Talk:Gun politics in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Firearm shotgun difference in the UK

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

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

Source claim

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

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


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

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

The relevance is that you cannot separate out gun crimes in particular from crime in general. For example, it would be pointless to pass laws which reduced the number of homicides committed with firearms if the offenders simply used knives instead. Also, it is arguable that gun crime simply represents the extreme end of a general spectrum of crime which includes violent crime in general; thus, if you could make society as a whole more peaceful, then the number of gun crimes in particular would go down even without any specific action in that area. Alex Swanson 21:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC).
Okay, I'll buy that.--JABITheW 14:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Opinion poll

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

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

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

Homebrew

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

Never heard of that, but wouldn't that be illegal in a whole lot of places? Notinasnaid 15:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
In the U.S., building a Title I gun (handgun, rifle, shotgun, not automatic nor otherwise classed as Title II) for personal use is perfectly legal. It doesn't even have to have a serial number, but BATFE has expressed a preference for homebuilt guns to have serial numbers. 208.40.64.2 14:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Dunno, check out his site: http://www.thehomegunsmith.com - FrancisTyers 16:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Exports

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

Airgun restrictions

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

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

Homicide involving firearms figures

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

General use of statistics

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


While I take your general point, whether a 3% rise is significant or not is a matter of opinion. In my experience, very few people on either side of the argument dispute that gun crime has risen steadily in recent years, and is still rising. Anti-liberty campaigners argue that this shows the need for further new laws; pro-liberty groups argue that it demonstrates the ineffectiveness of past laws, which were, indisputably, justified at the time on the basis that they would improve public safety. Incidentally, wouldn't it be sociable to include your name and the date in your comment? Alex Swanson 22:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Probably, but I was a newbie to Wikipedia then. I've since registered, though only recently. I should have re-visited this sooner. My apologies for letting this lapse. Anyway, leaving aside the three percent which is too small to be conclusive either way(shall we say?), the article still ignores half the available evidence, which is arguably more accurate (as it was not subject to changes in accounting and does not carry the risks or recrimination). De-legalisation of handguns would encourage people to report gun-intimidation as they would know that they were victims of crime. So official statistics increasing still doesn't imply an increase in gun-crime. I'd say this article is neutral. It does point out arguments against gun legalisation and the worries on the restrictions of liberties equally.--JABITheW 14:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

USA

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

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

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

    • Homicide involving firearms figures

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

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

Tags

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

Uninformed public

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

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

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

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

"The British public's information 'on the subject of firearms' may not be exhaustive, but that has nothing to do the formation of perfectly legit opinions on gun control." It has everything to do with it. The public in this case has been misled for years, and their opinions are, sadly, not informed by the facts. As a simple examlple, take the discussion above on whether US crime statistics are relevant; the argument is frequently put forward by anti-gun campaigners that high US crime rates are partly due to high levels of gun ownership. This argument is demonstrably untrue, but most of the public don't know that. This situation does not compare to recreational drugs or communism, where, although it is absolutely arguable that most people are less well-informed than they should be, what they do know is generally reasonably accurate. The sentence you have removed is a statement of fact which is relevant to the issue, especially for people outside the UK. Of course, if you think it's badly worded, that's something else; do you have an alternative? Alex Swanson 20:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
If the argument is demonstrably untrue then it should be fairly simple to add a section to the article rather than merely hinting at it in an overstuffed sentence. The idea that the British public are misinformed (not uninformed) dupes regarding the merits of gun control is an intensely political viewpoint, and not really suitable for the introduction.Nydas 21:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The point is that the public are not properly informed. The argument about US guns and homicides is merely an example; others are that the Dunblane massacre was carried out with legally-acquired guns (untrue) and that legally-owned guns are a significant source of guns for criminals (unproven and probably untrue). It would be difficult to go into detail on that.
How do you feel about: "The press is generally sympathetic towards the case for restrictive firearms laws, with opposition confined to the more high-brow right-leaning publications, such as The Daily Telegraph. Those in favour of restrictions argue that the the public generally support their case; those against claim that bias amongst the "chattering classes" leads to the public being uninformed or even actively misled, and argue that general support for the right to self defence means that the public are not, in principle, against weapons ownership or use." Alex Swanson 21:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
That's worse. Why not just place the arguments in a 'pro-gun sentiment in the UK' subsection, rather than cluttering the intro? You don't need to go into detail.Nydas 23:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree. The public is awefully informed in this country, but at the same time 'the public' is awefully informed about everything from economics to having children. While this might be pointed out in a pro-firearms section, I have to agree it is inappopriate in the introduction.Nick Kerr 23:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
If you are going to do that, I don't see why "There is no organised "right to keep and bear arms" lobby in the United Kingdom, and such positions are generally frowned upon. Sharp rises in gun crime from the late 1990s and illicit importation of firearms has proved to be a problem, while two high-profile massacres involving licenced firearms has brought the sport of target shooting into disrepute." shouldn't be removed as well. They are at least as much POV as the sentence you want removed. And to say that the public is misinformed - much more badly, I must again point out, than on the other subjects you mention - is not POV, it is a statement of fact. How can stating facts be POV? Alex Swanson 23:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The article as a whole is not very scholarly, and needs to be reorganised. That particular sentence caught my attention because of the heavy usage of weasel words and an overdose of vagueness. If you want to get your point across that the British public are ignorant about firearms, you could simply quote the percentage who have firearms training/experience - it must surely be very low. Alternatively, as I have already suggested, you could present a structured and detailed summary of the facts in a specific section.Nydas 10:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree with the argument that a lack of firearm training/experience makes people ignorant about firearms, we can all understand the effect a firearm can have on a person without having fired one ourselves. Do you also believe that most people are uniformed on the use of nuclear weapons or nerve gas due to their lack of experience with there use? Are we unable to condone rape as a crime without being a victim or perpetrator of rape? Whether the UK public are ignorant of firearms is debatable, but lack of experience in their use is not the cause of such ignorance. Markb 09:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The thing that strikes me is that the article seems to be attempting to subconciously compare the UK with the US. In all the other countries with liberal gun laws, do they have "organised right to keep and bear arms" lobbies? - FrancisTyers 11:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, French and Australian gun laws would be interesting for comparative purposes, but there are also issues of population density and local controls. Still, additional information should be added.Nick Kerr 11:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention other countries with more liberal laws (Canada, Switzerland, Finland) but less wackos than the US. - FrancisTyers 12:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I was the one who made those edits. Note I wrote "uninformed" not "misinformed", and few Brits would disagree with that statement (a lot of them would see this as a virtue!) I felt it was appropriate in the intro section as it goes a good way to explaining the basis of gun politics in the United Kingdom. After all, that is what the article is about. The whole article really needs a complete rewrite, though, which I did start doing. It needs a lot more about the Dunblane massacre in particular - a very important event in UK gun politics. I am opposed to degrading into a "Pro-gun views"/"Anti-gun views" article, A full analysis of the situation is preferable. -Admbws 15:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


