Armed Police

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It got confusing, cos 'gun control' generally means banning of guns. I see what you mean.

Indeed. That's generally what it means.

If I didn't consider both possabilities and REQUIRE that evidence be given for both sides, I would be a close minded fool.

Also I think inimalist was bringing up another point that gun control just isn't for violent crimes or crime in general. That's another point. What about the non-crime part of it? How many lives are saved from gun accident deaths, because of the strict gun control laws in the U.K.?

Originally posted by King Kandy
The answer to this question is directly proportional to the level of gun control in a country.

Lol is that a fact? Guns are illegal in Mexico yet they have one of the most violent societies on earth.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's the main reason people support it.

fair enough...

I guess "emotional outbursts" become "gun crime" when a gun is involved, so I might have spoke too soon

Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed. That's generally what it means.

If I didn't consider both possabilities and REQUIRE that evidence be given for both sides, I would be a close minded fool.

Also I think inimalist was bringing up another point that gun control just isn't for violent crimes or crime in general. That's another point. What about the non-crime part of it? How many lives are saved from gun accident deaths, because of the strict gun control laws in the U.K.?

There is also the case of Switzerland. They have laws mandating that all citizens of military age must have a loaded gun in their home, yet gun crime statistics are so low they aren't even kept.

Looking at them compared to America as far as gun issues go, it is day and night, even though, in the American discourse about gun control, the idea of everyone having a loaded gun at home probably doesn't make anyone sleep better. Obviously the Swiss have a unique culture and it might not be analogous to the states in a lot of important ways, but here is the point:

America and Switzerland have similar rates of gun use for suicide.

Originally posted by inimalist
There is also the case of Switzerland. They have laws mandating that all citizens of military age must have a loaded gun in their home, yet gun crime statistics are so low they aren't even kept.

Looking at them compared to America as far as gun issues go, it is day and night, even though, in the American discourse about gun control, the idea of everyone having a loaded gun at home probably doesn't make anyone sleep better. Obviously the Swiss have a unique culture and it might not be analogous to the states in a lot of important ways, but here is the point:

America and Switzerland have similar rates of gun use for suicide.

I am not informed on the sucide rate, however I know that it is one of the lowest crime society in the world.
Are you a criminal justice/criminolgy student?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I was about to mention Switzerland.

I am not informed on the sucide rate, however I know that it is one of the lowest crime society in the world.
Are you a criminal justice/criminolgy student?

nope, neuroscience/psychology 🙂

The flip side to the suicide thing, however, is that Scandinavian nations have suicide rates comparable to Japan, which I have found little explanation for. Whether the rates of suicide in Switzerland are effected by some other factor, or whether it is an effect of an easily available and efficient means, is debatable.

Male suicide, in all countries, is an epidemic problem that few even know exists. Not related, but worth mentioning if for nothing else other than awareness.

EDIT: the most depressing chart in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Originally posted by inimalist
nope, neuroscience/psychology 🙂

The flip side to the suicide thing, however, is that Scandinavian nations have suicide rates comparable to Japan, which I have found little explanation for. Whether the rates of suicide in Switzerland are effected by some other factor, or whether it is an effect of an easily available and efficient means, is debatable.

Male suicide, in all countries, is an epidemic problem that few even know exists. Not related, but worth mentioning if for nothing else other than awareness.

EDIT: the most depressing chart in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Excellent! I do wish sometimes I did psychology instead of sociology as part of my major...I had mandatory classes and I actually really liked it.

Interesting info about suicide, and interesting that Switzerland, as finland and Norway have a high rate of it. Just because one would assume, for perhaps wrong reasons, that countries such as those above would have it the lowest.

What is the police use of firearms in Canada like?
Here in Montreal, as far as I have been informed, is not common to fire guns (ironically today is a year anniversary of a murder of an 18 year old by a cop).

EDIT: There is such a disproportinate number of male suicides compared to females. How bizarre.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Lord no, your so-called deeper analysis is just sophisty.

No, it's viability.

You can't add a law that removes a specific item to prevent a certain harmful outcome, just to have something else replace that specific items negative function AND in greater numbers.

In this case, it's the gun.

