Talk:Gun politics in the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gun politics in the United Kingdom article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] No consensus?

There is no political debate on gun control, which to me implies there is a consensus. After this misleading reference in the intro to a pro-gun lobby and a lack of a consensus, there is no mention in the article of any organisation that is pro-shooting, which also implies the title of "Gun politics in the UK" is an oxymoron. The purpose of the intro is to describe what is in the article. I have to admit to sympathy for pistol shooters who find it impossible to practice their sport but they could not be described as 'pro-shooting' in a way that people such as the Americans would recognise. There may be a handful who disagree with gun control but does there have to be 100% in favour for there to be a consensus? JMcC 18:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

While there is certainly no debate equivalent to that in the United States, firearms are still a major political issue, but largely restricted to their use in a criminal use; any discussion of legal use is firmly fixed in that context. Nick Cooper 08:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Pro-shooting organisations? Well, let's try http://www.basc.org.uk/ who are an active enthusists and lobbying group. It's also not hard to find those who want the UK gun laws to go further e.g. http://www.mothersagainstguns.net/. Neither site makes much headway in getting its voice repeated by the mass media. Perhaps people don't spend much time debating it because the general consensus is that it isn't too broken? Of course, that's an opinion; any such statement in the article would need to be sourced. Notinasnaid 12:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
We've probably reached a stage now where the public - if they consider it at all - consider that current restrictions are about as far as they can go without banning firearms outright. The MAG site seems long on hyperbole and selective use of statistics, and short on common sense or a sense of proportion. The bottom line is that the high-end figures usually bandied about are over-inflated by a) air weapons and replicas, and b) criminal damage; essentially offences that wouldn't have been reported even ten years ago. Nick Cooper 17:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Regarding references I have an addition question about [12]. This is a link to the bbc website? It is an article about “How punishment affects crime rates”, the very last line of the article gives the quoted statistic. My question is where do we see the reference for the bbc stats? (Adamjohn12 12:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC))

If you mean the 6%, it seems a slight underestimate. The Home Office report Violent Crime Overview, Homicide and Gun Crime 2004/2005 (26 January 2006) states that there were 77 fatal firearms crimes in 2004/05 out of 839 homicides, which is 9.2%. For the preceeding two years it was 7.6% and 7.9% respectively. Nick Cooper 14:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gun crime

Legal firearms in private hands has almost no connection with gun crime in general. Yes you do get the rare nutcake with a regestered firearm who will kill a person or two, but almost all criminals aquire their firearms illegally, so there's no point in restricting most gun's because regestered shooters aren't the problem; it'll make no difference to gun crime other than making it worse. Reducing gun crime require's going after illegal fire-arms and having a liscencing and registration system in place, to seperate criminals from the innocent. Goldfishsoldier 03:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree, sir. However, banning handguns does make it possible for the police to act immediately, without having to discovered whether the person is licensed. While I'm in favour of sporting clubs being allowed, with restricted facilities, to have any type of firearm on site (if they can be safely kept and/or discharged), it does not take away from the fact that simply having a good registration isn't the only way one can deal with firearms use. I would make the conjecture, and it is only that, that most crimes involving firearms involve handguns, and while most of these would be illegal, you remove the entire issue by banning them. While I find this really quite irritating, it does assist the police. The real issue is whether it's a short-term solution only, as actual numbers of firearms in the UK have been rising since they banned handguns, and while the police have an 'easier time', it does not appear to have dramatically reduced the problem nor seems to be making things better anymore. Roche-Kerr 18:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC
I agree with you in alot of what you've said, but the fact remains that the laws have had no impact on gun crime. I find it quite sad that as a shooter myself, I feel I'm being used as a scapegoat in regards to gun crime. Goldfishsoldier 00:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Guns weren't banned because of "gun crime". They were banned because of killing sprees carried out by gun fetishists (the kind of people who don't think owning a gun in peacetime is barbarous in the first place) while not directly pertaining to any other crime. And article talk pages are not an appropriate place for this kind of complaint anyway; wikipedia isn't a discussion forum. Chris Cunningham 01:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Out of 22,789 "firearms crimes" in 2004/05, 11,825 (52%) involve air weapons. A further 3,333 (15%) were imitation firearms (including soft air weapons, BB guns, deactivated weapons, etc.). The figure for handguns was 4,347 (19%), although this is likely to be an overestimate, given that only weapons positively identified as air weapons or imitations are counted as such, otherwise they are recorded as "handguns," even though they're not. Nick Cooper 20:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that I just noticed this isn't the entirety of this conversation. What Goldfishsoldier said on 29th December was originally in the thread 'Relevance of lack of natural predators in the UK' in Archive 2, in response to my most recent comment, but Thumperward moved it into a new thread (this thread) just before he archived the previous conversation. The edit summary makes it seem like he somehow couldn't see the relevance of what Goldfishsoldier said to my comment, and decided that he must've meant to make a new thread for it in the first place. What we're left with here is a thread that seems to not be discussing improvements to the original article at all, when in it's original context it was merely part of a digression originating in Admbws' comment "Whatever you do, avoid making the assumption that more guns in private hands will give criminals easier access to guns" and my response to it. Should this whole thread be deleted along with everything from Admbws' comment onwards in the other thread, due to the digression? Should the digressive part of Admbws' comment be deleted and the rest after that moved to Admbws' user talk page, maybe with annotation or a preface explaining what happened? Or should the rest of the conversation just be brought back from archive 2?