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

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

History of gun control in the United Kingdom

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

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

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

This section is becoming ludicrously unbalanced and US-centric. United States this, United States that, who cares? Surely this stuff is covered in the US gun politics page?--Nydas 20:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it might be a deliberate attempt to balance the page in favour of gun control advocates. The US is well known as a place where lack of gun control causes real problems. Compared to say Canada. - FrancisTyers 20:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Hee, hee. Seriously, the middle paragraph in the history section is clearly biased towards the author's view that Brits have lost something wonderful in the 'right to bear arms'. It also conflates arms with guns.--Nydas 21:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I've cleared the middle paragraph of excessive references to the US and hints that UK citizen's rights have been taken away. Most British people certainly don't see it like this. --Nydas 19:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
This article is not just for the British people, but is international in scope. Hence, I restored balance adding a small amount of clarification, as the claim the rights don't exist at all any longer is not quite factual. The Common Law rights to keep and bear arms were frozen in 1791 in the US and are now over 800 years old (counting since Henry II). Whether these rights should still exist is a controversial topic in and of itself, and any discussion on this certainly doesn't belong in this article. Still, it is worth noting, starting from a common point, and tracking for over 725 years, it is only in the last 75 years or so that a divergence has occurred in gun politics among countries governed under essentially the same Common Law. This difference is worthy of being mentioned in passing in the article; otherwise, the question left for the reader is to wonder how we all wound up with different statutory laws governing gun politics while being under what is essentially the same fundamental Common Law. Yaf 21:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

UK Is A Third World Sewer, Im Moving To USA For Real Democracy

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

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

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

If you don't like it here, then bugger off. I get sick and tired of people whining, if it's so brilliant abroad, move there and stop complaining about it. Nick Kerr 06:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I certainly value my liberty to carry firepower needlessly. After all, it's the kind of thing I need every day in central london, where everyone else is also armed to the teeth. Reffering to the US as a democracy is a joke. It's a republic at best, and even then only if you're white, wealthy, in the oil industry and called George. One man, one vote. He's the man, he has the vote.--JABITheW 14:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, one must be in possession of at least a semi-automatic weapon, I mean, what if someone causes a traffic incident while crossing the road and you feel threatened? Ten metres and no direct association may seem threatening, and that horn may be the first signs they're armed as well, thus precipitating the necessity to fire a few rounds through their wind-screen, right? =P No, the US is not a democracy, we come far closer to that, and even we have something soarly lacking. Still, as a Central Londoner, I'd love to tell my children someday that it was an issue of firepower, the less you feel you need, the more democratic you'll be. Nick Roche-Kerr 23:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Dum-dum bullets anyone? They're fun. Jooler 11:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
They're illegal in public, and bloody well should be, but safety considerations can always be made, or if they cannot, then you may limit them. I mean, I'm not in favour of letting people set small nuclear devices off, but more freedom in controlled environments can allow personal freedom without harming public good. But with AP rounds I've never seen the point but to cause non-essential harm, hence why even the Army doesn't use them. Roche-Kerr 14:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Guns and Firearms are different things

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

Language is a tricky matter - in the strictest sense, a "gun" is emplaced, but in common speech, a "gun" is - well - from Dictionary.com, quoting the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, a gun is one of several things, including:
# A weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory.
# A cannon with a long barrel and a relatively low angle of fire.
# A portable firearm, such as a rifle or revolver.
# A device resembling a firearm or cannon, as in its ability to project something, such as grease, under pressure or at great speed.
So in short, I'm not at all sure that this is an error that needs correcting per se; it's a use of common language as compared to technical jargon, and consequently, I think, perfectly acceptable. --JennyRad 17:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed?

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

Neutrality

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