Talk:Gun politics in the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Firearms (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 


Knife crime[edit]

Do you think this article should note, while gun crime is low, crimes is high? 1,000 knife crime victims in London each month, shocking new figures show from www.standard.co.uk/news, Justin Davenport, Crime Editor, Published: 01 July 2013. [1] Not having guns does not lower crime. Telecine Guy 22:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Compared to what? According to the Bureau of Justice statistics, of 14,610 homicides in the US in 2011, 17.2% were a "knife or blunt object" - i.e. around 2,513 - 0.79 per 100,00 of population. In comparison, in England & Wales in 2011/12, there were 209 with a "sharp instrument" and 51 with a "blunt instrument" - i.e. a total of 260 - 0.46 per 100,000 of population. In other words, the US rate is 72% higher than the E%W rate. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Firearms offences?[edit]

would I be correct in thinking that an increase in "gun crime" over a period when there is a "clampdown" does not mean the "clampdown" has been unsuccessful but the number of offences of possession have increased, but not the number of actual shootings?--Streona (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


I am afraid that you would not be correct - "clamp downs" are always on licensing and with ultra-minuscule exceptions, licensed owners do not commit offences.

For example in the 1997 Act Target Shooting with handguns was banned. So one could not license handgun for that purpose. This had no effect whatsoever on the illegal use of firearms because the perpetrators were still committing the same offences that were extant before the ban. For example being in possession of a firearm without lawful authority.

References[edit]

American style lobbying[edit]

The stats have been updated. The role of UK shooting organisations does not involve active political opposition. Gun politics is the wrong name for this article. Gun policy, gun laws or gun control. But I can see all every article about a country say 'Gun Politics'. This is done to match the US lobbying technique to "teach the controversy". Change the name of every other country's gun control article, and leave the US to their own machinations. 120.136.34.176 (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Spurious "Crime Prevention Research Center" citation[edit]

An anon IP has added the text:

However, it should be noted that overall homicide rates increased after the gun ban legislation and overall homicide rates are higher now than before the gun ban legislation was passed. [2]

This is highly misleading, given that number and rates had been steadily increasing since 1961. The graph on the cited page does show a pronounced spike for "2003" and similarly high rates either side. Not mentioned anywhere on the page, though, is that "2003" on the graph correlates to the year 2002/03 in Home Office figures, which includes 172 aggregated victims of Harold Shipman, without which teh rate would have been much lower. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

British Police More Routinely Armed[edit]

More and more press coverage on the police being routinely armed, I think it is important for balance to clarify that it is the general public who's access to firearms is 'tightly controlled'. A recent police survey found that over 50% of the public want officers armed. Also, I will be updating the article soon in reference to civil liberties and how they pertain to the Home Office scoping exercise and the firearms licencing medical waiver, regards. Twobellst@lk 20:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Total misrepresentation. The two cited sources merely state that Authorised Firearms Officers (AFOs) in Scotland and some specific English forces are being deployed to routine (i.e. non firearms) incidents. "Routine arming" of police would generally be taken to mean that the rank and file of officers are being armed, not that specialist firearms officers are being use to deal with non-firearms incidents. The reported practices represent a widening of AFOs' roles, rather than an increase in numbers - and commensurate deployment - of armed officers. As stated in the Telegraph piece, to have officers on duty and not use them is a waste of resources.
Your claim that, "However, in recent years these figures have come under increasing scrutiny after press reports that the statistics were being manipulated" is also highly misleading being placed immediately after statistics relating to firearms homicides only, not firearms crime in general. Taking the cited references in turn:
  • The Telegraph 18 Oct 2008: This highlights the fact that not all offences involving firearms are reported as firearms crime, but this is definitional quibbling. "Firearms crime" as reported are in fact "recorded offences involving the use of firearms" in the categories of violence against the person (inc. homicide, attempted murder, etc.), robbery, burglary, and criminal damage. Offences of possession and trafficking are not and never have been included in the firearms crime figures, and a Home Office spokeswoman is quoted as such. In this context it is misleading to claim "manipulation," because this is not akin to specific offences being excluded after years of being included. It is highly unlikely that the omition of possession and trafficking offences has affecting the overall trend of falling firearms crime since 2003/04. If possession and trafficking offences accounted for an additional 60% in 2007/08, then it would be hard to argue that they would have accounted for any significantly greater amount in 2012/13, either.
  • The Guardian 15 Jan 2014: This deals with crime statistics in general, and make no mention of firearms crime specifically. There is no elaboration of whether suspected unreliability is a recent or a long-term trend. It does, however, note that the Crime Survey for England & Wales (formerly the British Crime Survey), remains reliable, and supports the idea that crime rates overall are falling.
  • Evening Standard 7 Oct 2014: This article merely reports the firearms crime figures for London over a 3½ year period, and yet acknowledges that they are falling, "now at [their] lowest level for six years." Nick Cooper (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Twobells, please stop attempting to insert misleading and/or misrepresentative text to this article.

  • You cannot insert a claim of unreliability of statistics immediately after statistics about firearms homicides. Whatever other issues there maye be, the homicide figures are considered the most robust, as there can be no definitional quibbling over a dead body. To imply that firearms homicide figues are being "manipulated" is a gross distortion.
  • That certain crimes involving firearms are not - and never have been - included in the reported firearms crimes statistics does not make them unreliable. "Firearms crime" as reported have always been crimes which are enabled through the use of firearms, i.e. violence against the person (inc. homicide, attempted murder, etc.), robbery, burglary, and criminal damage. Offences of trafficking and illegal possession have never been included, so they have no bearing on the self-evident falling trend in the long-standing definition of firearms crimes. If trafficking and illegal possession added another 60% in 2008, they almost certainly added a similar proportionate before and since, making no change to the overall falling trend. However, the currenty ONS figures do now include "possession offences," stating that this was previoously included in the "other" category, suggesting the Telegraph article may be fundamentally flawed in the first place.
  • That the small minority of police officers who are AFOs in some forces are now being deployed to routine incidents to make better use of limited police resources is not significant enough to be included in the lead. I have transferred this information to Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom, where it is more appropriate.
  • The removed paragraphs deal with events in 2007-2009, which have now been superseded by subsequent actual events. There is little point in saying that one specific subset of firearm crime was rising in 2007, when it subsequently fell. The 2009 Telegraph article is in itself misleading in claiming that firearms crime had doubled in the previous ten years by citing the 5,209 recorded offences in 1998/99 and the 9,865 in 2007/08. In fact the high was 11,088 offences in 2005/06, which was followed by a fall to 9,645 in 2006/07. In other words, offenecs rose between 1998/99 and 2005/06, but then started falling, and they have continued to fall every year since to 4,845 in 2013/14. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)