uhh ohh...watch out for the cop killer guns!!!!

[bossy22]

http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_11191054

[DS1]

1. It's marketed as such

http://www.remtek.com/arms/fn/57/index.htm

FN's newest contribution the handgun's evolution is named the Five-seveN®. This 20-round pistol fires a 5.7mm bullet that will defeat most body armor in military service around the world today. Essentially, the Five-seveN® represents a quantum leap forward in the handgun's suitablity for close engagements by delivering the type of performance that was previously confined to rifles or carbines.

So yeah, it's a cop killer, and a SWAT killer, and Army killer, and a Marine killer.

What's your point? Even more so, why do you need it?

[bossy22]

2. read between the lines my friend

almost any medium sized calibre handgun will defeat personal body armor with the correct ammo. The Five-seven is no different

the ammo the five seven uses to penetrate vests is the SS190 which is a private citizen is not allowed to own. The standard ball ammo that is civilian legal has the same penetrating power as your standard .357 magnum

and why do i need to have a "need" to own such a thing?

infact...some 9mm +P+ defense loads will rip right through vests

[Orrex]

4. Here's a joke from Jon Stewart, on an unrelated note.

Paraphrased, alas, because I couldn't find the original:

Some guys are like "I don't jerk off, because I don't have to."

Hell, I don't do it because I have to, either. I do it because I like it."

Not sure what it was about your post that made me think of that...

[SteveM]

25. Can you explain to me why those favoring gun-control bring up sex...

or sex organs when posing their arguments? I have never seen someone who favored the Second Amendment lead an argument with sexual allusions, esp. regarding the length of the penis. Freud and his followers opined that those who are forever alluding to sex organs with regards guns (or anything "resembling" a penis, like smoke stacks, utility pipes, obelisks, etc.) are in fact the people who have misgivings about their sexual identity, prowess, etc. In other words, he/she who first smelt it dealt it.

Do you have any insight into this phenomenon?

[Xenotime]

26. Sex and gun are very similar in operation

There's the anticipation,the use of force and aggression. The list goes on and on.

[SteveM]

45. "The list goes on and on..."

While I hunt and target shoot quite often, I have only experienced "an.........ticipation." As regards force and aggression, even when shooting a deer (or turkey last week) I am only concerned about bullet placement and a quick kill, and as for target shooting, what kind of "force" and "aggression" is present when shooting a bullet through paper? I can do this with a pencil as well.

Tell me more about your list that "goes on and on."

[DS1]

6. I read bewteen the lines

and looked it up. It's basically a high-powered .22. Probably similar to what competition ski shooters use in the Winter Olympics. However, outside of the CIA and KGB using these rounds, I don't see why a pistol should be chambers as so. Of course that leads me to arguing that pistols should have a minimum calibre. That's a faulty argument.

I'm just going to say that there's no fixed argument about gun control, other than enforcing the laws, or outright banning them.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

10. Biathletes don't use high power rifles

In recent winter Olympics, they seem to be using 22LR, and probably the sub-sonic stuff, not the high-velocity. Same with the target shooters in the Beijing competition.

Their goal is accuracy, with just enough power to register the hit on the target. Or punch a hole in paper.

No 5.7x28 or 5.56x45 for the Olympic shooters.

Gun-control laws seem fairly pointless, since guns can be smuggled easier than weed. But they're easy to pass and get good press. It's harder to pass and enforce laws on gang-control, truancy-control, bad-parenting-control, bling-control, bully-control, poverty-control, discrimination-control. Stuff that might actually help reduce crime.
/rant off/

[benEzra]

13. It's similar to a .22 Magnum rimfire, and yes there are handguns chambered for .22 WMR.

A friend of mine owned a .22 revolver that had a .22 Long Rifle cylinder and a .22 Magnum cylinder.

5.7x28mm is only "high powered" compared to .22 LR; it is an anemic cartridge by centerfire standards. Muzzle energies out of the pistol are in the 250 ft-lb range.

http://www.the-armory.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/product1209.html

[tburnsten]

17. Why can't it just be another option

for someone wanting a neat, somewhat overpriced pistol that allows you to deliver rifle-length .22 magnum ballistics out of a handy package? It would be great for pest control, there is a rabid fox in my immediate area and I would love to have something exactly like a 5.7 in case I am unlucky enough to have a run-in with it.

