A Question About the UK and Guns

[iLander]

How's Gun Control in The UK Going?

I ask not to be a smarty pants, but because I actually don't know the answer.

The tragedy in Newton recalled a similar tragedy in 1997 in Scotland:

From Wiki (for what that's worth); The Dunblane school massacre occurred at Dunblane Primary School in the Scottish town of Dunblane on 13 March 1996. The gunman, 43-year-old Thomas Hamilton (b. 10 May 1952), entered the school armed with four handguns, shooting and killing sixteen children and one adult before committing suicide.

Public debate subsequent to these events centred on gun-control laws, including public petitions calling for a ban on private ownership of handguns and an official enquiry, the Cullen Report. In response to this debate, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 were enacted, which effectively made private ownership of handguns illegal in the United Kingdom.

So the English managed to pass gun control, which sounds pretty all-encompassing. Is that true? Is it hard to get a gun over there? If so, how did they get rid of the existing guns? Was there a rebate? Did people object, or was there a general consensus? What are the crime stats these days?

If they can do that, how come we can't at LEAST get rid of AK-47's?

I'm always amazed that the US can't seem to look beyond it's borders and check out what other countries have done with their issues. We can analyze, compare and contrast, extrapolate outcomes, and generally learn if we could only figure out we're not the only country on this globe.

 

[perry]

So why not do a simple internet search for the answer?

If you do you will find all kinds of articles from various British papers and news organizations (including the BBC) that government statistics showed a rapid 35% increase in gun crime within a few years and then up to 89% increase in gun crime a few years later; and now it is coming down.

Examples (recently reprinted - but the reprints do list the original article dates):

Article from 2003 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soars-35.html

Article from 2008 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576406/28-gun-crimes-committed-in-UK-every-day.html

How much is hype and cherry picking of statistics? Something I am always cautious on.

Good question because while with a little more digging I did find an official study on gun crime that covers the period in the UK; the study also states that the government has changed how they count gun crime I think 3 times since the Gun control laws were implemented. Here is the link to the Firearm Crime Statistics created for the British Parliament (this opens, or saves, as a pdf file).

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf

More digging reveals that while no one seems to question that gun crime in the UK went up significantly after the gun control laws (no matter how they were counted the various years); the questions now being asked is are the police now undercounting to make the statistics look better with their latest change in how they count gun crimes?

Given the different methods used to count "official" gun crimes in the UK over the recent years I am not sure anyone can provide a clear answer to your question on what really happened after the British imposed their strict gun control laws - except to say that gun crime went up (even the UK government admits that).

I trust that answers your question,

Perry

 

[iheartscience]

Have you looked into Australia's gun laws? After a 1996 mass shooting, sweeping gun laws were enacted:

"Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent."

And they haven't had a mass shooting since.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...ralia_s_laws_provide_a.html?wpisrc=most_viral

 

[Jennifer W]

So why not do a simple internet search for the answer?

If you do you will find all kinds of articles from various British papers and news organizations (including the BBC) that government statistics showed a rapid 35% increase in gun crime within a few years and then up to 89% increase in gun crime a few years later; and now it is coming down.

Examples (recently reprinted - but the reprints do list the original article dates):

Article from 2003 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soars-35.html

Article from 2008 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576406/28-gun-crimes-committed-in-UK-every-day.html

How much is hype and cherry picking of statistics? Something I am always cautious on.

Good question because while with a little more digging I did find an official study on gun crime that covers the period in the UK; the study also states that the government has changed how they count gun crime I think 3 times since the Gun control laws were implemented. Here is the link to the Firearm Crime Statistics created for the British Parliament (this opens, or saves, as a pdf file).

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf

More digging reveals that while no one seems to question that gun crime in the UK went up significantly after the gun control laws (no matter how they were counted the various years); the questions now being asked is are the police now undercounting to make the statistics look better with their latest change in how they count gun crimes?

Given the different methods used to count "official" gun crimes in the UK over the recent years I am not sure anyone can provide a clear answer to your question on what really happened after the British imposed their strict gun control laws - except to say that gun crime went up (even the UK government admits that).

