Gun control in Britain: has it worked?

[Shaun]

Did someone (captain argh?) say that crime has risen exponentially since we got heavier regulation? I'd like to see a proper debate on that one since I think that statement was made up to try and win the arguement. That is like saying pedophillia has risen recently simply because it is reported and found out more and ignores the consistent drop in most crimes except dense urban zones where each country sees an increase in violent crime but other crimes drop across the board with a progressive society.

Lets have a proper debate on this here, then.

Okay, folks, what's your opinion - has gun control worked in Britain, keeping the chav scum away from dangerous weapons which they would no doubt use to terrorise innocent Brits; or has it left us unarmed, at the mercy of criminals and our big totalitarian government?

But remember:
guns are not banned in Britain.

My opinion is basically this: it has worked, because there has been no Dunblane's or Hungerford's. "But violent crime is increasing!" you pro-gun folks scream at me, "guns would protect law abiding citizens from armed criminals." Well, violent crime is certainly increasing, yes; but the 'ban' on guns did not cause it, nor has practically anything to do with it. For you see, there are other factors which are ultimately far, far more responsible for the rise in violent crime than the great restriction of firearms. In fact, the argument that this boom in crime really has anything to do with gun control laws is quite silly: there was no gun culture in Britain before the laws. That's right. No gun culture ... well, certainly nothing compared to America. Hardly any of us were armed even when we could be, so the burglars fear than his victims might be armed is pure nonsense here, because quite simply, there was a less than 0.5% chance they were armed - especially if they were urban!

Correlation does not imply causation, and the argument that restricted guns have aided crime rates is based on this logical fallacy. You might as well blame the rise in mobile phones for increased rape - after all they correlate!

And we're certainly not at the mercy of some massive armed criminal populace. Most shootings are gangland shootings. The local neighbourhood burglar is more likely to be armed with a Burberry cap then a baretta. If someone was to break into my house tonight, I would be almost certain that there was no chance they had a gun.

Plus, us Brits don't buy into romantic fantasies about overthrowing a totalitarian government with our guns. Because that's a load of twaddle: under no such fantasy of certain Americans could they and their fellow gun loving citizens other throw a fascist government. This argument is mind bogglingly dumb.

Opinions?

[Ummagumma]

I guess it works well. Those that need guns (like farmers, for pest control) and those that want guns (for sport shooting) can and do own ones fitting for their purpose.
Organised criminals, of course, can get them. They have contacts. The chances of one wanting to do some silly street crime or domestic burglary however is little to none.
Occasionally, they do filter down to appear in the general criminal, erm, 'underclass' for want of a better term. Fortunately they are exceedingly difficult if not impossible to be owned by the street criminals and Saturday night brawlers. This is a very good thing.
If guns were more widespread and accessible, how long would it be before some wannabe hardknock starts shooting folks for their mobile phones? Or some put-upon middle-class emo gets picked on too much during PE and decides to kill his teachers and peers?
The counter arguments seem quite weak to me too. Defend yourself against your totalitarian Government? - O.K. I'd need ECM devices, RPG's, stingers, blah blah blah to counter the military! Instead we can rely on our laws, and the ability to remove the leaders through voting. Of course, those wily Scots might be up to something though....
Home defence? That's just some wet-dream arms race. Most the people stupid enough to rob an occupied building are too stupid to get guns from anyone! Besides, we still have bats Can we own tazers? I guess if you are really that paranoid you could get a taser, at least they are a whole lot less lethal than a firearm. There really is no reason for any civilian in any civilised society to want to own anything other than a sport rifle and/or shotgun

[Big War Bird]

Well of course gun control can control gun violence when very few people have guns to begin with. But that is like saying traffic accidents are under control by banning/restricting cars ownership a country that does have cars to begin with.

So any example of gun control working in a place that doesn't have guns to begin with is rather beside the point.

[Ummagumma]

Well of course gun control can control gun violence when very few people have guns to begin with. But that is like saying traffic accidents are under control by banning/restricting cars ownership a country that does have cars to begin with.

So any example of gun control working in a place that does have guns to begin with rather beside the point.

Yes, of course. And just like cars guns have another primary purpose which assists society.
Oh, wait.. I got that wrong didn't I. Guns are designed to kill people. Cars are not. Or kitchen knives, paperclips, sharp pencils or slippers. Yes, they are dangerous, but they serve a different primary purpose to that of causing harm to people.
As for removing guns from a society, you just need stricter legislation and strong penalties. Softly, softly, catch the monkey, as the saying goes.

[Big War Bird]

Yes, of course. And just like cars guns have another primary purpose which assists society.
Oh, wait.. I got that wrong didn't I. Guns are designed to kill people. Cars are not. Or kitchen knives, paperclips, sharp pencils or slippers. Yes, they are dangerous, but they serve a different primary purpose to that of causing harm to people.
As for removing guns from a society, you just need stricter legislation and strong penalties. Softly, softly, catch the monkey, as the saying goes.

