UK vs US Gun Control & Crime Statistics?

[Hawk]

I always hear about how violent the UK is due to their restriction of firearm ownership, but I'd like to see the report(s) that show this compared to the US. I tried searching, but can't seem to find them. Can someone help me out?

See:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. You won't find what you're looking for because it doesn't exist.

Even if UK gun related crime went up 6 zillion percent since the Handgun Surrender and Compensation Scheme, it isn't because of the handgun ban. In order for any crime stats to be because of the ban it would have to proceed from the false assumption that defensive handgun uses actually happened before the ban. Or, at the very least, the inhibiting influence of the belief on the part of the criminals that they might be facing a defensive handgun use.

For us yanks who have been told repeatedly of DGUs, up to two million a year by some sources, it simply doesn't occur to us that places exist where the number approximated zero.

I'll cheerfully defer if the UK members posting to this thread say I'm off base but the numbers simply weren't there. Approximately 162,000 handguns from 55,000 owners were surrendered out of a population of roughly 50,000,000 at the time. That's rare - certainly not widespread enough that the average street thug was worried about someone deploying a handgun in defense.

Can we agree on "The UK handgun ban failed to stop handgun crime"? It sounds almost as good "UK gun crime increased because of the handgun ban" and has the obvious advantage of not being breathtakingly wrong.

Those of us that debate the issue occasionally on international forums would deeply appreciate it.

And, while I'm at it, can we just please hit the "delete" button the next time that sorry Chenel / OZ chain email surfaces? 300% increase in Victoria? Please, it went from 7 to 19 in an outlier year and 7 to 19 is almost a 200% increase not 300% - the chain email is mathematically challenged in addition to being fact challenged. Snopes is our friend.

 

[Mk VII]

However, one thing that the FBI study did find, was that gun control laws in the UK was not preventing gun crime

Of course it didn't. That wasn't the point of it.

 

[Gungnir]

So then what was the point of it?

When I was there post Hungerford and then Dunblane the pressure groups were all about how we needed these bans to prevent gun crime, and how this should not be allowed to happen again. Yada yada...

It also happened with Ninja Death Stars (LOL Shuriken to those who know), Nunchaku's, Katana's and other Martial Arts Weapons, since use of these in assaults increased.

So could you enlighten me, since I apparently missed the memo

 

[Mk VII]

The point of it was to prevent another massacre being perpetrated with a legally owned pistol, because then there would be no legally owned pistols. Crime in the ordinary sense had nothing to do with it.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

That's right, more people buying guns leads to less crime, doesn't it? Oh... hang on.... Ah well, so a few niggaz die, at least the gunshop owner gets a swanky car.

Actually, more guns does lead to less crime. The areas in the U.S. with strict gun laws, like Washington D.C. and Chicago, have higher crime compared to places like Kentucky and Texas. I once lived in a rural area, where almost everyone I knew had a gun in their house. The only murders commited in that area were about 30 years ago, and guns weren't used.

Ah well, so a few niggaz die,

I'm not sure why you need to drag race in to the discussion. Regardless of race, there seems to be less crime where there's more guns.

For instance, when Florida first passed it's law allowing people to carry concealed weapons,(I believe it was in 1993 or so) it's murder rate was more than 30 percent above the national average. By 2005, it was 4 percent below the national average.

compared to 1200 fatal shootings in california alone.

That is a very anti-gun state, and the state with the largest population.

 

[Gungnir]

Link to FBI Comparison of Crime Rates US to England/Wales I mentioned.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cjusew96.pdf

It's a big read.

 

[tkaction]

After all is said here the real issue isn"t proving a % per population factoid. It is the question of self reliance and responsibility. The gun is insignifigant to the question of self defense. I trust myself to protect what is mine and i cherish the right to do so. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the issue. We left England for that reason.
Tim

 

[Gungnir]

tkaction in my case literally. Not my parents, grandparents or earlier ancestors literally me.

I was completely fed up of the Nanny state and lack of responsibility of the majority or people in the UK (there are some who are responsible and take ownership of their problems). However I objected to being in a situation where, I, not the intruder could be prosecuted if I defended myself or my property.

I'm lucky in the fact I'm now in the US, and I had the skills and abilities that are valuable enough to get here. I do not regret for one moment leaving the UK.

 

[CoRoMo]

...the Ban of handguns HAS NOTHING WHAT SO EVER TO DO WITH CRIME...