I trust that answers your question,

Perry

I can't say I hold British news papers in high regard as a source of statistics, but you can access the source data easily enough. I'll dig up a link later, but it's entirely public.

The police have no vested interest in making their statistics look any particular way in regard to any crime. With this one in particular, the legislature, which is entirely separate from policing, made the choice to ban handguns. The police don't care one way or the other whether that policy worked, their job is to police it. What makes the police look better is a rise in the detection rate (for any crime) not a reduction in the incidence. A reduction in incidence in response to a change of policy and law is what makes politicians look good.

Part of the reason that gun crime has risen statistically is that we have entirely re-categorised what is a crime - having a firearm or rounds in your possession, having a replica firearm, attempting to buy or sell a firearm, all of these things are now gun crime. Long before anyone gets shot. These crimes are being detected and the weapons removed from circulation.

It isn't perfect. Of course we still have gun crime, along with every other sort of crime, but it is rare in Scotland (not as aware about the rest of the UK, since I only really come across the Scottish figures at work, and we have separate police and legal systems from England and Wales). Mercifully, we have never had another atrocity like Dunblane. I live very near there, and worked with the police in that community, so I am not neutral about this by any stretch, but I do think that what was done in relation to banning handguns was the best possible thing that could have happened in Scotland.

 

[Ally T]

Being a British Citizen, I must admit that I do feel safer knowing that not everyone is easily able to own a gun. I do live in an extremely rural area however, where there are often Pheasant shoots at the weekend, so I know many of my neighbours are licenced gun holders, but they are the minority.

With regards to violent gun crime, where there's a will there's a way. I think anybody could probably get their hands on illegal firearm if they wished, so gun crime will never really be controlled no matter what country you live in. As pointed out above, it's the interception of the guns before the crimes happen that is policed.

The shootings in Newtown have made my heart bleed. Being the mother of 2 young girls, I have shed tears at every new report. I just cannot fathom what the parents must be experiencing & if I'm honest, I try not to imagine as I do 't ever want to be in that situation.

Just as an irrelevant footnote, did you know tennis player Andy Murry was a Dunblane survivor?

 

[Rhea]

As an American, I thought it was pretty odd how strict gun control was when I moved here. It seems to be very effective and it's taken very seriously. Since that time I think there has only been one mass shooting. In the Lake District in 2010 in which 12 people died as a result of a lone gun man. One in 15 years seem both very good, and not good enough.

Gun crime in the UK has partly increased because of how it's been handled. It's a crime to own anything having to do with a gun such as a bullet, or to hold one. The area I work in and lived in until recently has posters by the police in several locations that are aimed at young women who hide their boyfriend's guns. I work with a young woman who has a gun crime charge this way. One example of the poster, which features on bus stops on the high street, is attached.

As far as the ability to get a gun, I think it'd be hard unless you were in the know. I've never seen one here and if I started asking around I'd get the police on my doorstep pretty quickly. A huge change from where I lived in the US where I could easily walk into my sporting goods store and buy one. I know a couple of families who own guns. If you have a valid reason, such as you're a farmer, then you are allowed to own a gun. It must be kept in a locked case and stored unloaded. The permit to own it must be signed off every year (I need to check this, I believe that's what a friend who owns one said) by someone who has known you for a minimum amount of time (I think it's 5 years) and must be a professional person of a certain status, such as a judge. My husband comes from a farming family that doesn't own guns, but a couple of the ones that we know do own guns. These aren't handguns or semi-automatic things though, they are hunting rifles and shot guns.
http://www.gundealer.net/rules.htm

Of course, if you know where to get something it can always be done. That seems to be the argument that I hear from most Americans and we go around in circles again.

 

[LaraOnline]

Of course, if you know where to get something it can always be done. That seems to be the argument that I hear from most Americans and we go around in circles again.

I think a massive issue with gun murders and suicides is that people (not 'criminal types') don't really have criminal links and are often not in a social circle where they will be able to 'hook up' with illegal gun smugglers.

