Talk:Firearms regulation in the United Kingdom/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Firearms regulation in the United Kingdom. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

removal of latest stats

An editor continues to arbitatarily delete recent edits on the latest gun crime statistics, I don't know why as they contain multiple sources from the BBC and the Guardian. What the stats do recognise is that the gun crime picture in the UK is far from the rosy image painted by the article. Supposedly, Wikipedia is about authenticity, recently however, there does seem to be a political element creeping in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.152.116 (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

This is not a place for statistic dumps, and nor is it a place for rosy or not rosy observations of any kind to be made, that is original research, and banned on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is primarily about being a reliable and neutral encyclopedia. Statistics on gun crime are not the purview of this article. that is commentary of crime, and not encyclopedic. A piece of information can have as may good third party reliable source as an editor wants, but if it is irrelevant, not neutral, and unrelated to the content of the article, is will rightly be removed.

On the contrary, the level of firearms crime is very much pertinent to the scope of this article. The level of overall firearms crime has - despite media scare-mongering - been falling consistently over the last decade. Including the published crime statistics here reflects that for what it is. The specific breakdown by crime type is also necessary to illustrate exactly what is being counted. I have therefore re-instated the statistics, and will update when time allows (anyone else if, of course, free to do so). Nick Cooper (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It is a dump of stats, which do not further the article, to include the information, start a separate article on the History and Trends of Firearms Offences in the United Kingdom, it does not belong on this page, clogging it up, and overly lengthening the page that is just absurd, to dump stats and go lets keep 2011 stats as the most recent in the lede even though it is 2017. This is purely i like it i want to keep it informations without any objective reasoning behind the inclusion. Illustrating what is being counted is a political matter, and a POV matter, it does not aid with the article being accessible, it is just a statistic dump. Sport and politics (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

These data have been on this page for years. What suddenly changed now apart from your opinions? Nick Cooper (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The above is a because reasons argument, and does not give reasons for the inclusion. The reasons for the information being more suited to a separate article have been set out, please provide actual reasons as to why the information should remain other than, its been here forever, just keep it. Sport and politics (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

So now with your latest edit you are attempting to pretend that there is no political element in governments setting firearms legislation (i.e. firearms policy). How does that work? It is a fact that almost all handguns were banned by a Conservative administration, then the incoming Labour administered extended that ban. Surely this demonstrates that such measures have cross-party support in the UK, and there is no right/left division, as in other countries? Nick Cooper (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Please provide reasons as requested above. Please avoid commenting on the contributor of posts. This is not a personal discussion, if a personal discussion is wished for please go to the relevant user talk page. The reasons stated, are also not reasons for inclusion related to this discussion topic. The reasons are for an unrelated topic. Please stick to the original topic of discussion, if you wish to initiate a new area of discussion please initiate that. Sport and politics (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you trying to argue that firearms crime is unrelated to firearms policy in the UK, even though one of the primary drivers of that policy is to counter firearms crime? Nick Cooper (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

This topic needs to focus back on the original issue, can the reason for the inclusion of the statistics and guns crime breakdown, be given a reason for inclusion? Sport and politics (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The reason is inherent in the topic of the page. One of the primary drivers of firearms policy in the UK is the control of firearms crime. How many more times or in how many other different ways do you need to hear that before you get the point? And please, stop hiding behind false accusations of "personal attacks." You are the one who turned up here imposing your own misinterpretation of the page subject, so pointing out where you are wrong is not a "personal attack." Nick Cooper (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a notice of disengagement from this discussion, due to the nature of the comments being made in this discussion, and the inability to focus on the content of the discussion.

@Sport and politics and Sport and politics: the problem is that the WP:NOR issue created entirely by Nick Cooper is failing to be addressed, first he attempts to dominate the article with his WP:NOR then another editor even changes the template to suit their political agenda and now any attempt to bring the article in line with best practice is rebuked and then deleted outright with no discussion or railroaded over, tbh, its a pretty damn poor state of affairs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.152.116 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)‎

No, the real issue is that it is pointless you trying to hammer home a "point" based on partial-year statistics, or trying to extrapolate a national picture from London-only statistics. Throughout the article we use the full-year national statistics as soon as they are available, which they will be in around three months time. Then we can properley compare apples with apples.

I would also note that while the cited Independent article claims that, "police say the pattern [of crime in London] is being replicated around the country," there are no figures quoted to back this up. In actual fact, the ONS release for the year ending December 2016 states: "Offences involving firearms increased by 13% (to 5,864) compared with the previous year (5,176 offences)." Simple maths would suggest that almost all of the national increase can be attributed to the London increase, and that the situation outside London has been essentially static. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Note [46] 404s.

