Great Britian's gun laws and crime

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

Link to article
Cecil says there’s no correlation between gun restrictions and crime. I would have to disagree, using this article as a cite.

A couple of quotes that counter what Cecil wrote from the above link.

Now I’m admittedly not a statistician, but that definitely looks like a correlation to me. I don’t see how he can attribute such statistics solely to other factors like a slowing economy or that Brits are “too nice for their own good”. I feel this may unfortunately be another case of Cecil inserting his own political bias into a factual report.

2

Correlations between gun restrictions and crime are difficult to establish because of the variables that have to be factored in, such as changing social and economic conditions.

I would take issue, though, with Cec’s assertion that football hooliganism is strongly related to a poor economy (however that is determined) and a high unemployment rate.

“Rising crime in Britain surely has a lot to do with the lousy economy. From 1974 to 1999 the UK unemployment rate averaged more than 10 percent. It’s lower now, but a lot of antisocial behavior became entrenched during that time. Soccer hooliganism is one example…”

Many of the ringleaders over the years have consistently been found to be employed (often in white colour jobs). When the problem was contained in England, the main trouble occurred overseas, involving sometimes many hundreds of “followers”. Not many unemployed or poor individuals could afford to travel and stay overseas, regardless of whether they actually bought tickets for the matches.

3

Where is this lousy economy and poor employment rate coming from? We have one of the strongest economies in Europe (nay, the world) and an incredibly low unemployment rate which is going down month on month. (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=12)

The article seems to give an incredibly down beat view of the UK, heck, I started worrying when I read it and I live here!

Trust me, we don’t live in fear of crime and if someone enters the house and steals stuff, you are quite welcome to beat them round the head until they submit and you call the coppers. This idea that you have to cower in the corner while the robbers take the family silver is nonsense.

Tony Martin wasn’t locked away for ‘Defending his house’, he was locked away for holding an unlicensed firearm and for shooting an unarmed person from 13ft in the back. He should have got life.

4

Tony Martin was a cause celebre because he was the exception rather than the rule. There is no history of, or desire to encourage, a nation or armed vigilante houesholders.

There has been a worrying increase in gun crime in the UK, but this has, in the most part, been limited to members of criminal gangs shooting each other. Armed crime against the public is still a thankfully rare occurrence.

There has never been a culture or demand in the UK that civilians should be entitled to own firearms for self defence. This is an abhorrent situation to most people and the general opinion is that it would be more likely to inflame the situation than improve it. There has never been a lobby group in the UK similar to the NRA and their actions and mentality are seen by most people in the UK as laughable, were it not so downright dangerous and irresponsible. There is limited lobbying for relaxation of the use of sporting guns by licenced individuals in a controlled environment and the public, I think, are generally sympathetic towards this cause however, if the public believed banning ALL guns would mean only criminals carried guns (which would simplify things enormously) then many people would also favour this approach.

Our police force remain unarmed for day to day duties and the police and public would prefer it to remain that way.

Armed crime against the public is extremely rare. We’d like it to stay that way and we’d prefer to take our chances.

5

My understanding is that the recent increases in crime seen here are connected with drugs and not handguns.

A staggering percentage of all petty crime in the UK is drug related. Also a large part of gun crime is connected with drug gangs “fighting for turf” etc.

Personally I think the current policies in this area have failed and arn’t going anywhere. I favour the legalisation of call soft drugs ( Categories B and C ) and giving free, clean heroin to registered addicts.

This I believe will make things better for everyone. The addicts will recieve measured doses of clean drugs and so will be much less likely to OD or die from poisened drugs. Petty crime levels will go down as addicts no long need to support thier habits. Drug gangs will find thier practises suddenly become uneconomic ( the very best way to stop them though they will undoubtable turn to new crimes). Best of all it will save money as heroin is really a very very cheap drug when produced legally and soft drugs can be taxed.

6

“In 1996, Britain banned handguns…In the six years since the ban, gun crimes have risen by an astounding 40%.”

  • this is about the most misleading statistic I’ve heard since “Most of the world’s pollution comes from plants and trees”!
    Did you think we all had handguns before this?
    There has never been a culture of having guns of any kind in this country - not for hunting, self-defence or anything else - we have never simply been allowed to apply for a licence, then go out and buy a gun. The handguns referred to in the above pearl of wisdom were those used by pistol marksmen at shooting clubs (very much a minority hobby)… Before the ban, as I understand it, you were allowed, if a member of an approved club, to own a small-calibre handgun, although the club would keep some vital component of the gun (a firing pin or somesuch) and the ammunition under lock and key. That was it.
    Then, after some nut, who had such a licensed gun, used it to run amok in a public place somewhere, even these handguns were banned altogether.
    Now THAT’s what we mean by a handgun ban!
    You Americans should try it…

As for Tony Martin, I understand that the crooks began to run off and he chased him with his shotgun (farmers have shotguns, even here) and got one in the back as he tried to get away. If the crim had been brandishing a crowbar and coming at him, the self-defence plea would have worked (I’m led to believe).
Still, many people believe that the American system of “on my property, I can attack you to defend me” is preferable and when the law was clarified following the Martin case, many people angrily accused the government of making a “Burglar’s Charter”, guaranteeing them certain protection even while ‘in the act’.

I think Martin should have walked. My wife disagrees.

7

I’d also like to back-up Galanthus’s point about legalising drugs - there was a pilot scheme in Portsmouth where approved addicts were allowed Heroin on prescription, from a special centre where they could get help and medical treatment. Local crime went down by 50%.
But of course the conservatives would have a field day if a government actually talked about legalising drugs…

8

There is an odd cultural disconnect between the UK and the US about guns. Gun ownership in the States seems perfectly normal, even admirable in some cases, whereas here anyone who is keen on guns over here appears, well, a bit sad. Kinda likes SAS biographies a bit too much. If you see what I mean…

Seriously though, there never really has been much of a gun culture here, although there certainly have been many guns around. I’d venture that most of these have been war souvenirs though, and most of them with no ammunition.

