Talk:Firearms regulation in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Firearm shotgun difference in the UK
http://www.northants.police.uk/default.asp?action=article&ID=2614 The Gun.co.ukThe law permits only guns holding a maximum of three cartridges, ... The shotgun shooter shoots with both eyes open and POINTS the gun rather than aims it, ... www.thegun.co.uk/clays16.htm - 43k - Cached - Similar pages

Thanks for the correction Yaf, this Cleveland site words it better than the Northants. one.(Halbared 06:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)) http://www.cleveland.police.uk/crime_prevention/firearms/faq.htm

Source claim
There ought to be a sourcing for the following claim: "This is approximately double what it was fifty years ago, when gun laws were much more tolerant, and comparable with Switzerland today, where, again, gun laws are extremely tolerant."

Otherwise it should be removed. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.54.170.127 (talk &bull; contribs) 22:49, 18 August 2005.


 * The homicide rate figures are from the UK Home Office, which you could check for yourself by asking for them (that's how I got them). The figure for Switzerland I can't remember the source for, but it's reliable. The facts that UK laws were much more tolerant fifty years ago, and that Switzerland has extremely tolerant laws today, are well known to anyone seriously interested in the subject. Alex Swanson 00:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

What relevance do the violent crime statistics have to gun politics? It is possible to be violent without a gun and 50% of violent crimes involve no injury to the victim.|BBC News &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.31.85.54 (talk &bull; contribs) 11:42, 22 October 2005.


 * The relevance is that you cannot separate out gun crimes in particular from crime in general. For example, it would be pointless to pass laws which reduced the number of homicides committed with firearms if the offenders simply used knives instead. Also, it is arguable that gun crime simply represents the extreme end of a general spectrum of crime which includes violent crime in general; thus, if you could make society as a whole more peaceful, then the number of gun crimes in particular would go down even without any specific action in that area. Alex Swanson 21:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC).


 * Okay, I'll buy that.--JABITheW 14:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've re-inserted the homicide likelihood comparison Britain-USA as circumstancial evidence for the correlation between the number of homicides and gun politics. That correlation is further substantiated by the 70% to 6% information, which supports the theory that ready availability of guns increases the likelihood of homicides in absolute numbers as well as the relative likelihood of a homicide being committed with a gun compared to any other mean. --Neil Jonsson 15:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Opinion poll
"According to opinion polls, around 75% of the British public favour even stricter controls on gun ownership."

Can we verify these statistics? I suggest a reference to the opnion poll(s)is added to article or else this section should be removed.


 * I went ahead and removed the opinion poll claim until it can be substantiated. 137.205.139.251

Homebrew
Reckon its worth adding a paragraph on Philip Luty? The guy who was imprisoned for building his own gun and writing a book about home gunsmithing. - FrancisTyers 15:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Never heard of that, but wouldn't that be illegal in a whole lot of places? Notinasnaid 15:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * In the U.S., building a Title I gun (handgun, rifle, shotgun, not automatic nor otherwise classed as Title II) for personal use is perfectly legal. It doesn't even have to have a serial number, but BATFE has expressed a preference for homebuilt guns to have serial numbers. 208.40.64.2 14:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Dunno, check out his site: http://www.thehomegunsmith.com - FrancisTyers 16:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Exports
I have removed the comment about exports on the basis such exports are typically to governments and hence the issue isn't relevant to this article, which discusses the laws relating to private individuals. Alex Swanson 00:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Airgun restrictions
Britain is preparing to place heavy restrictions on airguns as well. Should we include this in the article, or wait until the bill either passes or fails? Rogue 9 20:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Suggest waiting, since current intentions aren't clear. Alex Swanson 08:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Homicide involving firearms figures
These come from the BBC, to pre-emptively defend them. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.31.85.54 (talk &bull; contribs) 19:54, 21 November 2005.

