A shooting spree in the UK,that happend today.

[sterling180]

The good news is, our new Prime Minister is himself a shooter and has a Shotgun Licence so he will be familiar with the process of obtaining licenses on a 1st hand basis. He is well aware that we have some of the strictest firearms laws in Europe if not the world.

We are only one of the strictest countries,in the Western world,as unfortunately there are some countries that have alot or slightly tighter restrictions than us:Japan,Taiwan,People's Republic Of China,Nigeria&finally Australia(Except for the fact they can at least own some ordinarily-sized handgunsAlthough Australia has an SLR ban,similar to the 1988 Ammendment Act but they can at least own ordinary handguns,but,they're restricted from a minimum size.On the other hand,they can't own a rifle,if it looks like 'a black rifle' as they tried to import a batch of UK-made straight-pull(Bolt-action,by means of the AR-15s cocking-handle,for those who don't knowSouthern Gun Company AR-15s in the M16A2&M4A1 Carbine configurations.

Forgive me if this offends you British members of this forum. Throughout the years it has been my observation that the English people seem to be especially complacent when it comes to politics. There seems to be this overwhelming feeling on issues of dislike that goes something like: "Well I don't like it, but what can you do?" Then everyone just goes about their business, letting the elected officials do what they do, even if they don't like what they are doing.

Absolutely spot-on there,but its tough over here,getting points across to these arrogant,iron-fisted,morons in a positive way,without serious argument.I know this from my own experience of these particular persons.

 

[Zoogster]

Also a direct point for Cameron to think about,as he's a gun license holder,himself& hunts&target shoots with his guns&that,one day he might look at a Glock 17,in a cops holster and say to himself&the officer:'That looks like alot of fun to shoot,at the range' shame I can't own one myself.Why can't I?Thats what I'd be asking myself,if I was a politition,in the House Of Commons.

If self defense is generally frowned upon, and firearms must be stored in ways that typically make them unavailable for self defense if being legally stored, why does anyone need a defensive caliber in a handgun?
What would be the primary difference you could argue to have a 9mm (like the glock 17) vs a .22 if handguns were allowed?
A different size circle in the paper target?
Do you have any handgun hunting? I would presume not.
Long arms in defensive calibers make sense, because there is legal non-defensive uses like hunting, or trap shooting (where a birdshot firing gun can use larger projectiles.)


Without the argument of self defense what do you have?
I don't think "freedom" is going to fly.

&finally Australia(Except for the fact they can at least own some ordinarily-sized handgunsAlthough Australia has an SLR ban,similar to the 1988 Ammendment Act but they can at least own ordinary handguns,but,they're restricted from a minimum size.On the other hand,they can't own a rifle,if it looks like 'a black rifle' as they tried to import a batch of UK-made straight-pull(Bolt-action,by means of the AR-15s cocking-handle,for those who don't know

I believe they also have some greater storage requirements, as well as a multi tiered licensing system that goes beyond the FAC.
Though most of it is for things practically never permitted to your average joe.
They have other more restrictive laws too, like an airgun is considered a firearm, requiring the same licensing, and resulting in the same punishments as a firearm.

 

[Mr.Davis]

Here's an excellent article from Reason.com which was first published in 2002. It discusses the skyrocketing violence rates in England after the handgun ban went into effect.

This article from the BBC talks about the increase in firearm-related crime after the gun ban went into effect.

 

[FourteenMiles]

Just in case anyone thinks sensationalist media is a phenomenon unique to the USA:

Derrick Bird watched Steven Seagal film before massacre
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...tched-Steven-Seagal-film-before-massacre.html

My favourite Part: Seagal’s films have been criticized before for encouraging violence. Professor Kevin Browne, an expert in forensic and child psychology from Nottingham University warned MPs last year that violent action films were fuelling crime.

He said: "If you live on a diet of hit first and ask questions later, then you are likely to copy what that violent hero does, for example Jean-Claude Van Damme, Steven Seagal and to a certain extent Arnold Schwarzenegger.”

Are they serious? Didn't they see Arnold shoot those security guards in "Commando"!?

 

[throdgrain]

Without the argument of self defense what do you have?
I don't think "freedom" is going to fly.

It discusses the skyrocketing violence rates in England after the handgun ban went into effect.

This is I think the main thing that our American friends just cannot and do not understand.

Let me just emphasise this.