Except for the fact that every violent criminal in your country is assured that he won't be met with an armed victim. He can be certain that his violence will not be thwarted by a firearm. He has nothing to fear. He has nothing to give him pause. He has no reservations about committing the act. He is guaranteed the control of the situation. He has no real reason NOT to commit the crime.

I figure that a disarmed populace has much to do with crime rates. It creates a lack of any real deterrent.

 

[woodybrighton]

but before the handgun ban that was the same situation there was one case where a gun shop owner shot and killed a robber and got away with it. Can't think of another time a civillian used a pistol in self defence.
after that git in dunblane keeping handguns was always going to fail

 

[Travis Bickle]

There's no really effective way to compare U.K. and U.S. crime rates because of the different way in which each government compiles their crime statistics; it's a bit like comparing apples and oranges. However, in the admittedly anecdotal experience of most people I've talked to who have recently lived in both the U.K and the U.S., it seems as if the U.K. is much more violent than the U.S., but most violent crime in the U.K. is committed with weapons other than firearms (knives, fists, bludgeons, etc.)

In any case, if the U.K. does have a much lower gun violence rate than the U.S., it really proves nothing, since the U.K. has always had a very low gun crime rate, even before the adoption of strict gun control laws there. The laws adopted after Dunblane do seem to have stopped the gun massacres, but they have not resulted in any reduction in the overall rate of gun violence; in fact, the overall rate of gun violence has been rising there since Dunblane. So attributing the U.K.'s low gun crime rate to its strict gun laws is a classic cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

 

[woodybrighton]

exactly gun crime
and legal gun use two diffrent things with no relation.
little relation to the US as well.

a soldier recently got done for stealing and attempting to sell a dozen rounds of 9mm got three years. I think if you tried to sell a dozen loose rounds of 9mm in the states you'd be laughed at

 

[Hawk]

Of course it didn't. That wasn't the point of it.

UK member Agricola expended considerable effort trying to tell us that the handgun surrender wasn't about crime control but rather "this must not happen again".

If my bafflement at the time was any indication, the average US citizen has a difficult time with that. The line between "crime control" and "this not happening again" is blurry as "this" (Hungerford, Dunblane) was a crime. Further, our anti-gun folks have hitched their wagon to crime control. If they admitted that their proposed measures would not materially impact gun-related crime it would be front page news and the movement would collapse overnight, the NRA would stop sending mailers and could concentrate on training. The ILA would be disbanded.

Some numbers (approximations) might help. They're not real accurate but we're talking orders of magnitude here - the concept would survive substantial correction.

Back around Dunblane time: population 50,000,000, 50 firearm homicides per year, Dunblane adds 18 or, say, around an extra 36%

U.S.: population 300,000,000, 10,000 firearm homicides per year (throwing out suicides and accidents), Columbine adds 15 or around an extra 15/100 of 1 lonely percent.

For a yank to understand Dunblane's impact on a national psyche we have to wrap our heads around a 36% bump due to mass shootings, all comitted by licensed handgun owners. If we were suddenly to be greeted with an extra 3,600 homicides, the equivalent of a Columbine nearly every working day of the year, each one comitted by handgun licensees and all the handguns were held by these license holders, I would suspect something on the order of Enemies Foreign and Domestic. And I would further conjecture that the efforts to curb the 3,600 school shootings wouldn't have to justify themselves as having a likely impact on the 10,000 shootings we already had.

The difference between "this must not happen again" and "we will reduce everyday gun related crime" suddenly becomes much clearer.

And, eliminating the sporadic mass shooting over here wouldn't amount to a p-hole in a snowdrift in relation to the overall issue. Hence, our antis have to offer a fiction where something other than multi-victim shootings are (not really) impacted. Pulling off a handgun surrender here would be orders of magnitude more costly - a trillion dollars is a reasonable guess and our gov doesn't know where they are for the most part.

I don't know why we enjoy killing each other more than more homegenous societies but we do - I recall a European paper describing "settler nations" that had some plausible guesswork but I haven't been able to find it again.

The one lesson that is writ large on the UK experiences is that the day-to-day killing isn't impacted by draconian firearms laws. A handgun ban didn't impact those specific numbers in England and they wouldn't impact crime figures here either. They would have an overall negative impact in the U.S. as, quite unlike our British friends, we do have defensive handgun uses and these are the only folks that would honor a surrender. Hence our bumper-sticker: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

England and America are two countries separated by a common language.

