Interesting statistic on gun crime in UK

cavan shooter

I read an article in the Sporting Shooter magazine over the weekend and picked up on a useful statistic;

In 1998 prior to the ban on legally held pistols, 10.1% of injuries caused by criminals were attributed to illegally held pistols

In 2005/2006 that statistic had jumped to 20.6%, this information according to the author is available from the Home office.

Backfires in the face of legislators doesn't it

Sparks

This is on gun crime and criminal legislation (and in another jurisdiction), not shooting sports or sport shooting or the civil legislation that governs both in this jurisdiction, so I'm moving the thread to Politics.

cavan shooter

yes fair point, however these statistics are often used in boards discussions to do with shooting sports

Fratton Fred

quite the opposite, it is a good job they brought in the legislation then, otherwise the figures may have been higher. the number of guns on the dtreets of Britain is increasing so anything that can be done to slow this down should be done.

If anyone can explain to me why someone needs to own a handgun for personal use then I would happily listen, but there is absolutely no need in my opinion. If people want to use one for sport then join a club and keep it there.

Manic Moran

Fratton Fred wrote: »

quite the opposite, it is a good job they brought in the legislation then, otherwise the figures may have been higher. the number of guns on the dtreets of Britain is increasing so anything that can be done to slow this down should be done.

The idea behind the ban was to get the number of guns on the streets in Britain, and gun crime, to decrease. This has not worked, the only thing that resulted is that generally law-abiding denizens have been prohibited from carrying out their preferred passtimes.

If anyone can explain to me why someone needs to own a handgun for personal use then I would happily listen, but there is absolutely no need in my opinion.

If I find I have a need to shoot someone or something, then nothing short of a firearm is particularly suitable. It is not a statistically common requirement, but in the event that statistics catch up with you, when you need one, nothing else will do. In certain situations, a pistol is far more suitable than a rifle or shotgun. Anyone who breaks into my house will not be making it up the staircase.

NTM

Sparks

Keeping the pistol in a club sounds wonderful... until you realise that you've just created a single place, unoccupied at night, storing a large number of firearms. Even with alarms and good construction, you've created a security problem because you've now made it more attractive to succeed for the criminal trying to break in. On the other hand, if the pistols were in the alarmed and secured homes of the members in gunsafes, as they are in Ireland and were before the ban in the UK, then the cost/benefit scenario for your average burglar goes south in a hurry.

As to why you would need a pistol, you've partially answered yourself - sport. Five olympic events. Of which, the UK can only field a team in two this year (both air pistol events) because of the ban. Thing is, you see, that this isn't an easy sport. It's difficult. It requires hours of training daily to get to international standards. That's not hours of shooting, most of it is what we call "dry firing", where you go through the motions without ammunition in the pistol, working on technique, balance, sight picture, and other technical aspects of the sport. Mostly, we do that at home, in the office, wherever is easiest to get to. If you've to do a minimum of an hour a day of this, you need to be able to cut down on setup/takedown time as much as is possible and an hour's drive to the nearest pistol range (there're not all over the place y'know) is just not going to be practical for an amateur sport where folks have to hold down day jobs.

Of course, there are other reasons for holding a pistol. I understand it's the law for hunters in Germany to carry one while hunting for the purposes of humane dispatch (that's not the case in Ireland, where the sole permitted purpose is target shooting, but it was permitted in the UK). Vets often require the use of a pistol for the same reason (especially during communicable disease outbreaks, like the foot and mouth scare a few years back). But the main reason is sport, as outlined above.

There is, of course, the point that the actual ban itself was little more than an election ploy at the time, rather than a well-researched and considered measure. And the point that as a whole, legal firearms owners are the most law-abiding group in society. The degree to which firearms ownership is (or in the case of pistols in the UK, was) controlled is generally not well understood. Background checks are done, current and ongoing and active club membership is required, storage security is assessed, and so forth. These things are not toys, nor are they treated as such by any party in the process; but to think that legal firearms ownership constitutes a credible threat to public safety is simply unjustified by the evidence.

Sparks

Manic Moran wrote: »

Anyone who breaks into my house will not be making it up the staircase.

