Uk Parliment Memo says gunban is a failure [Archive]

View Full Version : Uk Parliment Memo says gunban is a failure

promillo

02-20-2005, 08:38 AM

Pandy

02-20-2005, 08:59 AM

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap69.htm

Some cites:

"...Our firearms control legislation does not enhance public safety as it should...
...As a means of removing pistols from circulation, the 1997 legislation was ineffective...
...As crime control measures, the amending Acts of 1988 (certainly) and 1997 (probably) will prove to have been counter-productive... "

Umm, this just kicked the anti-gun folks in the ass..... and it hit them REAL HARD...

Old boy there didn't post it, so i'll do it.

APPENDIX 39

Memorandum by the Office of Legislative Affairs, Newton Hall, Cambridge

CONTROLS OVER FIREARMS

Contents

Table of contents
The Office of Legislative Affairs
Summary and conclusions
The Committee agenda
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE BANS INTRODUCED IN 1997
Firearms control legislation in the UK and public safety
DESIGN
ADMINISTRATION
Multi-force firearms scrutiny (ACPO 1991)
Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte (1991)
Proposal to establish a National Firearms Control Board (1992)
The Administration of Firearms Licensing (HMIC 1993)
The use of records generated by the system
EFFECTS OF THE LEGISLATION
Shaping attitudes
Effects upon criminal use
The illegal pool of firearms
Administration
Police training
Development potential of the present control regime
Recommendations
Annex A: The removal from circulation of pistols (1997)
Annex B: Firearms control in the UK—essentials of the system
Abbreviations and references
The Office of Legislative Affairs (OLA)

1. The OLA is a small organisation concerned with the principles and administration of firearms law, primarily, though not exclusively, in Britain.

2. The OLA, which maintains contact with the leading auction houses, national museums, learned societies, trade and other bodies, has: served on Home Office working parties; advised national and European parliamentarians; made submissions to the Home Office, Health and Safety Executive, the Jersey Defence Committee, the European Commission and Lord Cullen's Inquiry into the Dunblane shootings. The OLA was closely involved in the process of making provision for historic pistols in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997.

Summary and conclusions

3. Our firearms control legislation does not enhance public safety as it should. The possession of firearms in the UK is controlled by a system designed when firearms crime was rare and intended not as a crime control measure. An anachronism, the system today is so over-extended by incident-led amending legislation as to be difficult to follow. At no time has the effect of the system been measured against its objectives; but then its objectives have long been obscure.

4. Research in support of legislation has been lacking: there are, for example, no meaningful records of the frequency with which legally-held guns occur in crime. In other words, no one knows whether the control regime works. Moreover, the manner of its administration suggests that in some quarters it is not given as high a priority as the public might expect.

5. As a means of removing pistols from circulation, the 1997 legislation was ineffective. A fraction of the money spent on securing the surrender of legally-held pistols could have established a research programme into the issues raised by the Dunblane shootings.

6. That the low level of armed crime in the UK must be due to the rigour of our gun licensing system is a misconception; but firearms control is more complicated a subject than at first sight it might appear. Whereas "banning" removes the opportunity to regulate (and is tacit acknowledgement that the police cannot be relied upon to enforce the law), control requires regulation.[59] Those who would legislate with the aim of reducing firearms crime should be aware that prohibition is not the same as control; indeed, prohibition and control are mutually exclusive. Striving to take guns `out of circulation' is probably a waste of effort and money, for illegal supply may be expected always to fulfil criminal demand.

7. The present system, originally a means to the location of firearms already possessed, has been adapted over the years into a mechanism to reduce the number of firearms lawfully held. This may be beneficial and sensible, but never has there been an attempt to discover whether it is or not; nor whether the tying down of the equivalent of a complete police force to accomplish it is a prudent use of resources—but that firearms crime has risen dramatically over the same period is a matter of record. The illegal pool of firearms now represents a threat to public safety; but recent legislation has placed the weapons favoured for criminal use beyond the control of the licensing system.

8. The escalating use of firearms in robbery over the past 30 years and the more recent shootings at Hungerford and Dunblane, and in Manchester and London this year, raises the question whether a firearms control system—which cannot control possession, only transfers—designed for the early years of this century (when there was virtually no gun crime) is still relevant today (when there is).

9. As crime control measures, the amending Acts of 1988 (certainly) and 1997 (probably) will prove to have been counter-productive. The shootings at Hungerford (1987) and Dunblane (1996) brought a rush to legislate: an already ill-conceived system of firearms control was further misdirected. The 1997 Acts have reduced the likelihood of further `amok' shootings only in the sense that henceforth licensed pistols cannot be used for them—because the licence has been abolished. The cost to the taxpayer of removing from circulation those pistols at risk of being used for firearms crime (Firearms [Amendment] Acts 1997), has been disproportionately high—approaching 400 times their market value (Annex A); nor is it likely that the effect of the removal of so few will be noticed. Good governance demands that the failings of past legislation be identified by a thoroughgoing review, the `fundamental appraisal of firearms law' as called for by the Labour Party (Labour Party 1996, para 12).

10. The UK needs a better firearms control regime. To extend the existing system yet further will not produce a better but weaken a poor one. For the UK to have a firearms licensing system truly of social benefit will require legislators to adopt a realistic and sophisticated approach to new legislation, having first considered the results of research into key issues.

11. Whilst it may be politically uncomfortable to revisit recent legislation, consideration should be given to returning those firearms favoured by criminals to the control of licensing. Having ensured that would-be Thomas Hamiltons (Dunblane) will come to the notice of the police only after they have acted, the 1997 Acts have made research into the phenomenon of "amok" attacks an urgent priority. No control system can rule out deliberate misuse, nor can it stop a determined malefactor; but a well designed and diligently administered control system should be capable of giving appropriate warnings.

12. To decide objectives for a new control regime requires informed research design; but researchers should be prepared for counter-initiutive results.

The Committee agenda

13. The phrasing of the topics for consideration implies that prohibitions are capable of restraining firearms crime. This memorandum will argue that the existing licensing system lacks effectiveness as a crime control measure and that to extend it would further weaken controls. The argument is based in the design of existing firearms legislation, the manner of its enforcement and the practical effects of both—an exercise which requires consideration of the extent to which the bans introduced in 1997 have been effective in removing handguns from circulation.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE BANS INTRODUCED IN 1997

14. The Firearms (Amendment) Acts of 1997 brought the surrender of 162,353 pistols which had been possessed with the sanction of the police (NAO 1999, 32). These pistols, identified by serial number, were `in circulation' only in the sense that they would circulate within the group authorised to possess them in the first place.

15. Inevitably, a small number of legally-held firearms will find their way into the illegal pool. The number will be smaller than the total of legally-held firearms which are stolen: some stolen arms are recovered, others discarded. Of those that remain unlocated, not every one will be used for criminal purposes.

16. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the 1997 Acts in removing pistols from circulation, then, it would be necessary to know how many of those 162,353 surrendered pistols were at risk of being used for criminal purposes. The number of such pistols can be shown to have been rather small: 31 in any one year; but so limited is the available data that this estimate is little more than an indication of the appropriate order of magnitude (Annex A).

17. To arrive at an indication of the benefit set against the cost of legislation, the cost to the exchequer of the legislation is determined by dividing the cost by the number of `at risk'

pistols involved. Present indications are that the 1997 Acts cost £98.4 million.[60] The number of registered pistols denied law breakers until the former are no longer capable of functioning may be estimated at 1,300. Thus for each pistol at risk of joining the illegal pool the taxpayer has already paid £31,742; the final figure is likely to be greater.