You entirely missed the point didn't you? The reality is that if you want to measure the effectiveness of something like gun control, the law has to change reality. From what Shaun and other have said, there is not and never was a "gun culture" and I take that to mean ownership of firearms has always been very low. So if people are restricted from owning a gun they never had in the first place, nothing has changed.

[Sleeper]

Guns are banned in Britain, long guns aren't.
Removing weapons is good, as long as you believe in totalitarianism, which I do.

[Muizer]

Guns are banned in Britain, long guns aren't.
Removing weapons is good, as long as you believe in totalitarianism, which I do.

Is that so? How important have legal restrictions on gun ownership historically been as a totalitarian tool of oppression? Have totalitarian governments ever refrained from actions out of fear of an armed populace that they would have carried through had the population been unarmed? Isn't that just an unsubstantiated theory?

[Sleeper]

Gun control is good. Not having an armed populace is bad. If the punishments against criminals are right, an armed populace is not a problem.

Liberalism is a flawed form of anarchy. A moronic flawed form based on a fool's tale. Like the Bible.

[Denny Crane!]

Well of course gun control can control gun violence when very few people have guns to begin with. But that is like saying traffic accidents are under control by banning/restricting cars ownership a country that does have cars to begin with.

Regulation works prohibition doesn't.

Didn't the war on drugs teach you anything? oh wait no it didn't apparently.

So any example of gun control working in a place that doesn't have guns to begin with is rather beside the point.

Did you look at the opening post. I'm going to assume you didn't, let me point it out for you.

Gun control in Britain did it work?

Now you may be confused by why we are debating that, its not to prove another point, its to ask the question in the title. That is what is under debate. Their is the existence of guns, they can exist in Britain, they are regulated, has it worked?

Its a simple yes or no and the debate goes on from there.

Guns are banned in Britain, long guns aren't.
Removing weapons is good, as long as you believe in totalitarianism, which I do.

You can prove that because............

Britain is under the sway of a totaliterian state! Well that is news to me, I thought they were a bumbling bunch of democrats but of course I do prefer your take on events.

You entirely missed the point didn't you? The reality is that if you want to measure the effectiveness of something like gun control, the law has to change reality. From what Shaun and other have said, there is not and never was a "gun culture" and I take that to mean ownership of firearms has always been very low. So if people are restricted from owning a gun they never had in the first place, nothing has changed.

The law came in 1903 I believe initially (though I could be 10 years either side) before that guns weren't uncommon.

It takes time for things like this to level out but once implemented does reduce the amount of gun usage nationwide.

It is ridiculous to say you couldn't remove guns once they were there.

Gun control is good. Not having an armed populace is bad. If the punishments against criminals are right, an armed populace is not a problem.

Not having an armed populace is bad? Perhaps you could explain why, how about say a comparison in murder rates between America and other western countries that don't have effective gun control.

Liberalism is a flawed form of anarchy. A moronic flawed form based on a fool's tale. Like the Bible.

Gun ownership is kind of like religion, people think they have to have it, but so long as they have it they are a danger to themselves and all around them.

[Sleeper]

Regulation works prohibition doesn't.

Like regulating gay sex. Very successful.

You can prove that because............

Britain is under the sway of a totaliterian state! Well that is news to me, I thought they were a bumbling bunch of democrats but of course I do prefer your take on events.

CCTV.

Not having an armed populace is bad? Perhaps you could explain why, how about say a comparison in murder rates between America and other western countries that don't have effective gun control.

Murder rates are more a result of ineffective justice than an armed populace. Crime is mostly committed by felons with previous records. In the big picture, would you rather try to occupy the UK or Texas, and geography is on the island side...?

Gun ownership is kind of like religion, people think they have to have it, but so long as they have it they are a danger to themselves and all around them.

When push comes to shove, violence wins. Violence and nature should really be the same word. You still owe me tips on dog training. Liberalism is a danger to anyone with a job, but I am still glad it exists.

[pannonian]

CCTV.

Most CCTV in Britain is privately owned, guarding specific properties. Almost the only government-run camera network that isn't used for the same purpose is the speed cameras, which are used ostensibly to deter speeding, but which are proving to be a useful source of revenue.

Murder rates are more a result of ineffective justice than an armed populace. Crime is mostly committed by felons with previous records.

In Britain, crime is mainly non-confrontational, because it involves less risk, has lesser penalties, and is more profitable. Where it turns violent is when gangs fight each other for their territory, but these fights don't really affect or concern the general public.

In the big picture, would you rather try to occupy the UK or Texas, and geography is on the island side...?

There is absolutely no danger in the short to medium term of Britain being invaded and occupied in the classical sense. North is the sea, west is the sea, east and south is the EU, which is friendly to us.

