Tavares wrote: > > >At 1:19 PM -0700 7/28/04, Guy Smith wrote: > > > > > Aside from the misalignment with police reporting systems, has anyone > > >seen any evidence that the BCS survey responses are not accurate, and if > > >so, what the suspected source causing the bias? > > > >I would say the following statement from the original newspaper article, if > >true, is pretty indicative: > > > > > The shadow home secretary, David Davis, said the BCS did not record > > >"various categories of violent crime", including murder and rape, retail > > >crime, drug-taking, or offences in which the victims were aged below 16. > > > >I myself am stunned that it would even be possible for an MP make a > >plausible claim that a government's general crime survey did not include > >murder and rape. > >-- > > Escape the Rat Race for Peace, Quiet, and Miles of Desert Beauty > > Take a Sanity Break at The Bunkhouse at Liberty Haven Ranch > > http://libertyhavenranch.com > >_______________________________________________ > >To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof > > > >Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > >private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > >posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > >wrongly) forward the messages to others. > > > -- The Art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on. -- Ulysses S. Grant _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
