NationStates Jolt Archive

I've read many posts here that exult Britain's storng anti-gun laws and how crime is lessened because of them.

But, according to the House of Commons, who submitted a report in 2003 entitled Social Indicators, crime with handguns increased 122% from 2,648 in 1997 to 5,871 in 2002. Just five years.
-- http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2003/rp03-003.pdf

..|..........*
..|..........*
C.|..........*
r.|..........*
i.|..........*
m.|......*.*.*
e.|......*.*.*
..|*.*.*.*.*.*
---------------
Y.|1|1|1|2|2|2|
e.|9|9|9|0|0|0|
a.|9|9|9|0|0|0|
r.|7|8|9|0|1|2|

So, what happened?

nice ascii graph there.

Just out of curiosity what did it do for their knife crime?

Umm coz we have more guns in the country now than we did 5 years ago.

I have a feeling that the use of replica firearms may be included with real firearms in those figures.

Knife crime's still insane in the UK I think theres at least one stabbing in Glasgow every weekend. If not more.

nice ascii graph there.

Thanx, it was a pain to make - well, not as bad as on other forums. I was concerned that the font wouldn't allow the data to line up properly.

When was it we banned handguns? Was it after 1997?

If so it's easily explained, because after then simply owning one was a handgun crime. Beforehand you had to go and do something with the handgun you owned.

Edit: They were fully banned in late 1997, after a partial ban before then.

Umm coz we have more guns in the country now than we did 5 years ago.

Well, that's not possible, because you have gun laws...

Thanx, it was a pain to make - well, not as bad as on other forums. I was concerned that the font wouldn't allow the data to line up properly.

Is it really meant to show a 300% increase from 1999 to 2000?

Knife crime's still insane in the UK I think theres at least one stabbing in Glasgow every weekend. If not more.

So how's the knife control law coming along?

Well, that's not possible, because you have gun laws...

Then if you really belive that you are niave, or more likely it is your comment on the futileness of Gun laws?

Well, that's not possible, because you have gun laws...

Yes, beacause all the anti-gun people tell us gunlaws=no gun crime magically.



Oh no wait, it's the pro-gun people who tell us that the anti-gun people say this.

Police have stop and search powers and they're talking about increasing the sentence for carrying a knife again but it's not going to stop the idiots who do it. Saw an interesting program on tv a year or so ago which claimed Glasgow was the murder capital of western europe, I felt so proud that one of my country's cities would hold that title.

Then if you really belive that you are niave, or more likely it is your comment on the futileness of Gun laws?

Yeah, that was kinda the point of the whole thread. A point I don't really agree with. The only criminals will have guns argument doesn't hold water for more than a few years, after which guns become something of a rarity.

They're futile because frankly if you ban guns you'll just increase the number of knife attacks, ban knives and you'll have clubbings, ban clubs and you'll see people smothered with pillows.

When was it we banned handguns? Was it after 1997?

Not sure - though a net search should provide the answer - but, I believe it was '97.

If so it's easily explained, because after then simply owning one was a handgun crime. Beforehand you had to go and do something with the handgun you owned.

Not according to the Commons' report. The table I got the data from is titled;

Table 2: Notifiable offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used, by principal weapon, England and Wales, 1972 to 2001-02
So, these are crimes where handguns were used, not just possessed.

Maybe the Welsh are skewing things

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=59265

That, and the fact that stomping someone with your foot is deadlier than stabbing them.

What will they do, ban feet?

While feet were used in only 7% of assaults, they were the body part most likely to inflict serious injuries considerably more so than fists.

And the results showed that kicking caused more severe injuries than the use of sharp objects, which included knives, bottles, and glasses.

Thanx, it was a pain to make - well, not as bad as on other forums. I was concerned that the font wouldn't allow the data to line up properly.

It is a misleading graph - you have eight times as many asterisks in the 2002 column than the 1997 column, despite the number of crimes 'only' being two-and-a-bit times as many.

Edit:
So, these are crimes where handguns were used, not just possessed.
Fair enough, then.

Is it really meant to show a 300% increase from 1999 to 2000?

No, the data is all relative to 1997's value. I took a percent change from 1997 and then divided the result by 20 to make the chart a manageable size.

That's why I provided the link, so that the raw data can be looked at independently.

It's on page 9, table 2.

I've read many posts here that exult Britain's storng anti-gun laws and how crime is lessened because of them.

But, according to the House of Commons, who submitted a report in 2003 entitled Social Indicators, crime with handguns increased 122% from 2,648 in 1997 to 5,871 in 2002. Just five years.
-- http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2003/rp03-003.pdf

..|..........*
..|..........*
C.|..........*
r.|..........*
i.|..........*
m.|......*.*.*
e.|......*.*.*
..|*.*.*.*.*.*
---------------
Y.|1|1|1|2|2|2|
e.|9|9|9|0|0|0|
a.|9|9|9|0|0|0|
r.|7|8|9|0|1|2|

So, what happened?

People are meaner now. That's why Bush declared war on Eye-Rack.