Making the gun illegal has resulted in a siginficant drop in gun related violence, but it also increased non-gun related violence. In fact, after the removal, non-gun related violence increased much further beyond pre-grun-removal numbers, per capita.

You can call it sophistry, but it doesn't change the use of the data.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
There is no such coresponding increase in other crime, and in any case the whole worry is about criems with guns in the first place. The justifcation is that cops with guns are needed to stop guns- but the direct evidence proves otherwise.

No, there is. It's rather significant, at that.

I have no idea where you're getting your information from. In fact, I consider that information to be common knowledge. Even people who I work with, from the UK, know this.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The first half of your post is just garbage, btw. Your hypothetical situation, as you insist on calling it despite it not making any difference to naything, is still exactly answered by everything I said.

Facts are as simple as this:

"Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.
Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

There's also the fact that some statistics are not included in those numbers, properly. Meaning, the numbers could be in worse favor than the UK than seen. (Rapes under 16 are not counted towards violent crimes. lol. Absurd, I know.) Here's more information on data that's not included.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article7826.ece

Violent crimes certainly do occur on people younger than 16, but for some reaosn, some portions of that data are missing from the numbers.

So, it's even bleaker for the UK than even the numbers present.

Here's a nice comparison between New York City and London.

"...Recently total crime rates for London have been estimated at about seven times those of New York for a slightly smaller population and some authorities suggest these figures have been minimized....

New York and London have populations of 8 million and 7 million respectively and comparable police budgets, though New York has about 40 percent more police actually on the beat. British papers retail many incidents of British police, rather than preventing crime, being kept busy "celebrating diversity" and prosecuting politically incorrect remarks and behavior (large amounts of money and court time have been spent by the Crown Prosecution Service on cases of children who have made politically incorrect remarks in school playground fights, for instance)."

http://spectator.org/archives/2006/04/10/three-strikes-and-youre-in-lik

Odd. Figures, though minimized, are still 7 times higher. We even have more police.

If we want to get down to numbers:

"According to the study, published last year in The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, European nations with more guns had lower murder rates. As summarized in a brief filed by several criminologists and other scholars supporting the challenge to the Washington law, the seven nations with the most guns per capita had 1.2 murders annually for every 100,000 people. The rate in the nine nations with the fewest guns was 4.4."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

A superficial conclusiosn would lead one to believe that more guns means less murders, per capita. Of cousre, how does this equate to cause and effect? We don't.

Here's something KidRock found:

Originally posted by KidRock

However, I'd like to see something that extends to more recent times.

Can you find something like that? I couldn't. I wonder how KR found that. But, that is a crappy example of what I thought was common knowledge.

Originally posted by KidRock
It is argued that cops need to be armed to stop innocents being shot and to stop themselves being shot. The experiences of the UK show, directly and unequivocably, that this is a lie. Paranoid worries about a person getting a gun and being 'god' un a gunless society similarly have no basis.

No, they do.

Survey shows that where there are tons of guns in person's hands, it is far less likely that someone will go on a shooting spree in that area. 😐

Originally posted by KidRock
If there is a gun problem, the solution is not armed cops.

Indeed. That would be a non-sequitor conclusion. Even counterintuitive from a certain point of view.

It's not that you and I disagree, Ush. In fact, I think we largely agree.

However, I don't like to conclude that gun control prevents violent crime. It really doesn't. The opposite can be concluded.

I bring you the Swiss as an excellent example of a country that has a crap load of guns, but awesome homocide statistics.

Damn, it seems like I always come back to the Swiss as governing correctly. They aren't perfect, but they do do things better than others, in some areas.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Excellent! I do wish sometimes I did psychology instead of sociology as part of my major...I had mandatory classes and I actually really liked it.

I take a lot of soc/anthro classes compared to most people in my program, but ya, psych is amazing. The neuro stuff totally has me hooked, though I wish I had more of a biology background.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Interesting info about suicide, and interesting that Switzerland, as finland and Norway have a high rate of it. Just because one would assume, for perhaps wrong reasons, that countries such as those above would have it the lowest.

