Gun control in UK - A Total Failure

[Greenday]

The great increase in gang culture is probably what makes gun related incidents seem as high as it is. Gangs keep getting more and more popular in the past few years, which contributes to the increase in crime.

[crazylegs]

So far nobody has been able to show concrete proof that this is true.

Perhaps, but so far you've yet to show concrete proof that it is false.

[Slytovhand]

Concrete proof is now being provided

Australian post gun control statistics.

Just quickly, I shall quote:

Firstly (from here though, as a summary)-

In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards.

Hmm - not a bad start... but we shall continue:

CONCLUSIONS:
Australia's 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern.

To the actual %s...

Firearm homicides
In the 18 years (1979–96), there were 1672 firearm homicides (annual average 92.9). In the 7 years for which reliable data are available after the announcement of the new gun laws, there were 389 firearm homicides, an annual average of 55.6. Figure 1A and table 3 show that while the rate of firearm homicide was reducing by an average of 3% per year, this increased to 7.5% per year after the introduction of gun laws. However, the ratio of trend estimates failed to reach statistical significance (p = 0.15) because of the low power inherent in the small numbers involved.

and...

Total homicides
Figure 1B and table 3 indicate that the rate of total non-firearm homicides increased by an average of 1.1% per year before the introduction of the gun law and reduced by an average of 2.4% per year after the introduction of the gun laws (see row 3, columns 2 and 3, respectively, in table 3). The ratio of the pre-law to post-law trends differ to a significant extent (p = 0.05).

Table 2 also shows the total homicides (by all methods) for the period 1979–2003. In the pre-gun law period, total non-firearm homicides were essentially stable and did not differ from steady state to a statistically significant extent (table 3). After the introduction of gun laws, a significant downward trend was evident in total homicides, and the ratio of pre-law to post-law trends differed statistically from "no effect" (p = 0.01, table 3). We conclude that the data do not support any homicide method substitution hypothesis.

Meaning, lack of easy access to a gun has reduced the number of homocides in Australia!

Now, to the main problem in this country... suicides:

Firearm suicides
Firearm suicides represent the largest component cause of total firearm deaths in Australia (more than three in four of all firearm deaths). In the 18 years (1979–96), there were 8850 firearm suicides (annual average 491.7). In the 7 years for which reliable data are available after the announcement of the new gun laws, there were 1726 firearm suicides, an annual average of 246.6. Figure 1E and table 3 indicate that while the rate of firearm suicide was reducing by an average of 3% per year, this more than doubled to 7.4% per year after the introduction of gun laws. The ratio of trend estimates differed statistically from 1 (no effect; p = 0.007). Again, we conclude that the decline in total firearm suicides accelerated after the introduction of the gun laws.

and

Totalsuicides
Figure 1F and table 3 indicate that the rate of total non-firearm suicides increased by an average of 2.3% per year before the introduction of the gun law and reduced by an average of 4.1% per year after the introduction of the gun laws (see row 6, columns 2 and 3, respectively in table 3). The ratio of the pre-law to-post-law trends differs statistically (p<0.001).

Table 2 also shows total suicides for the period under review. Total suicides follow a similar pattern as total non-firearm homicides. In the pre-gun law period, total suicides were essentially stable (table 3). After the introduction of gun laws a significant downward trend was evident in total suicides and the ratio of pre-law to post-law trends differs statistically from "no effect" (p<0.001; table 3). We conclude that the data do not support any suicide method substitution hypothesis.

Again, the last sentence indicates the same as homocides - lack of easy access to a gun means a reduced % of people willing to commit suicide!

And a bit later:

However, many gun owners own >1 firearm and may well have handed in the newly prohibited weapons after the new laws required this, but retained their non-prohibited weapons. This means that although 700 000 firearms were removed from the community, the number of persons (and households) with access to (still legal) firearms is unlikely to have reduced significantly. What can be said with certainty though is that 700 000 fewer guns were available to be stolen or otherwise leaked from lawful owners to criminals.

So - are we seriously going to continue this discussion???

Btw - what wasn't pointed out in the video was, as I've said, is that we now have stricter gun control laws - not a complete ban on all weapons! In particular, Semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns and rifles were banned. That video was complete hype!

From another page:

This last finding indicates that the regulatory regime seems to have made it difficult for irresponsible, or otherwise unsuitable, individuals to legitimately obtain a firearm.

The final point to say is from the 'Key Points' at the end of that page:

In the 10.5 years after the gun law reforms, there have been no mass shootings, but accelerated declines in annual total gun deaths and firearm suicides and a non-significant accelerated decline in firearm homicides. No substitution effects occurred for suicides or homicides.

Nuff said.

[Slytovhand]

Oooh - I just noticed this bit:

Australians have chosen to significantly shrink their private arsenal. All remaining guns must now be individually registered to their licensed owners, private (owner-to-owner) firearm sales are no longer permitted, and each gun purchase through a licensed arms dealer is scrutinized by the police to establish a "genuine reason" for ownership. Possession of firearms for self-defence is specifically prohibited, and very few civilians are permitted to own handguns. .....

In 2002–3, Australia’s rate of 0.27 firearm-related homicides per 100 000 population was one fifteenth that of the US

[ditchdj]

IF I was a juror in an assault OR a murder trial in which the person tried was shown to have killed in self-defense you'd despise ME as a fellow juror because I'd flat-out refuse to convict him or her. You'd might as well declare a hung jury.

[Greenday]

That's supposing that the person didn't have a right to defend themself. You'd have to actually think about the specific case itself.

[The Shadow]

Those of you who say gun crime in the UK has declined because of the ban...there's new evidence to suggest you may be mistaken:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...l-figures.html

Figures to be published by the Home Office this week will massively understate the scale of the problem.

