Shotguns aren't the problem – criminals are

[robin wood]

The point is that many types of gun have been banned in recent years, yet more people are killed with cars in a day

The implication being that guns are statistically safer than cars so are being unfairly penalised, is it true?

To pick up on that point it is certainly true that the death by firearm stats are far lower than death by road traffic accident.
Here are figures 1997-2006
1997 198
1998 229
1999 207
2000 204
2001 193
2002 181
2003 187
2004 191
2005 185
2006 210

So pretty steady at c.200 a year far less that the c.3000 a year road deaths, about 7% in fact. How many people own and use guns compared to cars? And are guns perceived as being equally useful to law abiding citizens as cars?

 

[British Red]

Now what would be more interesting Robin is to look at how many of those gun related deaths are caused by legally held guns - rather than illegal ones. Further legislation is not going to make any difference to law breakers. As you say - its only sensible to compare law abiding citizens with law abiding citizens.

Maybe a more direct comparison would be Sports motorcycles vs guns. Most sports motorcycles are not "must have" transport - the same as most guns aren't job related (although some are in both cases). There are lots of accidents involving motorcyclists out pleasure riding on scenic routes - perhaps those bikes should be banned?

Or perhaps knives? There were 40 murders in 2007 in the Strathclyde police area alone involving knives. We could just make carrying a knife outside the home illegal.

My point is that there already far too many laws - more than there have been in history. Killers will kill and idiots will be idiots. Passing more laws only affects people who obey laws. It is clear if you examine the statistics for gun crime that previous bans on types of guns had no effect at all on gun crime. So logically one would repeal those laws since they have been proven not to work.

Red

 

[robin wood]

Now what would be more interesting Robin is to look at how many of those gun related deaths are caused by legally held guns - rather than illegal ones. Further legislation is not going to make any difference to law breakers. As you say - its only sensible to compare law abiding citizens with law abiding citizens.

Maybe a more direct comparison would be Sports motorcycles vs guns. Most sports motorcycles are not "must have" transport - the same as most guns aren't job related (although some are in both cases). There are lots of accidents involving motorcyclists out pleasure riding on scenic routes - perhaps those bikes should be banned?

Or perhaps knives? There were 40 murders in 2007 in the Strathclyde police area alone involving knives. We could just make carrying a knife outside the home illegal.

My point is that there already far too many laws - more than there have been in history. Killers will kill and idiots will be idiots. Passing more laws only affects people who obey laws. It is clear if you examine the statistics for gun crime that previous bans on types of guns had no effect at all on gun crime. So logically one would repeal those laws since they have been proven not to work.

Red

Good points well made and I quite agree with most of them. 20% of those 3000 annual road deaths are motorcyclists and a significant proportion of those are men doing the mid life crisis thing blatting around on sunny Sundays and legislation against them builds up all the time. It is difficult to legislate in such a way that deals directly and solely with the problem and then there is the persoanal liberty thing of if a chap wants to risk his neck, even if it also involves the risk of heavy NHS burden should we stop him?

I think the example of road deaths is a good example of addressing the real problem in as targeted way as possible. Through making it more difficult and expensive for 17-25 year olds to drive and more likely that they will get caught if they do without tax insurance etc, coupled with improvements in vehicle safety air bags etc road deaths have come down significantly.

I am pleased there was not a press cry for tightening gun law after the last sad incident but I don't think I would be in favour of more relaxed gun law, I certainly feel the US system is a step too far. I don't know the detailed break down of the firearm death stats but it would be interesting to see.
How many are farmers committing suicide and would they have done it if they didn't have a shotgun?
How many are legally owned and licenced guns?
How many are illegally owned?
Of the illegally owned firearms were they all imported illegally or did any make the move from the legally owned UK pool to the illegally owned pool eg by theft.

As for knives there are 4 knife fatalities for every gun fatality and as we all know carrying knives in public other than sub 3" non locking folders without good reason is illegal. Many of these are young inner city youth but a surprising number are domestic incidents "35% of all annual Homicides are due to 'fatal domestic abuse'"

Re passing laws only affecting those who obey laws I would agree that the ideal is that people obey the law rather than lots of people ignoring it and having to face the consequences. This can change though. Take drink drive laws as an example. When I started driving 25 years ago it was as socially acceptable to have one or two over the limit and drive as it is to do 80 on the motorway now. Everyone knew it was illegal but it was not regarded as a heinous crime. Today when someone in our community gets caught and banned there is little sympathy. I suspect rates of drink driving and the unpleasant results of it have decreased significantly. That change has been achieved first through legislation, then when folks ignored the legislation it was add campaigns and stiffer sentencing.