9-11

Yeah, that was kinda the point of the whole thread. A point I don't really agree with. The only criminals will have guns argument doesn't hold water for more than a few years, after which guns become something of a rarity.

They're futile because frankly if you ban guns you'll just increase the number of knife attacks, ban knives and you'll have clubbings, ban clubs and you'll see people smothered with pillows.

Heh I don't quite agree with that one. Ban Guns, and criminals will still get and use guns, ban knifes and people will still use knifes.

Then if you really belive that you are niave, or more likely it is your comment on the futileness of Gun laws?

Comment on the laws and on the idea that they are a real solution to crime.

But, considering how often and the manner in which they are trumpeted, the laws should have prevented this increase, wouldn't you think?

They're futile because frankly if you ban guns you'll just increase the number of knife attacks, ban knives and you'll have clubbings, ban clubs and you'll see people smothered with pillows.

They were more futile over here because before they were banned hardly anyone had one anyway.
Of course, if you unbanned them every chav would go out and buy one tomorrow, so you can't win. This would have the upside that a lot of chavs would get shot, but the downside that there's a significantly increased chance that somebody I know or care about would get shot by a chav looking to fund his fake-burberry habit.

Here's the US figures:

Bureau of Justice Statistics
filename:wuvc01h2.wk1
Highlight Figure 2. From 1993 through 2001 the rates for all violence, weapon violence, and firearm violence.
data source: Weapon Use and Violent Crime, 1993-2001, NCJ 194820
authors: Craig Perkins, BJS Statistician
refer questions to: askbjs@ojp.usdoj.gov (202)307-0765
date of version: 09/24/03

Highlight Figure 2. From 1993 through 2001 the rates for all violence, weapon violence, and firearm violence.
Rates per 1,000 persons
Year All violence Weapon violence Firearm violence

Total 40.3 10.4 3.8

1993 55.0 15.6 6.1
1994 54.2 14.9 6.1
1995 47.4 11.6 4.5
1996 43.8 11.9 4.6
1997 40.9 10.3 3.7
1998 38.4 8.8 2.8
1999 33.2 8.6 2.6
2000 27.1 6.8 2.2
2001 25.5 6.4 2.3

Gee, it went down. During a time when we got more guns, more people, and liberalized our laws concerning concealed carry of firearms (a majority now allow it).

I've read many posts here that exult Britain's storng anti-gun laws and how crime is lessened because of them.

But, according to the House of Commons, who submitted a report in 2003 entitled Social Indicators, crime with handguns increased 122% from 2,648 in 1997 to 5,871 in 2002. Just five years.
-- http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2003/rp03-003.pdf

..|..........*
..|..........*
C.|..........*
r.|..........*
i.|..........*
m.|......*.*.*
e.|......*.*.*
..|*.*.*.*.*.*
---------------
Y.|1|1|1|2|2|2|
e.|9|9|9|0|0|0|
a.|9|9|9|0|0|0|
r.|7|8|9|0|1|2|

So, what happened?

Compare the increase in the number of gun-related crimes to the total population increase. Then go back and review the data.

Note: I don't know the information offhand, but it may help explain if the population increased proportionately to the number of crimes, or exceeded the proportional increase thereof.

Compare the increase in the number of gun-related crimes to the total population increase. Then go back and review the data.

Note: I don't know the information offhand, but it may help explain if the population increased proportionately to the number of crimes, or exceeded the proportional increase thereof.

Britain's population hasn't increased significantly lately - it recently hit 60 million, and it certainly wasn't less than 27 million in 1997.

Edit: Britain's population was 55 million in the 1991 census.

Britain's population hasn't increased significantly lately - it recently hit 60 million, and it certainly wasn't less than 27 million in 1997.

Edit: Britain's population was 55 million in the 1991 census.

Read my post about the US numbers dropping
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12107390&postcount=24

And our population went from 258 million to 291 million over that time period, with the number of guns rising from roughly 200 million to 300 million.

And our firearm murder rate, firearm crime rate dropped considerably.

Well this seems to be an interesting lesson. All hand guns have been outlawed for nine years and yet the firearms crime rate is up. Could it mean that the pro gun people in the U.S. are right and now only the criminals now have guns.
I was hoping these people were wrong but the numbers speak for themselves.

And this comes as a surprise, how?

It makes perfect sense that if you make owning a gun a crime in a country where it previously wasn't, then gun crime will shoot up. It's simple.

Well this seems to be an interesting lesson. All hand guns have been outlawed for nine years and yet the firearms crime rate is up. Could it mean that the pro gun people in the U.S. are right and now only the criminals now have guns.
I was hoping these people were wrong but the numbers speak for themselves.