18. This figure should be compared with the market value of unregistered pistols. One recent press report tells of children obtaining semi-automatic weapons, presumably pistols, for £80.[61] If this is a true indication of the market then prices of illegal guns have fallen steeply of late.[62]

19. Thus the 1997 Acts were an expensive way to collect the small number of guns assumed to be at risk of leaching into the illegal pool—a number so small that supply from other sources would be easy to arrange.

20. The remainder of this memorandum addresses the question whether any further changes are needed to the licensing system or to existing controls.

Firearms control legislation in the UK and public safety

DESIGN

21. The design of the system which operates today—close monitoring by registration of the possession and transfer of firearms and ammunition—was established by the Firearms Act 1920 (Annex B). Although Parliament understood the legislation to be a crime control measure, the aim of the Act was unstated,[63] but its design suggests its true object to have been the location of firearms already in the hands of the law abiding. A curious priority, until one recalls the historical context.[64]

22. Such equivocation at the outset has made it difficult to evaluate the system ever since. Having been incident-led, the subsequent shaping of the legislation over the intervening 80 years has built a body of law with evident effect but without clear purpose.

23. Since its introduction in 1920, the legislation which established firearms control in the UK has been amended 12 times:[65] on no occasion, however, have changes followed upon an assessment of what was already in place, nor have they been driven by research. Rather have the most drastic extensions of the control systembeen undertaken in haste,[66] following unusual and dramatic incidents.[67] This has prompted criticism from workers in the field in the UK,[68] concern within the Home Affairs Committee[69] and the regret of Lord Cullen.[70]

24. Researchers abroad have also been driven to comment: `One of the startling things is that in contrast to the United States, Canada and Australia, where the government and academia are both very interested in the gun issue and so write scholarly articles on all sides of the issue, there is just not that interest in Britain among government researchers or academic researchers. Gun control has just been accepted as a given without any real need for supporting evidence' (Kopel 1994).[71]

25. As a crime control measure the present legislation is misdirected for it concentrates a disproportionate effort on a very small part of the problem of firearms crime (HAC 1996, xxxv.). The Home Affairs Committee concluded in 1996 that the problems posed by illegally-held firearms are on a far greater scale than those posed by firearms legally held. The official gloss on the present situation: `The proportion of all notifiable offences[72] in which firearms (including air weapons) were used is small: 0.3 per cent in 1997'.[73] Excluding air weapons,[74] however, reduces the proportion to 0.1 per cent (CSE&W 1997, 54); but since for the purpose of the statistical returns `firearm' includes imitation and `supposed' firearms[75] and not all offences are notified,[76] even this figure is likely to be misleadingly high.

26. Dunblane was a paradigm for the failure of the UK licensing system. What did it achieve to have recorded the serial number of every gun and every last round of ammunition purchased by Thomas Hamilton, when the man himself was the danger?

ADMINISTRATION

27. In the UK, `gun control' is largely a matter of procedural regularity. In practice, much police attention is directed at the monitoring of transactions initiated by the certificate holder himself and, it follows, the pursuit of technical offences the commission of which, given the complexity of the legislation, can be involuntary.

28. The degree of executive discretion exercised by police forces in implementing firearms legislation since the 1988 Act came into effect has tended to alienate the shooting community: shooting associations have been more prepared to support their members in disputes with the police, to such an extent that legal costs insurance is now offered as a routine benefit of association membership.

29. In its Second Annual Report, the Firearms Consultative Committee recalled that `During both our first and second years of work, the way in which the firearms licensing system is administered has been a major topic of discussion for the Committee. It is clear from the many representations we have received over the past two years that a significant number of problems about a substantive number of aspects had arisen primarily from police administration of the controls' (FCC 1991, 8.1).

30. Between 1991 and 1993, four studies (ACPO 1991; Coopers & Lybrand 1991; Home Office 1992b; HMIC 1993) were conducted into the administration of the firearms control system. None attempted to measure the effectiveness of the system as a means to regulating firearm use but all presented evidence that efficient and effective administration of the existing system appeared beyond the competence of the police.

Multi-force Firearms Scrutiny (Association of Chief Police Officers 1991)

31. Failures in the management of intelligence were noted: some forces were found to have been unable to ensure that firearms licensing departments would be made aware of an applicant's previous arrest for a serious crime. The failure of Central Scotland Police in this area was a key finding of Lord Cullen's Inquiry into the Dunblane shootings five years later.

32. The full ACPO report was not made public; an `Executive Summary' made 24 recommendations.

Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte (1991)

33. With the aim of identifying problems and suggesting solutions, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) commissioned a report by Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte into the operation of the firearms licensing system.

34. The Firearms Consultative Committee (FCC) identified a `considerable degree of common ground' between this and the ACPO reports, noting that in many respects they complemented each other (FCC 1991, 8.11).[77]

Proposal to Establish a National Firearms Control Board, (Home Office 1992b)

35. Despite the issuing of Home Office guidance to the police, the ACPO `Multi-force Firearms Scrutiny' and ACPO participation on a Home Office working party to identify best practice, a report by a Home Office working group[78] had revealed persistent inconsistencies both of policy and practice.[79] Since one effect of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 had been to increase the administrative burden laid upon the police, these findings had raised `acute' concerns within the Home Office about the implications for public safety. For example:

— Lack of technical knowledge—`Many police officers making enquiries of applicants for firearms or shotgun certificates are not fully skilled in handling firearms or particularly experienced in sporting weapons. As a result, some are not well equipped to assess potential public safety issues arising from the licensing procedure' (6).[80]

— The police career structure—`police firearms departments may be hampered in their attempts to build up expertise as police officers are subject to postings to other departments. An officer who has developed a valuable degree of skill and experience may have to be moved (on account of force priorities or personal career needs) thereby depriving the firearms licensing department of the knowledge and experience vital for making informed public safety assessments'(8).
36. Moreover, the existing system was shown to be cost-ineffective: `Police officers are more expensive to employ than civilians. Firearms licensing, though it requires expertise in firearms, does not utilise police skills and is, for the most part, administrative: using police officers for such work is expensive in direct terms, but also fails to capitalise on their valuable specialist police training and experience' (Home Office 1992b, 12).

37. The result of this appraisal of firearm licensing was a costed Home Office proposal to remove responsibility for firearms licensing from the police. By listing the advantages of a National Firearms Control Board (NFCB), the Home Secretary identified the shortcomings of the licensing system. An NFCB would (he said) "put public safety first" by:

— being administered by experts trained in firearms and crime prevention;

— being best placed to operate a fast, efficient and cost effective service;

— eliminating inconsistencies between forces; and

— freeing the police to concentrate their resources on normal policing activities—`work only they can do' (Home Office 1992a).
The Administration of Firearms Licensing (HMIC 1993)

38. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) sought to discover the quality of service offered by the police to certificate holders and applicants. The inspection, conducted by interview with the firearms licensing staff of 12 forces,[81] measured the performance of each force against the recommendations of both the ACPO `Multi-force Firearms Scrutiny' (ACPO 1991) and the findings of the Home Office Working Group (Home Office 1991). No force matched the `best practice' guidelines in every area of operation. HMIC found:

— a system collapsed (3.10; 3.11);[82] and

— Home Office inaction (9.10);

— impenetrable documentation (3.4; 3.6);

— inconsistent and unlawful police policies (9.5);

— money wasted by poor administration (7.5; 9.3; 9.8);

— that recommendations had been ignored (9.11).[83]
It is understood that due to public demand this HMIC report was reprinted five times.