General use of statistics
"From June 2003 to June 2004, recorded gun crime in the UK rose by 3% to 10,590 incidents. There was also a 14% rise in violent crime in the April-June period (265,800 incidents compared to 223,600 the previous year).  Advocates on both sides of the gun control debate have argued how this is correctly interpreted with no consensus." This extract in particular shows a use of statistics biased towards gun liberties. 3% is not a significant change. Similarly the quote of the April-June period of 2004 is poor statistics. It implies that small samples were taken until a trend was found which fits the author's viewpoint. The British Crime Survey figures also are ignored. These, coincidentally, show that violent and gun crime has decreased since 1997. Other factors excluded are the fact that a new system of counting and several new offences were introduced by the Home Office in 1998, making it difficult to compare statistics before and after. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.31.85.54 (talk &bull; contribs) 21:49, 21 November 2005.


 * While I take your general point, whether a 3% rise is significant or not is a matter of opinion. In my experience, very few people on either side of the argument dispute that gun crime has risen steadily in recent years, and is still rising. Anti-liberty campaigners argue that this shows the need for further new laws; pro-liberty groups argue that it demonstrates the ineffectiveness of past laws, which were, indisputably, justified at the time on the basis that they would improve public safety. Incidentally, wouldn't it be sociable to include your name and the date in your comment? Alex Swanson 22:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Probably, but I was a newbie to Wikipedia then. I've since registered, though only recently. I should have re-visited this sooner. My apologies for letting this lapse. Anyway, leaving aside the three percent which is too small to be conclusive either way(shall we say?), the article still ignores half the available evidence, which is arguably more accurate (as it was not subject to changes in accounting and does not carry the risks or recrimination). De-legalisation of handguns would encourage people to report gun-intimidation as they would know that they were victims of crime. So official statistics increasing still doesn't imply an increase in gun-crime. I'd say this article is neutral. It does point out arguments against gun legalisation and the worries on the restrictions of liberties equally.--JABITheW 14:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

USA
Why does this article have so much information about the USA, statistics etc.? How are they relevant to the UK? - FrancisTyers 15:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, 70% of homicides in the United States involve firearms compared to 6% in the United Kingdom.

I've removed this from the page pending a source. - FrancisTyers 15:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Homicide involving firearms figures

These come from the BBC, to pre-emptively defend them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.31.85.54 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 21 November 2005.

I'd also like to point out that the section on how the US has much lower crime rates in rural areas, as compared to Britain, needs to be backed up and similarly it can only be compared to similarly desne zones in Britain. Also, it needs to the sourced why/how/where areas that have enacted concealled gun laws have lower crime rates. That simply may transfer what previously would have been 'gun crime' into a legal category. Thus, someone carrying a licensed firearm may shoot an assailant, even without cause, but have it justified as 'self-defence' whereas in the UK any such behaviour is automatically illegal (both for possession of a weapon and for concealling it). Unless both assertions can be justified, I'd suggest they be removed. Nick Kerr 16:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Tags
Hi, please don't remove the tags, I've added them per Verifiability and Footnotes. - FrancisTyers 21:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Uninformed public
"The public itself is largely uninformed on the subject of firearms, and the press is generally sympathetic towards the case for more gun control, with opposition mainly confined to the more high-brow right-leaning publications."

I've removed this sentence. The British public's information 'on the subject of firearms' may not be exhaustive, but that has nothing to do the formation of perfectly legit opinions on gun control.

You might as well have an entry saying 'The public is largely uninformed on the subject of recreational drugs...' or 'The public is largely uninformed on the subject of communism...'

The sentence also contains too many weasel words - 'largely', 'generally', 'mainly'.


