Jump to content

Talk:Firearms regulation in the United Kingdom/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Nick Cooper

nick it's clear that the consensus is against you, please stop making malicious edits or you will be referred to an admin. if you need evidence of this, simply look below. the most editors take issue with your perspectives. while you may not agree, you must respect the community. Notepad47 (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What "consensus"? Me "against" - it seems - Ghrom, with a four-day edit history, and you with a single day? How convenient that you popped up out of nowhere to back him up at such a propitious moment. I would suggest that you be very careful throwing false accusations of "malicious edits" around, or you'll find yourself being the one reported. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether majority is against some viewpoint, what matters is whether the viewpoint in question can be proven and I believe Notepad47 is wrong here. He's right at stating that if we can't reach an agreement, we should ask for judgement. But Nick is wrong arguing about me being a newbie, because it doesn't matter if ones history of contributions is 4 days or 4 years, what's relevant is whether they have a point and can prove it. Ghrom (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Notepad47's editing history is "interesting" to say the least, i.e. registering yesterday, and then immediately making pronouncements on Wikipedia practice, including some rather strange identical "advice" to several other editors. S/he seems familiar with some Wikipedia practices, yet apparently unfamiliar with others, which at the least suggests someone who has previous editing experience, presumably under a different ID they are choosing not to use. One always gives newbies - e.g. you - the benefit of the doubt, but the behaviour of some - i.e. Notepad47 - make that difficult at times. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Why US are interested in UK gun control

I have read and heard constant comparisons of UK and US crime rates and gun control laws since the 1960s from American gun control advocates like Carl Bakal in No Right to Bear Arms along the meme that UK has lower crime and tough gun control so tough gun control would lower our crime rate.

It was interesting to me to read Colin Greenwood, Superintendent, West Yorkshire Metropolitan Police, in Restricting Handguns, ed. by Don B. Kates, North River Press, 1979, which includes extensive extracts from Colin Greenwood on pages 33 through 55. Colin Greenwood quoted his own Firearms Control, (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1972) writing in 1972 about the effects of half a century of UK gun control from the 1920 British Firearms Act to the 1968 Gun Control Act:

"No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm withoutout restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this class of weapon in crime than ever before."

Also on this point is Clayton Cramer's paper on Fear and Loathing in Whitehall: Bolshevism and the Firearms Act of 1920 which examined the BFA 1920 in particular and British gun control in general.

Comparisons between New York and London as done by people like Carl Bakal (who was "qualified" as a New York Madison Avenue advertising executive and fan of the NY Sullivan Act), or some of the commentators here, are plainly useless. Comparisons of London gun crime rates before the BFA 1920 and after, and before the GCA 1968 and after, and before the Amendment 1997 and after, would actually be more pertinent to the issue of whether strict gun control is good crime control, but such comparisons are avoided.

In 1997, England banned private ownership of most handguns and confiscated 160,000 legally owned handguns from registered owners. Dave Rodgers, vice chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said the ban on legally owned handguns made little difference to the number of guns in the hands of criminals.

When the Centre for Defence Studies at King's College, London, in Illegal Firearms in the UK stated: "....the short-term impact strongly suggests that there is no direct link between the unlawful use of handguns and their lawful ownership" the response from Ann Pearston, a founder of the Snowdrop Campaign to ban handguns in England, was this: "This completely misses the point of what we were trying to do. We never thought that there would be any effect on illegal gun crime, because that is a totally separate issue.... What we were campaigning for was to make sure that a civilian could not be legally trained to use a handgun."

If Pearston is to be believed, UK gun control is not about crime control and comparison of crime rates between New York and London is pointless. This raises the question, if not crime control, what is the point of Gun politics in the United Kingdom?

In The Great UN Gun Debate from the Library of Kings College London 2004 on the Motion "Should the United States Senate Support the Proposed UN Treaty that Bans Private Ownership of Guns?" the director of IANSA, Rebecca Peters, answered a UK target shooter who lamented the loss of his sport: "Times change. I know that pistol shooting used to be a sport that was allowed in the UK and it no longer is. I am sad for you. I suppose if you miss your sport, take up another sport, take up a sport that does not require a weapon designed for the sole specific purpose of killing another human being." (What Olympic sport should UK target shooters take up then? Javelin, fencing, archery?)

If UK gun control does not reduce UK gun crime, is the point just to do away with traditional sports in some kind of culture war? Naaman Brown (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Naaman, I am an Australian visitor to this page, I have read the references you cite and I edit Gun politics in Australia. Sorry to tell you that this page is not about debating the merits of this or that regime of control, but reporting the facts in an encyclopaedic fashion. Secondly, the evidence of this article is that there is an apalling conformity of thought in the UK that they don't debate the issue - see line 1 of the article. You can find Brits who disagree with the groupthink and enjoy the sport at Airgun BBS, British Militaria Forum and a few other dedicated forums. As for ms Peters check her out in this article:http://www.class.org.au/ideas-kill.htm ChrisPer (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gun politics in the United Kingdom article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. That line is not always clear. Sorry if I went off-topic. Naaman Brown (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Article fails to recognise that debate exists

Good start in this article, but as a Dem Colonial I feel I have seen quite a bit more discussion and controversy than this 'consensus' picture allows.

Where are the following: 1) Names or links to anti-shooting organisations, such as Gun Control Network which gets considerable press despite a closed membership of 7 or less?

2) Names or links to pro-shooting organisations such as BASC and Countryside Alliance?

3) Summaries of arguments for and against the present laws?

4) Journal articles which evaluate the history of gun laws in the UK (eg 'Boiling the Reasonable Frog' which covers it as an example of a slippery slope which came true rather than a rhetorical device.)

5) Discussion of role of the Home Office in framing policy;

6) Discussion of the individuals who have made major contributions to the debate, eg. Supt Colin Greenwood.

7) Discussion of any influence of the [Copycat Effect], in which media news reporting is thought to have contributed to many massacres, as it has been reliably shown to contribute to imitative suicides.

8) Referencing a review article with links to major white papers and independent research on the issues in the UK.

Check out [Gun Politics in Australia] where I contribute to see some additional viewpoints, also. All the best, ChrisPer 04:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the danger is that in striving to do that, it may create the impression that there is more debate on the issue in the UK, when the reality is that there is virtually none. Firearms ownership has always been so marginal and disparate that it would be like expecting there to be a debate on whether people should be allowed to be 'plane spotters or not. Just about the only exception is in rural areas, but the Countryside Alliance is far more vociferous on fox hunting than anything else, that any interest they have in firearms issues is fairly minimal, at least publicly. Likewise, the Gun Control Network might get the attention of those who are already interested or affected, but the vast majority of the population have probably never even heard of them. However, for balance, there should be links to both.
Greenwood probably is the best authority on the issue, but is not widely known. It's probably a reflection of the level of public interest that his only book on the subject was published in 1972, and as far as I know was not even reprinted. It's a very useful work for events up to that point, but you have to ask why there has never been anything similar published in the UK since. Greenwood's submissions to Parliament, etc., are available, so I'll do a bit of reading and see if there's anything that can be included.
I'm not sure how (7) can be reasonably justified here, since shooting massacres are hardly a common event in the UK. I'm not aware of anything that would come under (8), but I'll have a look. Nick Cooper 08:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
(7) Copycat effect operates across communication networks, especially media which operates worldwide. Potential perpetrators validate behaviour scripts against how the media presents a person, and this is more likely to click across related cultures - eg UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. At least two of Australia's massacres closely followed Hungerford (Hoddle St) and Dunblane (Port Arthur). There is an article on this at http://www.class.org.au/ideas_kill.htm, which lists sources at the end.
A useful article on and link to the official Home Office guideline to application of the law: http://www.shootinglaw.co.uk/article5.htm
Anyway, best wishes in your development of the article.ChrisPer 01:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to pick up on the issue of "pro-shooting organisations", one of the reasons why I think there is a lot of confusion is that there isn't much correlation of the various different gun issues in the UK. Off the top of my head there seem to be six main reasons cited for gun ownership - 1) Pest control; 2) gun sports; 3) self-protection/defence; 4) reserve citizen armies on standby; 5) protection against tyranny; 6) because there's some inherent right to it. Now unlike the US, where the very name "National Rifle Association" in the handgun debate is telling, there isn't much coalition between this. Hardly anybody would use a farmer's right to control pests (1) as a reason for why they should be able to own a handgun and virtually all firearms sports enthusiasts (2) I know would be aghast if people started using the existence of their sport to argue for unrestricted gun ownership or that the purpose of their sport is to prepare the people to defend themselves against some tyrant (5). Indeed it also works on the other side - anti-fields sports groups have always focused on getting legislation to ban the field sports in question, not to ban the weapons used in the sport. The basics of a system of licences is also something that a lot of gun owners and sportspersons have little problem with. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with the United States

