Apparently Britains handgun ban isn't working so well

Status
Not open for further replies.
Over the years I have paid more attention to what Colin Greenwood has had to say on British gun laws and gun crime, than to politicians or media.

Colin Greenwood, Superintendent, West Yorkshire Metropolitan Police,
writing in 1972 about the effects of half a century of UK gun control
from the 1920 Firearms Act to the 1968 Firearms Act, in
Colin Greenwood, "Firearms Control", (Routledge & Kegan
Paul, London, 1972):
"No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the
conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when
there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal
or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half
a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a
far greater use of this class of weapon in crime than ever before."
Click to expand...

Comparing the effects of the 1988 restrictions on shotgun certificates, Greenwood concluded "It might be possible to conclude that the law has an immediate effect on the law abiding, but that criminals, by definition, do not obey the law."

''Restricting Handguns'', ed. by Don B. Kates, North River Press, 1979,
includes extensive extracts from Colin Greenwood on pages 33 through 55.

Colin Greenwood & Joseph Magaddino, "Comparative Cross-Cultural Statistics", in Restricting Handguns 39 (Don Kates ed., 1979).

At first glance it may seem odd, or even perverse, to suggest that statutory controls on the private ownership of firearms are irrelevant to the problem of armed crime, yet that is precisely what the evidence shows. Armed crime and violent crime generally are products of ethnic and social factors unrelated to the availability of any particular type of weapon. The numbers of firearms required [to arm criminals are minute in comparison to the overall number in private hands], and these are supplied no matter what controls are instituted. Controls have had serious effects on legitimate users of firearms, but there is no case either in the history this country [England] or in the experience of other countries, in which controls have been shown to have restricted the flow of weapons to criminals or in any way to have reduced armed crime.
Click to expand...

Colin Greenwood wrote a critique of of the 2006 Home Office Research Study 298, Gun Crime: The market in and use of illegal firearms. He observed:
The 1997 legislation deprived 57,000 people of their property, removed 160,000 handguns from circulation and cost many millions of pounds in compensation. If the effects of that legislation can not be evaluated, then the whole discipline of criminology is a waste of time. If the ban on handguns had any effect in protecting the public, the date on which it came into effect must be reflected in figures for homicide and robbery involving a pistol. The figures for England and Wales for six years before and after 1997 are shown below. .... The pattern of pistol use in homicide is progressively upwards whilst the pattern in robbery shows that the numbers were falling but then rose sharply, only to fall back again. The only conclusion is that the ban imposed by the 1997 Act was simply an irrelevance.
Click to expand...

The charts are six years before, 1997, and six years after.

Code: 
Homicides

Year   Total                      Sawn-off
       Homicide Firearms Shotgun  Shotgun   Pistol 
1991      725        55       25        7      19
1992      681        56       20        5      28
1993      675        74       29       10      35
1994      727        66       22       14      25
1995      753        70       18       10      39
1996      679        49        9        8      30
1997      753        59       12        4      39
1998      731        49        4        7      32 *
1999      761        62        6       13      42
2000      850        73       12        2      47
2001      858        97       20        1      59
2002     1045        81       20        3      40
2003      858        68        7        4      35

Robberies 
       Total    Total             Sawn-off
Year   Robbery  Firearms Shotgun  Shotgun   Pistol 
1991   45,323      5296      381      650    2988
1992   52,894      5827      406      602    3544
1993   57,845      5918      437      593    3605
1994   60,007      4104      274      373    2390
1995   68,074      3963      235      281    2478
1996   74,035      3617      224      232    2316
1997   63,072      3029      121      178    1854
1998   66,172      2973      138      193    1814 *
1999   84,277      3922      138      217    2561
2000   95,154      4081      98       199    2700
2001   121,375     5323      143      201    3841
2002   108,045     4776      101      174    3332
2003   101,195     4117      98       148    2799

*From 1998 onward the figures are for the financial 
year to 1st April of the following year.
 
CoRoMo said:
Maybe if they ban them again, this kind of thing wouldn't happen.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

OTOH, drawing against a drawn gun? I guess in a country where no one is supposed to have a gun it might work but otherwise still not alot of great options for most of us regular humans (not Gecko45) that carry.
 
Last time I checked the yearly stats (2008 or 09?) the London metro area for the year prior had over three thousand gun crimes. Not on par with Chicago, but still pretty unimpressive for an allegedly handgun free island where even shotguns are restricted, etc.

The other issue, of course, is what if the two suspects just had butcher knives? Hope that dog they were walking was a mastiff or something?
 