Needless to say, the US view on the topic of firearms ownership is slightly different to ours

It wasn't me!

Sparks wrote: »

Needless to say, the US view on the topic of firearms ownership is slightly different to ours

Ah now, to be fair, no-one who breaks into my house is getting up any stairs either, if only because I live in a bungalow.

Fratton Fred

If people want to defend their house, shoot at targets or kill maimed animlas, then why not use a rifle, or a shotgun?

Keep a baseball bat under your bed or a bolt gun in your vets bag.

As far as I and a great deal of people, can see, a handgun is a small sidearm designed to be carried with you as you walk the streets. why would you want to do this unless you had the intention of using it?

Sparks

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If people want to defend their house, shoot at targets or kill maimed animlas, then why not use a rifle, or a shotgun?

Excuse me?
What, you want to ban pistols which were custom-built - and only suitable for - the Olympics; but you have no problem with people shooting other people with rifles or shotguns?
Seriously?

Keep a baseball bat under your bed or a bolt gun in your vets bag.

A bolt gun isn't anywhere near as practical for humane dispatch. In an abbatoir, a custom-built facility, yes. In the field, no.
And is that baseball bat for human or humane dispatch? :rolleyes:
(By the way, it'd be illegal under Irish law to keep it there for burgulars)

As far as I and a great deal of people, can see, a handgun is a small sidearm designed to be carried with you as you walk the streets. why would you want to do this unless you had the intention of using it?

A handgun is not a small sidearm.
A sidearm is a kind of handgun.
Not all dogs are child-eating rottweilers.

(And if you're ignoring being told that pistols are used in the Olympics and other such sporting events, then why should your opinion as to what a pistol is used for count for anything?)

Manic Moran

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If people want to defend their house, shoot at targets or kill maimed animlas, then why not use a rifle, or a shotgun?

Keep a baseball bat under your bed or a bolt gun in your vets bag.

The great thing about using a firearm for defence instead of a baseball bat is that I don't need to let the other guy get close to me. I can stop an intruder climbing the staircase when I'm still nice and safe in my bedroom. Pistols are far handier for such situations than a rifle, and are arguably better than a shotgun, despite common perception.

As for target shooting, pistol shooting is simply a different sport. What you suggest is analagous to saying "Nobody should race motorcycles, because if you want to drive fast around a track, you can use a car."

NTM

It wasn't me!

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If people want to defend their house, shoot at targets or kill maimed animlas, then why not use a rifle, or a shotgun?

This is a dangerous idea to spend too much time on, because nobody in this country holds a privately owned firearm of any sort for the purpose of self-defence, but from a practical defensive point of view, a pistol is far more pointable, and thus useful in confined spaces, like a home. Think about turning a corner with a six or seven inch pistol versus a shotgun with thirty inch barrels. Also, pistols can't be used for hunting in this country, only target shooting, and it's simply illogical to say shotguns and rifles can be used for shooting targets instead; not in pistol competitions they can't. Manic put it well when he said it's like suggesting the building of motorcycles serves no purpose when there are perfectly adequate cars instead.

As far as I and a great deal of people, can see, a handgun is a small sidearm designed to be carried with you as you walk the streets. why would you want to do this unless you had the intention of using it?

Which is why the majority of people shouldn't talk about things they know nothing about, to be honest. Nobody with a legally held pistol is going to be wandering around town with it in their jacket pocket. Not many paper targets pop up when I'm wandering around the city, and that's the only reason they're licensed. So, in response to your final sentence, the answer is that you're completely wrong about why people have pistols, and they simply don't do what you're suggesting.

Fratton Fred

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Which is why the majority of people shouldn't talk about things they know nothing about, to be honest. Nobody with a legally held pistol is going to be wandering around town with it in their jacket pocket. Not many paper targets pop up when I'm wandering around the city, and that's the only reason they're licensed. So, in response to your final sentence, the answer is that you're completely wrong about why people have pistols, and they simply don't do what you're suggesting.

wednesday night another person was shot and in killed London. a teenager caught up in cross fire outside a supermarket. The amount of handguns kicking around is getting out of control and something needs to be done about it. Young kids (without wishing to get into any PC debate) particularly yong black men, see it as a status symbol to carry a gun with them and it needs to be stopped.

can someone please explain why people need to own a private handgun? it does not make sense. Yes I understand it is a sport (although darts isn't interestingly enough) and different to rifle shooting, so keep it in a club under lock and key.

analogies to motorcycles and cars are fine, but people aren't using motorcycles to kill people, they are getting hold of handguns somehow and shooting people.

since they brought in the ban more people have died from small arms fire. strangely enough, since they brought in a drink drive limit more people have died from drink driving related accidents. should we laugh at that law as well?

