Talk:Gun politics in the United Kingdom/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Ban on guns not in UK law 2 Gun culture 3 Crime versus gun deaths 4 Question 5 "Gun licence" versus "firearms certificate" - clarify please 6 Comparisons with Other Countries 7 Possible correction to be made? 8 Relevance of lack of natural predators in the UK

[edit] Ban on guns not in UK law

"Indeed, while Parliamentary supremacy may permit the legislature to rescind the right for subjects to possess "Arms for their Defence" this has not in fact happened. The prohibition on possession of firearms for self-defence in the UK dates from a decision made by the Home Secretary in 1946, which has subsequently been enforced as Home Office policy without being ratified by Parliament; it is, strictly speaking not part of UK law."

I've removed this statement pending references. It sounds like libertarian gossip to me.--Nydas 18:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

More than just that, for the Home Office to enact a 'policy' would have to do so either through the Royal Prerogative or through a number of other statutory powers (including the 'minor details' in an Act). In both cases, it would be 'law'. While the Home Office may not have made it into a constitutional debate, and this could get into constitutional principles and issues, the basic fact is that regardless of what method the Home Office used, if the Home Office 'rescinded' the use of firearms for self-defence, it would have to have done so legally, as what other method would make it so that a judge/magistrate/lord would feel even remotely obliged to consider it during a case/sentencing? Also, the Home Office has jurisdiction over England & Wales, primarily, and would have had to co-operate any such policy with the Northern Ireland and Scotland offices, again, making it more complicated and requiring it to be 'law'. Roche-Kerr 09:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gun culture

Removed this sentence:

"Other factors have reinforced this belief, including, for example, the indiscriminate use of the phrase "gun culture" to include both law-abiding target shooters and people who own guns illegally for criminal purposes. [6], [7], [8]"

This is original research - the references are mere usages of the phrase, not discussions of the phrase itself. One is a little-known leftwing Christian site, the other two are from the Scotsman. Whether they are being used 'indiscriminately' is entirely a matter of POV.--Nydas 06:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Have re-written to attempt to remove POV and make the discussion of the apparent bias NPOV. The fact that the examples refer both to "criminal gun culture" as used by the BBC quotation vs. the law-abiding gun culture usage in The Scotsman is significant, for nowhere else in the English-speaking world is the phrase gun culture used both ways. It is generally and uniformly used only in the positive sense in many books, newsprint articles, etc. This indiscriminate usage of the phrase in only the UK seemingly indicates bias against law-abiding sportsmen, which is on-topic in this part of the article since the intent is only to identify another point of controversy. Deleting this point of controversy seems very POV in a section of the article in which a discussion of bias is the topic. Yaf 04:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Examining the media to find usages of a certain phrase and then making the claims you are making here: 'Only used in a positive sense', UK being unique in this regard, is original research. Please provide sources for these arguments.--Nydas 07:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crime versus gun deaths

Lots of commentary in this article about how gun crime has increased. Guns weren't banned because of gun _crime_, they were banned because of the high-profile _murders_ by licensed holders.

I've gone through the article removing much of the subtle POV regarding the issue. This includes the whole "controversy" section for now, because it's all ubsubstantiated nonsense about gun crime in general which doesn't directly address the primary reason for gun restriction in the UK.

The old-style refs are still massively biased Daily Express nonsense, but I'll get to them. Chris Cunningham 01:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through and tidied most of it now. Turns out that the "worst" of the refs had been left in place after the section citing them was edited, so I've converted the whole article to the new refs section and purged them. Chris Cunningham 11:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Does anybody know what the minium distance someone has to be from a residential property before they can discharge a shotgun?(Halbared 10:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC))

There doesn't seem to be any law specifically about that, and I don't see why you couldn't discharge a shotgun from your own front door if the target was clear, safety was guaranteed, and you were the statutory distance from relevant boundaries. Notinasnaid 10:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I was told that there was one (though I don't know). In case you discharge a shotgun too close to a neighbours house??(Halbared 10:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC))