If handguns are banned then obviously the only people with guns are criminals, since having a gun makes you a criminal. ;)

OK, here's the actual data from the Commons report for handgun crime from 1972-2002, Table 2. Each point is equal to 500 incidents;

6500|.............................................................|
6000|............................................................*|
5500|............................................................*|
5000|............................................................*|
4500|..........................................*.................*|
4000|........................................*.*...............*.*|
3500|......................................*.*.*...*.*.......*.*.*|
3000|......................................*.*.*.*.*.*.......*.*.*|
2500|....................................*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*|
2000|..................................*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*|
1500|....................*.....*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*|
1000|....................*.....*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*|
.500|..................*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*|
...0|*...*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*|
-------------------------------------------------------------------
..Y.|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|2|2|2|
..e.|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|0|0|0|
..a.|7|7|7|7|7|7|7|7|8|8|8|8|8|8|8|8|8|8|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|0|0|0|
..r.|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|0|1|2|

There are two spikes; 1993 and - well, not really a spike, since it's the end of the chart - 2002. What happened around 1993 to start the downward trend, only to rocket starting in 2000?

I've read many posts here that exult Britain's storng anti-gun laws and how crime is lessened because of them.

But, according to the House of Commons, who submitted a report in 2003 entitled Social Indicators, crime with handguns increased 122% from 2,648 in 1997 to 5,871 in 2002. Just five years.
-- http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2003/rp03-003.pdf

..|..........*
..|..........*
C.|..........*
r.|..........*
i.|..........*
m.|......*.*.*
e.|......*.*.*
..|*.*.*.*.*.*
---------------
Y.|1|1|1|2|2|2|
e.|9|9|9|0|0|0|
a.|9|9|9|0|0|0|
r.|7|8|9|0|1|2|

So, what happened?


i believe that what your graph indicates is that while britain does have strong gun control, there is no way to completely control human beings.

so there are people who have illegal guns either because they bought them on the black market or because they didnt turn them in when the law required them to. go figure

a certain number of these illegal guns find their way into the hands of those who would use them in violent crime. there turns out to be more of that gun/person combination than there were in the past.

it also indicates to ME that without such a harsh limit on ownership and use of guns, the problem would be much greater. i dont think, for example, that if you adjusted for population difference there would be a greater number of gun crimes in the UK than in the US.

gun control is not a perfect solution to violent crime. in the right circumstance it can help with the problem of gun related deaths.

Compare the increase in the number of gun-related crimes to the total population increase. Then go back and review the data.

Was there a substantial decrease in England's population in 1994/97?

i believe that what your graph indicates is that while britain does have strong gun control, there is no way to completely control human beings.

so there are people who have illegal guns either because they bought them on the black market or because they didnt turn them in when the law required them to. go figure

a certain number of these illegal guns find their way into the hands of those who would use them in violent crime. there turns out to be more of that gun/person combination than there were in the past.

it also indicates to ME that without such a harsh limit on ownership and use of guns, the problem would be much greater. i dont think, for example, that if you adjusted for population difference there would be a greater number of gun crimes in the UK than in the US.

gun control is not a perfect solution to violent crime. in the right circumstance it can help with the problem of gun related deaths.

In 1973, England - in the entire country - only had 247 handgun crimes. That number, in 2002, went to 5,871. Did England's population increase 23 times in 29 years?

That's a lot of sex...

Why was handgun crime so low in 1973?

That's an impressive ASCII graph. And, to answer the question: "I don't know". Not the most useful answer, but the only accurate one I have.

We could always blame New Labour, they came into power in 1997. But then somebody would blame the Tories, who came into power in the late '70s before then.

it also indicates to ME that without such a harsh limit on ownership and use of guns, the problem would be much greater. i dont think, for example, that if you adjusted for population difference there would be a greater number of gun crimes in the UK than in the US.
From the data provided by Myseneum, the UK's handgun-crimes per 1000 people was about 0.1 at its peak in 2002. From Eve-Online's data, the US's gun-crime (not specifically handgun) per 1000 people was 2.2 at its minimum point; 22 times higher. So no, the UK is significantly below the US, unless 21 non-handgun firearm crimes are committed for every handgun crime.

Myseneum: The UK's population has gradually increased lately, so far as I'm aware. No major drops or spikes. It was about 55 million in 1991 and it's about 60 million now.

I think the increase in gun crime is due to an increase in drugs trading and all that bad stuff.

also i'm usually weary when the government release crime statistics. they normally twist things around, omit some aspects include others etc.

also - i'd like to stick up for glasgow. i go there every second weekend for nights out and i've never seen or experienced any trouble whatsoever (for about 10 years now).

most people are friendly and you kinda know where not to hang about when there are sketchy folk about. i love glasgow. its not all like Small Faces these days. (stick to the centre and avoid Celtic/Rangers pubs)

From the data provided by Myseneum, the UK's handgun-crimes per 1000 people was about 0.1 at its peak in 2002. From Eve-Online's data, the US's gun-crime (not specifically handgun) per 1000 people was 2.2 at its minimum point; 22 times higher. So no, the UK is significantly below the US, unless 21 non-handgun firearm crimes are committed for every handgun crime.

In the US, the majority of violent crime never involves a firearm.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005.

So if you look at the gun crime in the US, you're only looking at a minority of crimes in the US.

