Talk:Firearms regulation in the United Kingdom/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Gun crime

gun politics uk looks like it was made by an american and is biased through his eyes. it needs to be done by a brit the way they record crime has changed and that is one of the main reasons for the apparent increase in crime by british crime survey cs, crime has gone down gun crime http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0308.pdf general crime http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb1107.pdf

british crime survey http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0607.html

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/crime0607summ.pdf page 6 confirms ... story and bcs chart http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/10/it_is_an_almighty_embarrassmen.html

the above was added by jack

Legal firearms in private hands has almost no connection with gun crime in general. Yes you do get the rare nutcake with a regestered firearm who will kill a person or two, but almost all criminals aquire their firearms illegally, so there's no point in restricting most gun's because regestered shooters aren't the problem; it'll make no difference to gun crime other than making it worse. Reducing gun crime require's going after illegal fire-arms and having a liscencing and registration system in place, to seperate criminals from the innocent. Goldfishsoldier 03:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree, sir. However, banning handguns does make it possible for the police to act immediately, without having to discovered whether the person is licensed. While I'm in favour of sporting clubs being allowed, with restricted facilities, to have any type of firearm on site (if they can be safely kept and/or discharged), it does not take away from the fact that simply having a good registration isn't the only way one can deal with firearms use. I would make the conjecture, and it is only that, that most crimes involving firearms involve handguns, and while most of these would be illegal, you remove the entire issue by banning them. While I find this really quite irritating, it does assist the police. The real issue is whether it's a short-term solution only, as actual numbers of firearms in the UK have been rising since they banned handguns, and while the police have an 'easier time', it does not appear to have dramatically reduced the problem nor seems to be making things better anymore. Roche-Kerr 18:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC

I agree with you in alot of what you've said, but the fact remains that the laws have had no impact on gun crime. I find it quite sad that as a shooter myself, I feel I'm being used as a scapegoat in regards to gun crime. Goldfishsoldier 00:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually no, you don't remove the issue of crimes with handguns by banning handguns. If that logic worked then no one would ever do anything illegal and it wouldn't even be a topic for debate. If you outlaw guns then only outlaws have guns. --Dekker451 (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Guns weren't banned because of "gun crime". They were banned because of killing sprees carried out by gun fetishists (the kind of people who don't think owning a gun in peacetime is barbarous in the first place) while not directly pertaining to any other crime. And article talk pages are not an appropriate place for this kind of complaint anyway; wikipedia isn't a discussion forum. Chris Cunningham 01:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Out of 22,789 "firearms crimes" in 2004/05, 11,825 (52%) involve air weapons. A further 3,333 (15%) were imitation firearms (including soft air weapons, BB guns, deactivated weapons, etc.). The figure for handguns was 4,347 (19%), although this is likely to be an overestimate, given that only weapons positively identified as air weapons or imitations are counted as such, otherwise they are recorded as "handguns," even though they're not. Nick Cooper 20:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I just noticed this isn't the entirety of this conversation. What Goldfishsoldier said on 29th December was originally in the thread 'Relevance of lack of natural predators in the UK' in Archive 2, in response to my most recent comment, but Thumperward moved it into a new thread (this thread) just before he archived the previous conversation. The edit summary makes it seem like he somehow couldn't see the relevance of what Goldfishsoldier said to my comment, and decided that he must've meant to make a new thread for it in the first place. What we're left with here is a thread that seems to not be discussing improvements to the original article at all, when in it's original context it was merely part of a digression originating in Admbws' comment "Whatever you do, avoid making the assumption that more guns in private hands will give criminals easier access to guns" and my response to it. Should this whole thread be deleted along with everything from Admbws' comment onwards in the other thread, due to the digression? Should the digressive part of Admbws' comment be deleted and the rest after that moved to Admbws' user talk page, maybe with annotation or a preface explaining what happened? Or should the rest of the conversation just be brought back from archive 2?

Thankyou. I was going to point that out myself, but I never got around to doing it. Sorry I'm a bit late in responding. Goldfishsoldier 04:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In any case, I'd also very much like to thank Goldfishsoldier for his response. It seems I made a rather large error in my ignorance, although I'd still like to expand on what I said. Under the assumption that this thread won't be entirely deleted I'll continue here. Quite simply, if there are guns in large supply within a country, it is easier to acquire them for illegal sale or use. If the only guns coming into or being produced in a country legally are for use in the military or law enforcement, there's simply less of them to steal. Also, if guns are legal in general it opens the possibility of passing off illegal firearms as legal. In a country like Britain, when you see that someone has a gun you know that it's been acquired illegally.

If you see someone has a gun then it's a little late to worry about deterrence, isn't it? --Dekker451 (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

There are many different ways to obtain a firearm illegally, and I don't really know much about the sources of illegal firearms in the USA, but if firearms are banned they can only be acquired either from stealing from the military or police, or from smuggling from outside the country. If guns are legal in general there are many more sources of illegal firearms. There are many new and more accessible places from which guns can be stolen, such as gun stores, gun suppliers or just someone else who already owns a gun. There may be legal gun distributors that make illegal dealings. I'd also think that if a licensing and registration system were in place, you'd run into many problems when people want to take their guns to a different country, or when people want to bring guns into the country legally. This might open opportunities for gun smugglers. Even if the restrictions on gun ownership are applied entirely effectively to people who want to bring a gun into the country, unless the proportion of illegal firearms obtained from sources other than smugglers is minute, my point still stands.

Basically, if guns are legal in general much more law enforcement and resources are required than if they are illegal entirely, and more opportunities exist for acquiring firearms illegally in general. Anyway, if the licensing and registration system is as effective as you say, maybe it should be mentioned in the article that in Britain there is currently very little discussion or comprehension of the possibilities of a licensing and registration system. By linking back to the topic of the article itself, did I just complicate the discussion about moving or deleting parts even further? For the record, I think you should be able to discuss the article's subject on the talk page because it can bring omissions of the article to attention. -- Haridan 02:12, 14 January 2006 (GMT/UTC)

Actually, I would contest that claim that here, "when you see that someone has a gun you know that it's been acquired illegally." As I stated above, out of 22,789 "firearms crimes" in 2004/05, imitations, deactivated firearms, BB guns and air weapons (virtually all of which are legal)accounted for 15,158, which is 67%. And even then this is an underestimate, since it's only the weapons possitively identified as such, either by being recovered by the police, or if the damage/injury they inflict is plainly or forensically shown to be from an air weapon pellet. Statistically, if you see someone with a gun in the UK, it's more likely not to be even a "real" firearm, let alone illegal. Nick Cooper 08:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well obviously, but you can usually tell whether it's real or not. There are laws against toys or otherwise looking like real guns. That's one reason they're usually a different colour. If you see someone with what looks like a real gun, it's most likely a real gun, and therefore illegal. -- Haridan 04:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about replicas and air weapons, not "toys." Most people, for example, would not be able to tell the difference between an "illegal" Walther P88 and the "legal" CO2-powered air pistol version (www.airguns-online.co.uk/walther_cp88_3.htm), even if they had it in their hands. In addition, most Airsoft guns are scale replicas of real weapons that would "fool" many people to a distance of a few feet. The reality now is that most British people are so unfamiliar with firearms that if they see someone other than a very young child with something that can be safely assumed to be a toy, anything that looks like a gun is usually taken to be one. Nick Cooper 08:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Now this is the point where I shut a lot of you gun-control pinko's down. I'd like to point out two examples: Switzerland and Finland. These two countries have some of the lowest crime rates in the world. And yet, there's something unique about them, both countries have about 2 million private gun owners, out of populations of 7 million and 5 million respectively, and yet gun crime is almost non existent. I mean Switzerland and Finland, two (Neutral) countries who are constantly advocating "we can all get along", and they've got one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world! Oh, the Irony. And Haridan, I looked at your profile and noticed you call yourself an expert gamer, what games do you consider yourself an expert in? Goldfishsoldier 04:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Switzerland has to seen in the context of a country in which virtually every adult male does military service and remains in the reserve/militia until middle-age, with their service weapon kept at home. Finland similarly relies heavily on conscripted reservists and, of course, is sparsely populated and has a longstanding hunting culture. Training and utility respectively are important factors. However, the simple reality seems to be that there really is no real corrolation between a counrty's level of firearms ownership per se and the use of firearms in crime in the same country, although elements on both sides of the debate continue to argue that there is, one way or the other, to further their case. Nick Cooper 10:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, because most people have under gone military training and have a thorough knowledge of firearms and I would think enjoy shooting, would go out and buy their own guns hence the high gun ownership and I don't think any criminal would be stupid enough to break to a home in Finland or Switzerland knowing the high gun ownership. Goldfishsoldier 22:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The statistics section again seemed to obfusctate rather than clarify its presentation of the relative gun crime figures in England and Wales with those of the U.S. It had mixed up statics per 100,000 showing ALL homicide crime for UK (of which only 6% per cent is actually gun homicides) with the per 100,000 rate for murders in the US, the vast majority of which involve guns (over 70% and not less as it was originally reported).This made it difficult to compare liek with like. I have changed the section to make the comparison crystal clear. I expect that someone will attempt to obfuscate the data again, but I will be on guard to prevent this ! --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I also deleted the comparisons between London and New York because GUN crime figures are not separately published for London (as far as I am aware). The MURDER rate in London about 3 times lower than New York's. Baltimores is about 20 times worse than London and Washington DC's is about 15 times worse. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/24/usa.andrewclark I suspect that, as with the national data, the percentage of murders with a gun in London will be lower than in the American cities but of course we cannot add speculation into the article. So I therefore decided to delete reference to the relative murder rates in London and New York because we simply don't know have comparative gun homicide stats for the cities.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Shotguns