UK had about 10,000 gun crimes in 2012
Population of 63 million = 1 gun crime for every 6300 people

The US had about 300000 gun crimes in 2012
Population of 300 million = 1 gun crime for every 1000 people

Seems to me that the gun ban has had an impact on gun crime.
 
Pizzapinochle said:
UK had about 10,000 gun crimes in 2012
Population of 63 million = 1 gun crime for every 6300 people

The US had about 300000 gun crimes in 2012
Population of 300 million = 1 gun crime for every 1000 people

Seems to me that the gun ban has had an impact on gun crime.
Click to expand...

I assume you are joking.
 
I assume gun violence is somehow seperable from other violence...

TCB
 
Dear Blackstone,
Thank you for your email, and please forgive the delay in response. Given the recent election results, you will I'm sure understand why in the last few weeks we have been completely swamped by a vast wave of new members, enquirers, well-wishers etc, by phone, letter, and by email, and we are still clearing the backlog, even with the extra staff that we have taken on.

As you can see, I'm copying this to Gerard Batten MEP, our Home Affairs spokesman, and he may wish to add his own comments, particularly on any new proposals from the EU to further meddle in our own domestic affairs. Obviously, because of our opposition to EU membership, in one sense we would automatically be opposed to any extension to the EU's remit over our own laws, but I hope that Gerard will address this matter of specific "tightening" of gun law.

In more general terms, whilst UKIP might consider a relaxation on ownership of handguns for target shooting (banned by Tony Blair after the Dunblane shooting, I believe, and resulting in our Olympic Team now having to train in France) we have no policy of relaxing gun ownership to the extent that the general populace would be permitted to carry weapons. There are too many guns in Britain as it is, most of them in the wrong hands, and we do not want Britain to go down the route of the USA. We make no comment on the US situation because their history, of course, is different and unique, with the "right to bear arms" enshrined in their Constitution.

As you can see, I'm attaching the Local Manifesto, which I hope you'll find interesting, along with Gerard's booklet on Law & Order. If you haven't visited there so far, please go to www.ukip.org and have a rummage through the website. Further policy details etc are being added all the time.

Once again, sorry about the lateness of this reply

Regards


David Challice
UKIP Head Office
Click to expand...

Like having a lower crime rate? CAN'T HAVE THAT!

Honestly if it wasn't for the gun ban cities like Chicago, I am confident that America would be one of the safest countries in the world.

Originally Posted by Pizzapinochle
UK had about 10,000 gun crimes in 2012
Population of 63 million = 1 gun crime for every 6300 people

The US had about 300000 gun crimes in 2012
Population of 300 million = 1 gun crime for every 1000 people

Seems to me that the gun ban has had an impact on gun crime.
Click to expand...

You are right, less guns equals less gun crime. Now what about all that other crime? Knives are still deadly, people still are getting mugged and raped.

If all you wanted was to lower just gun crime then yes they work but it takes awhile for guns to start to get thin among criminals. Only issue with that is the first day of the gun confiscations, crime skyrockets.
 
US pro-gun-control folks could stand to do some homework. First off, from BATFE records of production and from FBI reports of the numbers of NICS calls, there have been 190 million firearms sold in the US since 1993, as of December, 2012. I have no numbers for 2013.

During that time, the number of violent crimes with firearms has decreased, per the Department of Justice. The number of fatalities has decreased, per the Center for Disease Control.

While it may be that more guns don't necessarily mean less crime, it obviously means that more guns don't mean more crime.
 
Honestly if it wasn't for the gun ban cities like Chicago, I am confident that America would be one of the safest countries in the world.
Click to expand...

Most likely.

The Pittsburgh area has a very high percentage of CCW holders (IIRC the per-capita CCW permit holder rate of Allegheny county is, or was at some point, the highest of any county in the USA, though that may be due to PA's "must have a permit to transport a pistol in a motor vehicle" law), very active hunting culture, etc. It also has the lowest violent crime rates across the board for any city with a quarter million people or more.

Also the lowest vehicle-related death rate, though I find that very hard to believe, the way people drive there, and the way pedestrians just walk right into busy streets without looking for cars.

It's basically the safest big city in the country (as long as you don't talk smack about the Steelers). If it weren't for the terrible economy and businesses shutting down left and right, it'd be perfect.
 
UK had about 10,000 gun crimes in 2012
Population of 63 million = 1 gun crime for every 6300 people

The US had about 300000 gun crimes in 2012
Population of 300 million = 1 gun crime for every 1000 people

Seems to me that the gun ban has had an impact on gun crime.
Click to expand...