For a civilian, it isn't any different than any other pistol. There isn't a single reason to treat it differently, aside from journalists who don't have the desire or time to research the actual capabilities of a weapon when they can use sensational descriptions like "mata policia" instead.

[TheWraith]

7. As to why someone would choose it...

The Five-seveN is very light, provides less recoil without sacrificing power, and can hold a 20 round magazine instead of the smaller capacities used by most 45s and many 9mms.

[Howzit]

8. "why do you need it?"

You can ask the same question and then extend the argument to ban all handguns in all calibers as they can all penetrate the human skull no matter what body armor is worn.

Guns make holes in things. Sometimes that is bad and sometimes that is useful - it depends on the brain pulling the trigger - motivation matters more than the tool.

The best tool for deleting someone wearing armor is a rifle - head shots are feasible from so far away no one knows where it came from. If you want to restrict this FN pistol because someone may use for assassination, you must want to restrict all firearms; don't you?

[slackmaster]

9. That ad is obviously marketing the gun for use BY police and military, not against them

Read the first sentence again:

In 1935, the FN-made Browning Hi Power was revolutionary. The market quickly adopted this high-capacity 9mm pistol accordingly, and it has since been fielded by over 100 countries....

"The market" and "countries" clearly refers to governments, i.e. police and military. The ad is aimed at that market.

Bear in mind that FN sells its products all over the world. In a lot of countries (maybe most of them), ordinary citizens don't even have the right to buy handguns.

So yeah, it's a cop killer, and a SWAT killer, and Army killer, and a Marine killer.

That sounds like projection to me. Bad guys sometimes wear body armor too.

[benEzra]

12. Only with military/police-restricted ammunition...JUST LIKE a .357 revolver or a 9mm.

Armor-piercing ammunition for 5.7x28mm, .357, .38 Special, 9mm, and all other handgun calibers---and rifle calibers up through .308 Winchester---are all restricted to police/military/government only by the Federal armor-piercing bullet ban of 1986.

And with civilian ammunition, the 5.7x28mm will not penetrate any vest rated to stop a .357 shooting civilian ammunition.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearmstech/fabriquen.htm

[jeepnstein]

15. Vests aren't all that...

We all know that all it takes to defeat a concealable vest is a bit of energy. Any good hunting rifle in 30-06 or even .308 can do it. The round may take a gob of Kevlar with it as it enters the body making an even bigger mess. If the slug from a handgun is stopped, the officer will likely be incapacitated. Let someone whack you on the sternum with a sledge hammer some time for a good point of reference. Cracked ribs, internal bruising, even bit of bleeding is not uncommon for someone shot while wearing a vest. Concealable vests improve survivability but they don't make one a Superman.

The heavier external vests worn by dynamic entry teams are a bit more stout but even they have limits. It's still best to not get shot in the first place.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Only with the correct ammunition, which is not available to the public.

"So yeah, it's a cop killer, and a SWAT killer, and Army killer, and a Marine killer."

Armor-piercing handgun ammunition is highly controlled in this country. The normal, over the counter ammo for the FN 5-7 does not penetrate vests any better than a 9mm. It's possible to make your own, or get it from illicit sources I guess, as with anything else, but the pistol is sort of secondary at that point.

One more time, without the armor piercing ammo, this is simply a very accurate pistol.

[Abq_Sarah]

36. It was marketed

To military and law enforcement because "bad guys" wear body armor as well.

I looked briefly but couldn't find an instance of a single murder being committed with the FN Five Seven. It's an expensive pistol to begin with and the rounds are expensive and difficult to obtain.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

3. Well, they do have a nice picture of my Walther on their site

That should count for something.

[Indy Lurker]

5. It's not the gun it's the ammo

The SS190 " Black Tip" Projectile is designated as Armor Piercing (AP) ammunition, designed to penetrate body armor.
The SS190 bullet has a steel penetrator and an aluminum core.
It is banned for import.

1999 pre-ban stock is still available for $20 / round.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.7x28mm

[aikoaiko]

11. Police officer deaths on duty.

The only info I could find was 2004 data (57 felonious deaths of police officers) which is before the FN 5.7 was really available, but I thought it might be informative to understand which guns (at least a few years ago) actually killed police officers. One of the suprises to me was how many officers had their weapons used on them.