Do shotguns with a magazine capacity of more than 2+1 rounds require a Firearm Certificate? Goldfishsoldier 07:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes they do require an FAC. You would have to satisfy the FEO that you required one to deal with a serious pigeon problem, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.253.155 (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"Right to keep and bear arms"

This Americanism has no place in the intro. One wouldn't start Religion in the United Kingdom with "Unlike in China, there is practically no organised Taoist movement."--Nydas^(Talk) 08:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The intro begins with a comparison with Australia. Why are you not objecting to that, as well, if you think comparisons with other countries are inappropriate? Nick Cooper (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with that one either. It's especially strange in the opening sentence.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It exists, perhaps ironically, because the phrase itself and the philosophical concept behind are derived from the English Bill of Rights of 1689, much of which is the basis for the Untied States' Constitution. It is not an Americanism, it is an ancient concept that was codified and part of English common Law until the early twentieth Century when it began to be desecrated.68.35.136.214 (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the shared historic roots, in practical terms nobody in the UK talks about any inherent right to have weapons. Those who argue from a position of "rights" talk about general rights of individual property, individual responsibility, freedom from government interference and so forth, not about specific rights to have guns. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

For the most part the same is true in the US, so the point stands. It's not an Americanism. --Dekker451 (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Spurious "rising gun crime" claims

I've deleted the claim that, "gun crime in the UK has continued to rise since the [handgun] ban due to drug and gang related violence." This is simplistic and misleading. Gun crime was had been rising for many years previously, and the confiscation of the handguns of just 50,000 people simply had no effect on that rise. This trend peaked in 2001/02 at 22,401 crimes, and since then the uise of firearms in crime has steadily fallen to 14,250 crimes in 2008/09. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The article badly needs to distinguish between the number of gun homicides committed with unlicensed firearms, and those where licensed firearms were used (such as the Cumbria shootings), each listed over the last 5 years or so. That would give a reasonable perspective.86.42.210.173 (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you'd actually be hard-pressed to find such a breakdown. The closest proxy would be that in 2008/09, of the 39 people killed with firearms, 28 (72%) were with handguns and 2 (5%) were sawn-off shotguns, which will overwhelmingly be de facto unlicensed weapons. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

2012 Olympics

We need further work on this entry. There has been extensive ongoing concern over the so-called promised 'sporting legacy' from the 2012 Olympics yet the shooting venue and the machinations behind not choosing the National Shooting Centre (25 miles from London) and demolishing the venue entirely may lead to a judicial review. Most shooters believe that the lack of a legacy indicates further draconian political gun control down the road aimed at legal shooters while ignoring booming illegal gun possession.Twobells (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

From what I've heard Bisleys range wasn't an open one so it would of been like gifting a private club a free range. Pleasetry (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Errors in Pistol Section

There are several errors and an assumption in this section. Original in italic, my comments in bold.

UK law defines a 'pistol' as a gun with a barrel shorter than 30 cm or a total length of less than 60 cm. true

All pistols must be muzzle loading to be permitted. Revolver pistols are permitted. Semi-automatic or pump action pistols are permitted, but they must be chambered for .22 rim-fire rounds. All other pistols, single shot or otherwise are permitted. Pretty much all wrong. Muzzle loading pistols and revolvers are allowed. No semi-auto or breech loaders of any type allowed regardless of calibre

Some UK gun dealers get around these stringent restrictions, however, by making permanent modifications to the gun, lengthening the barrel to the required 30 cm and attaching a fixed stock, or even simply a metal rod, extending from the grip of the gun away from the barrel, so the total length is the required 60 cm. These weapons are treated by law as rifles. These firearms are treated specifically as long barrelled pistols or revolvers - not rifles. Pistols must be .22lr, revolvers may be any calibre. They do not get around restrictions but are built to comply with regulations. All long barrelled types must be built as such from new. Conversions of standard pistols is not allowed

Hope that helps —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.204.21 (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Quote: "Shotguns are defined essentially as smoothbore rifles by UK law. " This has to be bollocks. A rifle and a smoothbore are logically mutually exclusive not overlapping categories. Surely Shotgun is adequate to define for the article, but in law we need to reference the actual Acts involved. ChrisPer (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. To be honest that whole section seems borderline nonsense. I'll see if I can track down the actual legislation. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen such a npov article, I have updated the main body of the article to balance it out with some actual facts and their cites, I have included the actual pistol calibres allowed to reflect actual firearms legislation and not some anti-gun nuts npov personal preference. Twobells (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Increased reliance on guns by law enforcement, and increasing restrictions on civilian self defense

The topic of Increased reliance on guns by law enforcement is neglected, to a puzzling degree. Was it a myth that most police were not armed with firearms prior to 1965? What is the history of the arming of law enforcement?Additionally, the increasing restrictions on self defense for civilians is another neglected topic. While it is only one source, http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome/ seems to review legislative and public policy changes fairly objectively. Would an expert in the topic please consider tackling these topics? UC232 (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No it wasnt a myth; in 1965 police were generally unarmed. Lots of people add ill-informed changes on the self-defense issue but like me they usually have only read RKBA-oriented sources writing for the American viewpoint and these writers are near worthless in the context of UK politics (cough Joyce Malcolm cough). I would like to see some of my UK correspondents chime in but they have not so far. ChrisPer (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

They were unarmed because anyone killing a policeman suffered capital punishment.86.42.200.38 (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Safe storage of shotguns post Hungerford.

I think I'm right in saying that the requirement for safe storage and registration for 2+1 shotguns only came in to effect post Dunblane not post Hungerford as stated in the article. Unless my memory is failing with old age or I was ignorant of the law I'm sure I had a pump-action 2+1 long after Hungerford I don't recall the sale being registered and there was certainly no security inspection, I kept it under my bed. I still have the old certificate and it makes no mention of any such requirements.

I'll dig out a reference and make the changes unless anybody has a competing reference to show me wrong. 92.40.224.113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

Lead section

Regarding the following in the lead section:

involves mainstream media hysteria and bias plus political opportunism to pandering to the wants of victims relatives and general disarmament of the public.Governments and gun control campaigners claim it's

My opinion of this is that it is not neutral (and a WP:NPOV violation) and certainly should not be in the first sentence of the article. I propose that this be changed back to how it was prior to User:Pleasetry's change on 11:37am at 28 June 2012:

places its main considerations on how best

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly incredibly POV, not least because it uses the words "hysteria," "bias," and "opportunism," which appear nowhere else in the article! Nick Cooper (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It's an accurate account of the situation reflecting gun politics in the UK if you think it's it's not neutral well that's because there is a fair bit of bias in the UK over the guns issue.

My edit was also less biased than the opening line parroting government PR.Pleasetry (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The claims you have attempting to introduce appear nowhere else in the article, and you have not suggested any reliable sources that could be used to support them. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

A case in point are the attempts to get airguns banned or licensed in scotland, which has a biased media,pandering to victims, in this case a child shot in suspicious circumstances and a few opportunistic politicians as seen in these links below. Daily RecordTheSunPleasetry (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

From what you've (User:Pleasetry) said above, this proves what the article orginally said (here and the second one I posted). The push for banning or licensing only started after someone was injured hence "main consideration" for public safety - had there not been anything happen than maybe Pleasetry's would be valid.

If you want to add it in the article then find a reliable source which you can quote. And I suggest that this sort of negative side to the debate should be placed under its own level 2 heading.

Please don't change the lead section without a consensus being achieved here. This applies to both Pleasetry & Nick Cooper, the wording is fine how it is until this is sorted out here.

Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Your reasoning of main consideration of safety in the news article is flawed because there are many other explanations for their motives.Using your crude logic, even the most ridiculous scaremongering campaign would show that it's main concern was for safety.Perhaps you should go over to this article and claim it's main consideration was for the safety of a European country.Of course if I were being less inflammatory I could point to drugs as another topic with many false claims for their restrictions aimed based on safety.