39. The findings of these four studies were still relevant in 1996, when Thomas Hamilton used licensed firearms and ammunition at Dunblane Primary School; indeed, the findings are relevant still.[84]

The use of records generated by the system

40. Whilst these reports of the early '90s identified deficiencies in the implementation of the control system, it was the Dunblane shootings which showed how serious can be the consequences of failing to give proper attention to firearms control. Both the ACPO `Multi-force firearm scrutiny' (ACPO 1991) and the HMIC report (1993) had recommended the setting up of internal information exchange systems. By 1995, Central Scotland Police had yet to act upon the recommendation, so that against the advice of several officers ThomasHamilton's certificate was renewed[85]—`a glaring deficiency in the operation of the force's information system' (Cullen 1996, 6.72).

41. Thus it was an operational police failure which caused the shootings to have been carried out with certificate-authorised firearms and ammunition at Dunblane, for the system, flawed as it was (and may be still) as a crime control measure, did catch Hamilton (Cullen 1996, 6.48-50; 6.61). Moreover, since a firearm certificate `shall not be granted to a person whom the chief officer of police has reason to believe . . . to be for any reason unfitted to be entrusted with . . . a firearm' (Firearms Act 1968, s 27(1); emphasis added), it would seem that by renewing Hamilton's certificate the police had acted unlawfully.

42. Since 1920, the police have authorised in advance every firearm (and ammunition) sale, transfer and possession; yet the number of licensed firearms remains uncertain:

The HMIC report had already made it clear that, contrary to the Home Secretary's assumption that police forces were `well on their way to operating best practice', the best practice guidelines issued for some three years before remained widely ignored: `It is now almost two years since the publication of the [Home Office Report on the Administration of the Firearms Licensing System] and it is clear that, if the forces visited as part of the inspection are representative of the country as a whole, the Police Service has failed to adopt sound practical guidelines that would make them more efficient in a key area of interface with the public. This is also in spite of its own Chief Officers multi-force scrutiny carried out in 1991' (HMIC 1993, 9.11). Moreover, the Ernst & Young report itself had noted that `current systems and procedures may not be set up in accordance with the best practice models' (Ernst & Young 1992, 2).

— computerisation of shotgun certificate records held by the Metropolitan (1985) and Thames Valley (1988) forces brought to light some 14,000 certificates of which they had been unaware (HOSB 1997, Table 3);

— in 1991, Essex, Kent and West Mercia forces discovered that they had issued 17,000 fewer shotgun certificates than they thought (HOSB 1997, Table 3); and

— when the time came for handguns to be surrendered (1997 Acts), the police could not give an accurate estimate of how many to expect: following the surrender, there was a discrepancy of some 25,000 between expectations and the number collected (NAO 1999, 2.39).[86]
43. A Home Office report published in 1993 found that:

— `in 1973 there were thought to have been about 5,000 (shooting) clubs in England and Wales';

— prior to 1988, the record of approved clubs `may not always have been updated';

— in Scotland, the number of approved cadet corps was in 1989 unknown (Corkery 1993, 53; emphases added).
44. No central register of certificate holders exists even now. Thus the Government has yet to comply with their obligation,[87] to establish a central computerised register of persons who have applied for a firearm or shotgun certificate, or to whom a firearm or shotgun certificate has been granted. More than two years have passed since the relevant section came into force (1 October 1997).[88]

EFFECTS OF THE LEGISLATION

Shaping attitudes

45. For its first 60 years or so, however, although the 1920 control system was unlikely to have been instrumental in preventing firearms crimes—and did nothing to solve them once committed—it was fairly easy for the public to understand and the police to administer. Moreover, the legislation had the effect of tending to foster a responsible attitude among firearms users and owners, a benefit due less to the mechanism of control than the climate of opinion established by its application.

46. The firearm certificate has established the possession of guns as a privilege rather than—as it was at one time in common law—a right; by denying a certificate to convicted persons[89] it has also, automatically but incidentally, defined certificate holders as a highly law-abiding group. Belief in the exclusivity of the firearm certificate is strengthened by the attitude of target shooting officials sensitive over their club `approved'status.[90] The resulting informal but early `screening' helps to explain the relatively small number of firearm certificate applications recorded as having been rejected formally by the police. The cumulative effect of the certification process therefore has engendered responsible attitudes on the part of those granted firearm certificates, moreover, a gun owner knows that these days virtually any brush with the law will put his continued possession of guns authorised by firearm or shotgun certificate at risk.

The police had overestimated the numbers of pistols subject to surrender by 24,886. The National Audit Office (NAO) found that the number of pistols actually surrendered was within 10 per cent of police estimates in only 16 of the 51 forces. Twelve forces overestimated by 13 to 65 per cent; 23 forces underestimated by 11 to 62 per cent. Only one force (Dumfries and Galloway) was accurate in its estimate (NAO 199, 2.36 ff).

47. The existence of a ponderous and, for the applicant, expensive licensing process will have discouraged those with less than a serious interest in shooting or collecting; and no doubt some will have been, for one reason or another, unsuitable to possess firearms. To some degree therefore the very existence of the system will have brought some social benefit, albeit probably unquantifiable; but only those predisposed to stay within the law are discouraged: to those who are not, the present licensing system is an irrelevance—except for quantifying penalties, eg for illegal possession.

Effect upon criminal use

48. Gross figures are subject to inconsistencies in firearms identification and reporting. The complexities of recording and classifying offences suggest the need for an indicator of the trend of firearms in crime. For this purpose, the incidence of robbery[91] has been suggested as the most informative (Greenwood 1972, 155 ff).

49. Between 1976 and 1986 there were 19,161 firearms robberies reported; for the decade which saw the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 take effect (1987-97), the corresponding figure was 45,502, but the criminal use of firearms has been increasing since the late 1960s (Cullen 1996, 9.7). However, since this increase has coincided with a steep decline in the number of firearm and a moderate decline in the number of shotgun certificates on issue,[92] it can hardly be used as an argument for stricter controls. Whilst it used to be the case that few members of the public faced firearms criminally used, with the criminal use increasing of (fully-automatic) machine guns, which `in untrained hands can be virtually uncontrollable'[93], the bystander is at greater risk than ever before.[94] The machine gun has been classified as prohibited since 1937.

50. Despite a decline in the incidence of armed robbery, the criminal use of pistols increases: `There were more than one and a half times as many handgun offences in 1997 as in 1987' (CSE&W 1997, 3.8). The official statistics for robbery for the decade prior to 1997 show that although shotguns (whether sawn-off or unmodified) occur in a significant number of cases, the robber's preferred weapon—by a wide and increasing margin—is the pistol. Given that the ratio of firearms robbery to robbery of all kinds remains broadly constant, it should cause no surprise that the recently-noted decline in the incidence of robbery has brought a corresponding reduction in the incidence of firearms robbery too. But if the incidence of robbery is falling, the popularity of the pistol for the commission of serious crimes is rising. By 1997, pistols were used in robbery more than six times more frequently than shotguns; 10 years earlier, pistols had been used about twice as frequently.

Ratio of pistols to shotguns used in robbery (U.K.)

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap12.gif

`Killing culture where "respect" means only terror on our streets'—`Scotland Yard plays down the fears of the rise in gun law and instances of machine guns being fired off in the streets, pistols being whipped out in night clubs and fired triumphantly into the ceiling are rarely released, but within the culture that are becoming commonplace . . .A police study in 1998 of the use of firearms in London found that since 1996, guns were fired 291 times, of which 115 were multiple discharges . . . In some parts of London detectives say shootings are frequent occurrences. One detective said . . . `the public really only hears about the murders, but we are often being called to the scene of shootings and there is nothing there but the cartridge cases' (1 June 1999). This same issue also reported (on page 5) the armed robbery of a milkman in Bexhill, East Sussex.