I don't know how we get it to be socially unacceptable or uncool for inner city youth to carry guns and knives but that would seem to be the challenge.

 

[British Red]

I think we agree here Robin - except the difference between knife law and gun law is no-one has said "a bushcraft knife was used to kill someone - so no-one can use a Bushcraft knife ever again" - they have done that with handguns though - and taken away a sport enjoyed by, amongst other, my mother who has never had so much as a parking ticket, two wheelchair bound friends of mine etc.

I'm not against restrictions that are sensible - no-one who has a history of violence of course should own a gun. There are other sensible restrictions too.

But continuing to enforce bans that all the governments and polices own figures show have not reduced crime? Where is the sense in that?

Red

 

[nuggets]

If the POLICE seperated `gun crime` statistics -things may be different !!! But it would make them look inadequate in tackling `real` crime !! How many hand gun shootings last year ??? oops there illegal ain,t they !! armed robberies ??? oops thats another cheeky one !!! target the criminals -not the law abiding citizen ??? after all , we all know that drugs are illiegal - has the law stemmed the flow of them all ,by banning them ??? I think not !!

also as a side note - if you committed a crime with a silicone (mastic )gun !! Then that would be added to the GUN crime register !!!!!!!!!!!

 

[robin wood]

I think we agree here Robin - except the difference between knife law and gun law is no-one has said "a bushcraft knife was used to kill someone - so no-one can use a Bushcraft knife ever again"

Nope but they did say that with gravity knives, many of which were bought and owned by harmless collectors. Gravity knives and handguns both fell into those categories like the 17-25 year old male driver, statistically responsible for more than their fair share of incidents. It's hard on your mum, the responsible gravity knife owners and the responsible 17 year old male driver.

 

[Leonidas]

Interesting read.

Slightly different angle.
If person 'A' want to harm person 'B' they will, irrespective of whether it be reactionary e.g. engaged be a burglary and disturbed or a premeditated act.
No matter what you legislate for, they will find a way to fulfil their goal.

Whilst it is certainly fair to say that less deaths will occur with something if it is heavily legislated, it will never remove the act...the means to fulfill the act is shifted to other means, as such the legislation does not actually solve anything!!

What I suggest is that legislation of this type is thrust upon us as yet another means of control.
Think not?
With firearms, the overwhelming majority of the problem is with illegally held firearms, when something untoward occurs the knee jerk response is to legislate....
This effectively removing the rights of many law abiding folks in a vain attempt to resolve a problem with a comparative few folks with illegal tendencies .

If you do not agree with the above, you could argue why have the government not legalised drugs, it would remove the need to fund the habit through illegal means!!
Because if they did, they would lose a massive portion of legislation, police powers and other means of control that impacts many other areas of our lives....that's why.

Common sense does not come into it, the more it makes sense, the more folks become distracted by the ludicrous legislation instead of pondering the real impact, that of a reduction in our freedom and rights.

Tom

 

[British Red]

Nope but they did say that with gravity knives, many of which were bought and owned by harmless collectors. Gravity knives and handguns both fell into those categories like the 17-25 year old male driver, statistically responsible for more than their fair share of incidents. It's hard on your mum, the responsible gravity knife owners and the responsible 17 year old male driver.

Good point - though mixed

I agree that the gravity knife law is stupid! How can a gravity knife be any more dangerous than my customised Ti_lite where I can deploy the blade as fast as any spring assisted knife?

I do see the insurance as a little different. There are things you can do to change your premium. For example join and qualify with the IAM. I see that insurance to protect the victim is a responsible necessity. If the price of reintroduction of handguns is mandatory third party insurance - so be it. The shooters will buy it and self regulate anyone who is a "wrong un"

 

[nuggets]

Good point - though mixed

I agree that the gravity knife law is stupid! How can a gravity knife be any more dangerous than my customised Ti_lite where I can deploy the blade as fast as any spring assisted knife?