 

[Hawk]

Except for the fact that every violent criminal in your country is assured that he won't be met with an armed victim. He can be certain that his violence will not be thwarted by a firearm. He has nothing to fear. He has nothing to give him pause. He has no reservations about committing the act. He is guaranteed the control of the situation. He has no real reason NOT to commit the crime

As Woody noted, it bears repeating that this certainty existed prior to the handgun ban, during the debate and after the handgun ban.

DGUs across the pond ~= zero, before and after.

The handgun ban did not cause the certainty you describe; the certainty pre-dated the ban - by well over half a century SFAICT.

 

[ChromeLibrarian]

So, what you're saying is that the same situation existed before and after the ban, meaning that the ban was a useless piece of emotional eyewash to make everyone "feel" better.

 

[Calibre44]

Gungnir wrote: so I know that it's almost impossible to have any kind of firearm, beyond a 12 Gauge.

Not so. A law abiding Citizen can own pretty much any firearm so long as they have somewhere safe to store it, somewhere to shoot it and provide a reason to own it – target shooting will suffice. Handguns are banned of course except muzzle-loading pistols, and Long Barrelled Revolvers (these come mainly in .44, 357 and .22 calibres). You can also own semi-auto .22 long barrelled pistols. You can own any calibre rifle (not semi auto) in all calibres from .17 to .50 (tracer rounds are available to help sight it in).

AK47 and AR style rifles are all legal but are configured to a ‘straight-pull’ design whereby you have to manually cycle the bolt to eject and chamber rounds. There are no mag restrictions on these. My next gun is going to be a M4 carbine for example. You can own as many Shotguns as you like in all gauges including pump and semi auto although there is a 3 shell mag restriction on those.

Sure you have to jump through a few hoops to get your license but it’s worth it in the end. Nowhere near the gun freedoms in the US (sadly) of course but heayho.

Chromelibrarian wrote: So, what you're saying is that the same situation existed before and after the ban, meaning that the ban was a useless piece of emotional eyewash to make everyone "feel" better

Yep pretty much. After 16 toddlers and their teacher were killed by legally held handguns a ‘groundswell of emotion’ engulfed the country and focused itself on legitimate gun owners. As we were the minority by far our fate was sealed. The other contributory factor was the Conservative Government were very unpopular with the voters and seized the opportunity to pass a law to appease the country.

Interestingly though they didn’t ban .22 handguns at that point. It was the newly elected Labour party that banned those to show they could make ‘tough decisions’ and continued to ban anything that could be used as a weapon – even for self-defence.

Another interesting factor is when we lost our semi-auto centrefire guns following the Hungerford massacre handguns were still legal afterwards despite the fact that a 9mm handgun was also used to kill people.

Most antis are ignorant regarding guns. I find it entertaining that most antis have no idea that BP Handguns and Long-Barrelled Handguns exist and are of course, quite capable of being used in a massacre. Some did lobby Government about muzzle-loaders but a Home Office report said that these had not be used in a crime and they saw no reason to take a legitimate hobby away from law abiding Citizens.

 

[Gungnir]

Not so. A law abiding Citizen can own pretty much any firearm so long as they have somewhere safe to store it, somewhere to shoot it and provide a reason to own it – target shooting will suffice. Handguns are banned of course except muzzle-loading pistols, and Long Barrelled Revolvers (these come mainly in .44, 357 and .22 calibres). You can also own semi-auto .22 long barrelled pistols. You can own any calibre rifle (not semi auto) in all calibres from .17 to .50 (tracer rounds are available to help sight it in).

AK47 and AR style rifles are all legal but are configured to a ‘straight-pull’ design whereby you have to manually cycle the bolt to eject and chamber rounds. There are no mag restrictions on these. My next gun is going to be a M4 carbine for example. You can own as many Shotguns as you like in all gauges including pump and semi auto although there is a 3 shell mag restriction on those.

Sure you have to jump through a few hoops to get your license but it’s worth it in the end. Nowhere near the gun freedoms in the US (sadly) of course but heayho.

I guess we have different perspectives on almost impossible.

Considering that the police forces I spoke to on this were as obstructive as could possibly be without telling me to go take a long walk off a short pier. Justifications for each weapon and have a legitimate purpose for hunting or sporting reasons. Given that the police also have to consider you have a "good reason" which seems to be purely subjective in my experience.

Pretty much anyone I've known who has tried to get a Firearms Certificate have at best wound up with a Shotgun Certificate. Most seem to be frivolously denied for either "lack of real Justification" or "we can't see a good reason for this".

Maybe I just wasn't in with the Local Constabulary when I lived there.