You would have a duty of care, of course, and if you make loud noises close to a neighbour's house then other laws about nuisance apply. And there are the laws about proximity to certain kinds of boundary. Can't see a need for a specific extra law, and haven't heard of one. Notinasnaid 11:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Gun licence" versus "firearms certificate" - clarify please

The distiction between the certificate and the licence isn't made clear. Is one a subset of the other? A legal term? A figure of speech? This should be clarified, the term "gun licence" is used several times without being defined. Chris Cunningham 15:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly, I think editors have used them as synonyms. "Gun license" sounds to me like a generic term for "firearms certificate and/or shotgun certificate". Notinasnaid 17:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparisons with Other Countries

I know that the statistics say that Britain is safer without handguns and semi-auto rifles and other weapons being legally available (or so claims past governments), but does anyone have any statistics comparing the gun crime rates between Britain and other countries from the period before Hungerford and Dunblane. I want to know if my suspicion that gun crime was never any higher than it is today is correct. --Harlsbottom 19:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Guns weren't banned for crimes before Hungerford, they were banned because of Hungerford. How amazingly disingenuous gun advocates can be. Chris Cunningham 09:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

How very clever of you. What I wanted to know was if there hadn't been a Hungerford, would the gun crime rate have justified a ban? --Harlsbottom 12:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That depends on your exact definition of "justified" and your exact definition of "gun crime", I imagine. It would certainly be harder to "justify" the expense of gun legislation were there no precedent for mass murders committed by formerly reasonably law-abiding citizens against random targets. It's highly likely that had Hungerford and Dunblane happened in some other Western European country you'd have less restrictions here and draconian legislation elsewhere. But that's just an assessment of the presented theoretical situation; the original premise that "Britain is safer without automatic rifles" doesn't require statistical proof, because there is ample physical proof that nobody else will be able to rampage through their home town with a knock-off AK again. Chris Cunningham 15:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The ban post-Hungerford had nothing to do with gun crime and actually nothing to do with Hungerford. It was merely an opportunity to pass a pre-concieved set of restrictions that might otherwise have been strongly opposed by the gun lobby and MPs. Douglas Hurd even admitted as much [1]. I don't think it is possible to say that "Britain is a safer place" as a result of tighter restrictions due to the much readier availiability of firearms on the black market than in 1987, but certainly a similar massacre is never going to be committed with a legal AK-47. Unfortunately the statistics availiable are generally unreliable because of obvious practical difficulties in surveying the black market and the fact that most of these statistics are provided by think-tanks in the pay of organisations on opposing sides of the gun-control debate. In any case, statististics are pretty useless way of assessing the effectiveness of restrictions in this context. It doesn't take much to imagine the folly: "30% more people were murdered by a rampaging gun-owner this year over last year". The fact that someone went on the rampage provided the "proof" to the government that further restrictions were needed. But equally it could be argued (as by Dr. Sean Gabb [2]), that the fact that Michael Ryan was the only person allowed to possess a firearm represents a failure of gun control by effectively depriving his victims of any means to defend themselves, and that is was this very fact that resulted in so many casualties. Certainly, the ease of which firearms can be obtained on the black market, imported or even manufactured from scratch must certainly provide food for thought when considering the potential effectiveness of any restrictions. --Admbws 21:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both, Chris Cunningham and Admbws for answering. So the question remains wide open; Are we safer or aren't we? I would personally generalise that Hungerford and Dunblane were the results of a systme which failed, and that any gun crime today evidence of a system which has been bypassed entirely. Dunblane in particular was a case of sheer bloody neglect by the local constabulary in the matter of Thomas Hamilton, for which 17 people lost their lives and a "freedom" taken away. Of course it's nice to think that destroying God knows how many handguns made us safer but if someone really wants to go the rampage again they'll find a way.