I think the increase in gun crime is due to an increase in drugs trading and all that bad stuff.

also i'm usually weary when the government release crime statistics. they normally twist things around, omit some aspects include others etc.

also - i'd like to stick up for glasgow. i go there every second weekend for nights out and i've never seen or experienced any trouble whatsoever (for about 10 years now).

most people are friendly and you kinda know where not to hang about when there are sketchy folk about. i love glasgow. its not all like Small Faces these days. (stick to the centre and avoid Celtic/Rangers pubs)

Yeah a lot of the trouble comes from the outer parts especially some of the youth gangs on the estates, you still have to be careful in the city centre sometimes though and I'd personally avoid the whole city if there was an old firm derby on that day but thats just me.

That's an impressive ASCII graph. And, to answer the question: "I don't know". Not the most useful answer, but the only accurate one I have.

We could always blame New Labour, they came into power in 1997. But then somebody would blame the Tories, who came into power in the late '70s before then.

Might it be that gun-control laws are not what they are cracked up to be?

Perhaps the citizen who is armed and able to defend himself is a pretty good answer to crime? Not the best, but better than taking arms away from the only group who would comply - the law-abiding?

Walter Mondale - a democrat, no less - when he was US ambassador to Japan said, "Gun bans don’t disarm criminals, gun bans attract them."

I think this is a valid observation.

Thomas Jefferson also had an insightful comment, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes."

In 1973, England - in the entire country - only had 247 handgun crimes. That number, in 2002, went to 5,871. Did England's population increase 23 times in 29 years?

That's a lot of sex...

Why was handgun crime so low in 1973?

its quite the conundrum isnt it?

i wasnt suggesting that the UK hadnt seen an increase in crime. has there been a bigger increase in gun crime than in other kinds of crime?

sometimes the difference comes from reporting methods. it may be, as vorlich suggested, the increase in drug crime.

MY point was that gun control can never be perfect but chances are that the fewer guns you have in a country, the fewer gun crimes you will have. the rise in gun crime doesnt mean that gun control is failing.

I think the increase in gun crime is due to an increase in drugs trading and all that bad stuff.

Entirely possible. A large proprtion of US gun crime is drug-related. Much of it bad guy on bad guy.

also i'm usually weary when the government release crime statistics. they normally twist things around, omit some aspects include others etc.

But, would they not skew the data to their favor? This Commons report looks to me as something that exposes flaws in the UK government.

It would be interesting, also, if gun ownership was legalised.

There would be an instant drop in gun crime. Those who advocate legal gun ownership would see it as proof that legal gun ownership works and deters criminals.

Erm....no. It would just be because nobody is getting arrested for owning a gun anymore, so gun crime would drop dramatically.


The situation we are seeing now is the exact opposite of that. That is how this is explained.

So if you look at the gun crime in the US, you're only looking at a minority of crimes in the US.

And in the UK - gun crimes are incredibly uncommon here, too (according to this (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page63.asp) there were about 2.75 million violent crimes a year in the UK in both 2001-2 and 2002-3, so 5,871/2,750,000 means about 0.2% of violent crime involved a handgun). However, I was attempting to counter Ashmoria's assertion that there was relatively more gun-crime in the UK than the US by doing as fair a comparison as I could with the available data.

In 1973, England - in the entire country - only had 247 handgun crimes. That number, in 2002, went to 5,871. Did England's population increase 23 times in 29 years?

That's a lot of sex...

Why was handgun crime so low in 1973?
Because of different methods used to count crime. Before 1982 pretty much the only method of counting it was by looking at all crime reported to the police. It doesn't take a genius to realise that this isn't going to be all crime.

In 1982, the British Crime Survey started. This worked by basically asking people if they'd been the victim of crime in the last 12 months. This led to an apparent increase in the number of crimes committed, almost overnight. Also, criminological research has increased in scope dramatically in the last 30 years - and those researching it do their own data collection, allowing for even greater scope in finding out precisely how much crime actually occurs.

The categorisation of crimes makes a difference - before 1998, for example, common assault was not a notifiable offence. Unsurprisingly, after it was made one, reported crime rose by 10% (that wasn't all due to common assault - other new notifiable offences contributed to this as well).

If you happen to have the Oxford Handbook of Criminology (3rd edition) to hand, read Mike Maguire's chapter entitled 'Crime statistics: the 'data explosion' and its implications'. You'll find it very enlightening.

It would be interesting, also, if gun ownership was legalised.

There would be an instant drop in gun crime. Those who advocate legal gun ownership would see it as proof that legal gun ownership works and deters criminals.

Erm....no. It would just be because nobody is getting arrested for owning a gun anymore, so gun crime would drop dramatically.


The situation we are seeing now is the exact opposite of that. That is how this is explained.

I explain it by saying that the UK is not the US.

Many studies have concluded that, on an international basis, there is no proven consistent association between the presence or absence of gun laws, and gun crime. The data varies all over the place, depending on the country.

Erm....no. It would just be because nobody is getting arrested for owning a gun anymore, so gun crime would drop dramatically.