From the FBI's http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2004/section1felonkilled.htm">Unifirm Crime Report

Weapons
Weapon data reported to the UCR Program in 2004 showed that firearms were the most common weaponry used to kill officers. Of the 57 officers slain, 54 were killed by assailants using firearms. Of these, 36 officers were killed with handguns, 13 were killed with rifles, and 5 were killed with shotguns. In addition, 2 officers died when vehicles were used as weapons, and one was killed with a knife. (See Table 28.)

Of the 57 officers killed in the line of duty, only 11 fired their own weapons during the incidents that led to their deaths. Thirty of the victim officers did not use or attempt to use their weapons, and 9 attempted to use their weapons. For 7 of the victim officers, information regarding whether or not they used their own weapon was not reported. (See Table 13.)

Twenty-four of the 54 officers killed by perpetrators using firearms were within 5 feet of their assailants. Eight were from 6 to 10 feet away, 11 victim officers were from 11 to 20 feet from their killers, 5 were from 21 to 50 feet away, and 1 officer was more than 50 feet away. For 5 officers killed, the distances between them and their assailants were not available. (See Table 35.)

A study of data regarding weapons used to kill law enforcement officers showed that over the past decade, 545 officers have been slain with firearms. Of these, 396 were killed with handguns, 114 were killed with rifles, and 35 were killed with shotguns. Also in this same time period, 28 officers died after a vehicle was used as a weapon, 9 officers were killed by bomb blasts, and 7 were killed by assailants using knives or other cutting instruments. Personal weapons, i.e., hands, fists, or feet, were used in 3 of the slayings, and blunt instruments were used in 2 of the murders. (See Table 28.)

Of the 594 officers killed from 1995 to 2004, 126 fired their own weapon during the incident that resulted in their deaths, 94 attempted to fire their own weapon, and 293 did not use or attempt to use their own weapon. For 81 of the deaths, whether or not victim officers used their own weapon during these incidents was not reported. (See Table 13.)

That link also has a link to summaries of the 57 deaths. I attempted to tabulate by weapon type, but I must have missed done (I counted 56, but the narrative says there was 57). Reading these summaries left me with a deep sadness and even more respect for police officers.

7.62x39........9
5.56...........1
.30-30.........1
.22 rifle......1
?-rifle........2

12G shotgun....5

10 mm..........1
.45 cal........6...2 officer guns
.40 cal........5...1 officer gun
9mm............9...2 officer guns
.357 cal.......5...2 officer guns
.38 cal........4
.380 cal.......1
.32 cal........2
?-handgun......1

death by car...2
knife..........1

total..56 (missed one from the summaries)

[jeepnstein]

14. Any time you go on a call...

there's at least one gun at the scene, yours. It's hammered into our heads.

The 5.7 just isn't that big of a deal. There are plenty of ways to get yourself killed besides some little used round that is hyped by the gun writers as some kind of super weapon. Next year it will be something different in all the magazines.

[iverglas]

19. may I just ask?

From your tabulation:

7.62x39........9
5.56...........1
.30-30.........1
.22 rifle......1
?-rifle........2

12G shotgun....5


So that makes 14 of 56 police officers killed by firearm who were killed by rifle, and 5 by shotgun.

14 of 56 is exactly 25%. Somewhat more "significant" than the FBI stats for homicide by rifle often tossed around here. I just note.

Question: "7.62x39" - would I be correct in thinking that these were likely "AK-47ish" weapons / covered by the former assault weapons ban?

[benEzra]

20. Those are old data (1995-2004).

FWIW, 12-gauge (18.5mm/.729 caliber) is only one caliber of shotgun; according to Wikipedia, only about half of shotguns in the USA are 12-gauge. Others include the 10-gauge (19.7mm/.775 caliber), the 16-gauge (16.8mm/.663 caliber), and the 20-gauge (15.6mm/.615 caliber). Be sure you're looking at all shotguns and not just 12-gauge.

