> Crime has seen a huge increase in Britain

No, it hasn't. We've seen better recording, different definitions, better detection, and there have been several operations targetting gangs and street violence and weapons.

Importantly: police recorded crime statistics are not reliable, and so we don't use them in the UK. We use the ONS, which doesn't rely on police recording.

> "Knife crime also increased by 24% with 12,074 recorded offences from 2016 to 2017."

Does this only mean wounding using a knife, or does it include people carrying a knife?

We have strict knife laws in the UK, and there have been several police operations targetting people who carry knives. So the figure you quote includes people who were carrying, but not using, knives.

Here's what ONS says: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeand...

> This fairly flat trend continues that seen in recent years, with no significant year-on-year change since the survey year ending March 2014. However, the cumulative effect of this downward trend has seen a statistically significant decrease of 25% in the latest survey year compared with the year ending March 2013. The longer-term reductions in violent crime, as shown by the CSEW, are also reflected in the findings of research conducted by the Violence and Society Research Group at Cardiff University. Findings from their annual survey, covering a sample of hospital emergency departments and walk-in centers in England and Wales, show that serious violence-related attendances in 2016 showed a 10% fall compared with 2015 and continue a generally long-term downward trend.

>knife laws

Solve nothing.

what do you mean?

Funny, I must have missed this massive wave of crime.

From the same Guardian article:

"The policing minister, Nick Hurd, said that crime, as measured by the crime survey, was down by a third since 2010 and by 69% since its 1995 peak."

From the BBC article:

Martin Hewitt, assistant commissioner responsible for territorial policing, said: "Similar to the rest of England and Wales, crime rates in London are rising, but many of these are still at a much lower level than five years ago and are against the backdrop of significant reductions in resources.

You don't think a tripling of acid attacks, a 20% increase in violent offenses, a 24% increase in knife attacks, a 42% jump in gun offenses - all in such a short amount of time, amounts to a wave of crime?

The acid attacks seem to have been a consequence of loosening regulations on acid sales: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-aci...

No.

Please enlighten as to what would qualify as a wave of crime then, in your opinion.

A 600% increase in acid attacks? A 200% increase in gun offenses? A 70% increase in knife crimes?

A 600% increase in what was a tiny number to start with is not a "crime wave"

~500 acid attacks annually in London, growing as rapidly as it has been the last three years, is not a tiny number nor a trivial matter.

London has a lot of knife crime. A 24% increase in such a short amount of time is not a tiny increase in that either.

So from 80, to 500, in a population of almost 9 million?

That's not to mention that we need to look at numbers in a long term trend, looking at 1 or 2 years of data doesn't show the full story.

Something not based on cherry-picking statistics.

You show figures for the past year, yet the most recent legislative acts were both 10 (VCRA) and 20 (Firearms act) years ago.

I agree both that you're factually correct and that your data does not at all support your earlier assertion that "banning guns increased gun crime".

So % are increasing, but the overall per-capita UK gun crime and death is still woefully below the good ol US of A as per: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/06/16/gun-vio...

> I agree both that you're factually correct and that your data does not at all support your earlier assertion that "banning guns increased gun crime".

You just made a mistake there.

I didn't assert earlier that banning guns increases gun crime. Someone else said that.

So you're just presenting random facts that don't relate to the conversation?