What the news articles I posted do show is that victims relatives have been given disproportionate exposure for their views and that there are others willing to ride along on them, in this case Kenny Macaskill and Tommy Sheridan. Here's some more articles with the same sentiment. EveningTimesrecord

The original leading statement of safety is unjustified and something that's been an issue before and contradicted by sections of the article so that's grounds for editing it out. In fact the rest of the opening paragraph showing gun murders could be balanced against other deaths to see if the problem hasn't been shifted elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleasetry (talk • contribs) 21:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Remember to comment on content, not the contributor and assume good faith, I am trying to fix this problem.

In any case I spun your point to show the other side of the “argument”. That is to say that it can be argued both ways, so what about if we go for a more, what I think, neutral side of your statement, fell free to suggest an alternative or change it. I’ve taken it from the past talk page discussion you mentioned.

Gun politics in the United Kingdom are dominated by an official view that firearms should be very tightly controlled, and there is generally public support for this position.

Then it goes straight into ”The United Kingdom historically...” (which shows the other side of the argument) and then states that it has become "stricter from the late twentieth century".

How does this sound to you? Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Gun politics in the United Kingdom is dominated by an establishment view that firearms should be tightly controlled.

That sounds better but could use a different word than dominated. Pleasetry (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I see what you mean, got any ideas? I was thinking maybe directed or lead. Or "...United Kingdom is overshadowed by an official government view that...". Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the discussion below - I'm going to leave this. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Media and Police

Two subjects that have happened recently dealing with the above are maddonnas concert which involved the police making empty threats to stop it going ahead because she used guns as props,the cinema shootout in America where the mainstream TV news was slanted towards gun control,there was also the incident in tottenham where a range of guns were used by the police. Those are just a few examples that highlight the need for these sections in the article. Pleasetry (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could identify specific sources for those? Nick Cooper (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Madonna Concert

Note the idiot comment from an a politician trying to link it to Dunblane school massacre and the news article claiming she was speaking about those dunblane follow up laws with the write to your MP comment rather than complaints about the police.

[1] [2] There's some links off the top of my head. Pleasetry (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the first example is the website of Heat magazine - hardly a reliable source for anything. What exactly are you highlighting about with the articles on Michael Green? Nick Cooper (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Perfectly acceptable as an example of media reaction, of course you're welcome to look up the other numerous news relating to it, as for the michael green incident why don't you tell me what you see. Pleasetry (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You're spectacularly missing the point. Find a reliable source that discusses such coverage; we can't cite the coverage itself and apply our own interpretations to it. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Rounding error argument

Before this keeps getting batted back and forth even more, I checked the source, which actually gives 41 firearms homicides for "United Kingdom (England and Wales)." Given that "United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)" appears separately, it seems clear that the 41 is just for E&W, notwithstanding the absence of Scotland from the table. The population of E&W is 56 million, so the deaths equates to 1 per 0.73 per 100,000 rather than 0.066 for the 62 million population of the whole UK. The number given for NI is 5 deaths, which with a population of only 1.8 million would substantially alter the whole UK rate; from memory, historically Scotland has had a rate between that of E&W and NI. Anyway, since the actual rate is noted befiore the reference to the rounding in the source, there is no need to repeat the "real" number again. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Firearms crime statistics

In dealing with the recently-added citation request r.e. the degree to which the overall figures for "firearms crime" are skewed by air weapons and imitations, I've added the most recent Home Office breakdown by both weapon and crime type. In doing so, it's became apparent that the whole "Firearms crime" section is rather disjointed, flipping between homicide and other firearms crimes, different time periods, international comparisons, etc. To be honest, the whole thing probably need re-working to primarily reflect the current position, with some discussion of past trends. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No consensus?

There is no political debate on gun control, which to me implies there is a consensus. After this misleading reference in the intro to a pro-gun lobby and a lack of a consensus, there is no mention in the article of any organisation that is pro-shooting, which also implies the title of "Gun politics in the UK" is an oxymoron. The purpose of the intro is to describe what is in the article. I have to admit to sympathy for pistol shooters who find it impossible to practice their sport but they could not be described as 'pro-shooting' in a way that people such as the Americans would recognise. There may be a handful who disagree with gun control but does there have to be 100% in favour for there to be a consensus? JMcC 18:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

While there is certainly no debate equivalent to that in the United States, firearms are still a major political issue, but largely restricted to their use in a criminal use; any discussion of legal use is firmly fixed in that context. Nick Cooper 08:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry Nick you have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about, let me ask you, which British shooting organisations do you actually belong to? There is a very strong debate going on and has been for decades, what astonishes me is that you suggest there isn't. Which shooting bodies suggest there is no debate on UK gun control of which you are a member? Twobells (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be unable to differentiate between discussion within pressure groups, and a wider debate on the issue within society as a whole. The latter simply does not exist in any meaningful sense, no matter how loud the former. One does not have to be a member of any pressure group to know that the general public is not interested in changing the status quo. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Pro-shooting organisations? Well, let's try http://www.basc.org.uk/ who are an active enthusists and lobbying group. It's also not hard to find those who want the UK gun laws to go further e.g. http://www.mothersagainstguns.net/. Neither site makes much headway in getting its voice repeated by the mass media. Perhaps people don't spend much time debating it because the general consensus is that it isn't too broken? Of course, that's an opinion; any such statement in the article would need to be sourced. Notinasnaid 12:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We've probably reached a stage now where the public - if they consider it at all - consider that current restrictions are about as far as they can go without banning firearms outright. The MAG site seems long on hyperbole and selective use of statistics, and short on common sense or a sense of proportion. The bottom line is that the high-end figures usually bandied about are over-inflated by a) air weapons and replicas, and b) criminal damage; essentially offences that wouldn't have been reported even ten years ago. Nick Cooper 17:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop cleaning this article according to a certain ideology, there are many orgs that are dedicated to relaxing firearm ownership in the UK including the NRA, BASC, NSA, CPSA, BSSRA, Campaign for Shooting, the list goes on and on. Twobells (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

All of which pale into insignicance compared to the overwhelming majority of the population which has either little interest, or wish for the exact opposition. Please stop tryign to insert your bias for what you think the situation should be, in the place of what it actually is. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me are you speaking for the British public? Do you actually shoot or a member of a shooting body? You say that the largest shooting bodies in the UK 'pale into insignificance' compared to the 'majority' dismissing essentially millions of people. However that is not the issue, you state that there is no debate, you are quite wrong. So please stop editing according to your mistaken and ignorant view of British shooting of which it is quite clear at this point you have absolutely no understanding. This is just the NRA's most recent activity in regards to UK gun control http://www.nra.org.uk/common/asp/general/Legislation.asp?site=NRA Twobells (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I shoot air pistols, if that's any business of yours. Again you seem unable to tell the diofference between what happens within special interest groups, and society as a whole. Whatever the NRA gets up to is not the sort of wide scale political debate that you seem to think it is. There are no calls by the general public to relax current firearms legislation, and no apparent moves within Parliament to do so. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Updated Poor Poor NPOV Article

I have yet to see such a poor article, I had to update the main body with actual facts as they pertain to the law and include cites. UK gun ownership is the highest it has ever been and rising year on year, I have now included the actual legal pistol calibres and removed the npov nonsense. The article was so npov it had yet to include a single cite and instead offered up npov ideological fairy stories, that has now been rectified along woth some needed balance. The Dunblane shootings have now been put into context as pertaining to police incompetence and their failure to use existing legislation to prevent the tragedy.Twobells (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say that any sentence in a lede which includes "to place these demands into context, what was unknown .." raises an immediate flag over its status under WP:NPOV. This article is about gun politics; the point of it is to describe how British gun laws ended up the way they have, and to describe the current and past debates over what they should be. To introduce even the most uncontentious fact as something "which was unknown" when the law was unframed is to endorse a point of view that the decision was taken in error. And even if we accept unchallenged that Thomas Hamilton's possession of guns was due to a failure to operate the gun laws as they existed at the time correctly, that does not in itself establish that the subsequent decision to tighten them was wrong. The King's Cross fire happened because someone failed to obey the existing rules for smoking on the London Underground. Many aircraft disasters happen because the crew do not follow the correct procedure: Kegworth, Staines, Ermenonville, Tenerife ... but that doesn't stop procedures being changed in the aftermath.

To pointedly refer to the mass shooting incidents as "extremely rare", even though cited to a BBC News online backgrounder, is also endorsing a point of view. Their rarity is demonstrated anyway by the neutral statement that there were only two. However I wonder if space can also be found to record that after the Cumbria shootings, the Prime Minister specifically rejected "knee-jerk legislation", and there was no subsequent significant demand for any. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Rejections for it may be also be based on the guns used being 'snob guns'.

Thomas Hamilton's possession of guns was due to a failure to operate the gun laws as they existed at the time correctly, that does not in itself establish that the subsequent decision to tighten them was wrong.