 * "The British public's information 'on the subject of firearms' may not be exhaustive, but that has nothing to do the formation of perfectly legit opinions on gun control." It has everything to do with it. The public in this case has been misled for years, and their opinions are, sadly, not informed by the facts. As a simple examlple, take the discussion above on whether US crime statistics are relevant; the argument is frequently put forward by anti-gun campaigners that high US crime rates are partly due to high levels of gun ownership. This argument is demonstrably untrue, but most of the public don't know that. This situation does not compare to recreational drugs or communism, where, although it is absolutely arguable that most people are less well-informed than they should be, what they do know is generally reasonably accurate. The sentence you have removed is a statement of fact which is relevant to the issue, especially for people outside the UK. Of course, if you think it's badly worded, that's something else; do you have an alternative? Alex Swanson 20:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If the argument is demonstrably untrue then it should be fairly simple to add a section to the article rather than merely hinting at it in an overstuffed sentence. The idea that the British public are misinformed (not uninformed) dupes regarding the merits of gun control is an intensely political viewpoint, and not really suitable for the introduction.Nydas 21:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is that the public are not properly informed. The argument about US guns and homicides is merely an example; others are that the Dunblane massacre was carried out with legally-acquired guns (untrue) and that legally-owned guns are a significant source of guns for criminals (unproven and probably untrue). It would be difficult to go into detail on that.


 * How do you feel about: "The press is generally sympathetic towards the case for restrictive firearms laws, with opposition confined to the more high-brow right-leaning publications, such as The Daily Telegraph. Those in favour of restrictions argue that the the public generally support their case; those against claim that bias amongst the "chattering classes" leads to the public being uninformed or even actively misled, and argue that general support for the right to self defence means that the public are not, in principle, against weapons ownership or use." Alex Swanson 21:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's worse. Why not just place the arguments in a 'pro-gun sentiment in the UK' subsection, rather than cluttering the intro? You don't need to go into detail.Nydas 23:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. The public is awefully informed in this country, but at the same time 'the public' is awefully informed about everything from economics to having children. While this might be pointed out in a pro-firearms section, I have to agree it is inappopriate in the introduction.Nick Kerr 23:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are going to do that, I don't see why "There is no organised "right to keep and bear arms" lobby in the United Kingdom, and such positions are generally frowned upon. Sharp rises in gun crime from the late 1990s and illicit importation of firearms has proved to be a problem, while two high-profile massacres involving licenced firearms has brought the sport of target shooting into disrepute." shouldn't be removed as well. They are at least as much POV as the sentence you want removed. And to say that the public is misinformed - much more badly, I must again point out, than on the other subjects you mention - is not POV, it is a statement of fact. How can stating facts be POV? Alex Swanson 23:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The article as a whole is not very scholarly, and needs to be reorganised. That particular sentence caught my attention because of the heavy usage of weasel words and an overdose of vagueness. If you want to get your point across that the British public are ignorant about firearms, you could simply quote the percentage who have firearms training/experience - it must surely be very low. Alternatively, as I have already suggested, you could present a structured and detailed summary of the facts in a specific section.Nydas 10:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with the argument that a lack of firearm training/experience makes people ignorant about firearms, we can all understand the effect a firearm can have on a person without having fired one ourselves. Do you also believe that most people are uniformed on the use of nuclear weapons or nerve gas due to their lack of experience with there use? Are we unable to condone rape as a crime without being a victim or perpetrator of rape? Whether the UK public are ignorant of firearms is debatable, but lack of experience in their use is not the cause of such ignorance. Markb 09:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The thing that strikes me is that the article seems to be attempting to subconciously compare the UK with the US. In all the other countries with liberal gun laws, do they have "organised right to keep and bear arms" lobbies? - FrancisTyers 11:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, French and Australian gun laws would be interesting for comparative purposes, but there are also issues of population density and local controls. Still, additional information should be added.Nick Kerr 11:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to mention other countries with more liberal laws (Canada, Switzerland, Finland) but less wackos than the US. - FrancisTyers 12:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I was the one who made those edits. Note I wrote "uninformed" not "misinformed", and few Brits would disagree with that statement (a lot of them would see this as a virtue!) I felt it was appropriate in the intro section as it goes a good way to explaining the basis of gun politics in the United Kingdom. After all, that is what the article is about. The whole article really needs a complete rewrite, though, which I did start doing. It needs a lot more about the Dunblane massacre in particular - a very important event in UK gun politics. I am opposed to degrading into a "Pro-gun views"/"Anti-gun views" article, A full analysis of the situation is preferable. -Admbws 15:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I point out that the purpose of wikipedia is to provide accurate facts, not value-judgements on the intelligence and general knowledge of the British public? Whether or not the opinion is based in mass hysteria, it still exists. Provide the facts and let users decide for themselves.--JABITheW 14:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, less of this judgement and more factual data.(Halbared)

History of gun control in the United Kingdom
Really need a summary of gun control legislation from 1900 to the 1970's here, noting the government's concern of a violent uprising.