To the main point, both the FBI and the NLEOMF collect statistics, and we have both for 2007. First, the FBI data. Of the ~181 police-officer line of duty deaths in 2007, 57 were reported to the FBI as murders:

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel08/leoka051208.htm

57 murders (55 firearm related):

38 handgun
9 shotgun
8 rifle
0 unknown

The FBI data puts all rifles combined at 14.5% of police-officer gun murders in 2007, with rifles being the least likely type of firearm to be so reported that year.

The NLEOMF reports 68 officers shot to death in 2007 (out of 181 line-of-duty deaths) rather than the FBI's 55 (the "missing" deaths will probably show up in the FBI 2008 data), broken down as follows:

http://www.nleomf.com/TheMemorial/Facts/2007_EndofYear.pdf

Handgun 47
Rifle 11
Shotgun 8
Unknown 2

with all rifles combined at 16% of police firearm-related deaths and 6% of overall line-of-duty deaths.

The NLEOMF has released midyear data for 2008:

http://www.nleomf.com/TheMemorial/Facts/2008_MidYear_Report.pdf

showing that police-officer gun murders decreased 45 percent from 2007 to 2008, to their lowest level since 1960. Unfortunately, there is no breakdown by firearm type yet (that will come in the end-of-year report), but it seriously undermines the "OMG the sky is falling" rhetoric one commonly hears. Things are going in the right direction.

More DoJ data:

[aikoaiko]

23. So it looks like felonious police officer deaths by rifle appear to have gone down

from about 25% in 2004 to about 14-16% in 2007.

Interesting.

[dalus]

42. Decline in own-gun shootings?

It looks like the major factor in the overall decline in officer shootings has been in the handgun category. I wonder if that has to do with declining numbers of cops being shot with their own weapons. Massad Ayoob frequently makes the argument that semi-automatic pistols help protect the lives of the officers that carry them by being tricky to operate. If your gun is on safe when a criminal snatches it from your holster, it will take him a few seconds to figure out the safety if he's not familiar with that gun. That could be the time you need to take back or immobilize the gun or draw a backup. This graph could largely reflect the transition from DA revolvers to semi-autos among police service weapons. Ayoob notes that the percentage of LEOs shot by their own weapons is far lower than in the past, down from something like 80% early in the 20th Century. SERPA holsters probably help as well in this regard.

[aikoaiko]

21. more or less -- its difficult to know

I would guess that the 7.62x39 bullets would have been shot through semi-auto variations of the AK47, a Ruger Mini-30, and/or SKS.

The AWB was in effect for most of 2004 and in some states continued to be (i.e., CA, NY). In addition, we don't know whether these versions of rifles were AWB compliant or not.

When I tabulated these shootings, I realized I might be giving the pro-AWB contingent more fodder, but really I don't think its so clear without more information and longitudinal analysis.

I too think the different rates of felonious deaths by rifle for police and civilians are noteworthy.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Some, yes.

"Question: "7.62x39" - would I be correct in thinking that these were likely "AK-47ish" weapons / covered by the former assault weapons ban?"

Not 'all' by a long shot, but most certainly some of them.

[benEzra]

24. Re: 7.62x39mm

Question: "7.62x39" - would I be correct in thinking that these were likely "AK-47ish" weapons / covered by the former assault weapons ban?

Primarily no, and no.

The most common centerfire rifle in U.S. homes is the venerable SKS, which is 7.62x39mm. Almost all SKS's have non-detachable 10-round magazines and are not considered "assault weapons" by any state (even California and Massachusetts), although H.R.1022 would probably have banned them by pedigree if it had been passed.

Many, perhaps most, civilian AK's in U.S. homes weren't covered by the former "assault weapons ban", because they weren't marketed under the name "AK-47" and didn't exceed the Feinstein "evil features" limit. My own AK is a ban-exempt 2002 model.

There are other 7.62x39mm rifles on the market as well, including the Ruger Mini Thirty, some bolt-actions, a few AR-15's, and some AK derivatives that don't look like AK's (e.g., Saigas).

[krispos42]

30. Answer:

The 7.62x39mm was adopted and used in the post-WW2 era by Warsaw Pact forces and allies and was used in SKS semi-auto rifles and AK-47 assault rifles, or their locally-made equivilents.

While there are other rifles that shoot 7.62x39mm (like the Ruger Mini-30) it most likely came from either an SKS or a civilian-legal AK-47(ish) rifle.