The situation we are seeing now is the exact opposite of that. That is how this is explained.

I mentioned this on the first page, but the report doesn't include people who were charged for owning a handgun, just those who used it in some other crime. So it doesn't explain it in this case.

MY point was that gun control can never be perfect but chances are that the fewer guns you have in a country, the fewer gun crimes you will have. the rise in gun crime doesnt mean that gun control is failing.

And, a lack of gun control can never be perfect. But, given the data, things seemed to have gotten worse the more control was applied.

If the application of something makes the situation worse, what sense does it make to apply more of a failing "solution?"

In a very simplistic analysis there is more gun crime in the US per capita than in the UK.

UK: 22,300 incidents in a population of approximately 60 million - 0.037%
US: Approximately 500,000 incidents in a population of approximately 290 million (according to eve online). - 0.172%

There is 5 times as much gun crime in the USA as there is in the UK per capita.

Now lets compare crime rates between the USA and UK. Again this very simplistic and can be very misleading. Especially as the USA makes a difference between felonies, misdemeanours and infractions - which the UK does not. What the UK does have is summary offences and indictable offences. A summary offence is where a jury is not used eg. a parking fine. An indictable offence is the opposite.

I don't know why I'm bothering. Anyway, the US has about 10 million crimes, the UK 5 million. Compared to populations this makes the UK a crime haven. However, if we look into gun crime as a proportion of that we find that gun crime is 10 times more common in the US.

But all this is bullshit analysis as it's overly simplistic and not worth the effort.

Anyway. So crime has increased in the UK, but I do not think this has much to do with gun laws, but other factors.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2003/rp03-003.pdf
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb601.pdf

Erm....no. It would just be because nobody is getting arrested for owning a gun anymore, so gun crime would drop dramatically.

Now I see where the "erm" comes from.

At any rate, you must've missed my post where I gave the title of the report's table where I got the data. The data is for crimes committed USING a handgun, not possession.

The situation we are seeing now is the exact opposite of that. That is how this is explained.

No, it's not.

And, a lack of gun control can never be perfect. But, given the data, things seemed to have gotten worse the more control was applied.

If the application of something makes the situation worse, what sense does it make to apply more of a failing "solution?"

Because, as I said earlier, if you unbanned them today a lot of people who I'd really rather not have guns would go and buy them tomorrow, so I'd have to buy one on Thursday. The UK's gun-count would go through the roof, and you can guarantee that that'd mean more people got shot - if for no other reason than almost nobody in the UK knows how to use, look after or behave around firearms.

I might not've been in favour of banning them in the first place, but I'm not in favour of un-banning them now.

Now I see where the "erm" comes from.

At any rate, you must've missed my post where I gave the title of the report's table where I got the data. The data is for crimes committed USING a handgun, not possession.

Ah ok, fair enough.

Also from the Commons report;

"The total number of firearm offences rose by 84% between 1991 and 2001/02. There has been an especially marked increase in firearm-related crime since 1998/99 (up by 61%).

Handguns were used in 5,871 offences, a 46% increase on the previous year and the highest number ever recorded. 65% of all robberies in which a firearm was present involved the use of a handgun."

The firearm ban went into effect in late '97 and since then, firearm-related crime is up 61%.

Is this an example of a good solution to a problem?

Because, as I said earlier, if you unbanned them today a lot of people who I'd really rather not have guns would go and buy them tomorrow, so I'd have to buy one on Thursday.

Relaxing the ban needn't mean legalising them completely. They could still be tightly controlled, much as they were pre-1997.

The firearm ban went into effect in late '97 and since then, firearm-related crime is up 61%.

Is this an example of a good solution to a problem?

No, it was a stupid, over-reacting kneejerk solution to a single school shooting. And, incidentally, only handguns were banned; you can still own many types of shotgun, for instance.

But that doesn't mean you couldn't make it worse than it is now by undoing it.

Because of different methods used to count crime. Before 1982 pretty much the only method of counting it was by looking at all crime reported to the police. It doesn't take a genius to realise that this isn't going to be all crime.

The table is titled, "Notifiable offences recorded by the police..."

Thus, it is not the result of a survey of victims.

Relaxing the ban needn't mean legalising them completely. They could still be tightly controlled, much as they were pre-1997.

Aye, that's true. I'd still be wary, though.

Because, as I said earlier, if you unbanned them today a lot of people who I'd really rather not have guns would go and buy them tomorrow, so I'd have to buy one on Thursday.

Why?

I own firearms, over a dozen, but I do not own them because others have them. Some I own merely for their historical significance. But, the mere acts of others has no bearing on my ownership.

Further, if those purchasing firearms are law-abiding, why oppose their owning firearms? The criminals already have them.

if for no other reason than almost nobody in the UK knows how to use, look after or behave around firearms.

What happened? Around the turn of last century, firearms were all over England. How did you lose your knowledge so quickly?

And, do you see it as a good thing that such knowledge is lost?