You don't measure the effect of British gun law by looking at crime stats other jurisdictions.

You measure the effect of British gun law by looking at the before and after crime stats of Britain as various gun laws were passed.

You don't measure the effectiveness of your diet by pointing out Christie weighs 300 lbs but you have only gained ten on your diet.

See the chart I posted in my 23 Sep 13 response on six years before and after the handgun ban. Britain's gun crime per population was lower before the 1920 Firearms Act, back when anyone could walk into a hardware store and buy a revolver or shotgun.
 
If a violation of the law indicates that the law isn't working so well, then no laws work well.
Click to expand...

Well that's disingenuous. Ms. Blair did follow the law and was consequently prevented from using the most effective tool for her own defense. It is self-evident that banning lawful behavior in an effort to prevent (already) unlawful behavior is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Not disingenuous at all. It is a simple logic retort. The claim was made that that handgun ban law isn't working so well because of a singular incident specified. Such singular incidents are not in and of themselves validation for the law one way or the other. It is just a singular incident - nothing more. My statement was factual and sincere.
 
FIVETWOSEVEN said:
Honestly if it wasn't for the gun ban cities like Chicago, I am confident that America would be one of the safest countries in the world.
Click to expand...


Not according to Mercer rankings of safest cities worldwide...


http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/ne-data/11938-best-cities-to-live.html#axzz2hnnZNLGh

See the second listing of Mercer Personal Safety Ranking 2011

Not a single US city appears in the top fifty.

For overall quality of life, San Fran, Honolulu, DC and Chicago are the best in the US.
 
... not to spoil

the Gun-Law ranting,

but i think the likeliness of the "gun"
being a soft-air lookalike in cases like
that is like 90%.

Illegal guns are more `spensive.
 
RyanM said:
Most likely.

The Pittsburgh area has a very high percentage of CCW holders (IIRC the per-capita CCW permit holder rate of Allegheny county is, or was at some point, the highest of any county in the USA, though that may be due to PA's "must have a permit to transport a pistol in a motor vehicle" law), very active hunting culture, etc. It also has the lowest violent crime rates across the board for any city with a quarter million people or more.

Also the lowest vehicle-related death rate, though I find that very hard to believe, the way people drive there, and the way pedestrians just walk right into busy streets without looking for cars.

It's basically the safest big city in the country (as long as you don't talk smack about the Steelers). If it weren't for the terrible economy and businesses shutting down left and right, it'd be perfect.
Click to expand...
Ryan, curious where you got your information regarding pittsburgh.

According to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

(And i know it is wikipedia, but it just a data table drawn straight from the UCR. I've looked at the UCR, not nearly as easy to read.)

Pittsburgh is middle of the pack for violent crime rate.

It is also 17th for murder rate, one spot behind Chicago.
 
LebbenB said:
Perhaps if she were armed with a shotgun (Still allowed under British law) and fired it randomly in the air as suggested by VP Biden, this whole incident could have been avoided.
Click to expand...

The obvious solution is for them to ban shotguns. This may not be relevant to the incident, nor public safety for that matter, but they have to do SOMETHING, right? :rolleyes:
 
One other point to understand when trying to compare US murder stats with UK murder stats -

In the US most law enforcement agencies, when counting the number of murders count the number of reported deaths which were purposely caused by other humans.

In the UK the number of murders is the number of people killed in which the crime eventually results in a murder conviction. Manslaughter, unsolved, plead down to lower offences, acquital for any reason - those do not get counted.

So trying to compare the numbers is somewhat like apples to oranges and the UK numbers will be lower.
 
You know, being British (but happily living, shooting and owning firearms in Switzerland) the UK gun laws and how they are policed just get more embarrassing...

ATB,

Scrumbag
 
With respect, all you guys are missing something very important, in the eyes of our Brit cousins:

"No one was hurt and nothing was stolen."

Ergo their gun laws must be working.

:rolleyes:
 
Blackstone said:
No because the UK is the violent crime capital of Europe.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...73/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
Click to expand...

Well.... that is kind of not accurate. From the same article:

"Researchers admit that comparisons of crime data between countries must be viewed with caution because of differing criminal justice systems and how crimes are reported and measured."

Especially relevant in the UK where ANY crime against a person is considered a violent crime.

This means that an incident of simple battery [misdemeanor, not classified as a violent crime in the US] in the US is NOT classified as a violent crime, in the UK it IS classified as a violent crime.

Makes the whole practice of comparing based on government reported numbers pretty tough, because you are almost never comparing apples to apples.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top