It astounded me for the exact same reason. Looking into the suicide thing more, I'm literally appalled at the lack of any serious research on the issue.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What is the police use of firearms in Canada like?
Here in Montreal, as far as I have been informed, is not common to fire guns (ironically today is a year anniversary of a murder of an 18 year old by a cop).

that was a year ago? I must be remembering something from longer ago...

Its ok. The only time I've ever heard of them drawing their weapons was when a friend of mine had a toy gun at night at a park, and someone called the police (thinking he was robbing my other friends).

Its better than the states, probably on all issues, but the big worry (if you are someone who routinely breaks the law) would be getting tasered or just generally getting beat up. Like the states, the police police the police, so there is essentially no accountability. A person I know was sent to the hospital for having a criminal record (which he served his time for) and the nerve to lip at a cop for stopping him unjustly (I'm sure with colourful language, etc).

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
EDIT: There is such a disproportinate number of male suicides compared to females. How bizarre.

there are some sort of anecdotal explanations offered for it, like that women are more into self-mutilation for the purpose of attention, whereas men are not looking for attention, and will pick highly fatal means. Rarely do men pop a bottle of pills, whereas this is something women do more frequently.

I think, as a man, that this is terribly inadequate. If similar numbers of whales were washing ashore as men who kill themselves every day, how long would there be before every government on the planet had enacted the most radical environmental policies?

reform mental health policy, pffft, in your dreams.

Originally posted by inimalist
There is also the case of Switzerland. They have laws mandating that all citizens of military age must have a loaded gun in their home, yet gun crime statistics are so low they aren't even kept.

Looking at them compared to America as far as gun issues go, it is day and night, even though, in the American discourse about gun control, the idea of everyone having a loaded gun at home probably doesn't make anyone sleep better. Obviously the Swiss have a unique culture and it might not be analogous to the states in a lot of important ways, but here is the point:

America and Switzerland have similar rates of gun use for suicide.

I just read this. It seems we are on the same page.

But, what about suicide in general? Does it drop suicide, period? Or does it shift the way people commit suicide? If I remember properly, it does both: it reduces suicide, in general, but there is a shift in how people committ suicide. This is logical as you are far more likely to succeed with suicide, with a gun, than without one. lol (I know, I shouldn't laugh. sorry. 🙁 )

Originally posted by dadudemon
I just read this. It seems we are on the same page.

But, what about suicide in general? Does it drop suicide, period? Or does it shift the way people commit suicide? If I remember properly, it does both: it reduces suicide, in general, but there is a shift in how people committ suicide. This is logical as you are far more likely to succeed with suicide, with a gun, than without one. lol (I know, I shouldn't laugh. sorry. 🙁 )

swiss suicide rates are significantly higher than American or even Canadian (who are marginally higher than the Americans)

whether or not this is due to guns or something else (It appears that the further east you head in Europe, the more suicide there is...)

The issues with guns and suicide is exactly what you said, the attempt is nearly 100% of the time successful. Its like jumping from a large building or throwing yourself in front of a subway (both of which are not good for other reasons, as many places will force your family to pay the burden of cleaning your body from public places iirc).

Like, there comes an interesting issue. Does the rate of suicide for men represent the actual number of men who don't want to live, or is it that, plus a number of people who just feel there is no other option available. Depending on how you view suicide, the former may not even exist, and all suicides may just represent people who feel there are no options.

Studies show that people are more violent, and have more violent thoughts, simply in the presence of a gun (even if the task they are performing has nothing to do with violence), so having an accessible gun, aside from just ending the lives of people who might just feel overwhelmed (re: not truly wanting to die, just momentarily fed up), but may also make a person who feels that way consider doing violence to themselves, which they would not have otherwise considered.

And yes, guns elicit this violence response more than other weapons. This is clearly cultural, and 1000 years ago it would have been swords.

Originally posted by inimalist
swiss suicide rates are significantly higher than American or even Canadian (who are marginally higher than the Americans)

whether or not this is due to guns or something else (It appears that the further east you head in Europe, the more suicide there is...)

The issues with guns and suicide is exactly what you said, the attempt is nearly 100% of the time successful. Its like jumping from a large building or throwing yourself in front of a subway (both of which are not good for other reasons, as many places will force your family to pay the burden of cleaning your body from public places iirc).