Because, as I said earlier, if you unbanned them today a lot of people who I'd really rather not have guns would go and buy them tomorrow, so I'd have to buy one on Thursday. The UK's gun-count would go through the roof, and you can guarantee that that'd mean more people got shot - if for no other reason than almost nobody in the UK knows how to use, look after or behave around firearms.

I might not've been in favour of banning them in the first place, but I'm not in favour of un-banning them now.

Err as I recall before the outright ban it wasn't all that easy to get your hands on a gun. Like the shotguns there was a registry, the requirement to have a secure place for the guns etc, I'm all in favour of an unban going back to that.

No, it was a stupid, over-reacting kneejerk solution to a single school shooting. And, incidentally, only handguns were banned; you can still own many types of shotgun, for instance.

And, shotgun crime has risen since '97, too. Marginally, but still an increase. However, this might be explained by population (580 incidents to 711).

The table also records airguns used in crime. Airguns? I read a long time ago that England restricted airguns and considered it a silly thing. But, since 1997, airgun crime use has gone from 7,506 incidents to 12,340, a 64% increase.

But that doesn't mean you couldn't make it worse than it is now by undoing it.

I don't know. In '73 you had less than 300 handgun incidents and the ban wasn't there. Maybe the ban made things worse...

The table is titled, "Notifiable offences recorded by the police..."

Thus, it is not the result of a survey of victims.
Oh, fine, ignore the part of my post that explains the whole notifiable offences part, then.

I was just giving basic reasons as to why there might be an increase in any recorded crime. If you wish to ignore them in order to continue your argument, fine.

And, shotgun crime has risen since '97, too. Marginally, but still an increase. However, this might be explained by population (580 incidents to 711).
A 22.5% increase is marginal?

Why?

I own firearms, over a dozen, but I do not own them because others have them. Some I own merely for their historical significance. But, the mere acts of others has no bearing on my ownership.

Because I don't trust other people as far as they can throw me.

Further, if those purchasing firearms are law-abiding, why oppose their owning firearms? The criminals already have them.

Nononono! That's the point! Hardly any criminals have guns in Britain. About 0.2% of violent crimes involved a (n illegal) handgun - the chance of you meeting someone with one is small (and, IIRC, smaller than meeting someone with a replica claiming it's real).
I'm concerned that a significant number of the 99.8% of violent crimes that aren't commited with guns would be if they were legalised and readily available.
Also, many people who're used to them being illegal would rush to get one because they were banned, and now they're not, and guns are cool. And they're the last people who should have them.

What happened? Around the turn of last century, firearms were all over England. How did you lose your knowledge so quickly?

And, do you see it as a good thing that such knowledge is lost?

Hardly anybody wanted or needed one (and I doubt they were so common before then; they're not terribly cheap, are they?). That's why banning them all was a waste of time and effort; they were no real threat.

I'm unconcerned. In two hundred years hardly anyone will be able to maintain an internal combustion engine, but nobody will care.

Oh, fine, ignore the part of my post that explains the whole notifiable offences part, then.

Well, one of your fellows made a comment similar to mine. So, perhaps I was not as far off base as you think.

I was just giving basic reasons as to why there might be an increase in any recorded crime. If you wish to ignore them in order to continue your argument, fine.

I find it difficult to believe that assault was not a crime that one would report to the police.

But, if that's the case, I would say that there are more problems than firearms in your society...

I find it difficult to believe that assault was not a crime that one would report to the police.

But, if that's the case, I would say that there are more problems than firearms in your society...
As somebody who's reported an assault to the police, I'd find it very easy to believe. I only bothered myself because, basically, I was told to. And a complete waste of time it was. (No guns - or other weapons - were involved in the incident.)

And that, my friend, is why we spend so little time worrying about them ;)

I find it difficult to believe that assault was not a crime that one would report to the police.

But, if that's the case, I would say that there are more problems than firearms in your society...
Learn about British law before you criticise further.

Common assault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_assault)
Battery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_%28crime%29)
ABH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_bodily_harm)
GBH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievous_bodily_harm)

A 22.5% increase is marginal?

Given the real numbers, I think so.

If you don't, that's cool. But, that would play more into the "gun control bad" column.

Gee, it went down. During a time when we got more guns, more people, and liberalized our laws concerning concealed carry of firearms (a majority now allow it).

Shhh!!! We do not want Europe to know that our gun crime is dropping. Then they may lift the ban on guns and thus, half of europe revolts against their governments. :D

Well this seems to be an interesting lesson. All hand guns have been outlawed for nine years and yet the firearms crime rate is up. Could it mean that the pro gun people in the U.S. are right and now only the criminals now have guns.
I was hoping these people were wrong but the numbers speak for themselves.

Sometimes those who holler the longest and get ignored the most will be right on occassion. Look at the boy who cried wolf all the time. He hollared it enough that people ignored him till he was right that one time and was ignored. Hopefully, that same lesson is not learned this time around.

Given the real numbers, I think so.