This was removed from the article, I've added it here. - FrancisTyers 17:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The new section mentions British subjects, despite refering a time when Britain had yet to be created. English would surely be more appropriate. Although even including it at all under a 'United Kingdom' heading is questionable.(edit; it's been fixed)--Nydas 15:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This section is becoming ludicrously unbalanced and US-centric. United States this, United States that, who cares? Surely this stuff is covered in the US gun politics page?--Nydas 20:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it might be a deliberate attempt to balance the page in favour of gun control advocates. The US is well known as a place where lack of gun control causes real problems. Compared to say Canada. - FrancisTyers 20:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hee, hee. Seriously, the middle paragraph in the history section is clearly biased towards the author's view that Brits have lost something wonderful in the 'right to bear arms'. It also conflates arms with guns.--Nydas 21:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've cleared the middle paragraph of excessive references to the US and hints that UK citizen's rights have been taken away. Most British people certainly don't see it like this. --Nydas 19:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is not just for the British people, but is international in scope. Hence, I restored balance adding a small amount of clarification, as the claim the rights don't exist at all any longer is not quite factual.  The Common Law rights to keep and bear arms were frozen in 1791 in the US and are now over 800 years old (counting since Henry II).  Whether these rights should still exist is a controversial topic in and of itself, and any discussion on this certainly doesn't belong in this article.  Still, it is worth noting, starting from a common point, and tracking for over 725 years, it is only in the last 75 years or so that a divergence has occurred in gun politics among countries governed under essentially the same Common Law. This difference is worthy of being mentioned in passing in the article; otherwise, the question left for the reader is to wonder how we all wound up with different statutory laws governing gun politics while being under what is essentially the same fundamental Common Law. Yaf 21:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

UK Is A Third World Sewer, Im Moving To USA For Real Democracy
People seem to be under a false notion that in the UK people live in a "thriving democracy", this couldnt be anything further from the truth, the reality is that UK is a primitive state with a medieval political system (ie monarchy, first past the post, parliamentary system) where citizens enjoy very much less rights that free nations like the US.

Unfortunetly we have no "Right to bare arms" in the Uk; It almost reduces me to tears to say that I live in a country where despite the fact that a gun is within my reach ie fianicially I probably would never be given the fundamental human right to defend myself and excercise my 'right to bare arms', Why should a law abiding person like myself be deprived the right to own and posses a fire arm? Its because British society is not civilized enough to have such rights? If this is the case I think this presents a more important point in that we live in a country which does not value the rights and responsibilities of an individual but rather values the opinion of a larger backward soceity.

Do you think it would be possible for me as a brit to claim political asylum in the US? I mean im a strong believer in democracy the real kind ie Republic, and I aspire to US values of liberty not Uk's Queen, prime minister blair and these other goons —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon user (talk • contribs)


 * If you don't like it here, then bugger off. I get sick and tired of people whining, if it's so brilliant abroad, move there and stop complaining about it. Nick Kerr 06:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly value my liberty to carry firepower needlessly. After all, it's the kind of thing I need every day in central london, where everyone else is also armed to the teeth. Reffering to the US as a democracy is a joke. It's a republic at best, and even then only if you're white, wealthy, in the oil industry and called George. One man, one vote. He's the man, he has the vote.--JABITheW 14:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, one must be in possession of at least a semi-automatic weapon, I mean, what if someone causes a traffic incident while crossing the road and you feel threatened? Ten metres and no direct association may seem threatening, and that horn may be the first signs they're armed as well, thus precipitating the necessity to fire a few rounds through their wind-screen, right? =P No, the US is not a democracy, we come far closer to that, and even we have something soarly lacking. Still, as a Central Londoner, I'd love to tell my children someday that it was an issue of firepower, the less you feel you need, the more democratic you'll be. Nick Roche-Kerr 23:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