I do disagree with the whole notion of we need handguns to defend ourselves - aside from notable exceptions gun violence has never been a notable occurence here apart from the duelling days of the 18th century. Handguns here have always been hobbies or matters of dignified interest to most people in Britain unlike the way of life they have become in the United States of America. Over there (slash here; I'm in Ohio at the moment) the gun lobby fuels the gun obsession by saying that everyone needs a gun to keep some kind of mythical order. It's a shame that we in Britain can't trust ourselves nor allow ourselves to be trusted by our government. --Harlsbottom 01:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible correction to be made?

In the current article it reads:

"pistols produced before 1917, pistols of historical interest (such as pistols used in notable crimes, rare prototypes, unusual serial numbers and so on"

From what I've read here it would seem that perhaps this should be ammended to point out that pistols produced before 1917, firearms of historical interest, antique weapons and firearms of artistic interest cannot be fired at all. They have to be left on a wall with no ammunition for them. Any weapon that is used for anything other than decoration requires a firearms liscence (and in the case of a muzzle loading blackpowder weapon an explosives liscence as well). At least that's the way I read it. --21:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance of lack of natural predators in the UK

Should it be mentioned in the article that compared to other countries with laws enforcing their citizens' right to bear arms, the United Kingdom has basically no natural predators that might create a need for firearms outside of defense against crime (forgetting the implications of making guns freely available to criminals)? I think it's relevant that in the United Kingdom, the only question that needs to be asked to do with making guns legal, is whether it's worth criminals having easy access to guns. --Haridan 03:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The right to keep and bear arms in most juristictions that permit it was generally based on the concept of the citizen (i.e. non-standing) army, and later pure self-defence. People wanted guns to defend themselves from each other, not wild bears. When these concepts died, the main case for gun ownership died with them. Whatever you do, avoid making the assumption that more guns in private hands will give criminals easier access to guns. --Admbws 01:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Can't say I get what you mean about an assumption that more guns in private hands will give criminals easier access to guns. If people are able to obtain guns legally it follows logically that criminals will have easier access to guns. If guns are banned the police are involved in keeping guns out of private ownership, so criminals are much less able to obtain them. I think you're mistaken in perceiving criminals as a seperate set of people to the general population. Anyone can become a criminal, all they have to do is commit a crime. If guns are available to people in general, they're available to all criminals except for those who are restricted from obtaining guns by any background checks or other laws, and are unable or unwilling to obtain them illegally. If guns are illegal and therefore unavailable to people in general, they're only available to a limited subset of criminals who will (and will be able to) obtain them illegally. This subset is easily restricted by police efforts in relation to people in general. Do you see where I'm coming from?

The concept of a citizen army died out long ago and as far as I can see is outside the scope of modern gun politics (at least in the UK). By pure self defence you could mean defence from animals if there is a significant natural threat. Guns may also be used for defence against criminals, but in making guns legal you give criminals easy access to them (whether through legal or illegal means). This means that although some people (who choose to use guns for self defence) will be better protected against crime, criminals will be potentially equally as well armed. Indeed, they will be more likely to own a gun than non-criminals because they actually have a definite use for it (if the crime is planned), and some people can be turned into criminals just by owning a gun because it makes it easier to commit a crime. These tradeoffs are what I meant by the consideration of whether it's worth criminals having easy access to guns. In deciding whether to make guns illegal or not you need to consider how many people are likely to use guns for self defence and how likely it is that these people might turn to crime. It is only better to have guns legal if people will use guns for self defence sufficiently to justify it, or if police would be unable to control the availability of guns to criminals if they were made illegal. You also need to consider potential criminal or would be criminal fatalities and injuries from self defence, and whether or not this a good thing. These seem to be the main considerations in gun politics of the United Kingdom.

I had assumed that in at least some parts of the US and Canada, there was also a consideration of the need for self defence against wildlife, as America does have natural predators. If this consideration is not seriously taken into account in American and wider gun politics as I had assumed, I suppose it doesn't have as much relevance to gun politics in the UK. --Haridan 06:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC), 06:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)