It is considering the actions afterwards.Pleasetry (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Twobells, while the page clearly did need some remedial work, I would question some of the edits you have made, including but not limited to:

• "...there are 7,000 armed [police] officers who routinely carry both a battlefield assault rifle, the Heckler & Koch G36 as well as a Glock 17 automatic pistol."

Firstly, I do not believe it can be said with any authority that the G36 is the most common police long-arm, especially considering the long-standing near-ubiquity of the MP5. Secondly, it is grossly misleading to describe even the G36 used by police as "a battlefield assault rifle," given that they are all semi-automatic only, and generally the compact G36C variant. This sort of emotive exagerration is almost as bad as the ignorant media describing semi-automatic only MP5s as "sub machine guns."

• "Gun ownership levels are currently the highest that they have ever been, the sport of shooting is becoming increasingly popular with many women now taking up the sport..."
• "However, gun ownership levels have increased dramatically from 2005 to 2012 and are currently the highest that they have ever been, the sport of shooting is becoming increasingly popular with many women now taking up the sport."

The given citation ([3]) does not suport these claims. The data table shows that Firearms Certificates at 141,775 in 2009/10 was only 75 more than the number in 1995, but Shotguns Certificates that numbered 653,800 in 1995, stood at 580,653 in 2009/10, a drop of 73,147. In the same time period, the number of firearms held under Certificates did rise from 1,739,400 to 1,809,653 but that's a relatively modest increase from 2.2 to 2.5 firearms per Certificate. Really all these figures show is that we "now" have less people holding marginally more firearms. In addition, given that the population of England and Wales increased from 51.82 million in 1995 to 55.2 million in 2010, the ratio of certificates to population has actually dropped from 1:65.1 to 1:76.4. Possession of a Shotgun or Firearms Certificate remains the preserve of just 3.28% of the population; we can't give the impression that it is has anything like mass appeal. The cited source makes no mention whatsoever of women taking up sport shooting at all, so the claim elsewhere that, "hunting... which was once a relatively elitist activity has in modern times become far more popular amongst sportsmen and women from all walks of life," is also suspect, despite what BASC may claim.

The specific claim regarding the period 2005 to 2012 is selectively biased, not least because the cited data only goes up to 2009/10, but mainly because it apparently uses the earlier date solely because that was the lowest point of the steadly decline after 1995. You really can't tout the 20% increase from 2002 to 2009/10 as being significant, without mentioning the 17% drop from 1995 to 2002.

More to the point, prior to 1995, the peak year for Certificates issued was actually 1988, with 155,400 Firearms Certificates and 882,000 Shotgun certificates - a total of 1,037,400 (the peak year for Firearms Certificates was 1987, at 159,000), compared to 722,428 in 2009/10. Moreover, the most recent figures for 2010/11 show that Firearms Certifcates dropped to 141,347 and Shotgun Certificates dropped to 564,269 - a total of 705,616. Regardless of whether this is a temporary fall, or the start of a more more sustained one, we certainly cannot claim that legal ownership is now "higher than ever," because it clearly isn't.

• "Two extremely rare incidents in 1987 and 1996 where men holding licensed firearms went on shooting sprees and killed led to strong political demands to restrict firearm use."

This sentence, the rest of the paragraph it starts, and the treatment of Hungerford and Dublane in general is misleading. There was massive public pressure for new legislation after both events, but especially after Dunblane, so to suggest that the only impetus from was from the government and the Snowdrop Campaign (and the "media storm" before Robofish deleted it) is disingenuous in the extreme. In more general terms, I would question whether Uttley can be considered a reliable source, considering that her book is structured around an unproven conspiracy theory. It is no secret that Hamilton's certificates could and should have been revoked under the existing legislation, so we should be able to find a more acceptable citation for it.

• "Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 which made private possession of automatic and semi-automatic rifles larger than .22 calibre illegal."
• "Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 which extended the ban to automatic and semi-automatic handguns..."

It is already established elsewhere that fully automatic firearms were banned by the 1937 Act, so they can't have been "more banned" by the late-1990s legislation.

Nick Cooper (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but the HK G36 is an assault rifle as described by Wikipedia, HK and every source available. The weapons fire mode has absolutely nothing to do with it's ability as an assault rifle. Twobells (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A weapon with no automatic or burst fire mode cannot be an "assault rifle" by definition. If a rifle does not have selective fire, it cannot be an "assault rifle." Nick Cooper (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

For an article on gun politics there does seem to be a lack of the politics on the more recent issues for example the spurious arguments for restricting the sale of airsoft guns were often along the lines that somehow you could make a real gun from a toy one.Pleasetry (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe that that was ever seriously suggested, rather the argument was that "realistic imitation" firearms - including Airsoft types - can be both used in crime, but also may be treated as genuine firearms by armed police, leading to fatalities of "suspects," which has certainly happened in the past. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I've removed from the lead of this article some of the text which was criticising the responses to the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres and arguing that the gun laws haven't made much difference. This may or may not be true, but more importantly it doesn't belong in the lead of the article. The lead should simply give a summary of the facts. The body of the article is where the pro-gun and anti-gun arguments belong. Robofish (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Misleading Data and Country Comparisons

While there is no doubt that the US has a problem with its murder rate, this article (especially the introduction) reads as very misleading especially regarding the comparison of the UK to other countries (mostly the US) and the effect of gun control laws on murder rates. It is true that the murder rate specifically of murders in the UK using guns (and excluding police shootings in the UK while those are counted in the US numbers) are considerably lower. However, as the table below shows, the UK murder rate is still quite high and while depending on the year, it's anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 that of the US, the difference is nowhere near as extreme as is implied in this article as having been affected by gun laws. It's obvious that a lack of access to guns has done little to deter those in the UK who wish to murder someone from coming up with ways of taking lives. Similarly, UN stats show that the UK has a considerably higher rate of rape, assault, and overall violent crime than the US does. While I am not arguing that the value of gun control be downplayed, these other crime stats that show that reducing legal gun ownership does not necessarily change the safety within a country should be accounted for in this text.

United Nations Homicide Rates
Country	Year	Murders	Rate	Source
United Kingdom	2009	722	1.2	Eurostat
United States	2009	13636	4.4	FBI
United Kingdom	2008	780	1.3	Eurostat
United States	2008	14180	4.6	FBI
United Kingdom	2007	915	1.5	Eurostat
United States	2007	14831	4.9	FBI
United Kingdom	2006	904	1.5	Eurostat
United States	2006	14990	5.0	FBI
United Kingdom	2005	894	1.5	Eurostat
United States	2005	14860	5.0	FBI
United Kingdom	2004	1047	1.7	Eurostat
United States	2004	14210	4.8	FBI
United Kingdom	2003	1046	1.8	Eurostat
United States	2003	14465	5.0	FBI
United Kingdom	2002	1220	2.1	Eurostat
United States	2002	14263	4.9	FBI
United Kingdom	2001	1052	1.8	Eurostat
United States	2001	14061	4.9	FBI

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew.ward (talk • contribs) 07:12, 4 November 2012

Firstly, I see you make the familiar claim that US firearms murder figures include police shootings, which as far as I know is simply not true. Obviously the overall figure for firearms deaths (i.e. including suicides and accidents) will include police shootings, which I believe is the source of the confusion. Even in the latter, it is somewhat naive to somehow suggest that all police shootings are a "good thing," especially if they are of unarmed people.

Regarding the figures you quote, the Eurostat ones are an amalgamation of the separate reporting streams for England & Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, the homicide rates of which historically rise in that order (i.e. E&W lowest, NI highest, Scotland in the middle). It should be noted that the Home Office figures for England and Wales include "major" outlying events, as follows:

Year 2010/11 includes 12 victims of Derrick Bird.

Year 2005/06 includes 52 victims of the 7 July London bombings.

Year 2003/04 includes 20 cockle pickers who drowned in Morecambe Bay.

Year 2002/03 includes 172 victims of Dr Harold Shipman.

Shipman's victims were actually spread over many years, upto the last in 1998, whilst the rest are individual events, some of which have the effect of . In comparison, the US figures for 2001 do not include the victims of 9/11.

I would dispute your claim that the the UK figures for any one year are between a third and a half of the US, as the range is actually 27% to 43% - nearer to a quarter and three-fifths. The most important factor, though, is that firearms generall only accounts for around a fifth of UK homicides, whereas in the US it is something like two-thirds.

As regards the other crime types you mention, rape in itself is not higher in the UK, but sexual assaults is due to reporting differences - i.e. certain assaults would be classed as sexual in the UK, but would not be in the US. The same applies to assault; for the more serious comparable types there is near parity, with only the minor type having a higher rate in the UK, buecause the figures include incidents that would not be classed as assault at all in the US. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggest consolidate sections on Firearms Crime and Impact of Firearm Legislation

The article could use a bit of polishing. It is rather disjointed at present. One place to start would be to consolidate the information in two separate sections that cover similar topics: Firearms Crime and Impact of Firearm Legislation. Dezastru (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of change of crime figures reporting?