UK doesn't have a great system, but then again nor does the USA, which is a plutocracy. It's quite ironic to see ppl moan aboot democracy in a nation where the majority are for more gun control (and so democracy is satisfied) yet they don't like the outcome and wish to defy the majority. (Halbared 12:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC))

I have to agree, though I don't think the issue is whether people are pro-gun control in the UK, but how they want to control them. I am in favour of legalising all firearms, so long as they are kept in specialised firearm clubs with massive security requirements, thus satisfying freedom of choice with the needs for public security. I am entirely in favour of a choice, it's just whether that choice has any externalities. So the majority being 'in favour' of controls is a normative dilemma. Even people in favour of freedom of choice mostly (to my experience) want some kind of controls. Cheers, Roche-Kerr 11:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur mostly (I do not believe that people should have assault weapons and other extreme types), I believe that people should have a choice within reason, with the correct precautions in place.(Halbared 12:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC))

While I tend to agree that assault weapons are a bit...unecessary, if they're in a secure facility that the police will be monitoring and protecting (at the club's expense), and the facilities have been classified as acceptable for the weaponary in question, there's limited risk of abuse. The military in this country is far more relaxed about firearms (sometimes to sheer insanity) and yet they rarely get cited for misusing assault weapons. Roche-Kerr 09:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you feel aboot armour-piercing rounds?(Halbared 10:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC))


 * Dum-dum bullets anyone? They're fun. Jooler 11:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * They're illegal in public, and bloody well should be, but safety considerations can always be made, or if they cannot, then you may limit them. I mean, I'm not in favour of letting people set small nuclear devices off, but more freedom in controlled environments can allow personal freedom without harming public good. But with AP rounds I've never seen the point but to cause non-essential harm, hence why even the Army doesn't use them. Roche-Kerr 14:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Guns and Firearms are different things
There is a major problem with this article: For a gun to technically be a gun it actually has to be implaced, either in a land based implacement a ship or other such fortification. For example a pistol and a rifle are not technically guns - they are firearms. It needs some disambiguation because a) In some parts of the USA guns do colloquially mean the same things as firearms. b) some projectile weapons including tasers known as 'stun guns' are trade names and are thus in a sense 'guns'. c) some firearms terms include the word gun such as 'handgun' -though they are not technically the same as just a 'gun'. To elaborate, a naval canon is a gun, a pistol (handgun) is not. Therefore this page is wrong - because it is flat out illegal to own a working implaced canon in the UK to my knowledge and so 'Gun Politics in the UK' refers to guns not firearms so is talking about the wrong thing. This needs immediate addressing. This article needs massive editing to reflect this terminology difference. Its the "ship v's boat" argument but i fear it sets a bad image for the worlds largest encylopedia to have such greviously incorrect use of a major term. The title and wording of the article needs to be changed. I would also recommend adding to this article or creating a new "guns and firearms disambiguation page" linked in some way to this. I will wait for discussions before attemtping this mamouth edit myself as im sure there will likely be some objections. Ideally the author would make this edit, its their article, their mistake and imo their responsibility to make such corrections.


 * Language is a tricky matter - in the strictest sense, a "gun" is emplaced, but in common speech, a "gun" is - well - from Dictionary.com, quoting the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, a gun is one of several things, including:


 * # A weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory.
 * # A cannon with a long barrel and a relatively low angle of fire.
 * # A portable firearm, such as a rifle or revolver.
 * # A device resembling a firearm or cannon, as in its ability to project something, such as grease, under pressure or at great speed.


 * So in short, I'm not at all sure that this is an error that needs correcting per se; it's a use of common language as compared to technical jargon, and consequently, I think, perfectly acceptable. --JennyRad 17:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed?
"As a result of shooting being a minority interest sport in the UK, there was little public resistance to the legislation, although it had opponents on both sides of the argument -- those who felt it was too weak, and those who felt it went too far [citation needed]." I don't think there needs to be a citation of this, as it's a banal statement of fact. The question is whether or not it is useful to state this in the article, as it could be said about pretty much every issue you could imagine.