Thankyou. I was going to point that out myself, but I never got around to doing it. Sorry I'm a bit late in responding. Goldfishsoldier 04:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In any case, I'd also very much like to thank Goldfishsoldier for his response. It seems I made a rather large error in my ignorance, although I'd still like to expand on what I said. Under the assumption that this thread won't be entirely deleted I'll continue here. Quite simply, if there are guns in large supply within a country, it is easier to acquire them for illegal sale or use. If the only guns coming into or being produced in a country legally are for use in the military or law enforcement, there's simply less of them to steal. Also, if guns are legal in general it opens the possibility of passing off illegal firearms as legal. In a country like Britain, when you see that someone has a gun you know that it's been acquired illegally.
There are many different ways to obtain a firearm illegally, and I don't really know much about the sources of illegal firearms in the USA, but if firearms are banned they can only be acquired either from stealing from the military or police, or from smuggling from outside the country. If guns are legal in general there are many more sources of illegal firearms. There are many new and more accessible places from which guns can be stolen, such as gun stores, gun suppliers or just someone else who already owns a gun. There may be legal gun distributors that make illegal dealings. I'd also think that if a licensing and registration system were in place, you'd run into many problems when people want to take their guns to a different country, or when people want to bring guns into the country legally. This might open opportunities for gun smugglers. Even if the restrictions on gun ownership are applied entirely effectively to people who want to bring a gun into the country, unless the proportion of illegal firearms obtained from sources other than smugglers is minute, my point still stands.
Basically, if guns are legal in general much more law enforcement and resources are required than if they are illegal entirely, and more opportunities exist for acquiring firearms illegally in general. Anyway, if the licensing and registration system is as effective as you say, maybe it should be mentioned in the article that in Britain there is currently very little discussion or comprehension of the possibilities of a licensing and registration system. By linking back to the topic of the article itself, did I just complicate the discussion about moving or deleting parts even further? For the record, I think you should be able to discuss the article's subject on the talk page because it can bring omissions of the article to attention. -- Haridan 02:12, 14 January 2006 (GMT/UTC)
Actually, I would contest that claim that here, "when you see that someone has a gun you know that it's been acquired illegally." As I stated above, out of 22,789 "firearms crimes" in 2004/05, imitations, deactivated firearms, BB guns and air weapons (virtually all of which are legal)accounted for 15,158, which is 67%. And even then this is an underestimate, since it's only the weapons possitively identified as such, either by being recovered by the police, or if the damage/injury they inflict is plainly or forensically shown to be from an air weapon pellet. Statistically, if you see someone with a gun in the UK, it's more likely not to be even a "real" firearm, let alone illegal. Nick Cooper 08:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Well obviously, but you can usually tell whether it's real or not. There are laws against toys or otherwise looking like real guns. That's one reason they're usually a different colour. If you see someone with what looks like a real gun, it's most likely a real gun, and therefore illegal. -- Haridan 04:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
We're talking about replicas and air weapons, not "toys." Most people, for example, would not be able to tell the difference between an "illegal" Walther P88 and the "legal" CO2-powered air pistol version (www.airguns-online.co.uk/walther_cp88_3.htm), even if they had it in their hands. In addition, most Airsoft guns are scale replicas of real weapons that would "fool" many people to a distance of a few feet. The reality now is that most British people are so unfamiliar with firearms that if they see someone other than a very young child with something that can be safely assumed to be a toy, anything that looks like a gun is usually taken to be one. Nick Cooper 08:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Now this is the point where I shut a lot of you gun-control pinko's down. I'd like to point out two examples: Switzerland and Finland. These two countries have some of the lowest crime rates in the world. And yet, there's something unique about them, both countries have about 2 million private gun owners, out of populations of 7 million and 5 million respectively, and yet gun crime is almost non existent. I mean Switzerland and Finland, two (Neutral) countries who are constantly advocating "we can all get along", and they've got one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world! Oh, the Irony. And Haridan, I looked at your profile and noticed you call yourself an expert gamer, what games do you consider yourself an expert in? Goldfishsoldier 04:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Switzerland has to seen in the context of a country in which virtually every adult male does military service and remains in the reserve/militia until middle-age, with their service weapon kept at home. Finland similarly relies heavily on conscripted reservists and, of course, is sparsely populated and has a longstanding hunting culture. Training and utility respectively are important factors. However, the simple reality seems to be that there really is no real corrolation between a counrty's level of firearms ownership per se and the use of firearms in crime in the same country, although elements on both sides of the debate continue to argue that there is, one way or the other, to further their case. Nick Cooper 10:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, because most people have under gone military training and have a thorough knowledge of firearms and I would think enjoy shooting, would go out and buy their own guns hence the high gun ownership and I don't think any criminal would be stupid enough to break to a home in Finland or Switzerland knowing the high gun ownership. Goldfishsoldier 22:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Bad Sentance

"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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Shotguns

Do shotguns with a magazine capacity of more than 2+1 rounds require a Firearm Certificate? Goldfishsoldier 07:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "Right to keep and bear arms"

This Americanism has no place in the intro. One wouldn't start Religion in the United Kingdom with "Unlike in China, there is practically no organised Taoist movement."--Nydas(Talk) 08:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The intro begins with a comparison with Australia. Why are you not objecting to that, as well, if you think comparisons with other countries are inappropriate? Nick Cooper (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with that one either. It's especially strange in the opening sentence.--Nydas(Talk) 21:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)