51. The 1997 Acts, which placed pistols (other than historic pistols, narrowly defined)[95] in the `prohibited' category do not appear to have reduced this popularity.[96]

Notifiable offences involving handguns (England and Wales)

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap13.gif

Inspector Maybanks' cautionary conjecture (1992, 157) that extending prohibitions to arms already in circulation will tend to increase the criminal use of such weapons appears ever more ominous.

The illegal pool of firearms

52. In 1996, the Home Affairs Committee concluded: `It is obvious that panic legislation, which might be seen at its outset to bear the seeds of failure, should be avoided. What would be the point of a total ban on the lawful holding of handguns if there remained easy access to unlawful handguns . . . ?' (HAC 1996, 59). Whether the 1997 Acts prove this monitory observation to have been prophetic will take time to establish; but the signs are not encouraging.

53. The 1997 Acts have established the illegal pool of firearms from which the criminal market is supplied as a public safety issue. Successive amnesties have shown that ever tightening `controls' appear to have had little effect upon the pool of unregistered guns.[97] It is likely that the firearms currently in unlawful circulation within the UK are sufficient to supply all conceivable criminal requirements into the foreseeable future and beyond.[98]Nor is it difficult to make guns clandestinely in quantity, even given brutally strict regulation.[99] The principal of the gun, which has been with us since the 14th century cannot be uninvented.

54. The horror of the Dunblane shootings diverted attention from issues central to public safety: from the conduct of the Central Scotland Police to the pistol Hamilton used; from the (frequent) criminal use of firearms to (infrequent) amok killings. The Dunblane legacy persists: the news media report that the police in London play down recent shooting incidents.[100]

55. The size of the illegal pool of firearms is unknown but Lord Cullen heard estimates which varied from over one million to four million or more (Cullen 1996, 107)—an indication of the degree to which there is uncertainty over its size. Nevertheless, it is probably fair to say that the licensing system is missing more than half the number of guns in unrestricted circulation within the UK.

56. There will be arms still possessed, war souvenirs or guns acquired before the firearm certificate was introduced, which even now lie—some no doubt forgotten but all unlicensed—in attics or wardrobes. This is the innocuous (sometimes described as `benign') component of the illegal pool, from which there has long been a small but steady migration to the legal, via dealers, following (for example) the owner's decease. However, for certain types of rifle and shotgun the 1988 Act closed that door by raising their status to `prohibited'. In consequence, the likelihood of certain unregistered but otherwise innocuous long-arms falling into criminal hands has increased: with no legal market for them, the value of prohibited arms may be realised only by unlawful sale. The 1997 Acts have done the same for those pistols currently part of the innocuous unlicensed pool;[101] since for them there is no longer a route to the legal market, henceforth their value also may be realised only by unlawful sale—an encouragement to illicit disposal. Moreover, the severe penalties for possessing a prohibited weapon may also be expected to discourage the surrender of pistols to the police outside amnesties. With pistols the preferred weapon of the armed criminal, this is particularly unfortunate: since 1945, for every gun handed in during an amnesty, two or more are believed to have been handed in outside amnesties (HAC 1996, 27).[102]

57. The effect of reducing the types of firearm which may be licensed and tightening control on those which remain has been to make legal firearms ownership even more exclusive and expensive—and the process more onerous. The other side of this coin is that illegal firearms ownership, in certain quarters de rigueur,[103] is now by comparison markedly cheaper and less irksome. It is now more difficult to obtain a rifle legally than a pistol, semi-automatic centre-fire rifle or sub machine gun illegally. The news media report that since the 1997 Acts came into effect, illegal guns have become more widely distributed, and in unexpected quarters.[104]

Administration

58. The 1997 Acts, which introduced more complicated application and notification procedures, also require closer police involvement in rifle and muzzle-loading clubs; but there is anecdotal evidence that individual certificate holders are receiving more attention from the police. Thus the police workload brought by firearms legislation would appear greater today than it was in 1992, when the Home Secretary admitted that "The licensing function places an onerous administrative burden on police forces and diverts police officers from skilled police work" (Home Office 1992a). Notwithstanding the extra effort required from the police, those who seek to possess or shoot pistols henceforth will remain unknown to the licensing authority.

Police Trainiing

59. One further unfortunate consequence of the 1997 pistol ban and the closure of pistol-shooting clubs has been that police officers—who were `the largest single occupational group in pistol shooting as a sport'—are now denied `a useful supplement to [their] necessarily limited training' (HAC 1996, 47).

`Police said gun possession among children had increased because it had now become a `fashion' statement . . .'

"Legislation introduced after the Dunblane massacre made it illegal to possess a full-bore pistol, with a sentence of up to 10 years for offenders. The legislation has, however, failed to stem the illegal gun trade, with dealers importing guns from eastern Europe or buying decommissioned weapons and reactivating them. According to the latest Home Office figures, 27 girls aged 17 or under and 1,062 boys were cautioned or convicted on firearms offences in 1997. Although the majority of offences related to airguns, the data disclosed evidence of children as young as 12 having access to lethal firearms . . ."

`The victims of the guns are also often young teenagers. In one shooting in Longsight, Manchester, in April last year, two youths aged 14 and 17 were attacked by a gang with automatic machineguns' (9 May 1999).

Development potential of the present control regime

60. The diversion of yet further police resources to the monitoring of those willing to submit to the licensing system may be of public benefit; but no attempt has been made to discover whether such a commitment is worthwhile, or whether police time and manpower could be more productively employed in other areas.

61. the body of legislation which bears upon the use, possession, etc. of firearms is large: some 51 statutes and 20 Statutory Instruments; but as a result of successive amendments the Principal Act itself is now so labyrinthine that the Home Office guidance on its application is bulkier than the legislation itself, even without the updating—which has yet to appear (October 1999)—required by the 1997 legislation.

62. To extend prohibitions to more classes of firearm offers diminishing returns politically: the likelihood of future serious shooting incidents being carried out with `banned' firearms is automatically increased, but the commitment to further prohibitions is strengthened thereby—a process which draws attention to the futility of prohibition and as the firearm sub-types which remain unbanned diminish, narrows the options for future legislation. Already this is in process: for the news media, firearms crime in London and the ineffectiveness of the legislation has become a cause célèbre.[105]

63. With each such extension of the existing system reducing its potential for control, the criminal use of guns may be expected to increase, unchecked by regulation. Such is the inflexibility of the present control régime that development is most conveniently accomplished by the extension of existing procedures—by moving one class of firearm into a category designed for another, for example, as was done when pistols were moved from section 1 to section 5 of the Principal Act (1997). Not only is this approach likely to be evidently counter-productive in terms of public safety but it also offers politically diminishing returns at best; but the inevitable outcome of such a process must be: no guns licensed—and millions beyond control.[106]

64. To achieve an effective system the first step must be research, and the first step in research is a research design. The following sample topics suggest themselves:

— the definition of objectives—and recognition of the unattainable

— the consequences of the present system (eg, those of the 1988 and 1997 Acts upon real control; the utility of gathering serial numbers and regulating ammunition quantities)

— narrowing the gap between system design and implementation

— the nature of the threat of criminal use

— a risk assessment of firearms in society

— who is to be permitted firearms

— the firearms control systems of other countries: objectives and effects

— the design of a unified and centralised database, accessible to all police forces

— amok killers, with a view to advance identification.
RECOMMENDATIONS

65. To extend the existing legislation would be unwise.

66. The movement of unregistered firearms into the licensing system should be facilitated.

67. An independent, academic body should be commissioned to prepare a research design and undertake research into the issue of firearms control with a view to proposing the design of a firearms control system for the UK which will truly promote public safety.