Neutrality
There is a bias tag on this article, but why? I can't see evidence of this article being biased either way and on this talk page there is no one has given an explanation of why the article is tagged. So many articles are tagged for being biased, but no one seems to give explanations. Kyle sb 13:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ban on guns not in UK law
"Indeed, while Parliamentary supremacy may permit the legislature to rescind the right for subjects to possess "Arms for their Defence" this has not in fact happened. The prohibition on possession of firearms for self-defence in the UK dates from a decision made by the Home Secretary in 1946, which has subsequently been enforced as Home Office policy without being ratified by Parliament; it is, strictly speaking not part of UK law."

I've removed this statement pending references. It sounds like libertarian gossip to me.--Nydas 18:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

More than just that, for the Home Office to enact a 'policy' would have to do so either through the Royal Prerogative or through a number of other statutory powers (including the 'minor details' in an Act). In both cases, it would be 'law'. While the Home Office may not have made it into a constitutional debate, and this could get into constitutional principles and issues, the basic fact is that regardless of what method the Home Office used, if the Home Office 'rescinded' the use of firearms for self-defence, it would have to have done so legally, as what other method would make it so that a judge/magistrate/lord would feel even remotely obliged to consider it during a case/sentencing? Also, the Home Office has jurisdiction over England & Wales, primarily, and would have had to co-operate any such policy with the Northern Ireland and Scotland offices, again, making it more complicated and requiring it to be 'law'. Roche-Kerr 09:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Gun culture
Removed this sentence:

"Other factors have reinforced this belief, including, for example, the indiscriminate use of the phrase "gun culture" to include both law-abiding target shooters and people who own guns illegally for criminal purposes. [6], [7], [8]"

This is original research - the references are mere usages of the phrase, not discussions of the phrase itself. One is a little-known leftwing Christian site, the other two are from the Scotsman. Whether they are being used 'indiscriminately' is entirely a matter of POV.--Nydas 06:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Have re-written to attempt to remove POV and make the discussion of the apparent bias NPOV. The fact that the examples refer both to "criminal gun culture" as used by the BBC quotation vs. the law-abiding gun culture usage in The Scotsman is significant, for nowhere else in the English-speaking world is the phrase gun culture used both ways. It is generally and uniformly used only in the positive sense in many books, newsprint articles, etc. This indiscriminate usage of the phrase in only the UK seemingly indicates bias against law-abiding sportsmen, which is on-topic in this part of the article since the intent is only to identify another point of controversy.  Deleting this point of controversy seems very POV in a section of the article in which a discussion of bias is the topic. Yaf 04:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Examining the media to find usages of a certain phrase and then making the claims you are making here: 'Only used in a positive sense', UK being unique in this regard, is original research. Please provide sources for these arguments.--Nydas 07:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Crime versus gun deaths
Lots of commentary in this article about how gun crime has increased. Guns weren't banned because of gun _crime_, they were banned because of the high-profile _murders_ by licensed holders.

I've gone through the article removing much of the subtle POV regarding the issue. This includes the whole "controversy" section for now, because it's all ubsubstantiated nonsense about gun crime in general which doesn't directly address the primary reason for gun restriction in the UK.