I removed the 'Comparison with the United States' section:

Between 1995 (calendar year) and 2005/06 (April to March financial year), violent crime in England & Wales fell by 43%.[1] In 2005/06 there were 765 homicides, including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings.[2] The population of England and Wales is 53,046,000 (out of the UK total - including Scotland and Northern Ireland of 59,835,000),[3] which translates as 1.4 homicides per 100,000 residents. By comparison, in 2000, police in the United States reported 5.5 murders for every 100,000 of population.[4] In addition, 70% of murders in the United States involve firearms (of which 75% used are illegally obtained) compared to 9.4% in the United Kingdom (77 out of 820 in 2004/05).[5] Both New York City and London have over 7 million residents, with New York reporting 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004 to London's 2.4 per 100,000, also in 2004.[6]

As it contained no information on gun politics - Crosbiesmith 19:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That seems a strange and somewhat arbitrary judgement. The issue in the UK is very much framed within the context of the supposed levels of crime in general and firearms crime in particular, and comparisons with the US - while of debatable value - are common. I'm therefore reinstating it with a few tweaks on emphasis, but this is a temporary measure while I work on something more comprehensive and directly relevent. Nick Cooper 08:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The section contains no information on gun politics. If the issue in the UK is framed in terms of crime levels, that could be explicitly stated. Similiarly, if U.S. comparisons were a determinant in current policies, that could also be noted.
As it is, this section is just a collection of statistical statements. They are not placed in the context of the article.
For starters, I'm removing the section about violent crime and homicides. The section itself says that 'Only a small number of homicides are commited with firearms'. - Crosbiesmith 09:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand you reasoning that the section in question, "contains no information on gun politics." The issue of crime is implicit in gun politics, as is reflected in the preceeding paragraphs and in most of the other "Gun politics in..." pages, and it shouldn't be necessary to have to state as such in the section which specifically cites "relevent" crime figures.
You seem to be suggesting that because firearms are used in so few homicides, it's not necessary to mention them. I would contend that they need to be included precisely to demonstrate how relatively low they are, and for the same reason there needs to be more on the use of firearms in crime in general, and specifically the types of weapons used and the crimes in which they are used. For example, the vast bulk of "firearms crime" in fact a) involves the use of unregulated air weapons or imitations, and b) is criminal damage.
However, in your haste you removed the E&W homicide rate, while retaining that for the US. I've reinstated it and also included the more up-to-date figures for firearms homicides piublished on 25 January. Nick Cooper 11:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed too much. The statement about violent crime seemed out of place. I'm afraid I couldn't see beyond that. With that removed, I can see the remaining statements on homicide form a coherent whole. Thanks for taking the time to reply.- Crosbiesmith 12:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Is it just me or does the first sentence of this article sound a bit POV towards the pro-gun-control side? CeeWhy2 05:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Maybe. In any case, I think it could stand a rework. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 05:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The opening sentence is misleading, since obviously the totality of "gun politics" encompasses views on all sides. The statement of, "places its main considerations on how best to ensure public safety and how deaths involving firearms can most effectively be prevented," can more accurately be attributed to the claimed motives successive governments, as obviously some pro-shooting elements dispute whether that is actually the end result of either past, current or suggested furture legislation. Nick Cooper 08:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad sentence

"Although it is sometimes claimed that since Britain banned the private ownership of handguns, gun crime has steadily increased, there is no evidence of a causal link." I have never seen anti-gun control folk arguing that there should be a causal link. This would only make sense if guns were legal for self defence pre-1997 and were used to (theoretically) deter crimes. Rather they argue that the ban has doen nothing to prevent criminals from getting hold of guns. The structure of this sentance also seems to be trying to defuse the whole "UK Gun Crime Rampant" agument against gun control by being dismissive and incorrectly framing the way said argument is used.

I would take this sentance out myself, but it has a link to a reference and I don't know how to fiddle with those things without breaking them. Can an editor take a look? Thanks172.200.81.2 22:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

OK I had a bash, I think it more accurately reflects what was being said in the reference anyway, I think Mr. Greenwood's words were being twisted a little by the previous edit. Feel free to alter if you think you can do better. 172.141.119.109 12:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted the most recent edit. No claim was publicly made of a causal link being the reason for the ban, so there's no need to "refute" this. The sentence as-is simply notes that there doesn't appear to have been any correlation between crime and gun sales. Chris Cunningham 12:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the cited reference, it is closer to what I said. If you want to be able to make the original statement, find a better reference. The supposed "causal link" was nothing to do with the ban, but this argument is often used on both the pro-gun and the anti-gun side. It would be nice if you would discuss before making reverts, as I did my best to be accurate and this issue has been up for discussion for the best part of 2 weeks without a peep from you are anyone else, I was simply trying to be helpful. 172.141.119.109 13:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
OK I'll try again, and be more objective this time. "Sometimes claimed" are weasel words anyway so it needs fixing. 172.141.119.109 13:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks. Chris Cunningham 13:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
As the editor who actually added the Greenwood reference, I would strongly dispute the accusation that his, "words were being twisted a little by the previous edit." In Paragraph 66 - which is what I specifically referenced - Greenwood states:
"The situation is not, as some people have claimed, that the ban on handguns caused an increase in their use in crime. The truth is that it is a total irrelevance. Crime and the use of pistols has been increasing continuously over the period and everything that politicians and police have done has tended to exacerbate rather than tackle the problem, but the ban on handguns is neither here nor there in the equation."
I would consider that my original text of, "Although it is sometimes claimed that since Britain banned the private ownership of handguns, gun crime has steadily increased, there is no evidence of a causal link," is a fair reflection of what Greenwood says, in the context of the statistics which follow. The claim that, "Since handguns were banned in Great Britain, handgun crime has soared" (or variations on that theme) are commonplace (e.g. [1], [2], [3], etc.) and imply as casual link, which Greenwood contends does not exist. Nick Cooper 14:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but the point being made is that the previous version actually weaselled the "causality" claim by not sourcing it. Either one mentions the causality claim and sources it (using examples like you just did) and then refutes it by paraphrasing from Greenwood, or one does not mention it at all. Frankly I'm not sure if it warrants mentioning in the first place, when the point it's refuting is being made by such honest and reputable sources as Lott. Chris Cunningham 14:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
In which case the "causality" bit should have been tagged for a citation (even though it's inherent in Greenwood's paper, anyway). I'm not going to disagree with you on Lott, but the fact is that the "increase" claim that is widespread, and in fact the main reason for my introducing the Greenwood reference was that other editors had previously kept adding the claim without the proper context. Nick Cooper 15:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think thats a fair point, however its also worth hammering home that the gun laws havn't reduced gun crime either. The "total irrelevance" part of the Greenwood quote was what I was trying to get get across. I'm just an amateur at this, I'm sure one of you guys would be able to encapsulate this point more effectively than me. 172.141.119.109 14:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, as previously mentioned, gun laws weren't introduced in a calculated effort to abstractly "reduce gun crime". The "gun crime" thing is basically a straw man put up by gun advocates. One could say that the banning of guns hasn't resulted in any less foxes tearing open my litter at the front door, but if nobody ever used that as a reason to ban guns then it wouldn't be relevant. Chris Cunningham 14:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WHY then was the handgun ban introduced if not to reduce gun crime? Politics or the sensationalism of the shooting massacres? And is that legitimate basis for sweeping legilsation like the handgun ban? but I guess not enough of the British public really cares one way or the other. As an aside are there any Laws or "rights" guaranteed British citizens which the government of the day is unable to change? Just curious. 4.231.225.183 01:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you can seem from the page, only 0.1% of the population actually owned the handguns that were banned. When something is that marginalised within a society, it doesn't stand much chance when a far larger section of society believes that nobody needs to own a handgun under any circumstances, and should be prevented from doing so (NB. Not my personal view). Nick Cooper 20:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Imitation firearms