However, I'll also note that, since police wear body armor, the higher incidence of fatalities of officer deaths compared to civilian deaths is most likely due to that difference. That is, handguns have a significantly lower fatality rate on officers because they wear armor.


The officers, not the guns. :-)




Whereas the more powerful rifle rounds have about the same effectiveness regardless of whether the victim is wearing a vest or not.


I don't think shotgun loads can penetrate a police vest either. The buckshot moves at about the same velocity as a pistol bullet (which the vests stop) and the pellets are relatively light for their diameter, robbing them of their penetrating power. Maybe at very close range, when the shot was still packed into a very tight wad it would rip through the vest.

Of course, stopping a shotgun blast would make the officer feel like a mule had just kicked him, even if the vest was never penetrated. He'd be on the ground gasping for breath. Might even break a couple of ribs.



The now-expired ban would not have affected sales of either of those two popular rifle models. AK-47ish rifles were still sold after the ban was implemented; benEzra owns one such example, evil pistol grip and all. However they had the appropriate number of cosmetic features removed. Thus, with a few swipes of a hand grinder and a dab of re-blueing they went from being defined as an "assault weapon" to a "legitimate sporting firearm".

:shrug:

The SKS, which does not have a detachable magazine and thus was not an "assault weapon" regardless of how many pistol grips or bayonet mounts it had, did not have to be modified at all.

[tburnsten]

16. I'll have to buy one immediately

Save an officer's life by securing the horrible monster.



Very smarmy article by the way.

[Endangered Specie]

27. I suppose they'll go after these 'cop killers' next...

[krispos42]

29. 7.62mm Tokarov (sp?)

Very small, very fast bullet. That would likely penetrate a vest although tissue damage would be marginal.

[Endangered Specie]

31. They go right through vest and helmets...

check out theboxoftruth.com they do penetration tests and it behaves like a rifle round.

I wouldn't underestimate the power of 7.62x25, it may be tiny but its velocity would always ensure 12" min penetration and the whole 'temporary cavity' thing.

[russ1943]

28. FOUR IN FIVE YEARS

Police Officers (constables) of England, Scotland and Wales reported killed in the line of duty by
fireams.

Since 2003 there have been 4 police officers killed with firearms;
1 in 2003 shot by criminal.
1 in 2005 “
1 in 2007 “
1 in 2008 accidently shot by a colleague during a firearms training exercise.

[krispos42]

32. How many killed by "other"?

And how many overall per capita?


Keeping in mind that England and Wales (which is what Home Office reports cover) are about 1/6th the size of the US.

[russ1943]

35. "other"

We're discussing GUNS. This thread so far as I can see was discussing “cop killer guns”. A poster introduced outdated 2004 FBI’s police officers feloniously killed with firearms on duty, another poster updated the FBI’s figures thru 2007 .Including NLEOMF’s preliminary and subject to change, one half years figures of 2008. The OTHER category is irrelevant.

I originally just looked to see how many were “shot with firearms” in compiling the figures for my post. My point was to note the dramatic and very telling difference in officers killed on duty with firearms between our countries.

I'd posted;
” Police Officers (constables) of England, Scotland and Wales Reported killed in the line of duty by fireams”
Actually all the forces included at the site I did use were; England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and UK officers temporarily seconded abroad. Also included at the site are the Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. The site I used The National Police Officers Roll of Honor is more closely related to our National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund than the Home Office. http://www.policememorial.org.uk/NationalRoll/National_Roll.htm


I didn’t link nor state my figures were from the Home Office. I actually do know what Home Office reports cover. The most recent Home office’s statistics currently are based on an end of March to the beginning of April “financial year” and don’t include the May 2007 rifle shooting of constable Gray. http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0308.pdf Page 40 table 2c
While looking at this table which only goes back to 1996 you can see there were no, none, zero nada police officers on duty who were killed by a firearm from 1996 to 2003.

The only fair and accurate comparison I think that can be made, would be to drop 2008 figures since they are incomplete and subject to significant change.

For the five years 2003 thru 2007 the US has seen 250 of its police officers feloniously killed while on duty with firearms.
For the same five years the United Kingdom has experienced three of its officers feloniously killed while on duty with firearms.