The article linked does not work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.40.242 (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Move

I used my admin tools to fix a cut and paste move done by Pokajanje. I have no strong opinion about the move itself from Firearms policy in the United Kingdom to Gun laws in the United Kingdom. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Firearms policy in the United Kingdom which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I had to merge the RM discussion here to allow the contested initial move to be reversed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 23 August 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There isn't a consensus here as to whether the ENGVAR issues should outweigh the consistency argument, and there hasn't really been sourcing provided by either side as to what it is commonly called in the UK, which seems to be the crux of the opposition. This has been going on for three weeks now, and I don't think another relist will be helpful, so I'm closing it as no consensus. This defaults to the title staying at Firearms policy in the United Kingdom for now. If someone wants to try another RM in a few months so that there can be a more through look at sourcing, I think that would be appropriate. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Firearms policy in the United Kingdom → Gun laws in the United Kingdom – Consistency with other such articles: Gun laws in Canada, Gun laws in France, Gun laws in Maine etc. Pokajanje|Talk 16:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). TonyBallioni (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

"Gun laws" is an Americanism. "Firearms policy" is what it is called in UK. Are we going to rename Parliament as British Congress? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pokajanje and In ictu oculi: technical request has been procedurally changed to an RM. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:ENGVAR as explained above by In ictu oculi. Consistency is required only within individual articles, there is no basis in Policy (or the MOS) for requiring consistency in titles among different articles. There is in any case a substantive difference between "law" and "policy", they are not the same thing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose firstly per WP:ENGVAR, but also because "policy" is more appropriate to the common law and non-gun bearing environment of the UK, where policies implemented in relations to firearms may not be "laws" in the sense of specific legislation at all but simply regulations set by the Home Office. That would be true for some other countries too of course. But as an English-speaking country the term for this article isn't a translation it really is "firearms policy".In ictu oculi (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Support per nom. Every other such article is "gun laws in XXX", this is the only article with a different title. Zero evidence that this is an ENGVAR issue, in fact I could find hardly any articles using the phrase "firearms policy" in major British newspapers, whereas there are hundreds of references to UK "gun laws". Ivar the Boneful (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Support As someone from the UK "firearms policy" just isn't right. Compare the fallout from the Dunblane massacre, where all the aftermath is about gun (not firearms) control. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removing RS because of... OR?

Wow... I just noticed this edit, where a report by the BBC, indicating crime increased despite gun control, was removed due to "misreporting based on journalists failing to understand statistical significance". So we can decide that reliable sources are "wrong", because we don't like what they're reporting? I'm surprised this edit was allowed to stand, and hasn't been addressed in all these years. - ^theWOLFchild 18:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Firearms policy in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The Tory Party and Labour Party responses to Hungerford and Dunblane need to be clearer

Which political party did and said what after Hungerford/Dunblane is too vague in the article.

The overall issue is often (falsely) presented as a "clone" of The US situation (that the Republican Party generally opposes gun restrictions whilst The Democratic Party are in favour of gun restrictions) but in Britain there is far more of a consensus over the need to have severe restrictions - and the article is too vague on that. In fact most of the gun restrictions in recent years have been brought in by The Tory Party not Labour, though Labour has supported them.

(That is because by coincidence all 3 gun massacres - Hungerford, Dunblane, Cumbria - occurred during Tory rule and they duly responded with further gun restrictions). Which is more or less the complete opposite of what occurs in The US, where The Republicans tend to do and support nothing in response as regards gun restrictions whether ruling or whilst in opposition.

The Tories act after gun massacres in Britain, and in theory Labour would too but that hasn't occurred only in point of fact - by coincidence no massacre has occurred under Labour rule.

The "Piers Morgan" nature of that existing part of the article (i.e. falsely tweaked to make sense to Americans and giving the impression that only Labour brings in gun restrictions or that it is somehow the exclusive or major driver of that) needs to be clearer over what the ruling party and opposition did and said after the 3 massacres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr gobrien (talk • contribs) 16:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Colonial law

Formerly, this same British common law applied to the UK and Australia, and until 1791 to the colonies in North America that became the United States.

Britain had more colonies in North America than just the Thirteen Colonies, in particular Newfoundland and the Province of Quebec (1763–1791) which became part of Canada. Presumably these laws would have applied there too? Hairy Dude (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

"Dunblane was the UK's first and only school shooting"

It states this in the lead but when I checked the school shootings article it listed two others, one in 1967 and one in 1988 so I shall remove this line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriosissimus (talk • contribs) 00:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)