THERE IS, AND NEVER HAS BEEN IN MY LIFETIME , ANY ARGUMENT IN LAW FOR FIREARMS HELD FOR SELF-DEFENCE IN GREAT BRITAIN

There. I feel a bit better now :banghead:

The whole argument about sky-rocketing gun crime since the ban doesnt actually hold any water at all, because even prior to the ban handguns we didnt use them for self-defence anyway. They were purely used for "sporting" reasons.

The fact that gun crime has gone up does show that the handgun ban didnt stop crime, but the politicians can argue that it did stop crime with legally-owned handguns, becuase of course now there arnt any legally-owned handguns But those handguns were never used for self defence anyway.

I appreciate your input on such topics guys, really, but you need to look at it from our perspective.

We do have a lot less gun crime than in your country.

We have a lot less guns than in your country.

Most of the public couldnt care less about guns.

Shooters like me are in a tiny tiny minority.

Even as a shooter all my life, started shooting air rifles aged 11, shot my first shotgun aged 14, still shoot at least 500 round a month now, even with all that, I have only ever seen a handfull of handguns anyway. I have never, ever seen a handgun on a street, anywhere. And I am 46 years old.

Once you get that stuff into perspective, and perhaps start to look at things like that, you will understand better the problems we face.

EDIT

Before we get any more misunderstandings, let me get this straight too. I personally, am all in favour of owning handguns for self-defence. I think it would be a huge help, particularly in inner cities. Why should a small or physically weak person have less right to self-defence than a rugby player? It doesnt make sense.

Just so you know

 

[Carl N. Brown]

While more recently in Britain, self-defense was not a reason allowed for a handgun purchase and possession, in earlier years it was a reason allowed, and even later, when it was not allowed as a reason to buy a handgun, under the self-defense "what is at hand as a weapon" rule, it was not disallowed to defend oneself with a handgun bought for sporting purposes.

In the long view on the effect of the law on crime, I repeat this earlier quote:

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 withoutout 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."

British firearms expert Colin Greenwood, Superintendent, West Yorkshire Metropolitan Police.

The gun laws have not prevented increased criminal use. Given the fact that "hot burglary" or home invasion in proportion to burglary, is 50% in UK but 13% in the US, the crime inhancement effect of gun restrictions on the lawabiding appears a plausible theory.

But is more of an effect of the 1920 and 1968 Firearms Acts, not necessarily an immediate effect of the 1996 Amendment.

 

[throdgrain]

Given the fact that "hot burglary" or home invasion in proportion to burglary, is 50% in UK but 13% in the US, the crime inhancement effect of gun restrictions on the lawabiding appears a plausible theory.

Wher did you get that information? Pardon me but it sounds rediculous.

As far as the defence thing goes, you are quite right, were my house to be invaded by armed men I imagine I would be within my rights to shoot them back down the stairs with my 870 Something about "sufficient force".

Law or no law, if that happened to me then that would be the response.

 

[Officers'Wife]

I'm always saddened by news that innocents are harmed from the violence of others. Since my knowledge of firearm availability and laws in the UK is at best second hand and possibly incomplete I'll pass on comment on that aspect of my British brethrens' society. Only that I hope the powers that be do not use this horrific event as an instrument of oppression.

 

[Manco]

This is I think the main thing that our American friends just cannot and do not understand.

Let me just emphasise this.



THERE IS, AND NEVER HAS BEEN IN MY LIFETIME , ANY ARGUMENT IN LAW FOR FIREARMS HELD FOR SELF-DEFENCE IN GREAT BRITAIN

There. I feel a bit better now :banghead:

It's easy for Americans to overlook this and/or find it a completely alien concept, but even from an outside perspective, what you say is quite evident from the common knowledge that British police are rarely armed with anything more than a baton. It stands to reason that if firearms were viewed as tools for self-defense for citizens, then the police force would be similarly and universally equipped without question, but obviously this is not the case in Great Britain. The only way that there is ever going to be a major paradigm shift in this regard is if criminals continue to increase their use of guns, eventually forcing British police to arm themselves for self-defense. Only then will guns begin to be viewed more like they are in the US, as equalizers. Unfortunately it may take such a negative turn of events in order to bring gun rights back to the citizens, but if it's a natural process, then so be it. I still think that the chances of this happening are slim, however, because I believe that one of the main goals of outlawing firearms is to keep citizens as helpless and dependent on the government as possible.