In almost all the gun crimes I can think of, both here and overseas, the guns were obtained through family.

In Australia's experience, and by the sounds of it, the UK too, proximity to guns greatly increases the likelihood of innocent people being shot up by guns.

You could say that it is human nature rather than inanimate guns that are causing all the deaths...but isn't it easier to remove the murder tool of choice rather than rework, second guess and ultimately control the poorer/ more irrational sides of human nature??

It's not like any government can legislate to prevent mental illness.

It's like a domestic version of a non-proliferation treaty, is it not?

 

[rosetta]

Mass shootings in the UK are much rarer in the UK than the US.

Why do you think that is?

 

[hawaiianorangetree]

This article looks at the UK and other countries.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/17/world/world-newtown-shootings-gun-controls/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

 

[justginger]

I've never once heard a citizen of a country with tight gun restrictions say, "I feel unsafe and wish I had access to a handgun." I think that is very telling, considering how many Americans cite owning a gun for self-defense, particularly against (firearms) armed home invaders. If the restrictions weren't working, if they didn't provide a sense of elevated security to the general population, they would be revoked. And...this is really going to freak the Americans out...many English POLICE OFFICERS don't even carry guns! Amazing that there isn't looting, raping, and pillaging from coast to coast, isn't it?

Here are some extremely interesting statistics, as compiled by a Pom living in Australia (who was unimpressed that Australian police do elect to carry handguns).


Murders per 100,000 people, by a gun
England/Wales: 0.12
Australia: 0.31
USA: 2.97

Murders per 100,000 people, NOT by a gun
England/Wales: 1.33
Australia: 1.26
USA: 1.58


Seems pretty bloody straightforward to me. Take guns out of the equation and murder rates are comparable. Allow easy access to guns, and suddenly you've got murder rates at a level 9-24 times higher than socially and financially comparable countries. Other countries with tight gun control and lower (than Australian) gun homicides include Chile, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Qatar, Singapore, Spain and Switzerland. Might want to avoid Colombia, with a rate of 51.8 per 100,000 citizens!

 

[justginger]

And another great bit of information I've managed to dredge up.

Las Vegas and Perth are ROUGHLY the same population.

It appears that the metro rate of gun homicides per 100,000 people in Las Vegas for 2011 was 17.6 (pulled down from the city center rate of 36.9!). I know Vegas has relatively high levels of gun violence, so let's use another city about the same size that has experienced a "sharp decline in homicides by firearm" (as described on a very pro-gun website): Austin, TX. The greater population Austin is around 1.7 million, with a gun homicide rate per 100,000 of about 2.5.

The rate of gun homicides per 100,000 people FOR THE ENTIRETY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA (2.1 million, 1.7 million of them in Perth itself), for all the years I could easily find (I do apologize that they are not more recent, but rest assured I have noticed no spike in shootings since moving here in 2005):

07/08: 0.00 (yes...zero)
06/07: 0.14
05/06: 0.29
04/05: 0.05
03/04: 0.10
02/03: 0.05
01/02: 0.26


At this point, I must confess that I see two possible explanations. Either the ease of gun availability lends itself to quick, disastrous decisions. Or there is something very wrong with the entire psyche of the American people, as a whole. Considering that I grew up there, my friends and family are still there, I refuse to believe the second option. Americans are no more foolish, bloodthirsty, or insane than the rest of the world's population. They just have immediate access to weapons that allow them to act on those snap decisions, no chance of 'easing up' and letting someone live, like with a knife attack, or a cricket bat beating.

 

[Rhea]

And...this is really going to freak the Americans out...many English POLICE OFFICERS don't even carry guns! Amazing that there isn't looting, raping, and pillaging from coast to coast, isn't it?

The last time I saw a police officer with a gun here in London was a few years ago when I went to the American embassy in Victoria. It was really surreal to see someone holding a gun.