In skimming the article, I did not see much discussion of the change in crime figures reporting after 2002 (just one very brief mention), or discussion about the conflicting information available from different sources of reporting (British Crime Survey vs other methods of ascertainment, for instance). Considering how dense the text is with figures from various years, it would seem important to note how different sources of crime stats have produced some uncertainty as to what the actual figures are, and why it might be that the different surveys produce different figures. Dezastru (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This Home Office document details the impact on the figures by the changes to the National Crime Reporting Standard, and a useful set of examples appears at the bottom of page ix to outline the type of incidents that would be henceforth counted as "crimes," which may or would not have been previously. On page xi it states:

"The national picture for total crime demonstrates an overall NCRS impact of 10 per cent on the recorded crime statistics for 2002/03. In other words, the crimes counted in 2002/03 were 10 per cent higher than they would have been under pre-NCRS re c o rding, reflecting a change in recording practice rather than a real increase in crime. This estimate represents the impact on this year’s recorded crime statistics, not the full impact of the NCRS, as this will have affected the data for some forces in earlier years.

• The violence against the person offence grouping demonstrated the largest NCRS impact (23 per cent in 2002/03). Whilst most of the impact occurred in the first quarter of 2002/03, a subsequent rise in the ratio of crimes to incidents in the latter part of the year may indicate that the NCRS impact is not yet complete for this offence type.
• The national picture demonstrates that domestic burglary figures were three per cent higher because of the NCRS effect, with no indication of any continuing effect beyond the second quarter of 2002/03.
• The NCRS effect on robbery is estimated to have been in the region of three per cent, although the comparatively small numbers of robberies mean that small changes in the number of crimes and incidents can result in disproportionately large estimated effects. Once again, there is little evidence of any enduring NCRS effect post 2002/03.
• The national picture for theft shows an NCRS impact of nine per cent. The data suggest that this effect has now levelled off.
• The impact on vehicle theft was estimated using a different method from other offences because most forces were unable to provide incident numbers relating specifically to these types of theft. The result is an adjustment to the change in recorded vehicle thefts from 2001/02 to 2002/03 from minus one per cent to minus nine per cent. Most of this impact occurred in the first two quarters of the year.
• The national picture demonstrates that criminal damage figures were nine per cent higher because of the NCRS effect."

Most firearms crime sub-types show a sharp increase in both 2001/02 and 2002/03, after which the settle down again (with the exception of homicide, since you can't really change the definition of a dead victim). This can best be appreciated by figure 2.4 on page 53 of this report. I think it would possible to do our own version of this chart, but including in it the pre-1999/00 and post-2009/10 data, which are also available. This will kill several birds with one stone, in that it will clearly show the long-term trend, as well as the impact of the NCRS, and non-impact of the VCRA. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? QuentinUK (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Nick Cooper (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Should we split the article?

The history of The troubles means that gun policy, politics and gun lawlessness has been different in Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK. Also, in the article we have lots of details shootings reported from England and Scotland, but nothing about the lawless shootings in Northern Ireland which makes it all a bit unbalanced in my opinion. Would it not be better to have this UK article as a very short overview explaining the general similarities and differences within the UK nations, but split most of the article off into separate articles on policy in England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland? The statistics are often restricted to England and Wales and Scotland has a somewhat different legal framework to that in England and Wales though I'm not sure if the laws in Scotland are the same as in E&W, or how the legal system differences/devolved powers affects policy setting, policing and gun controls.. I presume the devolved government in Northern Ireland publishes its own stats. Thoughts anyone? --80.223.105.147 (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

There's certainly something to be said about clearly differentiating out the three legal entities, although until very recently it's been the case that Scottish laws on firearms have been reserved to Westminster, so in practical terms any new English/Welsh legislation had a direct Scottish equivalent. Northern Ireland is clearly a completely separate case, and would benefit from a completely separate page, whereas it might be better to have England & Wales and Scotland on the same page, but with specific sections (e.g. firearms crime) clearly separated. I think one thing we are currently lacking is a section imitation firearms, of which the current "Airsoft and BB Guns" section would be a part. The air weapons section also needs some work, e.g. to cover those air pistols that are realistic replicas of modern handguns, which are nonetheless controlled as air weapons, rather than imitations. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Out Of Date (2000) Table

For best practice I have added an 'out of date' tag to the article (2000!) in support of it's supposition that 'England & Wales' (British?) Gun crime has reduced. Twobells (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 February 2013

"Plastic" has been spelt wrong in the section about BB guns. 87.113.154.175 (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 February 2013 - UK firearms legislation

My query:

The "Impact of Firearm Legislation" section states early on...

"homicides involving the class of firearms prohibited initially increased in the early years following the legislative change"

I would propose a change to

"Intentional firearm homicides continued to rise even after the change in legislation, before commencing a downward trend from 2003 onwards."

My reasoning:

The text as it stands is statistically speaking true, however, it is being disingenuous in alluding that the increase in incidents was in some way linked to increased gun control. This is a common position from American-influenced gun enthusiasts, who argue regulation increases the number of incidents because it takes the gun out of the hands of the good people and the bad people keep their guns. A more honest representation of the statistics would highlight that gun incidents had been increasing in the UK for half a century or more, and this rise continued to accelerate even after the 1996 law change, before eventually being brought under control in 2003.

Tighter gun control reversed a long trend of increasing gun crime, it's wrong to allow the information to be subtly presented in a way that suggests the opposite is true. There is no solid statistical link between gun control and increased gun violence, this myth is very harmful to right-thinking people everywhere, and only provides an ideological service to fanatics intent on distorting data for the benefit of their own agenda.

As your wiki points out further down, there were changes to data collection that also influenced the statistical upwards growth of gun crime. The attached report details this as well.

For a more up to date and UK-specific set of statistics, see this parliamentary report from 2012

78.86.29.237 (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The change of the label air gun to air weapon

The previous discussion has brought to my attention a subtle shift in government reports and mass media calling air guns, air weapons. As airguns aren't really weapons it should really be reported in the airgun section when this started to happen and why. Pleasetry (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The Home Office statistical bulletin Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002: Supplementary Volume from January 2003 refers to "air weapons," and a quick check of the archive for The Times show them using the term as far back as the 1960s and 1970s in a wide variety of contexts (e.g. political reporting, sporting events, hunting, etc.). "Air Guns" seems to be used about twice as often, usually in crime reporting. The BSSC also uses the term, and even on a personal level, I think I'm more likely to refer to the air pistols I own as "air weapons" rather than "air guns."

There simply doesn't appear to be any evidence for the "subtle shift" you claim, but even so we would need to cite a reliable source actually making that claim, otherwise it would be original research.

Incidentally, the last time I checked, the rate for the criminal use of air weapons was actually significantly higher in England & Wales than in Scotland (the proposed legislation is - of course - just the SNP band-standing). Nick Cooper (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the change in the name in law happened with the labour government.

I don't know why you would want to call your pistols an air weapon unless you had an illegal one. Pleasetry (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a issue calling them "air weapons" because they demonstably do have the potential to be used as such (i.e. offensively), despite being completely legal. Luckily, I have no propensity for shooting anything other than targets or - occasionally - rodents.

As regards the wording of legislation, the likes of the Firearms Act 1968 and the The Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969 clearly use the term "air weapons," so the change - if there indeed was one - is not as recent as you suggest. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Inaccuracies or confusing language in Impacts of Legislation section

That section is at best quite confusing, it appears to be inaccurate. It talks about " self-loading (semi-automatic) weapons, including shotguns and .22 calibre pistols, are totally banned other than in Northern Ireland" this seems to imply that .22 calibre semi-auto rifles are also banned, and this is simply not true. Also semi-auto shotguns are permitted and are allowed on a section 2 Shotgun certificate, provided they comply with the 2+1 rule. Please make this section clearer and more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.145.154 (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Self defence

Twobells, it's not clear which part of the source you have cited backs up the claim that firearms may be used in self-defence by an appropruiately-licensed civilian. Could you please clarify? Nick Cooper (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Under the 2008 Criminal Justice & Immigration Act, which includes firearms and shotguns but also covers any weapon that comes to hand. [4][5] 81.110.28.183 (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The first of your sources doesn't mentioned firearms except in the context of them in the hands of the criminal; the second is only a reference to a one particular case where a shotgun was used for self defence, and it is couched as being dependent on, "the extremity of the circumstances," i.e. it's not a blanket justification for such use. Incidentally, you shouldn't put extrenal links in "ref" brackets on Talk pages, since the rarely have reference lists built in - you should use single square brackets instead. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

False claims of rising gun crime

I have deleted the recent anon IP claim that:

"According to Mail Online News, gun crime has skyrocketed in the last decade despite a weapons ban in effect."

This was sourced to this October 2009 article.

