Re: Fewer guns, more crime.

[Phil Lee]

A few more small corrections:

 

Tim Lambert writes:

The violent crime rate in England has decreased significantly since
1997.  We already did this discussion last year.

 

Lambert's discussion (see his link: http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/malcolm.html )  points to "Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002" which covers a region defined in a map on p. 62 (Acrobat page 60) of that document  -- that region does not include Northern Ireland or Scotland (with their slightly higher rates of homicide). 

 

In his discussion Lambert says "most of the increase was caused by a change in the way crimes were counted."  Homicides should not be affected by counting rule changes.  Lambert's suggestion that violence is decreasing is contracted in part by increases in homicides --  see Acrobat page 133, "Table 6.03 Violence against the person offences recorded by the police 1991 to 2001/02"  where the counts for homicides are: 

91        725
92        687 
93        670 
94        726 
95        745
96        679
97        739
97/98    748   Note 1.
98/99    750   Note 1.
98/99    750   Note 2.
99/00    766
00/01    850
01/02    886

Notes:
1. The number of crimes recorded in that financial year using the coverage and rules in use until 31 March 1998.
2. The number of crimes recorded in that financial year using the expanded offence coverage and revised counting rules which came into effect on 1 April 1998.

Notice that the table reflects counting rule changes and period changes (away from calendar year accounting).  A common technique of advocacy "science" is to pick two years for results and say "the change between the two years proves my point."  Lambert's choice is 97 and 2001/02 for violent crimes.  Rather than repeating that choice for homicides, I'll take the increase between the average of homicides over 91 to 96(approximately 705) and the average of homicides over 1999/00 to 2001/02 (834).  That increase is approximately 18.2%.  My years were chosen to avoid the periods during the implementation of the handgun ban and counting rule and accrual period changes and deliver a before and after picture.

Close examination of Lambert's referenced document reveals other indicators of increasing violence which attributing to changes in counting rules would be a stretch such as assault on constable, wounding, and attempted murder.  Even worse for the future of violent crimes is the increases in charges of robbery by five-fold of 11-15 year old suspects since 1993.

Of most interest is Lambert's assertion that surveys are more accurate ("surveys like BCS give a much more accurate estimate of the total number of crimes than police reports").  I would like to see that assertion documented, but will point to the "2001 British Crime Survey" at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb1801.pdf (see page 3, Acrobat page 17) where a comparison between the BCS and Police Recorded Crimes is made.  Nowhere do I see a claim for greater accuracy for the BCS.  I do see one difference is the BCS does not measure "Crimes where a victim is no longer available for interview."  Obviously, that includes the violent crime of murder which I thinks is a serious accuracy defect.

I would like to avoid a "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" fallacy so I will not claim increases are due to gun bans, but it is a bit much to let pass arguments that violence is actually decreasing in England and Wales.  

Phil Lee