I've reverted the recent amendment of the red-linked imitation firearms to link to Airsoft guns, as this is misleading in a UK context. The adjacent reference leads to the exact definition in law, which is:

(8) In this section “realistic imitation firearm” means an imitation firearm whose appearance is so realistic as to make it indistinguishable, for all practical purposes, from—
(a) a firearm of an existing make or model; or
(b) a firearm falling within a description that applies to an existing category of firearms which, even though they include firearms of different makes or models or both, all have the same or a similar appearance.
(9) For the purposes of subsection (8) an imitation firearm is not to be regarded as distinguishable from a firearm for any practical purpose if it could be so distinguished only—
(a) by an expert;
(b) on a close examination; or
(c) as a result of an attempt to load or to fire it.

In practical terms, the specific breakdown of offences by weapon type in Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005/2006 [4] (page 43) sub-divides "imitation firearm" thus:

Imitation handgun
BB gun/soft air weapon
Deactivated firearm
Blank firer
Other imitation

Clearly, linking imitation firearms to Airsoft guns alone is highly inappropriate. However, while some clarification of the use of "imitation firearms" is obviously needed, I'm not sure if it merits a page on its own, or simply an exaplanatory statement here. Nick Cooper 15:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Homicide and firearms crime

There are too many numbers in this section. It would be good to have a histogram of homicides against year in this section. There is some raw data available at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0206.pdf pg81. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simonjl (talk • contribs) 21:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Would that be all homicides, or the traditionally 10% of them that actually involve the use of firearms? Nick Cooper 22:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Well there is an 'all homicides' chart here http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.asp there is no reason why the two couldn't be overlayed? my point was there are 4 paragraphs of dense statistics that do nothing more than baffle. Simonjl 20:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, in the first instance someone would have to re-graph them, and secondly you'd just end up with a fairly unremarkable "all homicides" line, with a 10% "firearms homicides" line at the bottom. The only real anomalous year is the one in which 170 or so of Harold Shipman's homicides were included - with those filtered out, it's even less remarkable.
As to the existing figures, they may baffle some people, but the reality is that they reflect the true nature of a complex issue.Nick Cooper 23:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph 1 & 2 is comparing London with New York. I'm not sure if it's actually relevant - why pick any other city, or indeed the 10 largest cities for comparison? I also think using the words 'Only 50' is a bit of a weasel since we see later that 10% of homicides are with firearms so thats pretty much the norm, rather than a 'low number'. This link http://harris.dvc.org.uk/dunblane/homemain.html (figure 2) shows high correlation between ownership & homicides, so it's a little unfair to compare the two when ownership levels are so markedly different.

Paragraph 3/4 is saying that homicides are pretty much flat (certainly when considering population growth) and that firearms homicides follow that same (flat) trend. Certainly from a statistical perspective within the standard deviation (root n). (shipman aside).

Paragraph 3/4 also says that crimes involving firearms is increasing. This is certainly an interesting trend and goes against the homicide (flat) trend. To have this trendline on a second histogram (overlayed with a broader 'violent crime') would demonstrate the 'violent society' perspective.

I will therefore volunteer to draw two histograms, 

*gun homicides & all homicides
*crimes involving firearms & all crimes

Since I don't want to spend half a day drawing them only to have someone delete them, I'd ask for any general objections or suggestions before I start work ;) On a final note - the suicide rates (same link figure 3) show strong correlation with ownership, and I think the numbers come in at around double (0.22/100k) that of homicides, so this could be(??) an important topic. The suicide level is around 10 per 100,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate) so that makes guns around 3% of the total suicides. The fact that 3% of a low (by world ranking) suicide rate, probably does not make this worthy of inclusion. Simonjl

London / New York comparison

I think the comparison between London and New York is somewhat specious. On the face of it, they are similar - they have fairly similar gun control laws, and similar population size. However, I think there's an important difference:

  • Outside the city of New York, gun laws are much more relaxed than in the city. Given that there's no border between the city and the State of New York, presumably it's pretty easy to bring guns in from other parts of the State into New York City.
  • Outside London, gun laws are exactly the same.

I don't think I've phrased that very well but that's basically my point. It's much easier to get guns in New York than it is in London, so to say they have similar gun control laws is misleading, I think. I haven't edited the article yet - what does anyone think? Markbrough 23:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

totally agree, the correlation is on ownership levels, nothing to do with the cities being the same size Simonjl