Data provided to The Sunday Telegraph by nearly every police force in England and Wales, under freedom of information laws, show that the number of firearms incidents dealt with by officers annually is 60 per cent higher than figures stated by the Home Office.

Last year 5,600 firearms offences were excluded from the official figures. It means that, whereas the Home Office said there were only 9,800 offences in 2007/8, the real total was around 15,400. The latest quarterly figures, due to be released on Thursday, will again exclude a significant number of incidents.

Also crazylegs and Rapscallion, you might want to note that not all everyone in the UK shares your view. This is a new website I found last week:

www.britainneedsguns.co.uk

[Rapscallion]

IF I was a juror in an assault OR a murder trial in which the person tried was shown to have killed in self-defense you'd despise ME as a fellow juror because I'd flat-out refuse to convict him or her. You'd might as well declare a hung jury.

The law in the UK allows for self defence. I actually asked a judge about this, since he was a customer of mine at the time. Wounds to the front of a deceased assailant were generally accepted as being in defence against a determined attacker, whereas those to the rear generally showed that the deceased had been running away and were not really accepted. The Tony Martin case showed this one in great detail. He shot robbers as they were leaving his farm and was convicted for murder.

Accusing us of hating you in a hypothetical situation is not really answering the refutation of your claims. Crazylegs has provided statistics to show that your claim is incorrect. Please back up your initial assertion that gun laws failed in the UK.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

@ The Shadow, I just want to point out, that the crimes being reported have gone down. For those specific types of crimes not listed, I'm sure with the new laws, they are going down too. But when most people talk about crimes committed with guns, people means assault with a gun, murder with a gun, rape with a gun, shooting off guns within city limits, etc. Illegal possession of a gun is not quite as big a deal as shooting someone with a gun.

[crazylegs]

IF I was a juror in an assault OR a murder trial in which the person tried was shown to have killed in self-defense you'd despise ME as a fellow juror because I'd flat-out refuse to convict him or her. You'd might as well declare a hung jury.

There would be a retrial.

As has been said before, the Tony MARTIN case is a good example. The papers painted him to be a hero defending his castle, however he specifically set traps to keep people in place, then shot a man as he was
a)climbing out of the window LEAVING THE HOUSE and
b)Runnnig away.

Neither shot is reasonable force to protect yourself, as you don't need to protect yourself from someone running away from you.

Those of you who say gun crime in the UK has declined because of the ban...there's new evidence to suggest you may be mistaken:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...l-figures.html

The explanation for the gulf is that the Government figures only include cases where guns are fired, used to "pistol whip" victims, or brandished as a threat.

So yes, violent crime isn't actually affected in this reclassification, nor are the statistics I provided earlier.

[Rapscallion]

Also crazylegs and Rapscallion, you might want to note that not all everyone in the UK shares your view. This is a new website I found last week:

Missed this as we were posting at about the same time. The beautiful thing about democracy is that at some point someone will say something you disagree with. What strikes me as more important is that the view of that website is a minority - quite easy to tell as even when gun laws were more lax, the vast majority of people went around unarmed. Crazylegs dealt with the rest of this post, I think.

Rapscallion

[crazylegs]

Also crazylegs and Rapscallion, you might want to note that not all everyone in the UK shares your view. This is a new website I found last week:

www.britainneedsguns.co.uk

Indeed they don't, but that particular website has approx 2,300 (+/-100) visits. Hardly representitive of the 60 million people within the UK. Please find neutral stats on gun ownership that questions a wide cross section of people (both rural and urban, ages and sexes) to prove your point more effectively.

[DrT]

Hey all,

went visiting on Rap's suggestion somewhere else, and I was very agreably surprised.

Excellent demonstration, discipline, and use of logic. Grats all those who worked hard, and I hope to be on that level as I walk these walls.

[Slytovhand]

Thousands of offences including gun-smuggling and illegal possession of a firearm - which normally carries a minimum five-year jail sentence - are omitted from the Home Office's headline count

Ummm - this might be a weird way of putting it, but doesn't that say that the gun laws are actually working??? The only stats missing are the ones that would have been created by the new gun bans... making the possession and smuggling illegal. And the fact that those are caught, and not used in the other crimes, says that things are getting a bit safer.....


BTW...

Accusing us of hating you in a hypothetical situation is not really answering the refutation of your claims. Crazylegs has provided statistics to show that your claim is incorrect. Please back up your initial assertion that gun laws failed in the UK.

from Raps...

and..

Please find neutral stats on gun ownership that questions a wide cross section of people (both rural and urban, ages and sexes) to prove your point more effectively.

from Crazy..

Hey, hang on, guys...I wanna see someone try and refute my claims first!!


Ditch... if you already had an idea of someone's guilt or innocence regardless of the actual evidence presented, yes, it would get a re-trial. Juries are made up of 'neutral' individuals - not those with a pre-conceived bias. Self-defence is a very valid argument in a trial... but the question comes down to what is actually 'self-defence' vs 'murder'. It sounds like (with your hypothetical) that you don't see a difference.

[wanderingjoe72]

Let the UK and Australia do as they will. I personally will purchase a gun and enjoy it for recreational shooting. I will keep it locked away when not in use and keep the baseball bat in my house and collapsable baton in my car for personal defense.

As I enjoy recreational shooting, I do not want to give up what has been interpreted by law to be a constituational right for me.

To add this, I was discussing the issue with a self proclaimed liberal friend, she noted that she does not think a move would be made to repeal the 2nd amendment as she believes it would be a strong enough issue to incite another civil war. A little extreme? Perhaps.