 

[perry]

I don't have time to dig into the statistics: But if you really wish to compare apples to apples you need to compare total mortality rates because many countries report things differently (few countries actually agree on what is "anything" - what counts as murder in one country may not count in another); but do in fact report how many people die (regardless of internal classifications on why they die) for anyone over a few weeks old (infant mortality rates cannot be compared because no one agrees on when a baby is an infant to be counted and while the US reports any live birth as an "infant" a lot of counties wait until the baby has lived a few days to a few weeks before counting them as an "infant").

Another thing to be careful off:

I dug up and presented probably the best statictics on gun crime the UK has in that report to Parliament. It has lots of details (which I think will mute the above contention by some that "most" UK gun crimes are just possession of a gun now versus use in a criminal activity).

But, the real question is did the UK gun control act affect the gun crime rate at all? Just because gun crime went up; does not mean that gun control made crime go up. Did it go up for other reasons (such as the rise of gang violence) which would have occurred anyway independent of any gun control legislation.

Others have cited that in various countries that the murder rates (or other rates) have increased or decreased. But, did those rates change due to the gun legislation; or due to other factors. In the case of Australia their are studies that answer that (and the answer is that there is no real evidence that Australian gun control had any effective change on anything significant (and the Government of Australia has acknowledged the truth of those studies). While fewer people committed suicide with guns - they just adopted other methods and the overall suicide rate did not change).

You need to be looking at a lot of factors to see what the effects are.

By my nature (and history) growing up and using guns for recreation, hunting, and yes self defense I grew up to be "pro - gun" However, by nature I am also a dedicated researcher and look for the truth - and do change my mind based on good evidence. Most of the studies that get tossed around are incomplete and "cherry picked" from the pile of all studies to present their individual point (and both sides are equally guilty). Be very careful. That is why I specifically went looking for Official UK Government information in response to the question (which does not come up on the common searches).

My overall conclusion is that in general there is not any substantial evidence that shows that owning guns makes societies in general safer, or that gun controls (beyond restricting guns from the mentally ill and criminals) make society safer. Those conclusions are not just mine alone: A major review of all the gun studies (by I believe the NSF) in the last couple of years concluded that for the US, that is also the essential conclusion of the Australian studies on their gun control. The more scholarly UK gun studies I glanced at discussed the rise of gun crimes due to gangs and drugs (which was not necessarily the whole story).

Major changes in crimes and events are driven by a variety of other factors in the societies (does unemployment rate affect crime rate, suicide, etc; does the changes in population in a country affect things - "baby booms" "baby busts"; is the overall population increasing or decreasing, is the overall economy of the country increasing or decreasing, are people using more or less of recreational drugs of various potency, etc, etc, etc).

Different countries have different cultures - and what works in one will not work in another (on a lot of issues).

There are no simple solutions to any meaningful issue.

I know a lot of people would like to find a simple solution - and one where they do not have to change their thinking and personal actions. I wish things were that simple,

Have a great day,

Perry

 

[justginger]

First: I did see that the gun homicide rates for Australia that I quoted were based on "deaths primarily caused by a firearms-induced injury". So that's pretty spot-on as an accurate definition, in my opinion.

But let me cut through all the words, the'ifs, ands, and buts' -- Perry, you believe that American culture is broken. You believe that there is a combination of factors unique to the United States that results in people going nuts and murdering each other at rates astronomically higher than dozens upon dozens of other first world counties? Countries that listen to the same music, eat the same food, watch the same movies, play the same video games,and ignore their mentally unstable citizens to boot? I see no factor other than the frank obsession with firearms and the 2nd Amendment to blame for these unacceptable death rates. Having perhaps not lived abroad (correct me if I'm wrong), but do you have any idea how "Americanized" the world is? If I had to make a list of similarities and differences between Australia and the US, my similarities side would be five times the size of the differences. And most of the differences would be things like terminology, slightly different ages of children in various grades of schooling, and the fact the mailman won't take outgoing mail from my mailbox. Oh...and the fact that Australians LOVE knowing that their neighbors don't possess firearms that may be used in the heat of a spousal altercation.