If you don't, that's cool. But, that would play more into the "gun control bad" column.
Well, ok. But you're the one who made a thread about an increase of 5000 of a particular crime among overall crime totalling around 10 million...

Hardly anybody wanted or needed one (and I doubt they were so common before then; they're not terribly cheap, are they?).

Depends on the gun. A little Davis .25 auto might set you back a whopping $50. But, that may be because better weapons are so much more available here; why bother with the toys?

Maybe it's a cultural thing. In my readings on the right to arms in Europe, a common thread was that if you were armed, you had to fight, so being armed was looked on as a burden. Then, in England's case, the king was demanding that everyone with a gun practice and be proficient, and this was looked on as a further burden.

But, in the US, our founding battle was as a result of England trying to take our weapons away. And, as a frontier, guns were necessary to survive - even if just to hunt. So, we were - are - closer to our firearms than you. And, put on top of that, someone did try to take them by force in our past.

So, maybe your nation isn't conducive to gun ownership.

But, I do recall reading that the US did ship a lot of surplus firearms to England to arm the citizens so that they could aid in the event of a German invasion. Maybe that's not a big threat anymore, but I seem to recall that the EU is not fabulously popular with most Englishmen. And, with France being France, I would think that being armed in case the EU tries something (yes, yes, insane, eh?). But, again, maybe it's just that frontier culture showing through.

So, maybe your nation isn't conducive to gun ownership.

But, I do recall reading that the US did ship a lot of surplus firearms to England to arm the citizens so that they could aid in the event of a German invasion. Maybe that's not a big threat anymore, but I seem to recall that the EU is not fabulously popular with most Englishmen. And, with France being France, I would think that being armed in case the EU tries something (yes, yes, insane, eh?). But, again, maybe it's just that frontier culture showing through.

That's about it, I think.

Those guns were probably to arm the Home Guard, aka. Dad's Army; basically every man too old, infirm, daft or whatever to serve in the main army.
Guns aren't the tools that'd stop the EU bothering us - what would we do, get on a ferry and storm Brussels? :D - and if people really wanted to be done with it there are parties like UKIP that'd do so. We tend to grumble about things more than we feel about them; we do enjoy a good grumble.
But yeah, it's different cultures. We've never "got" why Americans get so worked up about guns, especially if somebody talks about restricting them at all. You've probably heard the jokes.

But yeah, it's different cultures. We've never "got" why Americans get so worked up about guns, especially if somebody talks about restricting them at all. You've probably heard the jokes.

This might be a good start to understanding;

Battle at Lexington Green, 1775

In April, the British General Thomas Gage, military governor of Massachusetts sent a force out of Boston to confiscate weapons stored in the village of Concord and capture patriot leaders Samuel Adams and John Hancock reported to be staying in the village of Lexington.

These troops were met by militiamen - armed citizens - and, though it is not known who fired it - the "shot heard 'round the world" rang out starting the first battle of our Revolution.

For me, anyway, this is my History. I am a Yankee, a real Yankee, not just an American. I am from New England; Rhode Island to be exact - kinda makes me extra rebellious. When I was a kid, the insult was, even in the 60s, to call someone a Tory.

Then, there's the War of 1812, where you guys burned down our capital. So, our guns are important to us. They are part of our history, our heritage. Perhaps similar to how a Japanese might view a Katana or you might view the Longbow, though a lot closer in time.

Perhaps a day might come when we are more like England and our guns will lessen in importance - to hear some Americans, that day may not be far off - but, that will, in my opinion, be a sad day.

- what would we do, get on a ferry and storm Brussels? :D
Next NS meet? :p

Myseneum: Yes, that does help explain it a little. Thank you.

Next NS meet? :p
We could pick up some cheap booze on the way back!

Myseneum: Yes, that does help explain it a little. Thank you.

No problem.

I guess America sees the gun as a symbol of liberation, whereas Europeans see them as burdens.

No problem.

I guess America sees the gun as a symbol of liberation, whereas Europeans see them as burdens.

The English were pretty proud of their longbow. There are still clubs that are organized around shooting the old form of the longbow.

It would be interesting, also, if gun ownership was legalised.

There would be an instant drop in gun crime. Those who advocate legal gun ownership would see it as proof that legal gun ownership works and deters criminals.

Erm....no. It would just be because nobody is getting arrested for owning a gun anymore, so gun crime would drop dramatically.


The situation we are seeing now is the exact opposite of that. That is how this is explained.
Not sure - though a net search should provide the answer - but, I believe it was '97.



Not according to the Commons' report. The table I got the data from is titled;

Table 2: Notifiable offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used, by principal weapon, England and Wales, 1972 to 2001-02
So, these are crimes where handguns were used, not just possessed.

.

The English were pretty proud of their longbow. There are still clubs that are organized around shooting the old form of the longbow.

But, that's the Longbow. I have a book at home - Joyce Lee Malcolm; To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right - where the author describes how European society of the 15th-16th centuries - and later - viewed bearing firearms.

The Longbow required skill and only those who liked the bow would know how to use it. But, anyone could use a firearm - which is why it was so reviled.