68. That a better system of firearms control be adopted as a result.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
59 The distinction is recognised in Part I of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997: `Prohibition of weapons and ammunition and control of small calibre pistols' (emphasis added). Back

60 Source: Home Office 30 September 1999. There remain some 200 claims for compensation which remain to be settled; some of these are substantial. Back

61 Sunday Times, 9 May 1999. `Children of 14 carry guns for "status"' -handguns have become the latest status symbol for teenagers as young as 14 on Britain's streets . . . An investigation by the Sunday Times has found that semi-automatic weapons have been obtained by children for as little as £80. A senior police officer said juvenile gun ownership had become "an act of machismo" . . . . `Police said gun possession among children had increased because it had now become a "fashion' statement . . . .' Back

62 Currently, the supply of illegal firearms appears to exceed demand. Were the situation to be reversed (which, at first sight might appear desirable), then it would become profitable to provide criminals with guns. The encouragement given organised crime in the United States by the Volstead Act of 1919 offers a cautionary parallel: `. . . [N]ewfound popularity for bootleg guns might result in handguns becoming cheaper than they are now, just as in alcohol prohibition days, bootleg gin often cost less than legal alcohol had. If handguns were cheaper, they might become more available to small-time teenage criminals and other low-end miscreants; criminals might end up more widely armed that ever before' (Kopel 1993, 318). It is happening here already. Back

63 Other than that it was intended `to amend the law relating to firearms and other weapons and ammunition, and to amend the Unlawful Drilling Act 1819'. Back

64 For concern, albeit publicly unstated, over the possibility of Bolshevist-inspired civil unrest and the wish to be able to locate weapons for redistribution to friends of the Government, see eg Burton 1990, 27. Back

65 1934, 1937, 1952, 1965, 1968, 1969 (fees), 1970 (fees), 1988, 1992, 1994 and 1997 (twice). Back

66 Following the Dunblane shootings, the decision taken by the Scottish Office to use one year of data (1993) for its evaluation of serious incidents involving the use of a firearm was taken `because of the requirement to report within four weeks' (Oag et al 1996). Back

67 Criminal Justice Act 1967/Firarms Act 1968 (the shooting with pistols of three police officers-controversy over the abolition of the death penalty: regulated the issue of shotgun certificates). Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969 (a response to questions on the control of airguns: made airguns which exceeded certain kinetic energies subject to certification-no case of a such airguns ever having been used in crime could be cited, reduced sales of the more expensive, imported air rifles). Green Paper 1973 proposed restrictions where there had been controls-withdrawn: but some proposals were adopted as `force policy' by certain chief constables. Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 (Hungerford shootings: transferred semi-automatic and pump-action centre-fire rifles into prohibited category). Firearms (Amendment) Rules 1992 (European Weapons Directive: prohibited expanding pistol ammunition, many exemptions necessary). Firearms Act (Amendment) Regulations 1992 (European Weapons Directive: introduced European Firearms Pass). Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) [Amendment] Rules 1993 (European Weapons Directive: airguns disguised as other objects moved to section 1 control). Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 (Dunblane shootings: extended the existing control system and transferred centre-fire pistols into prohibited category). Firearms (Amendment) (No 2) Act 1997 (Dunblane shootings: extended prohibition to `small calibre' pistols). Back

68 `One of the most glaring defects to be found in any study of the legislation is an almost complete absence of proper research. The statistics produced to support Bills have invariably been inadequate and have lacked points of comparison' (Greenwood 1972, 241). In his study of the provenance of guns used in London robberies, police inspector Adrian Maybanks compared the lack of research in the UK-which he found a constant source of frustration-with the `abundance' of research conducted in other countries. Moreover, he expressed regret that the results of research undertaken elsewhere had been ignored by legislators (Maybanks 1992, 162-3). Back

69 `. . . we are concerned that policy on firearms control appears to be formed without the benefit of statistical material which we believe to be highly relevant' (HAC 1996, para 35). Back

70 `. . . there is unfortunately no systematic recording as to the extent to which legal, as distinct from illegal firearms are used in the commission of crime in Great Britain; and there is no routine research into this subject' (Cullen 1996, 9.4). Back

71 David B Kopel: attorney and research director of the Independence Institute, Denver. Back

72 "Notifiable offences" recorded by the police cover a wide range of crimes, from homicide to minor damage (HOSB 1998, 3). Back

73 A figure which has remained unchanged since 1993. Back

74 Although airguns fall within the definition of `firearm' in the Acts, we are not aware of this being the case in any other EU Member State: it is clear from the context of the Weapons Directive (Council Directive of 18 June 1991 91/477/EEC), for example, that its provisions do not apply to air weapons. Airguns are not firearms; those classified as `specially dangerous' require the authority of a firearm certificate in England, Scotland and Wales. All airguns are required to be authorised by certificate in Northern Ireland. Back

75 `Something was concealed which was presumed to be a firearm' (CSE&W 1997, 3.1). The report of the recent killing by police of a man who proved to have been carrying not a gun but a table leg in a plastic bag (report: Evening Standard, 24 September 1999) suggests that a significant proportion of such assumptions are likely to be incorrect. Back

76 Notifiable offences are fewer than those presented in the British Crime Survey. Under recording is to be addressed by a `more honest approach', announced recently (Home Secretary: letter, Daily Telegraph, 13 October 1999). Back

77 The FCC saw only the ACPO `Executive Summary'. Back

78 Which included representatives from several police forces and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. Back

79 `Many of the difficulties are inherent given that [Firearms licensing] is a subject which is specialised but not, essentially, a police matter, being tackled by 51 different forces, with inevitable local variations' (Home Office 1992a, 14-15). It may be supposed that the centralised data gathering required by the EC Weapons Directive (81/477/EEC) was considered impossible to achieve with the existing system. Back

80 Cp Cullen 1996: `Chief Constable Cameron observed that in his experience the use of civilians had brought a level of experience and expertise to the process [of firearms licensing] which had not been there before' (8.12; emphasis added). Back

81 Avon and Somerset; Bedfordshire; Devon and Cornwall; Greater Manchester; Lincolnshire; Kent; Northumbria; North Wales, South Yorkshire; Suffolk; Thames Valley and West Yorkshire. Back

82 The inspection discovered that in some forces the certification process had actually broken down, with expired certificates remaining unrenewed. In Greater Manchester, the inspectors found a three-month backlog of shotgun certificate renewals; in West Yorkshire, in one quarter of the sample applications examined, the certificates being renewed had already expired. For South Yorkshire, this was so in three cases out of four. Back

83 Even two years after the Home Office Working Group had made its report and the findings of the ACPO multi-force scrutiny had been made known, `the Police Service [had] failed to adopt sound practical guidelines which would make them more efficient in a key area of interface with the public. This is also in spite of its own Chief Officers multi-force scrutiny carried out in 1991' (9.11). Back

84 Announcing the June 1999 publication of the HMIC report Police Integrity: securing and maintaining public confidence (HMIC 1999), the Home Office (174/99) drew attention to `a growing public concern about levels of integrity in the police service and a related decline in public confidence in policing'. Back

85 By the time of the previous renewal of Hamilton's certificate (1992), at least eight police officers were aware that Hamilton's suitability to possess firearms was in doubt; five officers had expressed their misgivings to colleagues and superiors. Lord Cullen's Report revealed that there had been successive failures of internal communication relevant to Hamilton's fitness to hold a firearm certificate (Cullen 1996, 6.40ff). Back