As to your query; how many overall per capita? Who knows? Do you know? I don’t. Per capita in relation to what? The total number of police officers? Number of armed officers? The total number of citizens in the populace covered? Have you calculated the per capita figures for the US? What figures did you use?

[dalus]

37. These numbers aren't much help

It's very difficult to draw any conclusions by comparing crime statistics between the UK and the USA. Especially when you cherry-pick statistics. British commentators (and other gun-control advocates) very often like to compare US/UK gun crime statistics in isolation, as if murder doesn't count if it wasn't done with a firearm.

The UK has always had a much lower crime rate than the USA. In recent decades, their violent crime rate has gotten much worse -- worse than the USA in every category except murder and rape. There are many factors involved: gun availability is one, but you also have to consider the deterrence of sentencing, the effectiveness of policing, economic changes, immigration, drug culture and laws, and the list goes on.

England had an extremely low gun crime rate before guns were banned, so it's not meaningful to use their current low level of gun crime as evidence in a gun control debate. In fact the gun ban, along with the UK's severe restriction on lawful self-defense, may in fact be responsible for the marked increase in violent crime that they've had.

Here we see that in 2002, the UK had 14 police officers killed in the line of duty:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2660885.stm

That seems quite a bit lower than the US number, but I think when you take into account the difference in population and also the difference in the total murder rate, it's not a surprising difference and it doesn't tell a different story than looking at the overarching crime situation. Keep in mind that for UK police officers, going without a gun is also a liability, as a man with a kitchen knife will have the upper hand over an officer with a baton. Most importantly, the UK police officer deaths were extremely low before their handgun ban.

Also, guns in the USA do not explain our rape problem. Why is the rape rate so high here? I think it must be a cultural issue, because guns are not used that often in rapes.

[iverglas]

38. How often do we have to hear this crap?

In recent decades, their violent crime rate has gotten much worse -- worse than the USA in every category except murder and rape.

Ante up some facts and figures, will you?

Or consider everything you say to be worthy only of disregard.

[dalus]

40. It's coming

I'm working on putting something together. But in the meantime, I want you to consider this: if you were shown facts that contradicted your assertions, would you change your opinion on the issue or just try to look for new arguments to support the conclusion that you've already reached?

You seem to endorse a very difficult-to-prove assertion, which is that the availability of guns is the primary driving factor behind the high rates of violent crime in the USA. Correct me if I'm wrong on this and your assertion is something different.

In order to justify such a conclusion you would have to find some evidence that gun crime is in some special category and exhibits trends that other types of crimes do not. Furthermore, you would have to show that there aren't other factors that could explain these trends.

I don't want you to confuse we with one of those Lott/Kleck fanboys who thinks that guns would solve crime if only everyone had them. I don't think much of their research from what I've seen of it. I think they are far overreaching past what the evidence shows.

However, I do think the evidence shows that guns are not a major determining factor in crime rates. What's more, there are a lot of other factors like poverty and, apparently, culture, that loom much larger in the equation.

What's more, I think that it's not right for society to tell people that they don't have to right to choose whether to have guns to defend themselves, especially when we don't really know whether taking away guns will make life any safer. What we know for sure is that before anyone had guns, people regularly carried weapons at their side to protect themselves, especially if they owned something worth stealing.

I'll leave you with that and return with whatever numbers I can put together for a side-by-side comparison. I'm sure such things have been done before but I'll just do it myself, that way at least I know where it all came from.

[dalus]

43. Some facts and figures

The following is a comparison of numbers of incidents and rates per capita for crime in the UK and the USA in 2006. For the USA, I used DOJ numbers from 2006, the latest numbers that I could find. For the UK, I used Home Office numbers for what they term 2006/2007. Although these terms don't exactly correspond, I think the comparison is close enough. 2005/2006 crime numbers for the UK were generally higher than those for the USA.

Also, as a general note, the numbers published for the UK may be too low. Last year it was publicized that UK home office numbers ignore victims' reports of more than 5 incidents in a year. According to the Independent, this could result in as many as 3 million more crimes per year, and an actual violent crime rate of 4.4 million per year. Apparently a lot of people are getting beaten up repeatedly, especially by people they know.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/government-figures-missing-two-million-violent-crimes-454637.html

I calculated the numbers here per capita. I used total population numbers, rather than the "per adult" counts that these surveys often use, and for that reason the per capita numbers shown here are somewhat lower than those shown in, for example, the Home Office report.