When push comes to shove, violence wins. Violence and nature should really be the same word. You still owe me tips on dog training. Liberalism is a danger to anyone with a job, but I am still glad it exists.

Your statement of the inevitability of violence has not been my experience, living here in Britain.

[Sleeper]

Most CCTV in Britain is privately owned, guarding specific properties. Almost the only government-run camera network that isn't used for the same purpose is the speed cameras, which are used ostensibly to deter speeding, but which are proving to be a useful source of revenue.

Even better, privately owned cameras on every corner and transport junction.

In Britain, crime is mainly non-confrontational, because it involves less risk, has lesser penalties, and is more profitable. Where it turns violent is when gangs fight each other for their territory, but these fights don't really affect or concern the general public.

You do have more hatchet deaths than the US.

There is absolutely no danger in the short to medium term of Britain being invaded and occupied in the classical sense. North is the sea, west is the sea, east and south is the EU, which is friendly to us.

Britain is already occupied in the modern sense. It is the testing ground for all the above reasons.

Your statement of the inevitability of violence has not been my experience, living here in Britain.

I didn't realize Britain didn't have violence any more. When did the army stand down, what are all the policemen doing for work? Jolly good show chap, Cheerio.

[Paggers]

Britain is under the sway of a totaliterian state! Well that is news to me, I thought they were a bumbling bunch of democrats but of course I do prefer your take on events.

CCTV.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/north...ek6_cctv.shtml
The murder of James Bulger in 1993 was captured on CCTV and provided a heartbreaking image that is still with us today.
This is an example of our totalitarian state in action.
How shocking that two murdering little scumbags should be caught on CCTV leading this innocent 3 year old child to his brutal death. /sarcasm off.
Definitely a reason to rail against CCTV.
Yesterday's convictions over the Brent Martin case were assisted by CCTV footage from a neighbour's house but don't let that stop the rant.

Anyway back on topic, regulation of guns in the UK has reduced the number of guns in general circulation. Criminals will still get hold of them but that is why they are criminals, so overall yes I would say it has worked.

[different_13]

Shaun, as much as I applaud your post, is this really a good idea?
Are we going to last more than one page before pro-gun-nuts swamp the thread? Already we're seeing signs...

"well, obviously it's worked for you, limiting a tiny problem often does (almost) completely negate the problem for many years to come... that's no proof at all!!!"

....btw Umma, this is the second or third time today I've tried to rep you, but I'm not allowed yet.

[Sleeper]

It isn't proof. People just use hatchets. Between you and me, I prefer bullets to being axed. Very British though.

[King Edward III]

When you say "Britain" do you by chance mean "Scotland"?

[Denny Crane!]

Apparently we are under the sway of a totaliterian state because we allow our citizens and business' the freedom to put cameras up to protect themselves and their property. I am putting up CCTV to watch my property and car at some point, I didn't realise that the government manipulated me to do that. Perhaps if I wear a tinfoil cap they'll stop beaming my CCTV and my thoughts to their gigantic information/torturous headquarters.

The logic is quite frankly astounding, I'd much rather live in a free state where the government interferes in private property and business and stops people putting up CCTV.........oh wait.........no I'm fine where I am.

[Gary88]

look at the statistics, 10 years ago we had around 400 gun murders a year last year 72 (one involved an air rifle and some kids its was a pretty horrible story i remember). statistically in the UK you are more likely to be beaten with a gun than shot by one, if you are involved in a crime where a real gun is present you are statistically unlikely to see the weapon fired at all. Suicide rates dropped after the latest regualtions and have not risen as people find new methods, a complete contrast to the 70s when electric ovens started to replace gas in a lot of home, suicide rates fell but returned to previous levels withing (i think) 5 years.
Murder rates are on average on a downslope and thats despite Harold Shipman and some moron who brought 50 odd imigrants in a lorry only for them to be found dead on british soil.

[Justice and Mercy]

Your statement of the inevitability of violence has not been my experience, living here in Britain.

There aren't even bar fights in Britain?

Wow, quite the paradise.

Apparently we are under the sway of a totaliterian state because we allow our citizens and business' the freedom to put cameras up to protect themselves and their property. I am putting up CCTV to watch my property and car at some point, I didn't realise that the government manipulated me to do that. Perhaps if I wear a tinfoil cap they'll stop beaming my CCTV and my thoughts to their gigantic information/torturous headquarters.

The logic is quite frankly astounding, I'd much rather live in a free state where the government interferes in private property and business and stops people putting up CCTV.........oh wait.........no I'm fine where I am.

Perphaps one of the few times we'll agree.

[Denny Crane!]

Perphaps one of the few times we'll agree.

Your understanding of my satire is not quite as large as your duplicity about freedoms, you obviously aren't a libertarian your an authoritarian.