Like, there comes an interesting issue. Does the rate of suicide for men represent the actual number of men who don't want to live, or is it that, plus a number of people who just feel there is no other option available. Depending on how you view suicide, the former may not even exist, and all suicides may just represent people who feel there are no options.

Studies show that people are more violent, and have more violent thoughts, simply in the presence of a gun (even if the task they are performing has nothing to do with violence), so having an accessible gun, aside from just ending the lives of people who might just feel overwhelmed (re: not truly wanting to die, just momentarily fed up), but may also make a person who feels that way consider doing violence to themselves, which they would not have otherwise considered.

And yes, guns elicit this violence response more than other weapons. This is clearly cultural, and 1000 years ago it would have been swords.

Is it specific to guns or can it be applied to knives?

There are knives out there that are just for killing. My godbrother has these Klingon looking hand blades that are curved like a boomerrang, in his car....just in case of a traffic incident that escalates to violence. Just the look of these blades is scary as hell. If you watch Naruto, they are similar to this:

Except, the blade was MUCH longer, and the little spikes for the knuckles were much smaller and in greater numbers. (And much spikier, lol.)

Point is, that blade, which as solely designed with the purpose of killing a human or damaging a human in the shortest amount of time, possible,...wouldn't that blade elicit the same response as a gun, if not more so?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is it specific to guns or can it be applied to knives?

There are knives out there that are just for killing. My godbrother has these Klingon looking hand blades that are curved like a boomerrang, in his car....just in case of a traffic incident that escalates to violence. Just the look of these blades is scary as hell.

yes, but not as much as with guns

I don't know that specific ceremonially ornate knives have been tested, but I do know that it is always the most sporting model of gun that is used, and not hand guns or other military style "people killing" guns (ethics boards would go nuts). [they may have simulated these weapons, with toys or computer generated images/posters, etc. Going from other similar studies, these would elicit a similar, though less powerful reaction]

So, yes, having a knife you use as a weapon on hand not only makes you more able to access it in a situation (thus escalating a possibly non-violent situation) but would also cause violent cognitions. That being said, I normally carry an exactoknife in the car for the same reason, and its never made me want to cut anyone. I'm certainly not of the mind that your godbrother is setting himself up to be driven to violence by it being there as an environmental cue.

In my professional opinion, the weapons effect of knives, even military issued combat knives, would not be nearly as much as seen with guns, especially hand guns. Full out military weapons, obviously, but hand guns are the real culprit in all this "gun control" discourse.

ok, I'll ramble...

so, this might be due to the fact that guns are just more causal of violent cognition, but might also be due to the fact that knives, even the most combat specific (which those ornate blades have never really appeared to me), are also represented as "tools". Similar activation in the brain with regards to violence might be seen with knives and guns, but the fact that knives would be accompanied by similar activation of "tool" may regulate the effect.

EDIT: I missed the edit, so disregard my "ornate" comments, I totally imagined something different.

My answer is the same. Knives are not going to cause as much as guns, though the why would take some doing, but probably a mix of what I mentioned above and the cultural role guns play.

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, but not as much as with guns

I don't know that specific ceremonially ornate knives have been tested, but I do know that it is always the most sporting model of gun that is used, and not hand guns or other military style "people killing" guns (ethics boards would go nuts). [they may have simulated these weapons, with toys or computer generated images/posters, etc. Going from other similar studies, these would elicit a similar, though less powerful reaction]

So, yes, having a knife you use as a weapon on hand not only makes you more able to access it in a situation (thus escalating a possibly non-violent situation) but would also cause violent cognitions. That being said, I normally carry an exactoknife in the car for the same reason, and its never made me want to cut anyone. I'm certainly not of the mind that your godbrother is setting himself up to be driven to violence by it being there as an environmental cue.

In my professional opinion, the weapons effect of knives, even military issued combat knives, would not be nearly as much as seen with guns, especially hand guns. Full out military weapons, obviously, but hand guns are the real culprit in all this "gun control" discourse.

ok, I'll ramble...

so, this might be due to the fact that guns are just more causal of violent cognition, but might also be due to the fact that knives, even the most combat specific (which those ornate blades have never really appeared to me), are also represented as "tools". Similar activation in the brain with regards to violence might be seen with knives and guns, but the fact that knives would be accompanied by similar activation of "tool" may regulate the effect.