9

Absolutely.
Since the only guns banned were those belonging to members of shooting clubs,
presumably the Wall Street Journal is accusing such law-abiding hobbyists of being responsible for the rise in crime.
This is either a disgraceful libel, or a pathetic piece of research. :rolleyes:

Next, here’s some links on Tony Martin:

‘Evidence was called showing he (Martin) suffered from a long standing paranoid personality disorder.
This had the effect of reducing Martin’s conviction for murder to manslaughter, enabling the court to impose a substantially reduced sentence (life imprisonment is the only sentence for murder).’

‘What Martin should not now be seen as, is the typical Englishman trying to defend his castle.’

‘Where does this leave those who wish to defend their property against burglars or a physical attack?
The general principle is that the law allows such force to be used in self defence as is reasonable, in the circumstances as the accused believed them to be.
It does not matter whether that belief, viewed objectively, or with hindsight, was “reasonable”.
Significantly, even if the force used leads to a death it can still be “reasonable”.’

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1628710.stm

‘Martin was known as an eccentric to local police and slept at Bleak House fully clothed with his boots on. He was obsessed with idea of being burgled.’

‘…he shot at someone stealing apples and, in an argument with his brother, shot out a window. Martin harboured violent fantasies about the travellers he employed to pick fruit, he talked of putting them in a field, surrounding it with barbed wire and machine gunning them.’

http://www.signsofthetimes.org.uk/biresinu[textonly].html

To show how annoying this uninformed garbage is to us happily unarmed householders in the UK, is it true that in the US:

  • you can legally murder someone trying to steal your car?
  • you can legally murder someone who knocks at your door dressed in a costume?
  • you can be given life imprisonment without access to family or legal advice, provided a politician says you’re a terrorist?
10

Nobby,

what do you mean by ‘there have been many guns around’? Have you ever seen anyone carrying one on a street? Are any of them legal?

P.S. Norman Hunter bites your legs!

11

I’d like to see more information on this, specifically charts detailing the demographic changes decade to decade, in both countries, and the base level of rifle and handgun ownership in both countries

12

Has gun crime risen in the UK? Yes.

Are you likely to be a victim of it? Absolutely not.

Almost all gun crime in Britain is urban black-on-black shootings, related to control of the crack trade. Inocent people do occasionally get hit in the crossfire, but although they may be innocent, they are associates of those who traffic crack.

If you take out the “Trident” cases there are next to no gun crimes in Britain relating to handguns. Bank robbers use shotguns (as do domestic murderers) which are legal here.

Also Cecil clearly has sod all idea about football hooligans - I’ve never met a poor one (and I’ve met lots).

13

Kind of a irrelevant point. Innocent is innocent.
And I can think of a very recent example that doesn’t fit in with your analysis.

14

There are exceptions to every rule, and it is believed that this poor girl was shot in a case of mistaken identity - and that it IS related to the drug trade.

Only time will tell.

15

I fully agree that this comment is either staggeringly ignorant or wilfully misleading. There’s been changed to the law. Now, any crime where the perpetrator claims to have a gun (even if it’s a replica, a banana or just says “…or I’ll shoot”) is recorded as a gun crime.

The reasoning being that it has the same psychological effect on the victim and on the wider community whether or not a real gun’s involved. And the methods of recording total crime levels has also been throughly revised to give more realistic information (for example, if a mugger holds up three people at gunpoint, it’s recorded as three crimes, because three victims is three times as bad as one victim).

I’d agree with Cecil that there is a correlation between crime and the economy - which is why crime has fallen over the past decade. Only a lack of knowledge of these changes in crime recording has changed that. (Oh, and kids stealing each other’s mobile phones instead of pocket money, which now gets reported to the police so mum and dad can claim another phone on their insurance.)

16

Further to what others have already pointed out, the general principle in UK law is that human life is considered to be more important than property, so defending your property by killing somebody (a la Tony Martin) is seen as a bad thing. From over here in the UK it does often seem that you can get away with just about anything in the US by claiming to be defending property. Perhaps I’m getting an inaccurate view of US culture, just as the normally accurate Cecil has with today’s column.

I’d also be interested to see a comparison of murder rates between the two countries, especially those involving guns.

18

Perhaps it’s worth clarifying the Tony Martin case. If he’d been judged to have used the gun in self-defence - ie if somebody was attacking him with a firearm, or if he was in other justifiable fear for his safety, using reasonable force (eg firing at somebody’s legs, or a warning shot, etc) would be acceptable. Obviously if the gun isn’t legal, that’s a separate issue. In Tony Martin’s case, he heard a noise, walked out to the top of the stairs, and let of a round into the pitch dark.

19

Cecil seems to have dropped the ball this week. The “atonishing rise” is gun crime is the sort of statistic that the NRA might have wet dreams about, but that’s about it

From the BBC (quoting official government statistics)

That’s less than 100 people shot dead in a year in the whole of England and Wales.

According to this (anti-gun) site

500 people shot to death in one year in Chicago, Cecil.

I’ll take “out of control” Britain with its “soccer hooliganism” over Chicago any day.

20

[bold] glee [/bold] all I meant by that was many (if my uncles are anything to go by) ex-soldiers have kept the odd “souvenir” from the war. No ammunition, and rusting slowly in attics. This is the sort of thing that will skew statistics NRA-wise.

PS Norman Hunter is a pseudonym. My real name is Ronnie Glavin.

21

FFS:

shite bold tags := good bold tags

Norman Hunter := Nobby Stiles