 

[Calibre44]

Gungnir wrote: Pretty much anyone I've known who has tried to get a Firearms Certificate have at best wound up with a Shotgun Certificate. Most seem to be frivolously denied for either "lack of real Justification" or "we can't see a good reason for this".

I can see why you found this frustrating but it hasn’t been my experience. Was it because you had been burgled so much? – that could have a bearing on their decision.

I’m a member of two clubs: one with 60 members and another with well over a 100 members and everyone has a Firearms Cert (FAC). The Firearms Enquiry Officers (FEO) I have dealt with have all been very professional. I own 3 rifles, a Shotgun and 3 BP Pistols and didn’t have any problems getting them. They are all for target shooting. I just had my FAC renewed (every 5 years) and asked for a further three rifles in .22, .308 and .303 all for target shooting and all three have been authorised so I guess we judge as we find.

At least you now live somewhere where you don’t have to jump through all these hoops – enjoy!

 

[ChromeLibrarian]

Was it because you had been burgled so much?

"You have a lot of crime in your area, so you don't need a gun."

Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[Calibre44]

Chromelibrarian wrote: "You have a lot of crime in your area, so you don't need a gun."

Yeah, that makes sense.

LOL … remember you have self-defence laws that protect the innocent. We have … self-defence laws that … well ... they’re … mmm … crap!

 

[Tommygunn]

A law abiding Citizen can own pretty much any firearm so long as they have somewhere safe to store it, somewhere to shoot it and provide a reason to own it – target shooting will suffice. Handguns are banned of course except muzzle-loading pistols

??? You can own any gun except any gun??? That seems about what you're saying. I mean, there are handguns and long-guns....and while I love blackpowder revolvers, they're not what I would want for self defense ... but then over there you can't use whatever is left (after the ban(s) for self defense.
Glad I live in America.
Oh, and I'll never apologize for bastardizing the "Queen's English" again .... ;-)

 

[Gungnir]

I was burgled, in 3 main locations in the UK Newcastle-on-Tyne Suburbs and Inner City with 24 hour Building Security, Yeovil Somerset, and Greater and Central London (again with a 24 hour building security officer, just off the Kings Road SW3), prior to coming to the US I was a Self Employed Contractor and Troubleshooter in Software Development. I did not live in what could typically be called "dangerous" areas. I had alarm systems (Passive Infrared and intrusion detection) not surprisingly, and also in general a much higher degree of passive security in the UK (door locks, window locks, bars on the windows etc.) than I have over here in the US.

If being burgled was a reason to deny an application for a FAC then I think I've proven my point about almost impossible. Since I had ZERO control over that situation.

 

[CoRoMo]

a soldier recently got done for stealing and attempting to sell a dozen rounds of 9mm got three years. I think if you tried to sell a dozen loose rounds of 9mm in the states you'd be laughed at

You're right. We don't have a monetary denomination that small, in order to make such a transaction. It's like trying to sale a teaspoonful of gasoline.

 

[Bo_Nidle]

To answer Notorious:

"Do the AFOs also turn in their guns after duty hours, I assume? In Hong Kong, where you guys ruled for a while, every patrolman walked around with a revolver (SW MP10 .38 special) tethered to his duty belt. I think now they have Glock 19s, but off-duty, they all turn in their guns to the station and go home unarmed."

AFO's have to book their weapons in and out at the start and end of their duty, they do not take their weapons home. They are subject to the same firearms restriction as any UK citizen. A friend of mine was an AFO and bought a Sig 228 to keep his skills up prior to the ban. Once the ban was in effect he had to suurender it for the token Government payment which was, if memory serves, £150. Quite a loss on its real value.

To date none have been overpowered but to give yet another example of the surreal situation we face at armed incidents heres another genuine example that occurred on my patch:
A taxi driver takes a trio of drunken idiots home in the early hours.On dropping them off there is a dispute over the fare. It gets rather threatening and the driver gets on his radio and calls for help from his base.The base calls the Police. Closest patrol to the incident just happens to be an ARV. They arrive in an unmarked silver coloured Volvo T5, the officers are in uniform. The idiots are still remonstrating with the taxi driver. The AFO's get out without weapons (remember the arming protocols?) and walk towards the idiots from the opposite side of the road. They tell the idiots to pack it in. The officers are now halfway across the road. At this point the drunken idiot who is the main problem reaches into his coat and pulls out a handgun and points it at the approaching officers telling them to "Foxtrot Oscar" (you put the words in).The AFO's have to run back to their car, get in, retrieve their Sig 228's, load up and then aproach the idiots again this time guns drawn at which point the idiots all soil their underwear and give up. It turned out that the idiots gun was actually a toy spring fired BB pistol, about £5 off the local market at that time. But as the officer involved said to me later "if it had been real we'd have been F**ked!"