EDIT: I missed the edit, so disregard my "ornate" comments, I totally imagined something different.

My answer is the same. Knives are not going to cause as much as guns, though the why would take some doing, but probably a mix of what I mentioned above and the cultural role guns play.

Very interesting. Very interesting, indeed.

So, it would seem the individual's perceptions of guns, as a measurement of subconscious violence, is a sociological in origin?

Meaning, that people associate, more readily, a gun with killing people, than a knife...even if that "violent perception" is not being, at least to the person being measured, specifically measured for? (I included that last part beacuse, as the study indicates, if the subject is aware of what is being measured, that could taint the outcome or give less than ideal results.)

If I understand this properly, a social shift in the perceptions of guns may also shift the incidents of violent crimes where guns are involved? I may be jumping the gun, here. (I know, I'm that cool.)

As far as the graph goes, I don't think gun prohibition is a direct result of more violent crimes.

We also should keep in mind the rapid population growth in UK in that time.

In order for that graph to truly indicate guns being the cause of escalation of violence, the violence line should have shot up at the same time the prohibition shot down.

The point is, escalation of violence on the graph has been growing slowly over the years.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Very interesting. Very interesting, indeed.

So, it would seem the individual's perceptions of guns, as a measurement of subconscious violence, is a sociological in origin?

no. The measure is of violent behaviour and reported violent thoughts.

There is no way to measure anything in the subconscious at this point, aside from such indirect measures

but yes, it is not that there is anything about guns themselves, just the position they hold in society. As I said before, likely 1000 years ago, this would be seen with swords (knives I imagine would be the same as they are now, as they have always had the dual use as weapon and tool).

Originally posted by dadudemon
Meaning, that people associate, more readily, a gun with killing people, than a knife...even if that "violent perception" is not being, at least to the person being measured, specifically measured for? (I included that last part beacuse, as the study indicates, if the subject is aware of what is being measured, that could taint the outcome or give less than ideal results.)

lol, if I wanted to be a stickler for terminology...

so ya, I think you got it

Originally posted by dadudemon
If I understand this properly, a social shift in the perceptions of guns may also shift the incidents of violent crimes where guns are involved? I may be jumping the gun, here. (I know, I'm that cool.)

absolutely, and this is likely why Swiss culture, where military service is mandatory, and civilian defense is a huge part of the culture, has such low gun crime statistics, whereas American culture, with its egoism, whats mine is mine, get off my prop'rty attitude sort of promotes reactionary gun use.

to tie this more into the thread, studies have found that police, who have significant gun training and the like, are less effected by the presence of weapons.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
As far as the graph goes, I don't think gun prohibition is a direct result of more violent crimes.

We also should keep in mind the rapid population growth in UK in that time.

In order for that graph to truly indicate guns being the cause of escalation of violence, the violence line should have shot up at the same time the prohibition shot down.

The point is, escalation of violence on the graph has been growing slowly over the years.

But it didn't slow when they restricted guns, which is significant.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But it didn't slow when they restricted guns, which is significant.

Which of course is to be taken into account as well.
I also think that population growth may have contributed to the raise in crime rate, as well.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
As far as the graph goes, I don't think gun prohibition is a direct result of more violent crimes.

That's good. As long as you make it clear that it's your opinion (which you DID do) and not fact, you are much further ahead of the game than most other people on either side of the debate.

However, I both disagree and agree.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
We also should keep in mind the rapid population growth in UK in that time.

Same in the US, yet, violent crimes pre capita decreased in the US, in the same time period.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
In order for that graph to truly indicate guns being the cause of escalation of violence, the violence line should have shot up at the same time the prohibition shot down.

That's not true.

A change like that would take years to reach it's full social impact. There's the enforcement of such rules taking time, the time it takes the general public to adjust to the change, the time it takes to remove those guns from the public, etc.

These are things that take years, not just mere weeks after the law went into affect.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The point is, escalation of violence on the graph has been growing slowly over the years.