In fact, the number of all firearms-enabled crimes had fallen each and every year in the five years before the publication of the article (i.e. 2004/04 to 2008/09), while crimes not involving air weapons had falled in two out of the previous three years (i.e. 2005/06 to 2008/09). In addition, both measure fell consistently in both of the two years since then (i.e. 2008/09 to 2011/12). The actual figures are (all gun crime/non-air weapons crime):

1997/98 = 12,805 / 4,903
1998/99 = 13,874 / 5,209
1999/00 = 16,946 / 6,843
2000/01 = 17,698 / 7,471
2001/02 = 22,401 / 10,024
2002/03 = 24,070 / 10,248
2003/04 = 24,094 / 10,338
2004/05 = 22,893 / 11,069
2005/06 = 21,526 / 11,088
2006/07 = 18,481 / 9,645
2007/08 = 17,343 / 9,865
2008/09 = 14,241 / 8,200
2009/10 = 12,976 / 8,051
2010/11 = 11,227 / 7,024

Gun crime as a whole is now lower than it was in 1997/98, while crimes not involving air weapons are now lower than they were in 2000/01. Any suggestion that gun crime - by whatever measure - is currently or has been recently rising is completely untrue. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I light of the anon IP's reinistatement of their bogus claims, I would further note that taking handguns that could only be held for sporting purposes away from less than 0.1% of the population can clearly have no connection whatsoever with the levels of overall crime across the UK. That would be like claiming that banning Ferraris from public roads would affect the overall number of speeding offences. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No personal research allowed, unless you can cite these statistics the CITED source goes back in as the Mail irrespective of its politics are the gold standard when it comes to research. Twobells (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC).

"Personal research"? You think I rang every police force in the country? The fact is that they come from published Home Office and Office of National Statistics statistical bulletins. The Mail can lie/spin all it likes, but the facts speak for themselves. In addition, you cannot make a false claim of an 89% rise in firearms homicides (which even the bised Mail article doesn't make) without the full context of subsequent years for which figures are available, i.e.:

1998/99 = 49

1999/00 = 62

2000/01 = 72

2001/02 = 96

2002/03 = 80

2003/04 = 68

2004/05 = 76

2005/06 = 49

2006/07 = 56

2007/08 = 53

2008/09 = 39

2009/10 = 39

2010/11 = 58

2011/12 = 42

There's no real trend there, and certainly not the one you seem so keen to imply. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverting back to the left-hand margin, as nesting was getting too deep for practicality.

I think this whole conversation is rather pointless. Here is the upshot: while the anonymous post may have been in error, at the same time it is undeniable that after the BIG gun ban in 1997, gun crime did indeed continue to escalate for a number of years, even according to the "official" figures given above. The firearms crime rate has gone down since the latest legislation, but it is rather hard to attributable that to anything in particular, because [1] again, it was a *relatively* minor change affecting *relatively* few people, [2] the downward trend started before the legislation, and [3] crime has been trending downward in most of the Western world anyway during that period, even in places like the U.S. where per-capita gun ownership has continued to rise. So while crime may be down, any assumption that it is due to gun legislation is highly irresponsible. -- Jane Q. Public (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Which in the UK context is precisely the point. Banning handguns had nothing to do with the pre-existing rise in the rate of firearms crime continuing to rise, and neither did it have anything to do with that rate eventually starting to fall. Taking handguns away from 50 thousand people out of a population of 60 million (i.e. less than 0.1%) clearly wasn't going to do anything other than what it was actually intended to do, i.e. to take away the ability of someone to use a licensed handgun to commit mass murder. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No original research allowed, Nick your frenzied attempts to ride roughshod over this article beggars belief, I'll have to re-write the entire section now you've deleted it. Twobells (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on original research does not preclude pointing out when a particular source is wrong, misleading, or just plain false. To further its own biased agenda, the October 2009 Mail article selectively quotes the Home Office statistics available at time. It headlines an increase of firearms crimes not including air weapons, "from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent..." while neglecting to mention the substantial fall the previous year. The simplest of graphs (i.e. Figure 2.1 in the HO bulletin) for the full ten years shows three years of rapid rises, followed by a steady leveling out, then the start of a falling trend (which, of course, continued).

The article also claims, "The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent." The misrepresentative omission is the failure to mention acknowledge that the actual figures since 1998/99 were:

1998/99 = 865

1999/00 = 1,195

2000/01 = 1,382

2001/02 = 1,877

2002/03 = 2,179

2003/04 = 2,367

2004/05 = 3,900

2005/06 = 3,822

2006/07 = 3,011

2007/08 = 3,241

Clearly there was a falling trend since the high of 2004/05, and that the provisional figure for 2008/09 (which was eventually confirmed as 1,764) was actually a massive fall in itself. For the Mail article to ignore this in order to insinuate a continuing rising trend was morally and intellectually dishonest.

It is not "original research" to point that a single source - i.e. the Home Office statistical bulletin - clearly shows that the Mail article misrepresents that very same source. In addition, since the crime rates have continued to fall, the false claims of the Mail article are now well and truly null and void, so any attempt by you to reinstate it as a supposed valid source will be robustly resisted. It was wrong when it was published, and even more wrong in hindsight. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

As the anonymous IP that first created this talk page, it is hard to convey my original point without having to go back and read what you deleted. When I first posted this, I was almost positive that I was not talking about gun violence, but rather violent crime. The pro-gun POV is not that gun control legislation has no effect on gun crime, but rather that gun control has an insignificant effect on overall violent crime, of which gun crime is a sub-category. To reiterate, if I am someone who intends to commit murder, then I will do so by any means possible. If guns are off the table, then I will turn to knives, blunt weapons, fists, homemade explosives, etc. There is quite a consensus among Britain's news media on the rise of violent crime, and I will list my sources:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-188906/Rapes-rise-violent-crime-soars.html (Slightly old, but still within the decade we have been talking about)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4359744.stm (Slightly less old, but again, still within the decade)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7400372/True-scale-of-violent-crime-rise-revealed.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256474/Violent-crime-risen-44-13-years-Labour.html

http://www.uturnuk.org/the-problem/violent-crime

Sorry if that was not clear -- I had meant to start this topic on violent crime as I said. I will leave my signature stamp this time so that my responses won't be deleted and mistrusted as "anonymous."--173.76.46.132 (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Renamed 'Rampage Killings' subsection to correct term

Rampage killings is just so emotive, pov and utterly wrong in the context of British gun legislation, the correct term for multiple shootings by a civilian is spree killings. Twobells (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It is a correct term, not the only correct term. Also multiple homicides, mass killings, mass shootings, school shootings and other terms are also in use. Rampage killing may be like assault weapon, a term of art to frame the issue favouring certain viewpoints, but I dont think only one term is legitimate. 'Multiple homicide' has been widely used in less emotive articles. ChrisPer (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone keeps removing a primary British police firearm from the article, please stop it. Twobells (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

We only need a couple of examples in the lead, and nobody has come up with any evidence that the G36C yet outnumbers the vast number of MP5s still in use. Simply cherry-picking reports that mention them being used is not good enough. We do not need to duplicate or contradict Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom, which is already linked in the same paragraph of the lead. And - yet again , at the risk of sounding boring - an assault rifle by definition must have a fully-automatic or burst fire mode, so any weapons that clearly does not cannot be one. The UK police describe them as "carbines" which is a clearly recognised and widely understood term in this context. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh 'only' need two do do we? Your pov is so transparent Nick, the G36c is an essential tool used by the British police throughout the land and it is completely irrelevant that the police may or may not use more MP5's than G36's. You tried to stop any mention of the fact it is an asault rifle until consensus and now attempt for whatever reason to delete it from article. 81.110.28.183 (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Firstly it is not an "assault rifle," since it is semi-auto only, and secondly nobody has come up with any proof that the G36 yet approaches the ubiquity of the MP5SF. We also don't need to overload the lead with detail on one particular sub-area of the page sub ject, as per WP:UNDUE. To be frank, your self-evident G36 fetish is starting to look more than a little tragic. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the firearm is semi auto has absolutely no bearing on it's status as an assault rifle. It seems transparent to everyone that it is you that has some sort of G36 fetish because you delete every edit to include it, you dismiss the fact that we have consensus on the issue, rough-riding and maliciously deleting it time and again, why is it SO important to you that the G36 is not listed as a major British police firearm? Twobells (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The presence of an automatic or burst fire mode has everything to do with where a weapon can be classed as an "assault rifle." One that hasn't got either is not one. Full stop.