By the way, despite our culture-specific view of guns, curiously (or is it conveniently?) many Americans forget that they can be used to counter violent attacks of all types, not just from other guns. Some people actually think that if guns can be taken out of the hands of criminals (sure thing ), then nobody would need guns for self-defense. Well, I guess that means we're all equally strong physically and that nobody would ever think to use a knife or other deadly weapon to attack an unarmed victim. This only goes to show that if one is looking for an excuse to take away people's rights, then any relevant facts to the contrary can be summarily dismissed.

The whole argument about sky-rocketing gun crime since the ban doesnt actually hold any water at all, because even prior to the ban handguns we didnt use them for self-defence anyway. They were purely used for "sporting" reasons.

The only way that argument would ever hold water is if the magnitude of gun crime is sufficient to naturally force a major paradigm shift, which would take a lot of anguish--more than I would expect to actually happen or anyone should ever wish for.

We do have a lot less gun crime than in your country.

True, but the level of knife crime seems to go a long way in compensating for that (a useful argument against gun control on this side of the pond). Also keep in mind that "gun crime" statistics in the US typically include justified homicide in self-defense shootings as well as frequent gang-on-gang assassinations (criminals killing other criminals). Overall, the average American citizen probably has less to worry about regarding violent crime these days than the average British citizen (the opposite would have been true a couple of decades ago), and many of us are armed, of course, which is a deterrent. I'm not trying to compare the countries, but rather put certain things into perspective.

We have a lot less guns than in your country.

Most of the public couldnt care less about guns.

Shooters like me are in a tiny tiny minority.

Yes, the lack of a numerically significant "gun culture" that has its own existence outside of specific applications such as hunting or self-defense certainly makes protecting one's rights (RKBA and ultimately all others) more difficult (it's hard enough as it is here).

Before we get any more misunderstandings, let me get this straight too. I personally, am all in favour of owning handguns for self-defence. I think it would be a huge help, particularly in inner cities. Why should a small or physically weak person have less right to self-defence than a rugby player? It doesnt make sense.

Just so you know

Yeah, I realize that I've been "preaching to the choir" in this post, but I felt that some things had to be said.

 

[Tommygunn]

Given the fact that "hot burglary" or home invasion in proportion to burglary, is 50% in UK but 13% in the US, the crime inhancement effect of gun restrictions on the lawabiding appears a plausible theory.

Wher did you get that information? Pardon me but it sounds rediculous.

As far as the defence thing goes, you are quite right, were my house to be invaded by armed men I imagine I would be within my rights to shoot them back down the stairs with my 870 Something about "sufficient force".

Law or no law, if that happened to me then that would be the response.

__________________


I don't understand where the 50%/13% stats come from myself, but a few years back, a report by none other than Dan Rather indicated violent crime (except for murder) in the UK was greater than in America. The % figures ... I mean, per cent of "what" exactly? Those 50/13 figures are out of context and don't mean anything to me. IF the poster had tried to compare the US violent crime rate to the UK's and said we only have 87% of what the UK has, and it was XX.XX per 100,000 population, maybe that would help put it in context.
I might find trends in specific crime more interesting. About a decade ago I read one stat saying that the murder rate in England had gone up 150% in the 20th century, despite the gun control laws enacted at the time. That to me would seem to argue gun control has not worked.
But, I admit I don't know what has happened from roughly the year 2000 to the present.

THERE IS, AND NEVER HAS BEEN IN MY LIFETIME , ANY ARGUMENT IN LAW FOR FIREARMS HELD FOR SELF-DEFENCE IN GREAT BRITAIN

IIRC, wasn't a law passed in about 1957 that removed self defense as a reason to use a gun? Or perhaps it simply prevented "self defense" as a justifiable defense for shooting a criminal who was trying to kill you?
I'm not sure I am characterizing this correctly ... but something close happened in the mid 1950s in that regard, IIRC.

 

[throdgrain]

Manco - superb post mate, thank you for that.

Tommygunn -

IIRC, wasn't a law passed in about 1957 that removed self defense as a reason to use a gun? Or perhaps it simply prevented "self defense" as a justifiable defense for shooting a criminal who was trying to kill you?
I'm not sure I am characterizing this correctly ... but something close happened in the mid 1950s in that regard, IIRC.

I was born in 1964

Anyway, that whole post was really just to try and make people understand that we live in different countries, and things are percieved differently.

The last two posts have been great, real discussion. No doubt I will have to say it all over again another time, but I dont blame that on anything other than the Internet

 

[duns]

Some pre-gun ban statistics versus some post-gun ban statistics concerning violent crime rates might do the trick. Concerning arming police, how many died in the line of duty because they did not have an effective means to fight back, meaning a gun? How many violent crimes could have been brought to a swift end had the police been armed with firearms (public massacres)?