And you have no evidence for supporting that it isn't due to it not being due to the restriction of guns. In fact, the evidence is in favor of guns being restricted.

We only have to look at other locations who did something similar. Washington D.C. is an example. Similar time periods, to boot.

Didn't curb it at all...

However, all of that could be useless.

All of it could be a function of how these things are enforceed, both liberal gun laws, and restrictive gun laws. For every UK and Washington DC out there, there is probably another place that shows violence increased when laws were relaxed. Can you find such an example to support your argument?

Can anyone find counter-examples to the UK and Washington DC examples?

Originally posted by inimalist
There is no way to measure anything in the subconscious at this point, aside from such indirect measures

Yeah, I thought that this was an example of one. Surely they didn't focus directly on violent thoughts? That would really taint the test, wouldn't it?

The violence portion of it would need to be incidental to the test...at least to the subject's perception....am I right? To no do so would be to poison the sample.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, if I wanted to be a stickler for terminology...

Uh, yeah. Please DO be a stickler. I would rather you correct me for not using the right terms than you not say something at all, 9 out of 10 times.

Originally posted by inimalist
absolutely, and this is likely why Swiss culture, where military service is mandatory, and civilian defense is a huge part of the culture, has such low gun crime statistics, whereas American culture, with its egoism, whats mine is mine, get off my prop'rty attitude sort of promotes reactionary gun use.

to tie this more into the thread, studies have found that police, who have significant gun training and the like, are less effected by the presence of weapons.

That's very interesting, as well.

NOW do you see why I thought you had some sort of data on the pool hygiene? Can you BLAME me for just assuming that I thought you had some sort of study in mind? lol

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I also think that population growth may have contributed to the raise in crime rate, as well.

Population didn't contribute. Less poverty = property realted crime. (or even less crime, for that matter. Am I right?)

The U.S. population also grew...even more so than the UK, yet, violent crime went down. The exact opposite of your conclusion on the UK.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's good. As long as you make it clear that it's your opinion (which you DID do) and not fact, you are much further ahead of the game than most other people on either side of the debate.

However, I both disagree and agree.

Same in the US, yet, violent crimes pre capita decreased in the US, in the same time period.

That's not true.

A change like that would take years to reach it's full social impact. There's the enforcement of such rules taking time, the time it takes the general public to adjust to the change, the time it takes to remove those guns from the public, etc.

These are things that take years, not just mere weeks after the law went into affect.

And you have no evidence for supporting that it isn't due to it not being due to the restriction of guns. In fact, the evidence is in favor of guns being restricted.

We only have to look at other locations who did something similar. Washington D.C. is an example. Similar time periods, to boot.

Didn't curb it at all...

However, all of that could be useless.

All of it could be a function of how these things are enforceed, both liberal gun laws, and restrictive gun laws. For every UK and Washington DC out there, there is probably another place that shows violence increased when laws were relaxed. Can you find such an example to support your argument?

Can anyone find counter-examples to the UK and Washington DC examples?

Yeah, I thought that this was an example of one. Surely they didn't focus directly on violent thoughts? That would really taint the test, wouldn't it?

The violence portion of it would need to be incidental to the test...at least to the subject's perception....am I right? To no do so would be to poison the sample.

Uh, yeah. Please DO be a stickler. I would rather you correct me for not using the right terms than you not say something at all, 9 out of 10 times.

That's very interesting, as well.

NOW do you see why I thought you had some sort of data on the pool hygiene? Can you BLAME me for just assuming that I thought you had some sort of study in mind? lol

Population didn't contribute. Less poverty = property realted crime. (or even less crime, for that matter. Am I right?)

The U.S. population also grew...even more so than the UK, yet, violent crime went down. The exact opposite of your conclusion on the UK.

My evidence relies mostly on the fact that the violence 'line' has been steady - ie, there has not been any dramatic shift in the line, despite the gun ban.
What I am suggesting is that gun ban had no real effect on the line - it has been growing steady anyway, and the ban has not disrupted the line of violence.

It neither went up, nor went down.

Like it says at the bottom of the graph, gun prohibition did not disrupt the violent trend - therefore evidence show that violent crime did not increase due to gun ban.
The commentary below graph confirms this.