Even the select comittee said that the laws are currently absurd. Firearms are currently subject to no fewer than 32 pieces of legislation - some of which are obscure or unenforceable!
Shotguns aren't the problem criminals are
- Thread starter johnnytheboy
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
There are 34 and the Home Affairs Committee suggested that on the whole the current licensing regime is a success. they were very critical of the media though.
We are clearly reading a different report then. This is in this list of conclusions of the report I read
No, same report, it concludes this paragraph by saying, "we urge the Government to give careful consideration to how it will publicise the legislation in order to give greater clarity to the lay person."
I thought this was telling, from the World Health Orginisation,
"Comparisons between industrialised countries show that there is a correlation between the levels of gun ownership and gun violence. This country has one of the lowest rates of gun death with annual gun homicides in England and Wales at 0.10 per 100,000 population compared, for example, with 0.69 in Canada, 0.93 in Switzerland and 3.52 in the USA." ch. 2, para. 31.
I thought this was telling, from the World Health Orginisation,
"Comparisons between industrialised countries show that there is a correlation between the levels of gun ownership and gun violence. This country has one of the lowest rates of gun death with annual gun homicides in England and Wales at 0.10 per 100,000 population compared, for example, with 0.69 in Canada, 0.93 in Switzerland and 3.52 in the USA." ch. 2, para. 31.
That quote wasn't from the WHO mark, they provided raw data only. The suggestion that there is a correlation was in fact made by "The Gun Control Network". WHO made no such claim.
In fact the report goes on to state
In fact the report goes on to state
I have serious doubts as to the veracity of those Swiss numbers; by all violent means totaled, let alone by guns alone. Whoever made the claim.
The section in full, make from it what you will, the figures came initially from WHO,
31. The Gun Control Network claimed that an approach restricting the legal ownership of firearms can be successful in reducing their use in crime. The organisation analysed data compiled from the World Health Organisation to conclude that:
Comparisons between industrialised countries show that there is a correlation between the levels of gun ownership and gun violence. This country has one of the lowest rates of gun death with annual gun homicides in England and Wales at 0.10 per 100,000 population compared, for example, with 0.69 in Canada, 0.93 in Switzerland and 3.52 in the USA.[50]
Hales et al have argued that, had the changes in the nature of gun crime alluded to in paragraph 16 occurred in an environment which allowed greater freedoms in gun ownership, "the picture today might be much more grave".[51] The National Ballistics Intelligence Service attributed the current level of shotgun thefts (see chapter three) to a lack of supply of firearms from other means within the criminal market place.[52] The Home Office also cited their 2006 study which concluded that the extent of criminal activities to manufacture weapons, such as the conversion of imitation firearms, suggested that the UK's gun controls "significantly constrain" the ability of criminals to obtain lethal firearms.
They aren't speculative figures. all the gcn did was 'codify' it.
31. The Gun Control Network claimed that an approach restricting the legal ownership of firearms can be successful in reducing their use in crime. The organisation analysed data compiled from the World Health Organisation to conclude that:
Comparisons between industrialised countries show that there is a correlation between the levels of gun ownership and gun violence. This country has one of the lowest rates of gun death with annual gun homicides in England and Wales at 0.10 per 100,000 population compared, for example, with 0.69 in Canada, 0.93 in Switzerland and 3.52 in the USA.[50]
Hales et al have argued that, had the changes in the nature of gun crime alluded to in paragraph 16 occurred in an environment which allowed greater freedoms in gun ownership, "the picture today might be much more grave".[51] The National Ballistics Intelligence Service attributed the current level of shotgun thefts (see chapter three) to a lack of supply of firearms from other means within the criminal market place.[52] The Home Office also cited their 2006 study which concluded that the extent of criminal activities to manufacture weapons, such as the conversion of imitation firearms, suggested that the UK's gun controls "significantly constrain" the ability of criminals to obtain lethal firearms.
They aren't speculative figures. all the gcn did was 'codify' it.
They do go on to say in the next section,
34. Irrespective of its efficacy, the legislation is extremely complicated, a point that was also made to, and taken up by, our predecessor Committee.[56] There are many pieces of legislation governing the use of firearms in addition to those listed above: 34 overall, including the Welfare of Animals Regulations 1995 and the Energy Act 2004.[57] As a result of this complexity, a number of submissions to our inquiry from both policing and shooting representatives recommended a consolidating Act. For example, Mr Geoff Doe, of the National Rifle Association, argued that neither "Joe Public" nor many police forces fully understand the law.[58] Mr Bill Harriman, of the British Association of Shooting and Conservation, who acts as an expert witness in firearms cases, told us that it had been necessary for him to advise lawyers and even judges on the legislation, adding "it is very complicated and it's a mess".[59] The submission from the ACPO Firearms and Explosives Licensing Group stated that: etc...
which would better support your argument.
I maintain my point that current legislation is succesful and well policed.
anyway its a nice day, i'm off out.
34. Irrespective of its efficacy, the legislation is extremely complicated, a point that was also made to, and taken up by, our predecessor Committee.[56] There are many pieces of legislation governing the use of firearms in addition to those listed above: 34 overall, including the Welfare of Animals Regulations 1995 and the Energy Act 2004.[57] As a result of this complexity, a number of submissions to our inquiry from both policing and shooting representatives recommended a consolidating Act. For example, Mr Geoff Doe, of the National Rifle Association, argued that neither "Joe Public" nor many police forces fully understand the law.[58] Mr Bill Harriman, of the British Association of Shooting and Conservation, who acts as an expert witness in firearms cases, told us that it had been necessary for him to advise lawyers and even judges on the legislation, adding "it is very complicated and it's a mess".[59] The submission from the ACPO Firearms and Explosives Licensing Group stated that: etc...
which would better support your argument.