Plus the UK is well known for "fiddling" its crime statistics which make all other nations appear to have inflated crime figures by comparison. For example in the US if an FBI agent shoots a drug dealer in the line of duty then thats still recorded as a homicide. Thats not the case in the UK, every conceivable method to trim the stats down is used so a like for like comparison of nations is not really fair. If independent stats for UK and US could be found then that would be fine. 172.215.44.47 18:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
In the first instance you'd have to prove that that actually happens in US statistics, and secondly your claim about "UK" stats is grossly misleading - in fact, more types of crime are now included in England & Wales figures than previously. In any case, how many people are shot dead by British police every year? It rarely gets into double figures. Nick Cooper 11:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
He's correct about the US counting police shootings, of which there are likely over a hundred each year. The FBI includes all homicides in their figures, including completely justified shootings and instances of self defense, not just murders. However, it's unlikely that the UK has enough of those to significantly skew the numbers. --67.165.6.76 17:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
If he's correct, you should have no difficulty in finding a reliable source to corroborate it. Nick Cooper 20:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
just to help, heres links to the US and UK shootings by police stats.http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/justify.htm
http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/index/resources/research/reports_firearms/shootings_statistics.htm
I don't think the numbers of fatal shootings by police are really big enough to skew the numbers in th UK. LemmonJelly 01:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Useful data in general, but they don't prove the claim that justifiable homicides are included in the total number of "crime" homicides [5]. However, the fact that the latter are couched in terms of "victim" and "offender" it seems highly unlikely, since whoever is responsible for what is deemed a justifiable homicide is de facto not an "offender". On top of that, even if the 535 justifiable homicides (police + citizen) in 2005 were a sub-set of the overall total of 16,692 homicides for that year, they'd only represent 3.2%, which isn't going to make that much of a dent in the per capita rate if you exclude them, i.e. it would be around 5.49 per 100,000 of population, rather than 5.66 - not really a significant difference! Nick Cooper 07:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The comparison is irrelevant without clearly stating that NYC has the same gun control laws as London while having even stricter policy on enforcing those laws. Comparing London just to NYC is 'Undue prominance'. Ghrom 13:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The comparison between the two cities - as subsets of their respective countries - is valid in terms of population size. To get into the minutia of legislative difference is diversionary and pointless. For one thing, the law in New York is demonstrably not "similar to the UK" since handguns can be licensed in NY, but not in any practical way in the UK. Secondly claim that in NYC "punishment (for illegal possession of firearms is) significantly more severe than one committing the same crime in the UK" is not substantiated by the reference attached to it, which does not mention the UK at all. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
No it is not valid, there are plenty of other big cities where guns can be licensed. I believe NYC was picked only because its gun crime rate is so high, to prove a point that gun ownership is bad. If you have to compare NYC to London, which I disagree with, it is not pointless to state differences or facts which shed more light on the comparison and the statistics. The fact that NYC dwellers have greatly restricted access to firearms is such a fact. One possessing firearms illegally faces mandatory 5 year jail sentence in the UK and mandatory minimum 7 or 10 year jail sentence in NYC. Rather than removing other peoples work and contributions, find appropriate link and add it please. Ghrom 16:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Reverted, yet again. You seem to be making these alterations because you personally don't like the comparison, but it is one that it often used in the media in relation to crime in general and gun crime in particular. As stated previously, the source you cited did not back up your claim that illegal possession was treated "more seriously" in NYC than in the UK, and even though you have supplied the mandatory sentences above, one could argue that anyone not put off by 5 years is unlikely to be dissauded by 7-10 years, either. The section about Vermont is also unnecessary; there are rural parts of the UK with high levels of gun ownership, yet much lower than average -gun crime. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not making alterations, I'm adding relevant information. My personal feelings matters not, as matters not if media are doing this comparison as often as they do. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, not another official media. We're supposed not to be biased here, and I'm starting to believe that you are, I hope I'm wrong. I'm trying very hard to correct my entry as you suggest, but you just deleting it altogether. This is disappointing, as now I have two sources which quite clearly show that one faces greater punishment for illegal gun possession in the NYC than in London, UK, plus apparently mandatory sentences in the UK are not as mandatory as one may wish. I've added the second link from the UK media as you suggested. We're not here to argue whether 5 years, 10 years or capital punishment will put one off or not, we're here to provide facts. I will remove Vermont section as I can see your point, but I'll reinstate the facts about gun licensing in the NYC and also about the sanctions, please do not remove my entry anymore.Ghrom 13:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem you have is that you have cited one source for NYC and one for the UK, and drawn a conclusion from them, which breaks Wikipedia policy on synthesis. Your amendement of the Vermont reverance is also in rather unencyclopaedic language, and could also be countered with pointing out the same situation exists to a certain degree in the UK, in that Northern Ireland does not have the same blanket ban on handguns as England, Wales & Scotland, but does not have significantly higher homicide or gun crime levels, even despite past political events. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately English is not my native language and I sometimes find myself unable to put my thoughts into words in an elegant way. Feel free to help. I need to think over your suggestions of synthesis, I'll get back to you on this one. Ghrom (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't think synthesis applies here - I'm merely comparing two different versions of law citing two sources, can't see how this is synthesis and comparing crime rate of NYC and London is not. We don't explicitly state that crime rate in NYC is higher than in the UK, and we do state that laws in NYC are stricter in terms of punishment, but its not really original research. I mean, it's quite obvious after comparing both sources (and many others if one googles for additional information) that the statement is valid. Ghrom (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the phrase "Illegal gun possession in New York City is a serious crime" is problematic, because it could be taken to imply that such possession is not a serious crime in London, which is clearly is. I've just noticed that the pages doesn't actually mentioning the mandatory five year sentence for E&W; really we need a section on the the consequences of breaking these laws. I'm a bit tied up with other things at the moment, but will see if I can come up with an alternative way of presenting the information later. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok I changed that, not sure if the sentence is as clear as it was before though. In the meantime Yaf joined the debate and reinstated the Vermont reference - I think it puts more light on the subject, that's why I added it in the first place. If you start to compare, you will inevitably end up having this sort of comparisons showing up. The pro-gun lobby will add Vermont, the anti-gun will add NYC... The 'Gun crimes in the US tend to be concentrated in larger metropolitan areas, often consisting of deaths occurring in the so-called drug war among criminals killing each other.' bit is part of a larger debate and is one fact which is quite relevant, if you really need to compare the two countries. I can see it being disputed by you though ;) Let me just point out that we don't have anything on the scale of their 'War on Drugs' here in the UK, and I believe this significantly changes the number of homicides. Ghrom (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Homicide and firearms crime" section and statistics

I've been watching this article for some time, and I have become more and more discomfited by this section. It seems to me the focus doesn't match the article title. I don't dispute the statistics or the good faith of any editors.

The problem, it seems to me, is that this is just a collection of statistics about homicide, gun crime, etc, drawn directly from original sources. No matter how well balanced it is, the selection of particular statistics from the mountain of available data seems to me to represent original research.

It seems to me that if this article is actually about politics, it should refer to political sources, and repeat (without analysis) only the statistics produced in terms of the political debate. Seeking to make the statistics fairer, more representative, more true is missing the point: that isn't politics.

To be clear: I think we should be reflecting what participants in the public debate are saying; if they cite statistics it is proper to provide references to the original study, but not to draw conclusions or disagree with what the participants say unless we are reporting the conclusion or public disagreement of another participant.

For now, the deletion of this section might be proper.

Any comments? Notinasnaid 10:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. It's difficult to read and the relevance is questionable. You could scrap the last paragraph of the Dunblane section as well.--Nydas(Talk) 11:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
There are potential pitfalls, as both "sides" have a tendency to either under- or over-play and/or misrepresent the figures. Should we accept a political claim that, for example, "gun crime has increased X% since X date," without confirming whether it applies to all gun crime, crimes other than with air weapons or criminal damage, etc.? The media also makes similar "mistakes," e.g. [6]:
"In 1996, 7,753 crimes involving firearms were reported to police in England and Wales, and 49 homicides were committed with guns. In the last year for which figures are available, 2003-04, the corresponding figures are 24,094 crimes and 68 homicides."
This implies an increase in gun crime of 211%, but the fact is that the 1996 figure quoted is for firearms offences not including criminal damage, while the 2004-04 figure includes criminal damage. The comparable figure for 1996 was actually 13,876 meaning an increase of 70%. These figure also include the use of air weapons; excluding them gives 6,063 offences in 1996 and 10,338 in 2003/04. This is still an increase, but it puts the whole thing into perspective. The cherry-picked homicide figures also means very little, since in 1995 it was 70, in 1997 it was 59; 1996 was just uncharacteristically "low." Nick Cooper 06:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This obviously aimed at American readers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.237.47.38 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 20 May 2007