Your suggestions were made in response to my question "How would you ever prove that gun control in England has decreased safety?" Your suggestions are thought provoking, thank you for them. Let's look at your suggestions.

(1) Compare violent crime rates pre-handgun-ban and post-hand-gun ban: Problem here is to show that increased gun control leads to a rising violent crime rate. Correlation is not necessarily cause and effect. In any case, violent crime rates have been steadily falling since 1995 according to Home Office statistics,see page 4 of http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb1109summ.pdf. The handgun ban was introduced in 1997. So the use of statistics in the way you propose would be supportive of handgun control.

(2) Evaluate how many police died in the line of duty due to lack of a gun? I don't have comprehensive statistics but I did read that there were 38 murders of police officers 1985-2005, which is an average of less than two per year. In 2009, just two police officers were murdered which is in line with the 20-year average (http://www.policememorial.org.uk/NationalRoll/2009/NPORH_2009.htm).
Does an average of about two police officer murders per year justify arming every police officer? Would it not be more likely that more than two people per year would be killed by accidental discharges or mistaken identity if every police offer were armed? I don't think your second line of argument would prove very persuasive.

(3) Evaluate how many violent crimes could have been brought to a swift end had the police been armed with firearms: From the Home Office survey, there are about 2,000,000 violent crimes a year. I have no information on how many could have been prevented by arming the police. Even though the violent crime rate is falling, it is plausible that one might be able to make a case for arming the police or at least increasing the number in the specialist Firearms Units. It would be much harder to make a case for allowing civiians to own handguns since civilians in the UK have not owned handguns in significant numbers in living memory so there are no good UK statistical data on the relationship between civilian gun ownership and violent crime rate. Logically, one might expect widespread gun ownership by law-abiding citizens to deter criminals but I don't think the data are there to show that the deterrent effect of widespread gun ownership would outweigh the possible downsides.

As far as political candidates that will support gun rights, if the popular support is strong enough they will. That's how they get elected in the first place, supporting (or at least acting as if they support) the will of the people.

Agreed, but is the popular support for keeping and bearing arms there in the UK? I doubt it.

Forgive me if this offends you British members of this forum. Throughout the years it has been my observation that the English people seem to be especially complacent when it comes to politics.

I suppose it would be true that only a small fraction of British people are political activists. Of those, my impression is that the number lobbying for reduction in gun control is insignificant.

 

[throdgrain]

I'm not sure if you got my point Duns. Because, even before the ban, handguns wernt owned for personal protection anyway, so to say violent crime has gone up since the ban is because we no longer have handguns is wrong, because

a) hardly anyone had one in the first place and

b) they were expressly not used for self defence.

Violent crime has gone up because of large-scale immigration to inner cities, and because of a breakdown in respect for each other in inner cities.

Now even more than ever, we need hand guns for self-defence, even if we didnt 20 years ago.

 

[wideym]

What specific event or chain of events lead the British goverment to criminalize or at the very lest dis-allow self defence of it's citizens? Also was there any outrage or even grumbling from the citizens when it happened?

Logiclly, I can see how a goverment can restrict firearm ownership for "self defence" if they outlaw self defence as a right altogether, but how did it get that way. England's loss of liberty could enlighten America on what to on the look out for.

 

[throdgrain]

Like I said about 3 posts up, there has never in my lifetime been any argument for the use of handguns for self-defence, and my lifetime currently is 46 years

I think the first changes in gun ownership came just after the first world war, when a lot of people were still armed, but there was a huge communist revolutionist movement in Europe, not so much in Great Britain but could easily have spread I suppose. The government restricted gun ownership at that time in case of revolution I beleive. I havent referenced this though, it's just something I recall.

 

[duns]

I'm not sure if you got my point Duns. Because, even before the ban, handguns wernt owned for personal protection anyway, so to say violent crime has gone up since the ban is because we no longer have handguns is wrong, because

a) hardly anyone had one in the first place and

b) they were expressly not used for self defence.

Violent crime has gone up because of large-scale immigration to inner cities, and because of a breakdown in respect for each other in inner cities.

Now even more than ever, we need hand guns for self-defence, even if we didnt 20 years ago.

I agree with you that the ban did not cause an increase in violent crime. However, according to the Home Office, violent crime is not increasing but has been steadily decreasing since 1995. Thus, the need for handguns for self-defense appears to be less now than it was in 1995.