English Kings - and Cromwell, I believe - would require the lower classes to report for practice with firearms and set quotas for them. This was seen as a burden by these people and so resisted.

As a result, England - and Europe - do not have the same cultural heritage with firearms that we do.

But, that's the Longbow. I have a book at home - Joyce Lee Malcolm; To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right - where the author describes how European society of the 15th-16th centuries - and later - viewed bearing firearms.

The Longbow required skill and only those who liked the bow would know how to use it. But, anyone could use a firearm - which is why it was so reviled.

English Kings - and Cromwell, I believe - would require the lower classes to report for practice with firearms and set quotas for them. This was seen as a burden by these people and so resisted.

As a result, England - and Europe - do not have the same cultural heritage with firearms that we do.

The British govt. also required its' citizens to spend time every Sunday practicing with the longbow so I don't think this theory makes mucgh sense.

The British govt. also required its' citizens to spend time every Sunday practicing with the longbow so I don't think this theory makes mucgh sense.

But, it can be reasonably assumed that due to the skill required to use the longbow, only those who liked it in the first place would be called on to practice and they wouldn't mind the task.

But, I am going by memory of Dr. Malcolm's book. I'll have to see if I can dredge it up and get the proper quotes...

The British govt. also required its' citizens to spend time every Sunday practicing with the longbow so I don't think this theory makes mucgh sense.You seem to have used the wrong tense. As I am aware that law has never been repealed.

I believe another law that has never been taken off a statue books is one in which it is still legal to shoot a Scotsman with a longbow and arrow in York, as long as he is within the city walls, except on Sundays... presumably the citizens of York should be practicing their archery skills instead.

It also appears that the UK is liberal enough to allow sex between two adult men in a house, so long as there are no other people in that house.

Also, any person found breaking a boiled egg at the sharp end will be sentenced to 24 hours in the village stocks.

So as you can Britain is quite the progessive country.

The ban on handguns had no effect on gun crime in the UK because the UK at that point already had draconian gun ownership laws already and criminals were using guns that had entered the country illegally.

Anyone interested in reading my waffle read on :) otherwise click back now because its a bit of a rant :).

At the time some of the requirements to get a fire-arms licence were that

You must have no criminal record

You must have no history of mental illness.

You must be interviewed by the police as to why you want a gun and where you will be using it.

You must prove your storage to be adequate guns must be in a locked cabinet secured to the floor and one interior wall. ammunition must be kept in a seperate locked container also secured.

All guns were registered

This is just SOME of the requirements. i've not touched on the vast majority of it.

The effect of this was that nearly all gun crime did not use guns that had been legally owned as they were all registered, too traceable and too damned hard to get hold of. Criminals were using guns that were already illegally smuggled into the country and continue to do so today. I'm not saying gun's weren't stolen from time to time, just that it was RARE.

What I'm saying here is entirely corroborated by the statistics presented by the OP. Legally Owned guns had little or no effect on gun crime in the UK.

The hand gun ban was sparked by the Dunblaine Disaster in which a man with a hand gun opened fire in a school killing many children. This was one of the very few incidents that ocurred using a legally owned hand gun and the resultant ban affected hundreds of legitimate law abiding gun owners. They were compensated for their loss but only a fraction of the gun's value and no compensation was made for ANY of the accessories like the expensive storage units, holsters and harneses and for those with a blackpowder licence as well any ammunition making equipment (many gun enthusiasts did make their own ammunition). I personally know someone who lost out thousands of pounds worth of equipment, including confiscation of a collection of rare guns, they were old but technically still working and so registered and had to be destroyed.


Annoyingly I can find no news archives online with the reports in for the events in Dunblaine. Only forum postings.

[anecdotal now as I can no longer find a reference] As far as I know that man had had a fire-arms licence but it had been revoked for psychiatric reasons but had had it re-instated by "a friend" which should not have happened.

They were compensated for their loss but only a fraction of the gun's value and no compensation was made for ANY of the accessories like the expensive storage units, holsters and harneses and for those with a blackpowder licence as well any ammunition making equipment (many gun enthusiasts did make their own ammunition).

Typically, in the US, a black powder weapon isn't even considered a firearm under the law.

In fact, most state laws and - if I recall correctly - federal law holds that any weapon manufactured prior to 1900 is not legally a firearm. This includes - again, going by memory - reproductions that are not substantially modified to use modern technology.

So, that Uberti or - if you want to shoot it - Colt Walker (similar in energy to a .357 magnum) can be carried almost anywhere, since it's not a firearm under the law.

Even that 1897 Mauser Broomhandle falls outside the definition of firearm.

Annoyingly I can find no news archives online with the reports in for the events in Dunblaine. Only forum postings..That was an interesting insight I wasn't aware of. Thank you.

In reference to you not finding about online references, it would appear that it is because you are using, or other online articles, are using a variant spelling. Dunblane instead of Dunblaine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_Massacre
It references 3 media articles and has 11 external links. Should be useful for backing up whatever points you were trying to make.