Would you care to elaborate? What specifically are you referring to? Nick Cooper 12:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Definition of "firearm"

There has to be some universal definition of the term "firearm", since there's universal laws(and definitons) of war and things related to combat. This whole "imitation firearm" thing is open to mean whatever one wants it to mean. If someone robs a store with a realistic plastic toy gun, is that considered a crime involving a "firearm" by the UK Home Office or whatever organization that's responsible for these statistics? If so, then that shows that these statistics aren't that meaningful. And in having these stats in a wikipedia article which has a global readership, it's somewhat misleading to people who aren't from the UK or are unfamiliar with unique definitions found in British Law. 4.237.222.84 18:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've quoted the definition in law of an "imitation firearm" under the section of that title above, but essentially it means that if whoever is getting robbed thinks it's a firearm, then it's classed as a crime with a firearm. The actual detailed official statistics (page 43, Table 2.03) clearly show what percentage of "gun crime" is commited with which type of "firearm," but the media has a tendency to report either the overall total including air weapons, or the "not including air weapons" sub-set, even though it contains a large percentage that are definitely imitations, as well as what it likely to be another significant percentage that are. The bottom line is that a crime is only counted as being in the "imitation" category if the "firearm" is shown at the time or subsequently to be one, such as if it is "fired" and it turns out to be a BB gun, or the assailant is apprehended while still in possession of it. Nick Cooper 20:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I have just completed a module on UK law for my Uni Course, and he specifically said that there is no single legal definition of a firearm, and that under UK law, that if you spray perfume into an attackers eyes, you are legally using a firearm.
I can't make a formal citation, but a summation of the notes we were supplied is:

- shot, bullet or other missile that can be discharged, - any prohibited weapon, whether it is such a lethal weapon or not, - any component part of such a lethal or prohibited weapon, - any accessory to any such weapon designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the weapon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.86.108 (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Age?

Does anyone know if there is an age limit on firearm ownership? Could say a 17 year old own one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stewiechewie (talk • contribs) 20:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no minimum age limit for the posession of a shotgun certificate and the use of a shotgun, but a person cannot receive a shotgun as a gift until the age of 15, and they must be shotgun certificate holder to do so. They may not hire or purchase shotguns until the age of 17.
The minimum age for a firearm certificate is 14, and a person can receive a section 1 firearm as a gift at the same age, , and they must be firearm certificate holder to do so. They may not hire or purchase section 1 firearms until the age of 17. Nick Cooper 14:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Deactivated weapons

I came to this article to try and find out the laws regarding deactivated weapons as collector's items. Even if there is a different article regarding this I think it should be mentioned here, or at least a "see also" --Chrishopkins53 12:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wording in lead section

This is a little strained: "There is ... little debate between pro-gun control and pro-gun ownership advocates". The vast majority of those in Britain who think the laws are too strict would say they supported gun control, and in many cases to an extent that the average American would class as "pro-gun control". I'm uneasy that the phrase I've quoted seems to be using American terminology for a society where the "centre of gravity" of the debate is very different. 86.143.48.55 (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

With the decline of archery as mandatory there were growing concerns in the sixteenth century over the use of guns and crossbows

Under the "History of gun control in the United Kingdom" section, "citation needed" is applied to the phrase "With the decline of Archery as mandatory [citation needed] there were growing concerns in the sixteenth century over the use of guns and crossbows." In fact, the decline of archery at that time seems to be attributable to the shortage of yew used for the English longbow (see last paragraph) and simply because of firearm availability. I'm not able to dedicate more time to this article right now, but I'm sure I also read in my last few minutes searching that concerns over the arming of the yeomanry were (to the king) a side-effect of the Hundred Years' War. That preceded this period by over half a century, so usage may well have by the time of the 1508 crossbow ban which http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~ajcd/archery/faq/history.html attributes as an attempt to reinvigorate longbow practice.

Simply put, this sentence seems quite questionable. A pro-gun lobbyist could even argue that it's a NPOV statement: "oh, since the sixteenth century there have been concerns in over the use of guns and crossbows", whereas it's clear that at that time - a period in which standing armies were not common - it was widely recognised by monarchs that an armed populace was a necessary precaution against the risk of war. The pro-gun lobbyist might even argue that even Henry V recognised the fallacy of gun- contr.... um... longbow-control. ;) Stroller (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh! I should add that it appears archery WAS effectively mandatory in England previous to the sixteenth century - the Assize of Arms of 1252 stated that all "citizens, burgesses, free tenants, villeins and others from 15 to 60 years of age" should be armed. I would imagine that for the peasantry a length of yew, which could be shaped & strung at home, would be affordable in a way that a forged sword simply was not. Stroller (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Henry VIII passed laws relating to mandatory archery practice and ensuring the permissibility of sports and archery on Sundays.
There were assassinations and attempted assassinations using wheellock pistols starting with the murder of William the Silentof Orange by a catholic in 1584. This was the first time that a concealable, self-igniting gun technology was widely used, and this threat really rattled the powerful, including the court of Elizabeth at the time. See for instance the recent movie of 'Elizabeth' portraying one such attempt. ChrisPer (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So the UKs gun law is in the name of public safety and minimising deaths eh? (from the intro)

I suppose the US wants to maximise gun deaths? I think that claim is dubious at best. What you can say is that the UK gov is interested in minimising legal gun ownership. Whether this is an effective means of ensuring public safety is another matter entirely.

RE Public Safety, I seem to recall that fears of a Bolshevist revolution was one of the factors that got the whole gun control ball rolling here in the UK. Perhaps it should revised to read "ensuring government safety"? 217.43.208.229 (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

For a good picture of the focus of public policy thought on guns, you should probably read The Cullen Report on the Dunblane Massacre. --TS 07:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
217.43.208.229, I have reverted your edit, because you are continually missing the point. The opening paragraph explains what "Gun politics in the United Kingdom" means in the UK. Whether the policy actually works or not is dealt with later in the article, but it is simplistic and misleading to use the example of the specific handgun ban to question the situation as a whole. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the current wording is tantamount to "accepting the governments side of the story" unquestioningly. Right now it reads as though any country that does not follow the British model is unconcerned with public safety and firearms deaths. At the very least the intro should be altered to something like "Ministers say the focus of their gun policy is...", since as the Greenwood link illustrates, as others, there are alternative explanations for the governments behaviour. One is the concern about insurrection in the 20s. In the modern sense the Cullen report can be viewed as a piece of populism and political opportunism, where crises are used to expand political power bases and erode civil liberties in the name of some ineffectual "cause". Evidence from this can be drawn from the fact that data before and after 1997 illustrated that legal gun ownership was not a major problem, and that changing the circumstances surrounding it would not affect crime. I'll need to dig up that quote from a policeman which said something to the effect of "Banning guns wont prevent another Dunblane, it will stop it from being our fault".81.154.215.245 (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
That's a mixture of undue weight and original research. Please avoid drawing personal inferences. --TS 15:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
... because they disagree with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.93.81 (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this person has a good point. The wording DOES imply a secondary reading, and the idea that it only has one meaning in the UK is questionable. An implied meaning of 'in praiseworthy moral contrast to the USA' is obvious. You don't need to rewrite it from an NRA viewpoint to correct that. I suggest something like:

"Gun politics in the United Kingdom are dominated by an official view that firearms should be very tightly controlled, and general public support for this position. Unlike in the United States, there is practically no modern organised "right to keep and bear arms" lobby in the United Kingdom, and little debate between pro-gun control and pro-gun ownership advocates. These two situations create what is believed to be some of the strictest gun legislation in the world.[1][2]"

It seems to me that shooting in the UK is in modern times identified in the public mind with the landed class, and the class prejudice held by some other classes aligns with the US-based contempt of the new-class values for 'redneck' traditional values. Class warfare in the form of anti-field sports activism maybe displaces the 'moral status marker' role of anti-gun thinking in the rest of the anglosphere. The former working-class male enjoyment of shooting sports and the self-respect engendered by skill at arms appears to have been wiped away by official distrust of the 'ordinary person' who keeps a firearm for legitimate purposes. ChrisPer (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem you run into there is the question of whether the official position leads public opinion, as per the implication of your suggested text, or whether the reverse is true. Objectively one could say that it was officialdom that led most of the legislation in the first half of the 20th century, but public opinion was more of an influence in the second half. As for UK gun legislation as class-warfare, certain types of shooting would generally be perceived to be the preserve of the rich, but shooting as a whole is now so marginalised that it's not really a defining characteristic of the upper classes or the wealthy. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw an article, will try and find the source, that one of the big steps in tightening UK gun controls in the 1960s was a desperate ploy by the PM/Government of the day to deflect anger of the public at a particular crime, which looked like preventing the death penalty being abolished. To say 'public opinion' leads is a bit of a misnomer - the hysterical media lead, the public and politicians tend to follow. You mistake me when you point out that shooting is not a 'defining characteristic of the upper classes or the wealthy' - I was referring to a difference in the UK picture that there is an actual class hatred in the UK that is irrelevant to US or Australian society (except the old union movement which was poisoned by UK communist leadership of the second half of the C20). The benefit of colonies was that hunting (meaning shooting game for meat) was allowed (even necessary) for ordinary people, and far more democratic. Its not necessary that it be a defining characteristic, merely that the old social fault lines become part of the motivating structure for the 'new' values. ChrisPer (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
"In August 1966 three police officers were shot dead by petty criminals armed with illegally owned pistols. Strong

public revulsion and demands for the re-instatement of the death penalty were countered by the introduction of a licensing system for shotgun owners in the Criminal Justice Act 1967." http://www.bssc.org.uk/dox/Shooting%20in%20Britain.pdf ChrisPer (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the Shepherd's Bush Murders, and as per your quote it was after the abolition of the death penalty, rather than before it. In Colin Greenwood's Firearms Control (1972 - just about the only serious study of the issue in the UK), he notes:
"Shock and horror swept the country, to be supplemented by anger and revulsion. There was a huge wave of protests about the aboliton of capital punishment, with many people expressing the view that the tragey of Braybrook Street would not have happened if the threat of the rope still existed for murders of police. The calls for the reintroduction of capital punishment became louder and louder and were strongly voiced by the police, for whom the Home Secretary has a special responsibility, through the [Police] Federation. They issued an immediate statement demanding the restoration of capital punishment and maintained this demand strongly." [page 83]
The Home Secretary at the time was the abolitionist Roy Jenkins, who (inevitably) resisted these demands. Seven weeks before the murders, and in consultation with the police, Jenkins had decided against introducing controls on shotguns, as indeed his predecessor Frank Soskice had the previous year (1965). On both occasions it seems that the benefits of such controls were thought to be marginal, but would place a huge extra beaurocractic burden on the police. Since shotguns had not been used in the Shepherd's Bush murders, it does seem that introducing controls on them was a political ploy on Jenkins's part to deflect attention away from the capital punishment issue. The same can be said of the "Fireams (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules" which followed not long afterwards, in that they placed controls on a type of air weapon that were rare, expensive and rarely used in crimes, and not the common and cheap ones that were.
To return to the general issue of public opinion, though, I think it is a bit disingenuous of you to claim that, "the hysterical media lead, the public and politicians tend to follow," as if the public would not react were it not for media prompting. While some of the reporting after Hungerford was undoubtedly sensationalist, you can't get away from the fact that what galvanised the public reaction was the basic fact of the body-count inflicted with legally held weapons, and the same was true of Dunblane, exacerbated by the composition of that body-count in that case. The media could have been the model of reasonable restraint, but the murder of sixteen primary school kids and their teacher is going to provoke a public reaction under any circumstances.
As to the "class hatred" issue, I think it just is not one in the UK anymore. You previously mentioned "anti-field sports activism," but in the UK that has been almost totally restricted to fox hunting with hounds and - to a lesser extent - hare coursing. In comparison, pheasant shooting and deer-stalking barely register on the public's politcal radar, despite these being just as historically identifiable with the "upper classes," whatever the extreme fringe lunatics of the likes of Class War say. The fact that many ordinary supermarkets stock pheasant and wood pigeon with "may contain lead shot" warnings and nobody is batting an eyelid says a lot. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Well I stand corrected then. Its interesting to see the differences between our countries, and its easy to get the wrong end of the stick from the far side of the world. There are significant differences between the ocutnries but what I have in my state is different to other states, a Police attitude to shooters that 'its my business to stop you having firearms' whether or not my purpose is legitimate. In other parts of the world, and other states of Australia, their attitude is more 'Your legal business is your own business.' It is my belief that our police culture was set by British imports at a senior level. ChrisPer (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of the comments in this section are quite extraordinary and way off the mark. Maybe I am reading them out of context (cos I have not checked back over the edit history of the main article), but I would say that I doubt that anyone has said that "the US wants to maximise gun deaths". Also, it is not goverment that lays down the law in the UK. It is parliament. They are not synonymous. Governments can and do introduce legislation but they cannot guarantee to get it approved by the elected representatives of all parties. I am not aware that there was ever any serious concern about insurrection from an armed population in the UK. I am open to persuasion otherwise, so a reliable British source for this would be good to see. Certainly the last time this actually happened was in the Civil War which the parliamentarians won over the King. Not that parliament in those days was as democratic of the nation as a whole but it was more democratic than the monarchy itself. I don't think that class warfare has much to do with animal activism. It is almost entirely to do with issues of animal welfare. Hence fox hunting gets more attention than grouse shooting. I know many working class people who enjoy clay pigeon shooting but I accept its not a major sport amongst the working classes. Nick Cooper is right that the pressure in the last half of the 20th century to control access to guns came from the grassroots and not from politicians. I don't know enough about the earlier legislation to comment. I think controlling access is the key issue and not reducing gun ownership, though the two naturally are intimately intertwined. Access in the right circumstances for good reasons is generally not objected to. The main aim has to prevent too easy access which could lead to misuse in the wrong circumstances.--Hauskalainen (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well you should read the article then ;-). The discussion is around the first line of the existing text which says "... places its main considerations on how best to ensure public safety and how deaths involving firearms can most effectively be prevented. Unlike in the United States..." (first line of the article at present). It may be hard for some to see how anti-American prejudice is endemic in UK/CAN/AUS thinking, but in the gun control debate it is more important than actual evidence.
Now, revolutions:
1) Bill of Rights 1689, resulted from the 1688 Glorious Revolution, apparently regarded as a some kind of secret in the modern education system.
2) During the French Revolution there was serious concern at the possibility by the powers that be, but no evident groundswell of public support for topping the toffs.
3) In the 1920s a rash of pistol laws were passed. For the Cabinet discussions behind them, see Cramer, Clayton (1997). "Fear and Loathing in Whitehall: Bolshevism and the Firearms Act of 1920; paper presented to American Society of Criminology conference, San Diego, November 1997. Publication pending in Maine Law Review, 2009.". http://www.claytoncramer.com/firear~1.htm. Retrieved on 2007-10-18, text recently restricted on his website as it has been accepted for publication in the Maine Law Review.
As for 'animal welfare', its important to know what activists really are about. I confess that seeing the kind of obsessive hatred that hunt saboteurs and the like put out and the recent attempts to get people to support anti-fishing laws by having them adopt fish as 'sea kittens' fills me with doubt that mere concern for animals is behind it. Real natural life for wild animals is not being hugged in a row of fluffy bunnies. ChrisPer (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
And of course, the '45 and Culloden.ChrisPer (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
That isn't, of course, "the first line of the existing text," but rather the whole of the first line and the start of the second. "Unlike in the United States" relates directly to the RTKBA issue, and it would seem appropriate in that the United States is undoubtedly the country where that is one of the major factors. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Well actually on my screen it is the first line, which includes part of the second SENTENCE. You notice I left the punctuation. This is a symbolic issue and I am not trying to misrepresent it here, but to illustrate the symbolic aspect of what we are trying to say about that first sentence. The implication is quite real. ChrisPer (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, "Unlike..." doesn't appear until the end of the second line on my screen - it would be difficult to allow for all possible display arrangements. That said, there probably no reason why we can't shift the qualifier and have the sentence run, "There is practically no modern organised "right to keep and bear arms" lobby in the United Kingdom (unlike, for example, in the United States), and little debate between pro-gun control and pro-gun ownership advocates." Linking RTKBA would be useful. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
If you think that is better, by all means use it. I really only piped up to support the comment that the first sentence has a great big implication that is not NPOV or 'encyclopaedic'. Sorry to drag in some idek spoeculation with it. 203.59.222.27 (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Headline