The fact is in Britain people die precisely because the Police are not armed. In my Force about two years ago we had the first criminal fatally shot by Police in the Forces history: A local man who was slightly mentally challenged was suffering constant problems with local juveniles. Two female officers attended and spoke to him. As they did so he became increasingly unstable and began making lewd suggestions towards them. As they were getting nowhere trying to speak to him reasonably the officers eventually gave up and left. The now irate man then followed them out carrying a sword and a rifle. On seeing him the two officers had little choice but to flee into the darkness and call for assistance. The ARV's turned up after the man had gone back into his flat ("apartment " in the USA). He see's the AFO's who had now been given authority to arm and comes to the window with the rifle shouting abuse and threats. The AFO's have MP5's with red dot scopes. The distance is about 25 yds. Despite numerous pleas for his surrender the man suddenly brings the rifle to the aim at the officers and is shot with one round to the chest killing him instantly.The rifle was a replica, not a real firearm.

Now the officer who fired the shot did exactly the right thing under the circumstances and has faced no charges. But my argument is would the man have been so keen to brandish the weapons in the first place if British Police carried firearms as part of their normal protective equipment? We will never know the answer but I think it somewhat less likely.

The utterly tragic and disgracefully negligent killing of Jean Charles De Menezes by the Metropolitan Police could have been completely avoided if the undercover officer tailing him had been armed. This officer had voiced his concerns that De Menezes was NOT the man they thought he was prior to him reaching the rail station but was ordered not to challenge him as the officer was not armed. Instead the tactical Firearms Team which had just come on duty, (they had not been on duty that night in order for a senior officer to keep his overtime budget to a minimum-I'm not making this up!) had to make a desperate dash to intercept what they were told was a suicide bomber entering a rail station packed with commuters. The result was an innocent man gunned down by the authorities. Again the officer who shot did the right thing in the circumstances under which he was operating and is not to blame. The blame lies squarely up the chain of command. But if that tailing officer could have drawn a weapon under the controlled conditions on the bus when he was virtually telling his bosses "it's the wrong man" the entire tragedy could have been averted.

I have many true stories about the blunderings of the British Police in their efforts to confront the armed ,and indeed unarmed, criminal. They range from the wildest farce to the saddest tragedies.

You have to refer to my previous post about senior officers thinking when it comes to criminals being killed as opposed to officers. They will not even authorise the general issue of Tasers to none AFO's in my Force

 

[camies]

UK Gun Laws

Statistics, statistics, and statistics. Numbers, opinions and reports. Yawn!!!

The real reason why we have draconian gun laws is that this and past UK governments are scared stiff of the 'people' being armed. It must be something to do with self preservation as I'm convinced that if our politicians were let loose on you U.S. people, your ammo sales would go through the roof!

In the UK, we have to be careful how we respond to home intrusions or assault as anything more than harsh language gets the victim fined, jailed, or sued by the criminal as their ever so precious human rights have been broken.

Heck, I'm in danger of being arrested for carrying my 1 1/4 inch bladed lock knife as it is not classed as a pocket knife anymore! Statistically, carrying my knife makes me one of those knife carrying criminals you read about. Boy that's really screwed you bean counters up hasn't it. Sadly it also means that I'm going to have to eat my apples with the skin on and buy a pencil sharpener. My job? Well lets leave it as "security orientated".

Statistically in the UK, you will find that "licensed handgun" crime is negligible as (surprise surprise) you can't legally own a handgun! The bleeding heart brigade can sleep safely in their beds at night knowing that the local priest or policeman has not got his collection of handguns to hand!

Criminal gun crime (being unregulated for some obscure reason) is climbing but the government does not really care as it only involves kids, the occasional mother, or baby being shot and never any politicians.

Perhaps the politicians think they are safer with criminals being armed as they don't pay taxes or obey the 1000's of laws the rest of us have to. That in itself must be a powerful reason why criminals have no interest in dropping the occasional Member of Parliament or two.

All you experts can argue all day and night about the UK / US crime stats and our violent little country but it will get you precisely nowhere because no one important gives a damn!

Roll on the revolution! I for one will openly carry my lock knife on it's key ring for all to see.