It is clear that you have an undue obsession with misrepresenting use of the G36 by British police forces as being more common than it actual is. Some forces use it, many don't, and there is certainly no proof that it has overtaken the MP5SF as the main weapon of choice of armed units. The BTP, for example, has chosen to go for the AR-15 based LMT Defender, rather than either the MP5SF or the G36. It would be just as inappropriate to highlight that particular "minority firearm" in the lead sentence of this article, which of course is not directly about police firearms in the first place. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop trying to move the goalposts, you are now calling the G36C a 'minority' police firearm? This is about the fact that the G36C is an assault rifle, as described by everyone including the maker as such except you irrespective of semi auto mode. Please leave the entry alone Nick, we reached consensus a while ago yet you still attempt to delete it. Twobells (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The press are a poor arbiter of accurate terminology in lots of fields, let alone firearms. Just because they mistakenly describe anything that looks like a "machine gun" or "assault rifle" doesn't make them either of those things. The MP5SF carbine is the single most prevalent British police long-arm by virtue of the fact that it has been in service longer. Just because you can cherry-pick a few sources to feed your G36 obsession, doesn't over-ride that fact. As already noted, this is a general page about gun politics, not police firearms, so there is no need to over-load the lead with details pertaining to police firearms, let alone to let in the sort of factually inaccurate sensationalism you seem so keen on pushing. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Obstructing Relevant Material Because Source Is Not Left-Wing

A poll which was exclusively amongst readers of a right-wing newspaper and skewed the questions to gain the required result. Not a reliable source, especially in the lede.

Poll image: poll questions

Here is the original article does anyone honestly think for one moment that the poll has been 'skewed' towards a required result?

Astonishing, editor Black_Kite on this article deleted an entry because the cite was from the Daily Telegraph, the best read broadsheet newspaper in the United Kingdom a newspaper read by proponents of the left, the middle and the right wing, the editor denounced the newspaper for being 'right-wing' and subsequently suggested the cites had no place on Wikipedia. They also suggested the entry has no place in the lede; however, the previous sentence stating how the British public had previously wanted heavy gun controls is? How on earth is that poll 'skewed'? the poll asked many questions each one presented neutrally, as for the Daily Telegraph not being a 'reliable source', that is frankly ludicrous. Let me explain, Wikipedia is a NEUTRAL encyclopedia, not left-wing, not right wing, however newspapers, books, periodicals and magazines all publish articles according to their political agenda, the duty of a wikipedia editor is to strip out bias and write the facts, in the case of this entry a recent poll showed that a 88% sampling of the British public wanted to repeal the handgun ban introduced in 1997. Everyday wiki editors use the Guardian newspaper for citation yet the Guardian is openly left-wing, promoting a left-wing agenda, do we ban cites from that newspaper? Of course not, because irrelevant to the editorial position the facts speak for themselves. Wikipedia is not a platform for the left nor the right, to denounce a cite on the grounds that it wasn't left-wing enough is absurd and has no place here. Are we also to ban the Daily Mail which happens to be the newspaper that has received more awards than any other for its investigative journalism on the grounds that it doesn't promote a left-wing agenda? If a continued left-wing, biased stance is employed on this article I will demand oversight. Twobells (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• "88% sample of the British public"? That would be amusing was it not for the fact you appear to believe something so utterly ridiculous. (For those reading from America, the poll would be the equivalent of claiming that 88% of people don't want Obama to be President ... by only polling Fox News viewers). That poll was not representative, and not neutral, and I actually think that you know that. It was a poll amongst the readers of the Daily Telegraph (the most right-wing paper in the UK, and more importantly the most read in rural areas, where gun control is more of an issue). Not only that, but it was not a simple poll which asked about Britiain's gun control laws - it was a poll where those polled were asked which of a limited number of laws they would like to see changed, one of which was "banning spitting in public" (!). It's hardly surprising, given the stupid alternatives, that the gun control one got the most votes. Also, given that it was pushed as part of a section about gun control laws, it'd be fairly obvious that it would be those interested in the subject that would vote. Of course, you could include it in the article, as long as you included all the caveats that I've just mentioned. But that would be pointless, because it is then useless as a source for anything. When you've got evidence of a poll taken by a reliable polling source amongst a random selection of the British public which suggests that they would like the handgun ban to be repealed, please feel free to add it. Until then, please don't waste our time. Oh, and don't suggest that I've got a political viewpoint on this without any evidence for that. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • You are not addressing the main point, that political bias has no place on Wikipedia, 88% of poll respondents voted to repeal the handgun ban, its there in the cite. As for comparing the Daily Telegraph with 'Fox News' is both hilarious and emotive, your sense of neutrality is fundamentally flawed. The entry belongs there following the supposition that the British public wanted heavier controls for the sake of neutrality and that the issue has moved forward. Your desperate attempt to denigrate the other poll questions fail miserably as the results shocked publications up and down the country. There is a move towards repealing the handgun ban; however it is quite obvious at this point that you cannot accept that. Twobells (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    • OK, so if I found a poll amongst Guardian readers that said 88% of people wished to keep the ban, you'd be OK with that? Thought not. Yu don't seem to realise that you're the one with the political agenda here. Stop it - now. You are now at 3RR. I am reverting your edit because you clearly do not have consensus to include it. Reverting again will lead to a report an WP:AN3. Black Kite (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I am sorry but you do not have consensus to remove it, any attempt to achieve consensus will take at least a month for the various editors to sign in, if you revert my edits I can only assume lack of good faith and report you. Twobells (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Feel free to do that - you will not find much sympathy for a position of trying to insert politically biased material. Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Your 3RR behavior has been reported and a discussion of your recent activity is under discussion, see your talk page. Twobells (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It's an online poll and as such absolutely not a WP:RS as a source for the British public opinion. You don't even have to discuss if the paper is right, left or apolitical, this poll and others like it have mostly amusement value. Sjö (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a poll in a highly respected British newspaper, the same poll was published in hard print on 25th May 2013. The poll was commented on across the political spectrum, the reaction was not one of amusement. Twobells (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Online polls are never reliable. Online polls on newspaper or other websites where that newspaper has a prior POV on the issue are even more unreliable. Online polls which don't even ask the question "do you agree or disagree with the gun control laws", but instead ask readers to choose from a list of possible laws, some of which are frankly stupid, are even more unreliable. Yet you are trying to synthesise that the results of this poll are held by the entire British public - which is clearly false. You are trying to insert falsehoods into the article. It's as simple as that. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Twobells, the bottom line is that - as you must know full well - this was not a properly controlled and weighted opinion poll of Telegraph readers, let alone of the whole of the British public. It was an internet poll open to absolutely anyone who wanted to vote, and - more importantly - it was utterly compromised by being publicised on pro-gun and right-ring sites and forums while it was being run. As Black Kite notes, the idea that 88% of the public want any changes to the current firearms legislation in teh direction suggested is utterly preposterous, not least because there is absolutely no other manifestation of this supposed support through any other media or method. On the other hand, we have actual proper scientifically conducted and balanced opinion polls like this one, which concluded that, "roughly 8 in 10 British adults (79%) feel gun laws should be stricter." Nick Cooper (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

No-one said that 88% of the public wanted a repeal, it was 88% of the readers polled. The lede has to be changed because not all British people want stronger legislation, many want to repeal handgun and the semi auto ban as well. The article suggests that the British public want strong controls when a percentage don't and actually wish to reverse the trend towards tighter controls, in the last year alone three protest groups and two organisations have cropped up demanding a repeal. Subsequently the lede has to change not to do so promotes a lie. Twobells (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You continue to miss the point that it was an open and uncontrolled internet survey. The result was not "88% of the readers polled," it was 88% of those people who chose to vote, and as noted above, it is known that the survey was widely publicised on pro-gun and right-ring sites and forums, many of which are not even UK based. The "result" is absolutely meaningless, especially in the context that a properly balanced opinion poll has shown that 79% of the UK public want stricter laws, not more relaxed ones. Perhaps you would like to cite similarly robust evidence to support your claim that, "many want to repeal handgun and the semi auto ban..." Nick Cooper (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Gun Violence

I see that the partisans have conquered this page as well. Just looking at this page, you would think that there guns are a problem of the past for England when really there are both minor and major problems that have come to light since the gun control measures in the UK. I know I am bound to have some Wikipedia rule thrown at me for the purpose of keep the sheep following the party shepherd, but this statistic is sorely lacking in the article: gun violence rises 89% in the last decade. This is my source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.46.132 (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

That article - which is now almost four years old - has been extensively rebutted above. At the time it was written, available figures showed that all gun crime had fallen in each of the four previous years, and gun crime not involving air weapons has also started to fall (something the writer neglected to mention), and both measures have continued to fall ever since. The actual figures are (all gun crime/non-air weapons crime):

1997/98 = 12,805 / 4,903

1998/99 = 13,874 / 5,209

1999/00 = 16,946 / 6,843

2000/01 = 17,698 / 7,471

2001/02 = 22,401 / 10,024

2002/03 = 24,070 / 10,248

2003/04 = 24,094 / 10,338

2004/05 = 22,893 / 11,069

2005/06 = 21,526 / 11,088

2006/07 = 18,481 / 9,645

2007/08 = 17,343 / 9,865

2008/09 = 14,241 / 8,200

2009/10 = 12,976 / 8,051

2010/11 = 11,227 / 7,024[6]

2011/12 = 9,555 / 6,001[7]

To reiterate: Gun crime was falling at the time of the 2009 article, and it has continued to fall in every year since then. It would therefore be grossly misleading for us to make refernce to the 2009 article, since it misrepresents what had actually happened at the time, and what has happened since was the exact opposite of what it implied.