86 The Home Office estimated that 200,490 pistols were lawfully held on firearm certificates in April 1996; the police estimated there to have been 187,239 pistols due for surrender. Parliament heard that 162,198 pistols had been surrendered; the National Audit Office found that 162,353 had been handed in. Subsequently, police forces suggested that the discrepancies were due to pistols found not to be subject to prohibition, those for which individual exemptions had been granted and those exported, deactivated or destroyed. Having allowed for all these, it was found that 712 more pistols than expected had been surrendered (NAO 1999, Appendix 6). Back

87 Section 39 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. Back

88 The matter is now the subject of a Parliamentary Question from the Lord Marlesford (at the time of writing, no day has been fixed). Back

89 Firearms Act 1968, s21. Firearm and shotgun certificate applicants must declare spent convictions (Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1972 [Exceptions] Order 1975). Back

90 A concept, introduced by the Firearms Act 1920, which permits a member of a rifle club or miniature rifle club approved by the Secretary of State to have in his possession, use or carry a firearm or ammunition without the need for a firearm certificate when engaged in or in connection with target practice (s1[8][e]), These provisions were re-enacted without amendment by the Firearms Acts of 1937 and 1968. Thus approval avoids a proliferation of firearm certificates. An analogous arrangement exists for shooting galleries (Firearms Act 1968, s11[4]). Some clubs preferred to recruit exclusively from among those who already held firearm certificates; since for them this exemption offered no advantage, they did not seek inclusion on the Home Office list. Being `unapproved', therefore, does not mean or even imply that the Home Office disapproves; accordingly, `exempted club' would be less ambiguous. Back

91 Stealing, using violent means (Theft Act 1968, s8). Robbery is generally neither an amateur's nor a first offender's crime (Greenwood 1972, 156; citing McKlintock and Gibson 1961). Previous offences automatically disqualify a person from holding a firearm certificate (Firearms Act 1968, s21). Back

92 In 1971, 190,600 firearm certificates; in 1997, 133,600-a reduction of 30 per cent. In 1971, 715,500 shotgun certificates; in 1997, 623,100-a reduction of 13 per cent (HOSB 1998). The over-and under-recording by four police forces brought to light 1985-91 roughly cancel out. Back

93 Evening Standard 1 June 1999. The news media identify the machine pistol as the favourite weapon of `Yardie' groups (Evening Standard May to June 1999, passim). Back

94 See, for example, front page headline and stories building May to June in the Evening Standard `Seven Shot in London Night Club Battle: victims caught in crossfire of Yardie gang war' (5 May 1999); `Gang War. Two More Shot Dead-Four killed in a week as Yardies battle over drugs'. `Another resident of Acton Lane, who wished not to be named, said: `This sort of thing is becoming the norm . . . Teenagers into drugs want to get guns to protect themselves on the street and everyone knows where you can get them' . . . The latest killing this morning was the 26th murder in north-west London this year' (28 May 1999). Back

95 Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, s7. Back

96 Official Report, 15 June 1999, col 103. Back

97 More weapons were surrendered during the 1988 amnesty (nearly 48,000) than during the amnesty held 20 years before (41,000). The most recent amnesty (1996), produced 22,939 guns (Home Office News Release 203/96; cited HAC 1996, 26). Guns and ammunition surrendered in amnesties are, of course, unwanted. Back

98 Assuming (i) 2 million illegal and unregistered firearms, (ii) 4,000 armed criminal acts annually in which illegal firearms are used and (iii) that each firearm is used but once, the existing illegal pool would be sufficient for more than 500 years' criminal supply. Back

99 Occupied Europe provides examples of clandestine production of sub-machine guns: in Denmark, the STEN gun; in Italy the Variara (1943-44). In 1942, a Russian engineer designed and produced a new sub-machine gun (the PPS-42) during the Leningrad siege. A study undertaken by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms found that one-fifth of the guns seized by the police in Washington DC were home-made (BATF, Analysis of Operation Concentrated Urban Enforcement, interim report 133-34 [15 February 1977]: cited Kopel 1993, 318). Back

100 "Scotland Yard plays down the fears of the rise in gun law and instances of machine guns being fired off in the streets, pistols being whipped out in nightclubs and fired triumphantly into the ceiling are rarely released" (Evening Standard, 1 June 1999). Back

101 Historic and muzzle-loading pistols are not included in the prohibited category. Back

102 There have been nine formal amnesties since the First World War (HAC 1996, 26). Since the Second World War, over 300,000 weapons and 112 million rounds of ammunition have been surrendered (FCC 1991, 43). Back

103 On 9 May 1999, the Sunday Times carried a report under the headline `Children of 14 carry guns for "status"-`Handguns have become the latest status symbol for teenagers as young as 14 on Britain's streets. Back

104 `An investigation by the Sunday Times has found that semi-automatic weapons have been obtained by children for as little as £80. A senior police officer said juvenile gun ownership had become "an act of machismo" . . .' Back

105 Evening Standard, 7 September 1999, quoting Inspector David Nash of Kilburn police: `Guns are designed to kill and are very difficult to control. We really need the public to let us know who has got these weapons.' There have been 13 fatal shootings in London this year as well as a string of gangland gun battles . . . Posters have gone up in Hackney, Lambeth and Brent with the message: `Don't let our city become a shooting gallery.' Back

106 An absolute prohibition on gun-ownership is not really practicable. The Labour Party has recognised that some people will have to own deer rifles or shotguns (Labour Party 1996). Back

There ya go.

Geezah

02-20-2005, 09:14 AM

I checked the website and it looks legit, and yes that lands a pretty heavy blow to the nuts of those that think gun control is an effective tool!

Use the search function over there and put in "firearms", the result is abit of a shock,

"Gun Culture" in the United Kingdom

During the passage of the 1997 Acts, the Government made clear that it was concerned about the growth of a "gun culture" in the United Kingdom, and that it wished to curb this. In view of the scope of the HAC's inquiry, it may be helpful to expand on this point.

For many civilian shooters, firearms are simply sporting equipment or tools of a lawful trade. Firearms also play a necessary part in law enforcement and the defence of this country, for which training in marksmanship and skill at arms is proper and appropriate. It would also be wrong to isolate the misuse of firearms from wider patterns of criminal behaviour.

However, firearms also have an image as a means of resolving differences through violence, fuelled in part by their depiction in cinema and literature. This may encourage weak-minded people to seek to obtain firearms as a means of bolstering their self-esteem. Lord Cullen's report implies that Thomas Hamilton may have been of this type. The Government understands that amongst criminals, the carrying of a gun and willingness to use it to resolve conflicts is a sign of status and a means of gaining respect, and the Government has no wish to encourage such attitudes amongst the lawful gun-owning community.

For this reason, the Government would not wish to encourage the growth of shooting activities that emphasise the power and destructive capacity of firearms, whether through excessive calibre and rate of fire of the weapons concerned or an aggressive approach involved in shooting disciplines. Nor would the Government wish to encourage any notion that a perceived "right to bear arms" overrules the duties of gun owners towards the safety of their fellow citizens and the wider public interest.

In general, such attitudes have not been a feature of the British shooting community, which has tended to emphasise properly-organised shooting sports and the safe handling of firearms. While the Government is not complacent on this matter, its concerns at the moment are with preventing any new and undesirable developments in shooting sports rather than with traditional and well-regulated shooting activities. The Government acknowledges and commends the degree of self-regulation undertaken by many responsible shooting bodies in this respect. However, this does not mean that the Government regards self-regulation as a substitute for legally enforceable controls where they are warranted.