It wasn't me!

Fratton Fred wrote: »

wednesday night another person was shot and in killed London. a teenager caught up in cross fire outside a supermarket. The amount of handguns kicking around is getting out of control and something needs to be done about it. Young kids (without wishing to get into any PC debate) particularly yong black men, see it as a status symbol to carry a gun with them and it needs to be stopped.

Since I'll put an enormous amount of money on the bet that they didn't apply for licences for these handguns, what is preventing the licensing of them going to do to control the numbers of illegally held ones on the street? There's no logic to it.

can someone please explain why people need to own a private handgun? it does not make sense. Yes I understand it is a sport (although darts isn't interestingly enough) and different to rifle shooting, so keep it in a club under lock and key.

Sparks has already explained that; it's a security nightmare. Firearms in the home are in concealed safes in an alarmed building with people in attendance. The last part is the key difference with a club, along with the fact that a club with a dozen pistols and nobody in attendance is a far more attractive target, and an easier one, than a home for an ambitious thief.

as regards reason, to compete in numerous pistol sporting events. Some people play football or cards, some jog, some take walks in the country, and some people shoot targets under controlled conditions on shooting ranges. Makes sense to me. I have my sport, and since I don't object to the pastimes of others when they have no adverse effect on me, I don't see that anybody else has the right to object to mine either.

analogies to motorcycles and cars are fine, but people aren't using motorcycles to kill people, they are getting hold of handguns somehow and shooting people.

Motorcycles and cars have an impressive death toll too, let's not forget. Why should they be allowed? Actually, why allow rifles or shotguns, but not handguns?

since they brought in the ban more people have died from small arms fire. strangely enough, since they brought in a drink drive limit more people have died from drink driving related accidents. should we laugh at that law as well?

Nope, as one directly targets a problem, while the other creates an irrelevant scapegoat for public approval.

Fratton Fred

Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan both has legally licensed guns.

I have nothing against your sport and I have nothng against guns per se. I do want to see the amount of gun crime reduced and I want to see guns removed from the streets.

Sorry if that interferes with your sport.

Manic Moran

I have nothing against your sport and I have nothng against guns per se. I do want to see the amount of gun crime reduced and I want to see guns removed from the streets.

Sorry if that interferes with your sport.

So let me get this straight.

Because you dislike what other people (over whom I, and it appears, the law, have no control) you wish to infringe on my ability to do whatever the hell I want to do for a sport which has no effect on anyone but me? I am not responsible for abuse of perfectly innocuous tools by others, yet you would punish me for the actions of others? To keep with the motorcycle analogy, they make great getaway vehicles in bank robberies. Because of this, let's ban motorbikes?

Why not say that I take exception to the waste of fuel and excess pollution at my local airport when the King Air (using about 230 litres an hour) takes people up for the utterly useless sport of throwing themselves out of it. Or that since hate speech can incite riots which themselves can end up in violence, let's ban all speech?

The ridiculous ban in the UK has not achieved anything but the removal of a sport from the UK's population. The removal of the ban in Ireland has not resulted in an increase in criminal violence. It is not for individual shooters to justify why they need a pistol, it is for others to justify why they should not. And that simply hasn't been done in a supportable manner.

NTM

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

So let me get this straight.

Because you dislike what other people (over whom I, and it appears, the law, have no control) you wish to infringe on my ability to do whatever the hell I want to do for a sport? I am not responsible for abuse of perfectly innocuous tools by others, yet you would punish me for the actions of others?

Worked for Marijuana tbh.