It is also wrong to link the previous rise to "gun control measures." Only 50,000 people - i.e. less than 0.1% of the population - had the handguns that were banned in 1997, and they could not be held for anything other than sporting or collecting purposes. The idea that their removal has anything whatsoever with the levels of firearms crime - whether rising or falling - is preposterous. Even if we were to accept the idea that changes in firearms legislation "caused" the rise between 1997/98 and 2003/04 (all firearms) or 2005/06 (non air weapons), then we would equally have to conclude that it also "caused" the fall between the latter years and 2011/12. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

recent research by the BASC suggests that the gun crime figures fell after 2009 because they changed the way they were reported, that a whole host of crimes previously included were for some reason removed, a change BASC suggest necessitated by the ever increasingly alarming figures, the BASC went on to say that it was only by flinging huge amounts of cash at the problem did the authorities get any handle on gun crime, once the report s up on their website I'll edit the page to reflect reality. Twobells (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. The figures were falling between 2003/04 and 2008/09 (all weapons - all five years), and between 2005/06 and 2008/09 (non-air weapons - two out of three years). If you graph the figures, there is clearly no significant change in the rate of decline for 2009/10 and 2010/11 that could be attributed to the cause you claim. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Firearms UK

I am trying to add Firearms UK to the listing of Pro-gun organisations, however everytime I do the update gets removed - I'm wondering why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.189.24.56 (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be sourced to a reliable source. (That said, this article is awful.) Facebook will always be reverted because it is a primary reference. Try finding high quality secondary coverage. If there isn't any, that probably means that the organisation isn't sufficiently notable for inclusion. Hope that helps. Regards. James^x12345 22:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Just because some America organisations with US domestic political agendas decide to start "UK chapters" and Facebook campaigns - that will inevitably attract only fringe support within the UK - in the furtherance of those agendas, doesn't make them notable. The very fact that these supposed UK-aimed pages continue to mis-spell "defence" is a reflection of who is really pulling the strings. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

As one of the founding members of Firearms UK I can assure you we are not a chapter of a US organisation. We were formed independently on the back of the campaign against airgun licencing in Scotland. The petition for which is currently approaching 17,000 signatures(hardly a fringe movement). We have also worked with many of the shooting organisations to promote greater unity and action within the shooting community. The admin team are all UK citizens. So I'd thank you to keep your wild conspiracy theories to yourself Nick. Dave-Firearms UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.14.91 (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you have robust systems in force to ensure that all 17,000 are actually have British citizens based in Scotland, but even so they're only 0.32% of the population. You might quibble over whether that constitutes a "fringe" or not, but it's clearly not mainstream. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I should also add that the bot revert of this edit may have been ostensibly because of the inclusion of an e-mail address, but it fails on multiple levels and the material would have been removed, anyway. Facebook pages are not valid sources. Self-published YouTube videos are not valid sources. Blogs are not valid sources. Saying the organisation was mentioned in a magazine article and citing only the magazine's general website - and a completely different one for the writer - is not valid sourcing. Any attempt to reinstate the same material without adequate sourcing will be similarly removed. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe the Youtube videos were "self-published", did you watch them? Trg22 (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL! You think this gem is anything other than some random bloke voicing his own opinions into his PC, and then posting it on YouTube himself? Nick Cooper (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep "some random bloke", but nice of him to make the video and give Firearms UK a mention. The other video is more of a professional production. Neither of them are "self-published", which I guess you were meaning as being produced by Firearms UK Trg22 (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You guess wrong. Obviously you should aquaint yourself with what "self-publishing" actually means - the "random bloke" video almost certainly fits the definition, and therefore is not a valid source for Wikipedia. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Obviously I did guess wrong, thanks for the link. I'd agree that the "random bloke" video would be regarded as "self-publishing". Trg22 (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Nick- Tell you what I shall be providing photographic evidence of the newspapers and magazines the petition has been featured in. Or is this not a credible source? As far as I am concerned the signees to the petition do not need to be based in Scotland as the Public Consultation by the Scottish Government accepted responses from the entire UK as it would affect the rest of the country if they wanted to visit for shooting holidays etc. Whilst on the subject of credible sources maybe you could give me one that lead to your wild theory that we are based on a US organisation? Dave- Firearms UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.14.91 (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I think you should come up with accurate and verifiable sources; just saying, "we got a mention in this special interest magazine," doesn't cut it.

Of course, if you're allowing UK-wide responses, then 17,000 is only 0.027% of the population, so that's even more "fringe."

As to the issue of US puppets, I was talking in general terms considering yours was not the only "campaign" that got its links removed recently, but if that touches a raw nerve with you, I'm happy to say it wasn't "you" specifically. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Nick. Perhaps you can show me the petition that wants to licence airguns? Because apart from A few individuals within the Scottish Government it would seem that most people really are not interested in it one way or the other. Of consultation responses 87% were against licencing. If people wanted it so much they could have responded. You cannot simply dismiss us as being a "fringe" group. We have worked extensively with several of the shooting groups. 17,000 signatures on a petition is a considerable amount and the petition has consistently been in the top 10 list on change.org. Neither can you dismiss "special interest" magazines because they publish things. These magazines are in wide circulation across the entire UK and stocked in many high street retailers. We also featured in an article in the Scottish Sunday Express. However I will be quite happy to supply images of the articles and I would thank you to stop trying to sabotage the articles that mention our work. It is all relevant to "Gun Politics in the UK" and is a a current event that many people who visit this page would no doubt rather be aware of. IIRC you said yourself you weren't happy with people posting out of date articles. Dave- Firearms UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.14.91 (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you're still not grasping the issues here, presumably because you're completely misinterpreting my personal views (hint: I own air pistols and am not in favour of licensing). The cornerstones of Wikipedia are notability and verifiability. In the first, it needs to be established whether the profile of your group is high enough, and for one that is seeking to establish a wider political point, simply having a presence within the shooting community isn't really enough, as it's really just preaching to the converted. An analogy would be, say, a small environmental group that that might be known of within the "green community," but not outside of it. Coverage in the mainstream media would a reflection, and the Scottish Sunday Express piece you mention would be good source, although it may be that here with come into the area of the second issue.

Glad to hear that you are opposed to airgun licensing, I trust you have signed the petition is support of your fellow shooting enthusiasts? Trg22 (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Verifiability is a check to ensure that what editors put in articles can actually be backed up by the sources they give. Ideally in terms of news items, it is better if it is one that also appears on the website of the publication in question, but if not the citation has to be to the specific issue and page in question, so it can theoretically be checked by anyone who has access to the original. Of course, simply saying "we got mentioned in this publication" is problematic unless you summarise exactly what was said. I can quite accurately say that I've been "mentioned" on the Guardian and Channel 4 websites - actual articles, not just comments - but it's meaningless in the absence of any explanation of what the context of those mentions was (actually something quite mundane and non-controversial). Nick Cooper (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I was going to ask about how to verify a non-online publication - so just to confirm, you need publication name, date, page and a summary of what was mentioned? Trg22 (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, title, date, and page are obligatory, so that anyone with access to the either an original or an archived copy (e.g. most UK public libraries have access to national and local newspapers). What is actual said should be summarised in the page text, e.g. rather than, "this publication mentions this," it should be more, "this publication thinks this is better than sliced bread/the worst thing ever." Nick Cooper (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok Nick apologies I'm sure you can imagine this is quite a stressful time regarding the petition amongst other things so it can be a bit frustrating. I've checked and unfortunately there is no reference in the Express or the Shooting Times et al online. I can however provide images dates,pages etc of the petition being mentioned in the Express and Images of Firearms UK and the petition being mentioned in the shooting press as well as BASC's website. I too am glad to hear you are opposed to licencing and would like to ask if you would sign the petition against it? It can be found on Change.org search airgun licence.

I would like to suggest that at the very least an edit should be made in the Scottish Airgun Licencing section of this page to point out that the public consultation on licencing recieved 87% of responses against the proposal and an online petition has achieved 17,000 signatures.(I have just gone through the petition list and 15,980 of the signatures are from British Citizens. I can provide an image of the petition being mentioned in the Sunday Express. Dave- Firearms UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.14.91 (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I added a link to the results of the consulatation including the response rate a couple of days ago, and have now written something up on the petition, based on the 10 July report on the Shooting UK website. There are always issues with on-going petitions in terms of whatever the tally has reached at any given time, but assuming the Scottish Sunday Express report was later than 10 July, you can add that at the end. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)