> Here's some food for thought.

> A couple of decades ago, when US cities were
> hounding their police departments for their
> horrible crime statistics, statistics that
> were costing big tourist bucks, the nations
> police chiefs came up with a winning
> solution: Let's only write police reports
> for the more serious crimes, and not report
> every altercation that is called in.
> Suddenly, crime in the city was on a
> downward spiral.

> Granted, there were also some good crime
> prevention programs instituted. But this all
> begs the question: Are we comparing apples
> to oranges here?

Good observation, Ed.

According to the article linked to in the other thread (I believe it was that article, it could have been something else I was reading), the way the US and the UK calculate their murder rates results in, as high as possible count for the US and a low as possible count for the UK.

The UK says murder is only murder if that's what the verdict is after the trial. The US says it's murder even if the verdict comes back as manslaughter or accidental death.

In similar fashion... Break and Enter or Home Invasion. They are one and the same. But Home Invasion is a relatively new term. So stats could show a reduction in B&E but an increase in HI.

Whichever way you look at it though, blaming guns on things is false logic.

If you want to solve crime, taking guns away from law abiding citizens will not do it.

Michael Ross