The old-style refs are still massively biased Daily Express nonsense, but I'll get to them. Chris Cunningham 01:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've gone through and tidied most of it now. Turns out that the "worst" of the refs had been left in place after the section citing them was edited, so I've converted the whole article to the new refs section and purged them. Chris Cunningham 11:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Question
Does anybody know what the minium distance someone has to be from a residential property before they can discharge a shotgun?(Halbared 10:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC))
 * There doesn't seem to be any law specifically about that, and I don't see why you couldn't discharge a shotgun from your own front door if the target was clear, safety was guaranteed, and you were the statutory distance from relevant boundaries. Notinasnaid 10:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was told that there was one (though I don't know). In case you discharge a shotgun too close to a neighbours house??(Halbared 10:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC))
 * You would have a duty of care, of course, and if you make loud noises close to a neighbour's house then other laws about nuisance apply. And there are the laws about proximity to certain kinds of boundary. Can't see a need for a specific extra law, and haven't heard of one. Notinasnaid 11:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"Gun licence" versus "firearms certificate" - clarify please
The distiction between the certificate and the licence isn't made clear. Is one a subset of the other? A legal term? A figure of speech? This should be clarified, the term "gun licence" is used several times without being defined. Chris Cunningham 15:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Rightly or wrongly, I think editors have used them as synonyms. "Gun license" sounds to me like a generic term for "firearms certificate and/or shotgun certificate". Notinasnaid 17:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons with Other Countries
I know that the statistics say that Britain is safer without handguns and semi-auto rifles and other weapons being legally available (or so claims past governments), but does anyone have any statistics comparing the gun crime rates between Britain and other countries from the period before Hungerford and Dunblane. I want to know if my suspicion that gun crime was never any higher than it is today is correct. --Harlsbottom 19:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Guns weren't banned for crimes before Hungerford, they were banned because of Hungerford. How amazingly disingenuous gun advocates can be. Chris Cunningham 09:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How very clever of you. What I wanted to know was if there hadn't been a Hungerford, would the gun crime rate have justified a ban? --Harlsbottom 12:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That depends on your exact definition of "justified" and your exact definition of "gun crime", I imagine. It would certainly be harder to "justify" the expense of gun legislation were there no precedent for mass murders committed by formerly reasonably law-abiding citizens against random targets. It's highly likely that had Hungerford and Dunblane happened in some other Western European country you'd have less restrictions here and draconian legislation elsewhere. But that's just an assessment of the presented theoretical situation; the original premise that "Britain is safer without automatic rifles" doesn't require statistical proof, because there is ample physical proof that nobody else will be able to rampage through their home town with a knock-off AK again. Chris Cunningham 15:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The ban post-Hungerford had nothing to do with gun crime and actually nothing to do with Hungerford. It was merely an opportunity to pass a pre-concieved set of restrictions that might otherwise have been strongly opposed by the gun lobby and MPs. Douglas Hurd even admitted as much . I don't think it is possible to say that "Britain is a safer place" as a result of tighter restrictions due to the much readier availiability of firearms on the black market than in 1987, but certainly a similar massacre is never going to be committed with a legal AK-47. Unfortunately the statistics availiable are generally unreliable because of obvious practical difficulties in surveying the black market and the fact that most of these statistics are provided by think-tanks in the pay of organisations on opposing sides of the gun-control debate. In any case, statististics are pretty useless way of assessing the effectiveness of restrictions in this context. It doesn't take much to imagine the folly: "30% more people were murdered by a rampaging gun-owner this year over last year". The fact that someone went on the rampage provided the "proof" to the government that further restrictions were needed. But equally it could be argued (as by Dr. Sean Gabb ), that the fact that Michael Ryan was the only person allowed to possess a firearm represents a failure of gun control by effectively depriving his victims of any means to defend themselves, and that is was this very fact that resulted in so many casualties. Certainly, the ease of which firearms can be obtained on the black market, imported or even manufactured from scratch must certainly provide food for thought when considering the potential effectiveness of any restrictions. --Admbws 21:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you both, Chris Cunningham and Admbws for answering. So the question remains wide open; Are we safer or aren't we?  I would personally generalise that Hungerford and Dunblane were the results of a systme which failed, and that any gun crime today evidence of a system which has been bypassed entirely.  Dunblane in particular was a case of sheer bloody neglect by the local constabulary in the matter of Thomas Hamilton, for which 17 people lost their lives and a "freedom" taken away.  Of course it's nice to think that destroying God knows how many handguns made us safer but if someone really wants to go the rampage again they'll find a way.