While the various statistics used in the USA and UK reports don't always match up, I've attempted to group them in a way that shows roughly equivalent measures together to give as much of a side-by-side comparison as possible.

USA July 2006 population: 298,362,973
UK mid-2006 population: 60,587,000

USA:
Crimes of violence 5,685,620 (0.019056)
-Completed violence 1,877,320 (0.006292)
-Attempted/threatened violence 3,808,300 (0.012764)
Assault 4,784,040 (0.016034)
-Aggravated 1,209,730 (0.004055)
-Simple 3,574,320 (0.011980)

UK:
Crimes of violence 2,471,000 (0.040784)
* This number may be closer to 4,400,000 (0.072623)
Wounding 578,000 (0.009540)
Assault with minor injury 571,000 (0.009424)
Assault with no injury 1,002,000 (0.016538)

USA:
Robbery 645,950 (0.002165)
-Completed/property taken 455,530 (0.001527)
--With injury 201,430 (0.000675)
--Without injury 254,110 (0.000852)
-Attempted to take property 190,410 (0.000638)
--With injury 30,950 (0.000104)
--Without injury 159,460 (0.000534)
Purse snatching/Pocket picking 173,220 (0.000581)

UK:
Theft from the person 574000 (0.009474)
Snatch theft from the person 72000 (0.001188)
Stealth theft from the person 502000 (0.008286)
Other thefts of personal property 1141000 (0.018832)

USA:
Household burglary 3,560,920 (0.011935)
-Completed 2,848,210 (0.009546)
--Forcible entry 1,024,030 (0.003432)
--Unlawful entry without force 1,824,180 (0.006114)
-Attempted forcible entry 712,710 (0.002389)
Motor vehicle theft 992,260 (0.003326)
-Completed 791,840 (0.002654)
-Attempted 200,410 (0.000672)

UK:
Burglary 726000 (0.011983)
With entry 425000 (0.007015)
Attempts 301000 (0.004968)
-With loss 310000 (0.005117)
-No loss (incl attempts) 417000 (0.006883)
Theft of vehicles 176000 (0.002905)


From these numbers, it appears that for 2006:
- In the UK you are about twice as likely to be a victim of a violent crime. If we adjust for the repeat victim issue discussed above -- and assume that the US numbers have no such issue -- then you are 3.8 times as likely to be a victim of violent crime in the UK.
- In the UK you are about twice as likely to be a victim of a severe assult (aggravated/wounding), and equally likely to be a victim of a minor assult (simple/minor injury).
- In the UK you are 3-4 times as likely to be robbed.
- In the UK you are about twice as likely to be a victim of snatching or pickpocketing. (The numbers for the UK might not include pickpocketing, if so then the proportion is even higher.)
- The UK and the USA have approximately equal levels of home burglary. Burglary is more likely to succeed in the USA than it is in the UK. (I'm guessing that this could be explained by the different settlement pattern, with people in the USA more likely to live in large, isolated houses and people in the UK more likely to live in crowded areas and apartments.)

Sources:
USA crime statistics
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0604.pdf
UK crime statistics
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708.pdf
USA population
http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html
UK population
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/2006_MYEs_FAQs.pdf

[dalus]

44. In review

So, my statement before wasn't entirely accurate. Violent crime peaked out in the UK in 1995, and since then it's been declining steadily. It was actually on the decline already when the 1998 handgun ban was passed, in fact. I think crime has also been declining steadily in the US since around the same time period.

Also, I did manage to find another category of crime, burglary, where the UK isn't worse off than the USA.

However, you are far more likely to be victimized by violent crime in the UK than you are in the USA. Anecdotally, the UK has been experiencing an epidemic of thugs loitering on the streets and threatening passersby, I've heard this both from British citizens who have visited the US and from Americans who have visited Britain and were surprised by this difference.

[russ1943]

39. Three vs six hundred thirty three.........hmmmmmmmmmmm

The statistics weren’t cherry picked. I stand by my statement;

For the five years 2003 thru 2007 the US has seen 250 of its police officers feloniously killed while on duty with firearms.
For the same five years the England/Wales has experienced three of its officers feloniously killed while on duty with firearms.