Link (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/ukparl_hl?DB=ukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=firearm+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap05.htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match)

By the looks of it, the Guberment had no desire in promoting any type of shooting sport.

king_nothing100

02-20-2005, 10:31 AM

Mr Gently Benevolent

02-20-2005, 10:34 AM

By the looks of it, the Guberment had no desire in promoting any type of shooting sport.HMG has no real interest in promoting the shooting sports although at a local level some councils both Labour and Conservative have spent a fair bit of time and effort in promoting target shooting, My local (socailist) council funds the indoor smallbore range in the heart of the town. Another factor that many of the pro-gun people miss out on is the anti-gun stance of the Police Federation who do have a fair bit of influence on Home Office policy.

Mr Gently Benevolent

02-20-2005, 10:39 AM

Wonder if we'll ever get our decent shooters back? Probabley no, which politician is going to risk political suicide by suggesting the bans voided?

Are the bans, bans which have to be extended every X numbers of years to see if they still want the bans in force or are they just bans that last until someone says they can be stopped?
I think there will be an easing of controls on handguns in the future but I cannot see it go beyond .22 semi's. I would like to reinforce the fact for our American cousins that there is no outright ban on firearms in the UK mainland just handguns.

Mark Sman

02-20-2005, 12:21 PM

No outright ban, but certainly a different set of rules.

From what I've heard from Enfield shooters in the UK, it can be a real paper chase though. Prices for all spares, equipment, firearms and ammunition are higher too.

Just saying. Definetly a different set of rules from top to bottom.

admar2

02-20-2005, 12:41 PM

don't you know, in the minds of gun-control freaks failure of a gun-control policy doesn't mean it should be repealed. It simply means more restrictive policies should be put in place. Although, admittedly I'm not sure how much more restrictive they can get in the UK.

This is ultimately the goal of many gun-control advocates in this country anyways. It doesn't matter whether restrictive laws prove successful or not, because their ultimate goal is the elimination of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens. PERIOD. They know they can't get rid of the 2nd Amendment outright, so they work on legislating it away, bit by bit, piece by piece.

Senator Dianne Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." CBS-TV's "60 Minutes", February 5, 199

promillo

02-20-2005, 12:52 PM

of course, the gun-grabbers are not interested in facts. But most of the people may be. Ans with the majority of the people against them, the gun-grabbers will have no success at their task of stealing the property of law abiding citizens.

Its not to convince gun-grabbers like fineswine or the brady-bunch. But it is to show people, that the grabbers lie to them.

king_nothing100

02-20-2005, 01:08 PM

I would like to reinforce the fact for our American cousins that there is no outright ban on firearms in the UK mainland just handguns.

And centrefire SLR's. Not all handguns also, muzzle loaders, black powder revolvers, and .22's are allowed IIRC.

von_Moo142

02-20-2005, 01:16 PM

Seems to say what everyone knew all along. What's new?

Most people here are well aware that firearms legislation virtually no impacat on crime. I have been saying that all along.

It doesn't come up with a reason why if the majortity like tha laws as they stand that they should change. We do, afterall, live in a democracy.

Having said that, I would support less restictive firearms laws in this country.

Geezah

02-20-2005, 02:49 PM

The following information blows my fucting mind, the Guberment even go so far to admit that bans have little to no affect on gun crime in the UK :cantbeli:

It's just feel good law!

4. GUNS AND CRIME IN ENGLAND AND WALES(a) The Use of Firearms in Crime

4.1 It is often argued, in Britain and elsewhere in Europe, that tighter controls on firearms would increase public safety. After the horror of Dunblane, public and media pressure on the government to take action to prevent a recurrence was intense and the subsequent legislative changes appeared to be seen by some as a panacea to the problems of certain crimes, particularly violent crimes.However, as previously mentioned, available evidence shows that violent crimes such as robbery and homicide are rarely committed with legally-held guns. The great majority of violent crime involving the use of a firearm is committed with an illegal weapon and consequently further bans on guns are unlikely to bring about reductions in gun-related crime (Hansson and Broadhurst, 1999).

Scroll down page to #4 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/ukparl_hl?DB=ukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=gun+cultur+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap28.htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match)

The whole article talks about the introduction of gun control for all EU countries and was signed on 17 February 1986.

von_Moo142

02-20-2005, 02:58 PM

Yes. We knew that at the time of tightening up the firearms laws. This shouldn't be a suprise to you, since you are often stating this yourself.

promillo

02-20-2005, 03:21 PM

in germany its the same :-(
stupid ideologists who call themself politicians have tightened the german weapons-law in 2003. now they see, that it had no effect on criminals (only law abiding sporters andf hunters will be affected) and the idea is to tighten it even more.

Its planned to ban more knives, the chemical defense sprays and to build weapon-free zones where criminals will get perfect conditions.
See here: http://www.welt.de/data/2005/02/19/510378.html
(german text)

BlackRain

02-20-2005, 03:59 PM

ZaakM433

02-20-2005, 04:03 PM

Geezah

02-20-2005, 04:10 PM

Yes. We knew that at the time of tightening up the firearms laws. This shouldn't be a suprise to you, since you are often stating this yourself.

What surprises me is how blatant the Guberment is about the fact the ban was put in place but doesn'y do a damn thing, they state that the only people it affects are the law abiding.
This type of information is public knowledge, but no-one in the UK has acted on it......why?

von_Moo142

02-20-2005, 04:18 PM

The British Gun laws don't work.

That depends what expectations you have of them. I think that most people here are under no illusions about thier effect on armed crime. Yes there are always some who put a spin on these laws, but I don't think there was ever any serious suggestion that they would cut armed crime*

On the other hand, the handgun restriction is pretty popular. That might not make sense to your way of thinking (or my way of thinking for that matter), but it is true.

The Gun laws are bits of paper with no meaning to criminals and prevent honest citizens from defending themselves.

Actually, no. Due to the nature of firearms licensing and self defense laws here, there wree virtually no circumstances where someone could ligitimately use a firearm for self defence even before the recent changes to the firearms laws.

We have live in different countries with different cultures.

are they trying to increase immigration of criminals into Germany?

Yes, of course they are. They sat down and thought, "hey how can we increase the number of criminals here." :roll:

Why do you associate criminals with immigration?

von_Moo142

02-20-2005, 04:29 PM

Mr Gently Benevolent

02-20-2005, 04:43 PM

The British Gun laws don't work.

Even if the British government instituted a complete ban on firearms there would be no difference in the level of gun violence in Britain.

The Gun laws are bits of paper with no meaning to criminals and prevent honest citizens from defending themselves.By and large the public of the UK do not want to be armed, there is no gun culture here like the US, the ban may be eased in the future. I see you are in Munich, BlackRain there for the trade fair are we.

Geezah

02-20-2005, 05:07 PM

are they trying to increase immigration of criminals into Germany?

Yes, of course they are. They sat down and thought, "hey how can we increase the number of criminals here." :roll:

Why do you associate criminals with immigration?

I don't think it plays a major part in cirme but a big enough part, I've seen and met some of those arseholes that come over as refugees and next thing you know they're jacking people up.

Geezah

02-20-2005, 05:22 PM

What surprises me is how blatant the Guberment is about the fact the ban was put in place but doesn'y do a damn thing, they state that the only people it affects are the law abiding.
This type of information is public knowledge, but no-one in the UK has acted on it......why?

Because we don't have a gun culture over here in the same way as some other countries have. Not many people, especially thse who live in cities, are interested in owning guns.

You mean a law abiding gun culture because we can see on a daily basis those that commit crime didn't get that memo.

And those who need guns can still get them licensed without too much fuss.

It's only the enthusiasts who are restricted*, and there aren't too many of them. Becuase the majority want the restictions, the enthusiasts suffer. You can't say that it isn't democratic though. The government, in this case, has done exactly what the people wanted.