I maintain my point that current legislation is succesful and well policed.
anyway its a nice day, i'm off out.
We can agree to disagree. The figures do not in any way relate to legal ownership of firearms, indeed they do not even cover cartridge firin firearms. They include replicas and airguns (which in fact make up a large proportion of "gun crime"). These are not legislated against. The figures for other countries are compiled differently. The figures are speculative at best and invalid at worst. There is huge debate on this subject and experts on both sides disagree. It is certain no causal link is established and the comittee itself which heard the evidence concludes there is no direct correlation.
Not really qualified to comment here as not into the sport myself (used to do archery but that's the closest I've really got to firearms apart from a few air pistols as a kid). However I do think the legislation of items relaitng to guns would be complex as it has been developed over a long time. Anything that has grown over time by successive governments in response to events like the various shooting incidents won't be simple. Often the way they work is to tag things on to legislation already going through. So you end up with a section in one piece of legislation or amendment that is not strictly the best place for it. The only way is to put all realted laws in one place but then you would have to amend all the other laws too. Kinda a bit of hard work for governments as anyone of those alterations could be stopped by a stubbborn opposition. That is what I think about the legislation and lawmakers in general - all mixed up!
The other thing is you will never stop incidents involving the random loon with access to guns. A fairly recent case with hindsight could have been prevented if the current rules were applied. Basically a guy with gun licence started to act strangely over a period of time and was obviously having problems and confronting people irrationally. Should people around him have expressed concern over his gun licence? Also in a local radio interview a BASC spokesman actually called for more controls and checks on gun ownership. He cited someone he confronted with a shotgun licence who kept his gun leant against a kitchen cupboard where anyone could get it. On the interview he said he told the guy that if he saw it stored that way again he would report him. Anyway you can't control how people store guns as closely as that and if there are concerns about people whether gun storage or a potential concern over fitness to own guns then who in general public knows who to report to and would they bother?? I guess it is the police. Also who has a licence? I might be living next door to someone with a licence and half a dozen shotguns in his house. If he developed issues and behaviour that would concern someone with the knowledge of his access to guns I wouldn't know to worry.
Sorry about the random thoughts of someone who has never been into shooting (through opportunity and lack of the cash to do so more than complete lack of interest). Its just that IMHO legislation, the checking of licence holders, knowledge of who holds licences with the knowledge of who to report concerns over fitness to and finally the storage and checking of storage of guns are issues. Also criminals will always get guns if they need guns. If you have any doubt about that then take me as an example. I come from a middle class and sheltered background. However, without bluster or boasting, I know of areas in my home town where there are illegal guns. I can't get access to them directly but probably could indirectly (if I asked around and whether they would get one is questionable as they probably wouldn't want to get involved). As always its who you know. All I am saying if I can probably get hold of illegal guns then someone in criminal circles would find it easier. I do question how successful the gun controls really are.
Anyway you can't stop criminals getting guns by stopping legitimate use. Criminals aren't going to be carrying around shotguns "on the street" too bulky so stolen shotguns from some legitimate user's house is less likely to be as useful to them. However there will be some uses for shotguns so best to restrict the ease of access to your guns.
The other thing is you will never stop incidents involving the random loon with access to guns. A fairly recent case with hindsight could have been prevented if the current rules were applied. Basically a guy with gun licence started to act strangely over a period of time and was obviously having problems and confronting people irrationally. Should people around him have expressed concern over his gun licence? Also in a local radio interview a BASC spokesman actually called for more controls and checks on gun ownership. He cited someone he confronted with a shotgun licence who kept his gun leant against a kitchen cupboard where anyone could get it. On the interview he said he told the guy that if he saw it stored that way again he would report him. Anyway you can't control how people store guns as closely as that and if there are concerns about people whether gun storage or a potential concern over fitness to own guns then who in general public knows who to report to and would they bother?? I guess it is the police. Also who has a licence? I might be living next door to someone with a licence and half a dozen shotguns in his house. If he developed issues and behaviour that would concern someone with the knowledge of his access to guns I wouldn't know to worry.
Sorry about the random thoughts of someone who has never been into shooting (through opportunity and lack of the cash to do so more than complete lack of interest). Its just that IMHO legislation, the checking of licence holders, knowledge of who holds licences with the knowledge of who to report concerns over fitness to and finally the storage and checking of storage of guns are issues. Also criminals will always get guns if they need guns. If you have any doubt about that then take me as an example. I come from a middle class and sheltered background. However, without bluster or boasting, I know of areas in my home town where there are illegal guns. I can't get access to them directly but probably could indirectly (if I asked around and whether they would get one is questionable as they probably wouldn't want to get involved). As always its who you know. All I am saying if I can probably get hold of illegal guns then someone in criminal circles would find it easier. I do question how successful the gun controls really are.
Anyway you can't stop criminals getting guns by stopping legitimate use. Criminals aren't going to be carrying around shotguns "on the street" too bulky so stolen shotguns from some legitimate user's house is less likely to be as useful to them. However there will be some uses for shotguns so best to restrict the ease of access to your guns.
I haven't lived there since the late 1980s but at that time I'll grant it was reasonably well policed. Unfortunately while most people remember the ability of criminals to steal weapons or modify weapons they forget a very basic possibility. They can make them from scratch. After all a gun (even a complex gun such as an AK47) is nothing more than bits of wood and metal. It took a genius to design but it only takes a reasonably competent machinist to make one. The raw materials are easily and cheaply obtainable. When the criminal demand reaches the level for a profitable market (and have no doubt, it eventually will) black market manufacturing will crop up to fill that demand.
I need to ammend my earlier skepticism of the figures. I am actually skeptical of ANY statistics from WHO (World Health Organization) As well as ANY statements of any type from the UN.
Last edited:
Similar threads