I do see the insurance as a little different. There are things you can do to change your premium. For example join and qualify with the IAM. I see that insurance to protect the victim is a responsible necessity. If the price of reintroduction of handguns is mandatory third party insurance - so be it. The shooters will buy it and self regulate anyone who is a "wrong un"[/QUOTE]



`Amen` to that -brother red - power to the people !!!!

 

[santaman2000]

Good point - though mixed

I agree that the gravity knife law is stupid! How can a gravity knife be any more dangerous than my customised Ti_lite where I can deploy the blade as fast as any spring assisted knife?

I do see the insurance as a little different. There are things you can do to change your premium. For example join and qualify with the IAM. I see that insurance to protect the victim is a responsible necessity. If the price of reintroduction of handguns is mandatory third party insurance - so be it. The shooters will buy it and self regulate anyone who is a "wrong un"

Perhaps but the real question is would any insurance companies actual offer that cover at an affordable price. It's possible to price a practice out of existence more easily than to legislate it out. One of the tactics being tried here by the anti-gun crowd is to tax ammunition to the point that no one can afford to shoot. Our constitution guarentees the right to keep and bear arms but it likewise gives congress the authority to levy taxes. Some are using this as a quasi-legislative work around.

 

[santaman2000]

I think we agree here Robin - except the difference between knife law and gun law is no-one has said "a bushcraft knife was used to kill someone - so no-one can use a Bushcraft knife ever again" - they have done that with handguns though - and taken away a sport enjoyed by, amongst other, my mother who has never had so much as a parking ticket, two wheelchair bound friends of mine etc.

I'm not against restrictions that are sensible - no-one who has a history of violence of course should own a gun. There are other sensible restrictions too.

But continuing to enforce bans that all the governments and polices own figures show have not reduced crime? Where is the sense in that?

Red

Yes if those "sensible" restrictions are tempered with common sense. We have a particularly onerous law here about domestic violence. It makes perfect sense on the face of it; basically no one who has any conviction for any crime of domestic violence can ever own or have in their possession any kind of firearm. The first problem is that there is no specific crime "domestic violence". There are all the normal crimes of violence, assault, battery, etc. Instead the federal law defines domestic violence as any crime of violence that is committed against anyone who is related by blood or marriage or who lives or has ever lived with the aggressor in a familial relationship. Sounds good so far. Until you realize that definition includes two teenage brothers getting in a fight over whatever it is brothers squabble over. It doesn't have to be a slugfest, just a bit of angry shoving. Does that really warrant a lifetime ban? I mean an isolated incident between 13 or 14 year olds; obviously a pattern of truly violent behavior from an older teen would be different. Bear in mind that this ban prevents them from ever serving in the military.

 

[santaman2000]

Whilst in principle I don't disagree with the basic run of the article I think suggesting it is balanced is a bit silly. It is a strong argument from one point of view, a polemic as we would expect from the Torygraph. There are other points of view.

Of course it is the person not the gun that kills but if an individual reaches that state where he could go off the wire and has a gun then the consequences are somewhat more serious than if he has a baseball bat. I am aware that the majority of gun crime in the UK today involves illegally owned firearms and so tightening legislation on legal ownership may have little effect on that situation.

I have spent a lot of time in the USA where others have pointed out that ownership is much easier and more common and I would not want to be in the position over here where many people are fearful of the other guy having a gun so need to carry one themselves. There are a significant percentage of people in a normal society for whom I would prefer gun ownership was not an option and I think current UK legislation gets the balance about right. Large scale gun ownership does not necessarily equate to very high gun crime figures, Canada and Switzerland for instance manage to avoid the US situation, more research into why would be good.

To get a balanced view Michael Moore's film "Bowling for Columbine" puts the other side of the argument in and equally rational, sensible though one sided manner. I am sure the pro gun lobby despise it.