"Unlike in the United States, there is practically no modern organised "right to keep and bear arms" lobby in the United Kingdom, and little debate between pro-gun control and pro-gun ownership advocates. These two situations create what is believed to be some of the strictest gun legislation in the world.[1][2]"

-The references don’t really prove that to be the issue, one of the articles no longer exists as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.34.43 (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No debate or no forum for debate?

The article opens with the assertion that there is little debate between pro and anti gunners. Yet, anecdotally at least, it is easy to find many Brits who want to be able to do target shooting without excessive paperwork, or own a firearm for self defence (which is illegal no matter what you sign). So this would suggest to me that it is not so much that all Brits are anti-gun as it is the case that there is no forum for them to express these views.

Even the UK-NRA is against the self-defence application of firearms, whereas a great many Brits (especially libertarians) feel differently.

Could it be that the elitist and closeted design of UK lobbying is not as conducive to the prorogation of firearms rights as the US system? 86.135.172.104 (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is that most of it is just that - annecdotal. You have to bear in mind that the vast majority of the UK population have little if any experience or knowledge of firearms beyond what they read in the media and see on TV and in films, amongst whom the concept of "firearms rights" has no meaning. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I wonder, are you in the upper classes or perhaps a farmer, or mix with people who are on a regular basis? That might explain your unique experiences in it being "easy to find many Brits" who want guns or have them. For most British people guns are not part of their lives, nor do they have any desire for them to be. --129.11.12.201 (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
As a foreigner, I am amazed at the class prejudice some UK types appear to indulge, and the depth of historical ignorance of the urban chattering class who seem to believe that anything that contradicts their prejudices is either untrue or a crime. FWIW, there are several 'groups' of people who are heavily involved in shooting in the UK. One of them is working class sports people, who were the backbone of the extensive miniature rifle target shooting that grew into modern small bore rifle shooting and air rifle competition. Another is those who are exposed to crime; for instance, I met a UK guy in Africa who preferred to live there because he was allowed to actively defend himself, after a shocker in the UK involving knife-wielding thugs robbing his sister's chip shop. As George Orwell is reported to have said:
"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
ChrisPer (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Personnaly I don't see the desire to owe firearms for self-defence as anything other than a fringe opinion, regardless of perceived levels of crime. The fact that I own "just" a CO2-powered air pistol is viewed in the least as being highly eccentric by many people I know that are aware of it. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
In terms of percentage I am sure you are correct. ChrisPer (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

High rate of violent crime or statisitical illusion ?

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

I thought this was interesting given "...some of the strictest firearms legislation in the world." Worth mentioning here? —Darxus (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hardly! Its just the Daily Mail doing its usual alarmist job. The defintition of violent crime even within the UK was found to be inconsistent across the UK so they firmed up the rule. If there is an argument outside a pub and somebody "shoves" someone else using force and the person shoved compains, that is registered as a violent crime. The statistics showed a rocketing level of "violent crime" after the change was made, but in reality nothing changed except the definitition. If you smack a child, that too is an assualt. You simply cannot make cross border comparisons when the definitions vary so much. Homicides however are homicides pretty much the same everywhere. The fact is, as far as serious gun crime is concerned, the UK (has somewhere between 50 and 100 homicides annually compared to 9,000 in the US. The UK population one sixth the size of the US. The people in the UK are educated about these things and stories like this scare no one. But they look great to pro-gun activisits in the United States who spread them everywhere.... one wonders whether the well funded US gun lobby is somehow responsible for planting stories like this.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Try reading the comments attached and you will see that most Brits laughed at the very idea and agree with the comment I just made (above). And the real stinker was the claim that crime is worse than in South Africa where guns are everywhere and crime really is rampant. People were angry at Labour but not for crime... but political shenanigans... and they did not vote in droves for the Conservatives who, it is claimed, have compiled this piece of sh**. They had to get support from the Liberals to form a government. --Hauskalainen (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Edits to introduction para

I didn't make the edits Nick reverted, but they focused an old discontent with the first sentence

"Gun politics in the United Kingdom generally places its main considerations on how best to ensure public safety and how deaths involving firearms can most effectively be prevented."

I have two objections to this sentence: 1) It anthropomorphises the topic title. "Gun politics in the United Kingdom" is not a person or a government entity, but a broad area of historic, political and legislative enquiry. How can a 'broad area of enquiry' be spoken of as though it were a collective actor such as an executive committee? 2) It fails to recognise that the topic is in some way contentious or open to enquiry, while the present wording perhaps expresses the massive imbalance of power between the various actors. There is little inquiry into what form of controls "most effectively" prevent deaths, or which parts of the laws might produce what results, or whether the assumptions that underlie the law have been tested.

I suggest something like:

"In the United Kingdom, strong controls on firearms focus on ensuring public safety and how deaths involving firearms can most effectively be prevented."

Then we have "Gun ownership levels have traditionally been low." This is not true, if you view 'tradition' as covering more than the post-WW2 period. It might be true by US standards, but we have established that the UK gun politics is not to be described in US terms. It is probably better to say "From the mid 20th Century gun ownership in the UK has declined and is now very low."