While checking my sources I discovered I could accurately note the fact that;

For the twelve years from 1996 thru 2007 England/Wales has experienced three of its officers feloniously killed while on duty with firearms, (One was shot by an American fugitive).
For the same twelve years from 1996 thru 2007 the US has seen 633 of its police officers feloniously killed while on duty, with firearms.


No one has made any comment to the effect that murder doesn't count if it wasn't done with a firearm.
This topic forum is titled “guns”. This thread titled in the original post is
“uhh ohh...watch out for the cop killer guns!!!!”
Like most, this thread has evolved including a discussion regarding ammunition, statistics quoted regarding US police officers killed with firearms, rifles, handguns etc.

Your next two paragraphs contain the following statements regarding the UK and then England;
their violent crime rate has gotten much worse
the marked increase in violent crime that they've had.

As another poster has suggested “Ante up some facts and figures, will you?”

Next you quote and provide a link to a newspaper article which reports “in 2002, the UK had 14 police officers killed in the line of duty”
First, and most importantly, on topic; NONE WERE KILLED WITH FIREARMS.
Second, A January 2003 BBC news article is, at best a secondary source.
Killed in the line of duty for the 19 total listed on their Roll of Honor includes 10 who were travelling to, or from duty, natural causes and unknown causes. I can find 9 who were actually “killed” some in accidents, all in vehicle related deaths, none stabbed or shot.

As to your rape question, I'd guess, try initiating a thread in something like the “general discussion” area.

Merry Christmas

[dalus]

41. The "with guns" part is where you're cherry picking

On the subject of the "cop killer guns," that's a marketing ploy that has been quite effective in Mexico apparently. Here in the USA the 5.7 has gotten a bad rap as a poor cartridge that doesn't add anything new to the market. Some ignorant criminal from a country that doesn't allow people free access to firearms isn't the best source of information on the subject. Here's an analysis of how pitiful this expensive gun really is:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/5-7x28_cop_killer.htm

The conclusion is essentially what benEzra pointed out earlier. In muzzle velocity and energy, Mr. Soltis compares the 5.7mm cartridge to .22 WMR (Winchester magnum rimfire), which, for those who don't already know, is not considered adequate as a self-defense round because it will not reliably drop an opponent. The .22 WMR is considered to be suitable for hunting rodents. Like most bullets it will still kill pretty reliably with a headshot, but then you don't need any special gun for that anyway. Soltis suggests the 9mm as a more lethal and cheaper caliber choice.

I'd think a criminal with half a brain would prefer a short-barreled .223 Rem handgun as that could likely penetrate body armor with popular off-the-shelf ammo. I bet the Bushmaster Carbon 15 would do the job nicely, chop off the stock and use a shorter magazine and it will be quite concealable. Have a look:
http://www.bushmaster.com/catalog_carbon15_AZ-C15BMP21S...

When you constantly emphasize the differences in number of crimes committed with firearms, the implicit assumption is that whether or not a gun is used in a crime is particularly relevant. This, in turn, presupposes that guns inherently make crime more likely or more severe. You can't presuppose this in the argument because it's what we're trying to determine, there is an implicitly circular argument in that reasoning.

As for the rape, I find it entirely relevant because it is very much a violent crime. If you think that guns can explain the rest of the violent crime numbers then why don't they explain anything about rape? Or, taken from another angle, if there's an explanation for the rape issue then why can't it also explain the murder issue without resorting to comparisons of gun policy?

The issue in question is whether the easy availability of guns is a factor in violent crime rates, and if so, in what way? Looking only at crime committed with guns isn't much help with that question. If you're not willing to look at knife murder rates (or overall murder rates, more importantly) then I have to conclude that you don't see murder as a problem as long as it's not committed with a gun. It is patently obvious that in a country where guns are more prevalent, they are more likely to be a weapon of choice for murders and other armed crimes, but what is very debatable is whether the availability of guns drives up the murder rate or simply "competes for market share" with other methods of killing.

[iverglas]

33. that's six years ;)

[russ1943]

34. You are, as always correct..

Thank you.