Actually the Swiss system of compulsory military service in effect mandates gun possession. The young Swiss males must serve as a reservist from for an extended period. I'm not sure of the exact age group but I belive if from age 18 to at least age 35. I've heard as old as age 65 but I doubt that claim. The practice is to send the recruit through basic military training then send him home with a fully automatic military weapon with which he is expected to practice regulary at civilian shooting events. At the end of his term of service he has the option to buy that weapon and keep it. Bear in mind that Switzerland is NOT a member of NATO and if they are a member of the European Union it is only within the last decade or so. In essence they are an isolationist country and the truly remarkable thing is that they not only have the lowest violent crime rate in the Western world, they also have not been involved in a war in over 200 years. Does that mean that the availability (in this case prevalence) of guns leads to less crime. Probably not but it does mean that it doesn't cause it either. Rather the non aggressive attitude of Swiss society has a much greater deterence. That's our real problem in the US and the UK I believe; our societal acceptance (or at least a tolerance) of senseless violence itself. I mean as average citizens not as a legislative body.

 

[johnnytheboy]

BBC apologises after misleading public over shooting


http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/news/522845/BBC_apologises_after_misleading_public_over_shooting.html

 

[_mark_]

Interesting read, thanks!

 

[Mikey P]

Actually the Swiss system of compulsory military service in effect mandates gun possession. The young Swiss males must serve as a reservist from for an extended period. I'm not sure of the exact age group but I belive if from age 18 to at least age 35. I've heard as old as age 65 but I doubt that claim. The practice is to send the recruit through basic military training then send him home with a fully automatic military weapon with which he is expected to practice regulary at civilian shooting events. At the end of his term of service he has the option to buy that weapon and keep it. Bear in mind that Switzerland is NOT a member of NATO and if they are a member of the European Union it is only within the last decade or so. In essence they are an isolationist country and the truly remarkable thing is that they not only have the lowest violent crime rate in the Western world, they also have not been involved in a war in over 200 years. Does that mean that the availability (in this case prevalence) of guns leads to less crime. Probably not but it does mean that it doesn't cause it either. Rather the non aggressive attitude of Swiss society has a much greater deterence. That's our real problem in the US and the UK I believe; our societal acceptance (or at least a tolerance) of senseless violence itself. I mean as average citizens not as a legislative body.

Which suggests that it is not the availability of weapons but the mindset of the population which is the critical factor?

 

[santaman2000]

Which suggests that it is not the availability of weapons but the mindset of the population which is the critical factor?

That would be my belief. Mindset, culture, de-sensitization, whatever terminology best describes it without being over semantic.

 

[Corso]

So can we blame video games yet?

 

[Manacles]

It should be...prosecute the criminals and not persecute the law-abiding citizens.

Britain has a wonderful history and traditions of peaceful sporting firearms use. I hope that it continues to favor the law-abiding sportsmen.

Gordy

Gordon, you're absolutely right. In my teens I helped the gamekeeper to lay the traps and feed the birds and then we drove the birds towards the guns. Nice decent law-abiding people with guns. Good decent law abiding, traditional sport. That is wholeworld away from the criminal mentality who, it seems to me fall into two camps, those who use a gun toinstill fear and hence gain the upper hand in a robbery type situation and the other group made of of stupid idiots who misguidedly think there is some kudos in waving around a shooter in front of their mates (you know the type "gangstas, drive by shootists et all). It is no coincidence that the Met has a specialist team (operation trident) purely to deal with the urban gun toting gang types.

I stand firm in my belief that a gun is simply a tool. Used properly they are perfectly safe. Those who choose to use them improperly are also a bunch of tools, and ones we are all well rid of.

 

[Wilderbeast]

Fire arms law is a very difficult but interesting topics.

I'm a law student and am also in the process of obtaining a shotgun certificate so it's a topic I have regularly discussed. My view on the matter is thus:

Saying "Shotguns aren't the problem" isn't quite right, a very small proportion of people obtain shotguns and modify them illegally, an even smaller proportion of people obtain shotguns legally and abuse that right. The overall point though is this; the firearms legislation in this country is so dense and overwritten, that any proposed amendment would only further inconvenience the law abiding citizens. The majority of criminals (admittedly not all) stopped playing by the rules an awfully long time ago, so legislation will not solve that problem. And as for the small minority who obtain firearms legally and abuse them, it seems we have got to the point in the legislation history where, by allowing firearms, you have to accept that they will be abused by a small amount of people. It's a very hard pill to swallow but it's the same as the theory that if you allow people to drive there will be accidents and fatalities because it's impossible (as far as anyone can see) to have a road system with 0% accidents.

 

[_mark_]

I think current uk gun laws are excellent and very well policed. My only complaint would be the Olympic pistol team having to train abroad.