 

[Jennifer W]

I don't have time to dig into the statistics: But if you really wish to compare apples to apples you need to compare total mortality rates because many countries report things differently (few countries actually agree on what is "anything" - what counts as murder in one country may not count in another); but do in fact report how many people die (regardless of internal classifications on why they die) for anyone over a few weeks old (infant mortality rates cannot be compared because no one agrees on when a baby is an infant to be counted and while the US reports any live birth as an "infant" a lot of counties wait until the baby has lived a few days to a few weeks before counting them as an "infant").

Another thing to be careful off:

I dug up and presented probably the best statictics on gun crime the UK has in that report to Parliament. It has lots of details (which I think will mute the above contention by some that "most" UK gun crimes are just possession of a gun now versus use in a criminal activity).

But, the real question is did the UK gun control act affect the gun crime rate at all? Just because gun crime went up; does not mean that gun control made crime go up. Did it go up for other reasons (such as the rise of gang violence) which would have occurred anyway independent of any gun control legislation.

Others have cited that in various countries that the murder rates (or other rates) have increased or decreased. But, did those rates change due to the gun legislation; or due to other factors. In the case of Australia their are studies that answer that (and the answer is that there is no real evidence that Australian gun control had any effective change on anything significant (and the Government of Australia has acknowledged the truth of those studies). While fewer people committed suicide with guns - they just adopted other methods and the overall suicide rate did not change).

You need to be looking at a lot of factors to see what the effects are.

By my nature (and history) growing up and using guns for recreation, hunting, and yes self defense I grew up to be "pro - gun" However, by nature I am also a dedicated researcher and look for the truth - and do change my mind based on good evidence. Most of the studies that get tossed around are incomplete and "cherry picked" from the pile of all studies to present their individual point (and both sides are equally guilty). Be very careful. That is why I specifically went looking for Official UK Government information in response to the question (which does not come up on the common searches).

My overall conclusion is that in general there is not any substantial evidence that shows that owning guns makes societies in general safer, or that gun controls (beyond restricting guns from the mentally ill and criminals) make society safer. Those conclusions are not just mine alone: A major review of all the gun studies (by I believe the NSF) in the last couple of years concluded that for the US, that is also the essential conclusion of the Australian studies on their gun control. The more scholarly UK gun studies I glanced at discussed the rise of gun crimes due to gangs and drugs (which was not necessarily the whole story).

Major changes in crimes and events are driven by a variety of other factors in the societies (does unemployment rate affect crime rate, suicide, etc; does the changes in population in a country affect things - "baby booms" "baby busts"; is the overall population increasing or decreasing, is the overall economy of the country increasing or decreasing, are people using more or less of recreational drugs of various potency, etc, etc, etc).

Different countries have different cultures - and what works in one will not work in another (on a lot of issues).

There are no simple solutions to any meaningful issue.

I know a lot of people would like to find a simple solution - and one where they do not have to change their thinking and personal actions. I wish things were that simple,

Have a great day,

Perry

I am not drawing the same conclusions as you from the data in the report to the House of Commons. To pick one example, I note that in Scotland, the number of recorded injuries (including non-life threatening and essentially minor injuries) is the lowest it has been in a decade, while the rest of the UK saw a 13% fall in serious injury and fatalities from firearms. I worked for many years as a researcher, and like you, I understand the difficulties in drawing fact from data. I don't think either of us would struggle to interpret this report in a way that suited our view points, but really, there doesn't seem much point.

Because the law on firearms in the UK was not passed in its current form to make society in general somewhat safer, or with the primary aim of reducing suicide, or as a means of controlling serious organised crime, gang crime, or any other form of gun crime, however you wish to count it or classify it. These are important policy areas, but they did not feature significantly in the decisions made after Dunblane. The intention of Parliament, in passing this statute, was almost exclusively to make it as hard as humanly possible for someone to get into a primary school with firearms and murder children again. So far, it has been effective in achieving that aim.

You are of course quite right - what works for one culture and society may not in another. I offer no comment on gun control in the US, I do not live there or have a deep enough understanding to contribute anything appropriate or meaningful. All I can do is offer my heartfelt and deepest condolences to those who are grieving right now.