Why not say that I take exception to the waste of fuel and excess pollution at my local airport when the King Air (using about 230 litres an hour) takes people up for the utterly useless sport of throwing themselves out of it.

so long as they abide by carbon emmission standards and all that good stuff

Or that since hate speech can incite riots which themselves can end up in violence, let's ban all speech?

No but we have banned hate-speech.

The ridiculous ban in the UK has not achieved anything but the removal of a sport from the UK's population. The removal of the ban in Ireland has not resulted in an increase in criminal violence. It is not for individual shooters to justify why they need a pistol, it is for others to justify why they should not. And that simply hasn't been done in a supportable manner.

NTM

Sport is one thing. And typically in sport you dont need what would be considered concealable weapons unless im gravely mistaken. Surely hunting and clay shooting is not done with MAC-10s Desert Eagles and Ak-47s? And only in the most bizarre of circumstances would you ever need a Knife that can explode a victim's internal organs.

It wasn't me!

Overheal wrote: »

Sport is one thing. And typically in sport you dont need what would be considered concealable weapons unless im gravely mistaken. Surely hunting and clay shooting is not done with MAC-10s Desert Eagles and Ak-47s? And only in the most bizarre of circumstances would you ever need a Knife that can explode a victim's internal organs.

Pistol shooting is still a sport, and not one that can be done with shotguns or rifles, obviously enough.

RDM_83

Asking this on a point of curiousity but does anybody know what the standpoint is with handguns in Northern Ireland, what I mean is that politicians of which Gerry Fit would probably be best example were issued pistols for their own protection.
Politicians are also protected by assigned British security personel what I'm wondering is about the status of Sinn Fein minders I'm going to on a limb and say they have firearms and also that they have serious criminal records so just wondering how these cases are dealt with (Gerry isn't in his armoured black taxi anymore and "not one bullet" is now the catch phrase of the "disidents"

Sparks

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan both has legally licensed guns.

Actually, Hamilton didn't. He'd been kicked out of several shooting clubs and when he renewed his FAC for the final time, he lied about his membership status. He was also the subject of a complaint and had threatened the complainant with a firearm. What happened after that point should never have happened - the police dropped the ball significantly. Similarly with Ryan - his neighbours constantly ignored his shooting them with an air rifle, his boss didn't report to the police that they'd disciplined Ryan for showing up to work with a hunting knife in his boot and a pistol in his belt; had anyone made one phone call, we wouldn't know Ryan's name today.

I have nothing against your sport and I have nothng against guns per se. I do want to see the amount of gun crime reduced and I want to see guns removed from the streets.
Sorry if that interferes with your sport.

First of all, you're not special. There isn't a target shooter out there who wants to see gun crime go up or to see more guns on the streets. We get robbed too, we have families who are in harms way, and next time you think in "us and them" mode, remember that "we" are a part of "us" as well.

But frankly, if you want to reduce gun crime, you need more police enforcing the law and arresting criminals. What good did eliminating a sport (and an olympic one at that) do for crime levels? Not one thing. It got Tony Blair elected and that was about it really.

Overheal wrote: »

Sport is one thing. And typically in sport you dont need what would be considered concealable weapons unless im gravely mistaken. Surely hunting and clay shooting is not done with MAC-10s Desert Eagles and Ak-47s?

Correct. However, you generally won't find legislation banning any kind of firearm to be specific enough, or sufficiently well-informed as to the technical aspects of firearms, to ban the firearms that are used by criminals while leaving alone the firearms used by legitimate target shooters, hunters, farmers, vets and so on. Instead you get "ban all pistols". A blanket, across-the-board ban on everything, whether it be a .22 calibre olympic pistol or a .50 calibre desert eagle. That's the problem with banning the tool used by criminals instead of catching and imprisoning the criminals themselves.

Overheal

You're telling me they wouldn't possibly be able (or rather, don't) distinguish between a 50-callibre round (the size of your thumb) and a .22 callibre round (smaller than a pea)? Something seems wrong there

It wasn't me!

In mainland Great Britain? Nope, no distinction. A pistol is a pistol is a pistol is banned.