 

[throdgrain]

I think that would depend how you categorise violent crime. There may be slightly less gun crime, I havent checked, but I didnt think there was, but there is certainly more knife crime, and phyiscal attacks of all sorts. I would say guns should certainly be allowed for self-defence.

 

[BHP FAN]

Any pro gun Brits should move to the States as soon as possible.Especially here in California,as we can use all the pro gun folk we can muster.

 

[throdgrain]

Older I get, the more I agree with you. It's not as easy as you think though

 

[duns]

What specific event or chain of events lead the British goverment to criminalize or at the very lest dis-allow self defence of it's citizens? Also was there any outrage or even grumbling from the citizens when it happened?

The first seriously restrictive gun control law in the UK was the 1920 Firearms Act. It was introduced because of government fears of revolution. There was then a series of further Firearms Acts, the last in 1997. Each new Act further increased controls. The 1997 Firearms Act effectively banned handguns for civilians.

Between 1920 and 1997, I believe a handgun permit was possible if the applicant could show "good reason". However, Home Office directions to the police periodically narrowed the definition of "good reason". I understand that the Home Office directions to the police were classified as government secrets until 1989 so could not be published or discussed. At some point, self-defense was withdrawn as a good reason.

The controls appears to have been introduced partly due to government desire to disarm the populace and partly as a response to public concerns following certain high profile crimes, most notably those at Hungerford and Dunblane. I am not aware that there was much opposition.

 

[duns]

Any pro gun Brits should move to the States as soon as possible.

I moved from Britain to Texas for the warmer climate and the wide open spaces. After arriving here, I came to appreciate the Second Amendment and bought my first gun in January of this year. I now have four handguns and a Concealed Handgun License. I do believe that owning defensive weapons is a fundamental human right because there are so many situations where we can't rely on others to protect us.

 

[lykoris]

comparing crime statistics between the UK and the US is a complete waste of time given the fact that the numbers in the UK are constanting massaged/fudged to tell the 'required' story, serious crimes are 'reclassified' into less serious crimes, figures are omitted by accident, reports aren't filed etc. etc. etc.

the political establishment squeezes the police to give them, 'statistically' the numbers they desire to tell the story - 'crime is falling'.

Anybody who has ever studied statistics knows you can get numbers to tell you whatever story you want.

UK gun control originated from pre/post 1917 Russian/broader proletariat revolutions and a fear the working class would rise up against the ruling class in Britain. Gun control in my opinion is solely about control of the state over the population, the political establishment will spin out whatever story is suitable to enact gun control legislation.

These days I believe it is solely, as Manco pointed out, to keep subjects under the control/thumb of state/government - keep them dependent and helpless without the means to defend themselves....all part of the 'welfare state' ideology.

Without wishing to cause offense, the mentality in the UK and indeed Ireland as well is to 'moan/bitch' about things but never get actively involved, that and the shooting community has been whittled away through generations of increased legislation(progressively less people participate/own firearms) & decades of social conditioning of society through media....something at which the British tabloids excel. The latter part being the most important aspect so those with an interest are poorly perceived by the general public.

 

[lykoris]

I do believe that owning defensive weapons is a fundamental human right because there are so many situations where we can't rely on others to protect us.

100% agree.

 

[Oyeboten]

If memory serve, the Suppression by England of the Irish, was one of the tacit 'reasons' and enablers for pretext, for gradually dis-arming everyone with respect to Hand Guns, but, even in the latter 19th and earliest 20th Century, Speeches or Letters of influential Politicians in England, it was reconized by the genuinely Liberal ( as a positive term ) component of the respective 'Gun' factions, that depriving the Public of Firearms under pretext of wishing to forbid Criminals or Political dissidents of having them, would only enable Criminals or violently disposed Political dissidents to enjoy the continued or even greater posession of Arms by being no more outside of or contemptuous of the Law than they already were.

 

[lykoris]

The articles below and indeed the comments of the British public accompanying the articles show why the public has little confidence in the numbers. There is a ridiculous amount of articles/coverage on UK crime stats that cover traditionally both left and right side of the political circus.

I'm putting them in to illustrate my point that comparing UK & US crime stats is really meaningless.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...urvey-Its-lies-damned-lies-crime-figures.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8320000.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/20/crime-figures
(traditionally labour newspaper)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...s-is-no-way-to-restore-public-confidence.html
(traditionally conservative newspaper)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7550002/New-row-over-crime-statistics.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/02/conservative_estimates_on_viol_1.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/philipjohnston/4642307/Can_anyone_believe_crime_figures_any_more/