 * I do disagree with the whole notion of we need handguns to defend ourselves - aside from notable exceptions gun violence has never been a notable occurence here apart from the duelling days of the 18th century. Handguns here have always been hobbies or matters of dignified interest to most people in Britain unlike the way of life they have become in the United States of America.  Over there (slash here; I'm in Ohio at the moment) the gun lobby fuels the gun obsession by saying that everyone needs a gun to keep some kind of mythical order.  It's a shame that we in Britain can't trust ourselves nor allow ourselves to be trusted by our government. --Harlsbottom 01:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible correction to be made?
In the current article it reads: "pistols produced before 1917, pistols of historical interest (such as pistols used in notable crimes, rare prototypes, unusual serial numbers and so on"

From what I've read here it would seem that perhaps this should be ammended to point out that pistols produced before 1917, firearms of historical interest, antique weapons and firearms of artistic interest cannot be fired at all. They have to be left on a wall with no ammunition for them. Any weapon that is used for anything other than decoration requires a firearms liscence (and in the case of a muzzle loading blackpowder weapon an explosives liscence as well). At least that's the way I read it. --21:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Relevance of lack of natural predators in the UK
Should it be mentioned in the article that compared to other countries with laws enforcing their citizens' right to bear arms, the United Kingdom has basically no natural predators that might create a need for firearms outside of defense against crime (forgetting the implications of making guns freely available to criminals)? I think it's relevant that in the United Kingdom, the only question that needs to be asked to do with making guns legal, is whether it's worth criminals having easy access to guns. --Haridan 03:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The right to keep and bear arms in most juristictions that permit it was generally based on the concept of the citizen (i.e. non-standing) army, and later pure self-defence. People wanted guns to defend themselves from each other, not wild bears. When these concepts died, the main case for gun ownership died with them. Whatever you do, avoid making the assumption that more guns in private hands will give criminals easier access to guns. --Admbws 01:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't say I get what you mean about an assumption that more guns in private hands will give criminals easier access to guns. If people are able to obtain guns legally it follows logically that criminals will have easier access to guns.  If guns are banned the police are involved in keeping guns out of private ownership, so criminals are much less able to obtain them.  I think you're mistaken in perceiving criminals as a seperate set of people to the general population.  Anyone can become a criminal, all they have to do is commit a crime.  If guns are available to people in general, they're available to all criminals except for those who are restricted from obtaining guns by any background checks or other laws, and are unable or unwilling to obtain them illegally.  If guns are illegal and therefore unavailable to people in general, they're only available to a limited subset of criminals who will (and will be able to) obtain them illegally.  This subset is easily restricted by police efforts in relation to people in general.  Do you see where I'm coming from?  The concept of a citizen army died out long ago and as far as I can see is outside the scope of modern gun politics (at least in the UK).  By pure self defence you could mean defence from animals if there is a significant natural threat.  Guns may also be used for defence against criminals, but in making guns legal you give criminals easy access to them (whether through legal or illegal means).  This means that although some people (who choose to use guns for self defence) will be better protected against crime, criminals will be potentially equally as well armed.  Indeed, they will be more likely to own a gun than non-criminals because they actually have a definite use for it (if the crime is planned), and some people can be turned into criminals just by owning a gun because it makes it easier to commit a crime.  These tradeoffs are what I meant by the consideration of whether it's worth criminals having easy access to guns.  In deciding whether to make guns illegal or not you need to consider how many people are likely to use guns for self defence and how likely it is that these people might turn to crime.  It is only better to have guns legal if people will use guns for self defence sufficiently to justify it, or if police would be unable to control the availability of guns to criminals if they were made illegal.  You also need to consider potential criminal or would be criminal fatalities and injuries from self defence, and whether or not this a good thing.  These seem to be the main considerations in gun politics of the United Kingdom.  I had assumed that in at least some parts of the US and Canada, there was also a consideration of the need for self defence against wildlife, as America does have natural predators.  If this consideration is not seriously taken into account in American and wider gun politics as I had assumed, I suppose it doesn't have as much relevance to gun politics in the UK. --Haridan 06:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC), 06:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)