(longarm pistols notwithstanding, as they're something of an odd pistol hybrid, and other long-barrels pistol-like firearms which get in on funny criteria)

kowloon

Manic Moran wrote: »

In certain situations, a pistol is far more suitable than a rifle or shotgun. Anyone who breaks into my house will not be making it up the staircase.

NTM

Don't a lot of people keep a short shotgun for just that purpose though?

Overheal

sawn-off shotguns: definitely illegal

Manic Moran

kowloon wrote: »

Don't a lot of people keep a short shotgun for just that purpose though?

Not in California. Someone in government decided that they were of no possible legal use, and banned them.

NTM

RedPlanet

I suspect that if specific types of firearms are banned and removed from their owners, the criminals will just end up using the legally permitted ones instead.
So it's probably best to go after them all.

I think it's still illegal to grow hemp, even the variety that doesn't contain THC.
But some places do, with the approval of the Dept of Justice. As far as i understand.

Manic Moran

I suspect that if specific types of firearms are banned and removed from their owners, the criminals will just end up using the legally permitted ones instead.

The statistic posted in the OP appears to indicate that this has not happened. Either that, or they've just become better shots with pistols and are hitting their targets more often.

NTM

RedPlanet

Tbh, the OP about statics seems a bit odd.

In 1998 prior to the ban on legally held pistols, 10.1% of injuries caused by criminals were attributed to illegally held pistols.
In 2005/2006 that statistic had jumped to 20.6%, this information according to the author is available from the Home office.

Prior to the ban there were probably a lot more legally held pistols, statics of injuries caused by those guns are not accounted for in the 10.1% figure.
After the ban, it's possible that lots of those formerly legally held pistols are now illegally held, and injuries caused by those guns are accounted for in the second figure.

Fratton Fred

Manic Moran wrote: »

Either that, or they've just become better shots with pistols and are hitting their targets more often.

NTM

Not in the case of the poor lad in south London though.

anyway, you drive a bloody tank, what do you want with a handgun?

Manic Moran

Prior to the ban there were probably a lot more legally held pistols, statics of injuries caused by those guns are not accounted for in the 10.1% figure.
After the ban, it's possible that lots of those formerly legally held pistols are now illegally held, and injuries caused by those guns are accounted for in the second figure.

True. Which brings up two more problems.

1) Gun bans don't work on a practical level. One can't wave a magic pen creating a law and have everything disappear. That said, those who are sufficiently law-abiding to actually turn their firearms in are more than likely not the ones who would be at risk of causing criminal injury to begin with.

2) My understanding of the amount of criminal injuries caused by pistols before the ban which were legally owned, vs criminal injuries caused by pistols which were not, was such to be pretty miniscule to begin with. This figure, which you correctly state we do need in order to make any sort of proper determination, needs to be found.

anyway, you drive a bloody tank, what do you want with a handgun?

Tank doesn't fit in my driveway.

NTM

Fratton Fred

Manic Moran wrote: »

True. Which brings up two more problems.

1) Gun bans don't work on a practical level. One can't wave a magic pen creating a law and have everything disappear. That said, those who are sufficiently law-abiding to actually turn their firearms in are more than likely not the ones who would be at risk of causing criminal injury to begin with.

2) My understanding of the amount of criminal injuries caused by pistols before the ban which were legally owned, vs criminal injuries caused by pistols which were not, was such to be pretty miniscule to begin with. This figure, which you correctly state we do need in order to make any sort of proper determination, needs to be found.

maybe not, but in the UK we have seen an almost exponential escalation in gun crime, particulalry gang related gun crime using hand guns. The days of the east London Geezer and the sawn off holding up a bank are over. its now young black men trying to emulate Jamaican and American role models. The Met Police have operation cruser in place to try and combat this, but it does not appear to be working very well.

When the ban came into place, there were not many pistols in the UK full stop, legal or otherwise. Until the situation is under control then i don't think the government can contemplate removing the ban as no one has any idea what it will do.

Incidentally, where do you buy a legal handgun from (supposing you could)? a gun shop? would they not have large stocks of guns and therefore become a target for criminals in the way a gun club is supposed to?

for the time being, removing guns from the country seems to be the best option imho.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Tank doesn't fit in my driveway.

NTM

or under your pillow I guess:D