ChrisPer (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I was primarily concerned with the removal of the line about the low number of firearms homicides, not least because it is a necessary counter-point to the mention of mass shootings. As to the level of firearms ownership, the problem is that there is actually very little evidence that it has ever been anything other than low, even before the advent of "modern" legislation controlling it. In 1968 there were only 216,300 firearms certificates on issue out of a population of some 45 million. Today it's 128,500 out of a population of 53 million. That's a massive numerical drop, but it's 0.29% of the population, as opposed to 0.43% in 1968. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
That baseline of low homicides is of course really important. For the level of ownership, the discouragement of shooting was intense since WW2 so 1968 was after the trend to reduction was well established. Shooting delined similarly in Australia from about 1978 onward, as a result of urbanisation and cultural changes. The numbers that you quote seem to be firearm certificates but shotguns and airguns were not on firearm certificates unitl recently. I do not assert that the absolute per capita level was previously highcompared with the US, but in the past the UK was culturally very different to now. There are untold references to game shooting in literature (eg in Pride & Prejudice, The Shooting Party, etc), obviously land owning classes being dominant but also as the normal sport of the country, travellers in the colonies and military officers. Pistols were routinely carried for protection by travellers in past centuries. The rise of the civil marksmanship movement from the early 1850s as a patriotic and strategic asset, and the sponsored growth of the working class shooting clubs from the 1890s forward, show that the modern assumption that gun ownership is a tiny minority interest did not apply in the two hundred years to the end of WW2. George Orwell is alleged to have said that "That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article5299010.ece
"In January 1909 two such anarchists, lately come from an attempt to blow up the president of France, tried to commit a robbery in north London, armed with automatic pistols. Edwardian Londoners, however, shot back – and the anarchists were pursued through the streets by a spontaneous hue-and-cry. The police, who could not find the key to their own gun cupboard, borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by, while other citizens armed with revolvers and shotguns preferred to use their weapons themselves to bring the assailants down.
Today we are probably more shocked at the idea of so many ordinary Londoners carrying guns in the street than we are at the idea of an armed robbery. But the world of Conan Doyle’s Dr Watson, pocketing his revolver before he walked the London streets, was real. The arming of the populace guaranteed rather than disturbed the peace.
That armed England existed within living memory; but it is now so alien to our expectations that it has become a foreign country. Our image of an armed society is conditioned instead by America: or by what we imagine we know about America."
And finally, from my reading as a collector the history of the arms industry, BSA and the British gun trade, it seems like this sentence implies that the exceptional rarity of gun ownership now is 'traditional' a continuous situation, when it seems to me nothing of the sort.
ChrisPer (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
When I was writing my above response, I almost put in a line to the effect that the usual cliched annecdotes about the Tottenham Outrage, Orwell, Sherlock Holmes, etc., but decided not, firstly because I thought it might sound flippant, and secondly that I didn't want to assume that you'd rely on them. None of them actually tell us anything other than what we already know to be a fact, i.e. that firearms were available and relatively easy to obtain for those who wanted and/or could afford them. In the case of Tottenham, it was a pursuit spread over several well-populated miles on a Saturday late-morning/early-afternoon. That a handful of people amongst the hundred - if not thousands - on the streets at the time had guins tells us very little. I have to say that in many years of interest in the role of firearms in British society, I have never seen any convincing and reliable statistics that suggest anything other than peripheral levels of ownership, even in terms of an estimate. It should also be noted that given the attention which this subject receives, the fact that nobody else seems to have come up with one is also very telling. Clearly the figure I quoted above are for the mid-20th century, but we could also take as a proxy the number of firearms surrendered to the authorities in amnesties over the years:
1933 16,409
1935 8,469
1937 14,000
1946 76,000
1961 70,000
1965 41,000
1968 25,088
1988 42,725
1996 23,000
2003 43,000
In summary, 38,878 surrendered pre-WW2 (but post-WW1), and 320,813 in the 57 years between 1946 and 2003. That's a lot of guns, but over the years it doesn't suggest a huge amount in relation to the population. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Nick, you have at least SOME numeric data as to the levels of firearms ownership. I am convinced that you are right that 'population, per capita or per 100,000' measures of ownership will be very low. Yes my impression is anecdotal and cliched, and the only numeric data I can think of getting of any use would be the figures from the London and Birmingham proof houses and manufacturing and exporting figures. I will chase some of that. Nevertheless there was a very strong, socialised gun culture, and very high ownership within appropriate segments of the population, which I may overemphasise due to 35 years of reading on the topic. ChrisPer (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I have to say here that I generally support Nick Cooper here, especially in his point about the firearms level having always been very low in absolute terms and in relative terms compared to other societies in Europe, perhaps due to the rather heavy urban population that would have little need for a firearm. As to Chris Per's point, the lead is written in the way that it is because it WP policy to introduce the article very early on in the first sentence and to say something which summarizes as far as possible. As to ChrisPer's point where he says "How can a 'broad area of enquiry' be spoken of as though it were a collective actor such as an executive committee? " the answer is simple... the politics of the UK ARE determined by a collective actor... the it is fairly clear from the evidence that the current law which Parliament has passed was enacted to put public safety as its paramount concern. I don't see how anyone could claim otherwise. If you have evidence to the contrary I would gladly be willing to take a look at it, as too for the issue of the level of firearm ownership. --Hauskalainen (talk) 10:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Then the sentence should substitute "Gun politics of the United Kingdom" with "The Parliament of the United Kingdom", if thats what its meant to say. I am familiar with the Westminster system and the doctrines of Parliamentary sovereignty, and English is my first language. ChrisPer (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, I may not be making myself clear but this particular issue is not about the politcs but the sentence construction. If Wikipedia is to have the topic as written described in the first sentence, it should be better expressed. Nick and you are of course correct in that gun ownership is rare in recent decades, and while its actually possible to argue about the 'paramount concern', my point in regard to the first sentence is only that it could be better written. ChrisPer (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"Despite its largely urbanised population, the United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world."

This sentence carries an implication that urban populations normally have a high rate of gun homicide. This is not true in Japan, China, Australia, Canada, Switzerland... does it mean 'despite having slums full of criminals' or what? ChrisPer (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Methinks you doth protest too much.. That there was more gun ownership in the past, and that is unbdoubtedly true, but I would not say that at any time in out history was it a very significant percentage of people that carried arms. It's not my understanding though I cannot back with a reliable source. I have come across Munday in the past and I did not find what he had to say then very convincing (though I can't recall now what it was I read). But as for your case, as I said, if you have evidence bring it here. But I don't think that one quote from The Times, a quote from Orwell and a reference to the fictional Conan Doyle character quite cuts the mustard with Wikipedia's reliable sources criteria to back your assertion that "Gun ownership levels have traditionally NOT been low". We are at a bit an impasse because I have no source ready for my assertion that they were but I don't think yours dtsnd up either. The rural landed classes almost all had guns but I don't think they have ever been in a majority since the invention of the firearm. The peasantry/working classes have greatly outnumbered them for at least the last millennium. --Hauskalainen (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am corrected as I acknowledge the absolute levels low. But weasel-like, I search for population sectors and reasons so that the low rate does not mean that guns were rare or unimportant. The production of millions of guns and rifles out of Birmingham and Enfield and importation from Belgium were not all for the military, and the patriotic gun culture of the 1850s forward co-opted part of the sporting culture; Cadets and military service meant a very broad part of the population were socialised in the use of arms, and the generous sharing of bullets with the Irish population by the RIC attest that the Police were not all unarmed in the UK as it stood. The firearm was widespread and important, even if penetration did not approach the 50% of households claimed by some for the US. Australia had perhaps 20% of households owning firearms in the late 1970s; I have references for here! ChrisPer (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page63.asp
  2. ^ http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp
  3. ^ http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1305
  4. ^ http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html
  5. ^ http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0206.pdf
  6. ^ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1424319,00
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Firearms_regulation_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_2&oldid=1011530962"