If the majority, or even a relitively large lobby, wanted guns then the laws would be different.

* And then only in choice, as they are still allowed to own and shoot weapons.

2. The Bill of Rights of 1688 made it clear that Parliament considered that there was a right for citizens to have arms and by the mid 18th century the Common Law was very clear in recognising a constitutional right to have arms which Parliament had no authority to breach in general terms. In the early 19th century, perceived dangers of major disorder resulted in the "Six Acts" amongst which was the Seizure of Arms Act 1820 which appeared to abrogate the right to keep arms. Debates in Parliament made it clear that the Government accepted that there was indeed a right to keep arms but their view was that the Constitution allowed for qualification of that right for a limited period and in specific areas. The Seizure of Arms Act automatically lapsed after two years and was applied only to specified areas of the country. Until the start of the 20th century, therefore, the right to keep arms was vigorously upheld by Parliament and all attempts at legislation to restrict arms generally or firearms in particular failed completely.

6. The Pistols Act of 1903 was the first piece of legislation to attempt some control on pistols. It required only that a prospective purchaser provide proof that he held a gun licence available on demand at a post office, or that he was a householder, or was to proceed abroad. Despite its apparent weakness, the Act did have an effect on sales of pistols, though that does not appear to have in any way influenced the low levels of misuse which existed.

7. Specific incidents during the early part of the 20th century prompted various calls for legislation, often supported by statistics which, though in some ways illuminating, are not comparable with modern statistics. Incidents like the Sydney Street Siege resulted in proposals to require licensing of aliens who possessed firearms. None of this legislation reached the Statute Book and, at the time of World War I, firearms were freely available and, for example, officers in the armed forces provided themselves with pistols which they retained when they left. By that time automatic weapons had become available. The Gatling gun had been available from the 1860s and the Maxim machine gun, essentially the same as machine guns in service until very recently, became available in the 1880s. Self loading pistols were available in large numbers including the Mauser, Luger, Colt and various Brownings. The revolvers of the day were, in essence, little different from the revolvers now available.

8. During the early part of this century anyone, respectable citizen, criminal or lunatic, could walk into a gunshop and buy any firearm he wanted. The law prohibited sales to persons who were drunk at the time, and those wishing to buy a pistol would have been required to call first at a post office to obtain a 10 shilling gun licence. Despite that, statistics provided by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis showed that the use of firearms in crime was very rare indeed as the following table shows:

26. The end of World War II appears to have generated concerns similar to those at the end of World War I about firearms brought back by servicemen, but there were changes in the official approach which were illustrated by a number of Parliamentary questions. Despite the fact that almost every male and many female members of the population had considerable experience of firearms and the fact that many uncertificated firearms were in circulation, misuse of firearms in crime and otherwise remained remarkably low. In a debate in the House of Lords on 11 November 1952 it was said that the number of cases in which possession of firearms, whether used or not, had come to light in the Metropolitan Police District were 1948, 48; 1949, 28; 1950, 39; 1951; 14 and in the first nine months of 1952, 17.

FIREARM CONTROLS IN BRITAIN PART I THE HISTORY OF FIREARMS CONTROLS IN GREAT BRITAIN (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/ukparl_hl?DB=ukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=firearm+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap25.htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match)

Quite amazing really, that there was once the same type of attitude towards firearms there, that you find here. The Guberment has done everything in it's power to breed the gun culture out of the Brits. And to top it off while firearms were readily available the crime levels were quite low :cantbeli: well who would have thought!

BlackRain

02-20-2005, 07:11 PM

]By and large the public of the UK do not want to be armed, there is no gun culture here like the US, the ban may be eased in the future. I see you are in Munich, BlackRain there for the trade fair are we.

That is not exactly true. Your own government estimates that there are 4 million firearms in Britain and the popluation of United Kingdom is 59 million as per your 2001 census.

That breaks down into 1 firearm for every 14 people. I would hardly say that means Briton's don't have a 'gun culture'.

BlackRain

02-20-2005, 07:13 PM

I see you are in Munich, BlackRain there for the trade fair are we.

No, just on tour of Social-Democratopia :lol:

ZaakM433

02-21-2005, 09:29 AM

are they trying to increase immigration of criminals into Germany?

Yes, of course they are. They sat down and thought, "hey how can we increase the number of criminals here." :roll:

Why do you associate criminals with immigration?

I didnt say that I associate criminals with immigration, why did you? I said that I associated criminal immigration with the "safe zones." I would have more respect for the governments and organizations responsible for setting them up if they had planned it purposely that way, because it would mean that they are anxious to welcome the flow of their own citizens blood instead of stupid.

von_Moo142

02-21-2005, 01:21 PM

I didnt say that I associate criminals with immigration, why did you? I said that I associated criminal immigration with the "safe zones." I would have more respect for the governments and organizations responsible for setting them up if they had planned it purposely that way, because it would mean that they are anxious to welcome the flow of their own citizens blood instead of stupid.

OK, I see what you're saying now. Fair enough. Thank you for taking the time to make things clearer for me.

You mean a law abiding gun culture because we can see on a daily basis those that commit crime didn't get that memo.

Well, they might have got the memo but they certainly don't seem to care much if they did. Why should we expect them too?

There's a criminal gun culture in all nations*, and it's a common theme that active criminals generally have little respect for the law.

* In fact I would say there is more than one criminal gun culture in many nations.

ZaakM433

02-21-2005, 01:27 PM

You mean a law abiding gun culture because we can see on a daily basis those that commit crime didn't get that memo.

Well, they might have got the memo but they certainly don't seem to care much if they did. Why should we expect them too?

There's a criminal gun culture in all nations*, and it's a common theme that active criminals generally have little respect for the law.

i think thats geezah's point, the gun laws wont work because criminals have little respect for the law.

von_Moo142

02-21-2005, 02:02 PM

Geezah

02-21-2005, 02:26 PM

Yeah, I know. He's trying to lead me into saying that we thought the stricter gun laws would effect criminal gun use ;-)

But the recent changes in the law were reactions to some horrific spree killings, rather than efforts to cut down "criminal" gun use.

It's like everything that happens in the UK they think a band aid(plaster) here a band aid(plaster) there will solve the problem, it's a temporary fix. Maybe just maybe, if they had looked at the two nutters that went on sprees before hand we wouldn't need a band aid, that nonce in Dunblane was aready known to the Police but they did nothing. almost like they wanted him to go nuts, one step towards a bigger picture maybe?

Becuase even before the laws were tightened the vast majority here didn't care about guns and didn't want to own a gun, the firearms restrictions are pretty popular.

Yes, they were popular for me too while I lived there, but once I made it out of the fish bowl I was able to see the bigger picture.

That's why all the comparasons between US and UK firearms laws don't work: There has never really been a gun culture here like there is in the States.

The comparisons are made because groups like IANSA and the the UK and Australia as examples of how gun control has worked. And to say that the UK never really had a gun culture is wrong, maybe not to the point where it was written into a consitution but it was common law to be allowed to own firearms.

I keep on posting this but so far my brothers over the pond have chose to ignore it........

FIREARM CONTROLS IN BRITAIN PART I THE HISTORY OF FIREARMS CONTROLS IN GREAT BRITAIN

EARLY LEGISLATION

1. Early English legislation relating to firearms was concerned only with the duty of the citizen to arm himself for the defence of the realm and for the maintenance of order. Restrictions on the use of firearms were concerned only with the maintenance of compulsory practice with the longbow or with the preservation of game. There was a clear and recognised right, as well as a duty for the subject to have arms for his own protection and to discharge his duty to the state, though those arms would not necessarily have been firearms.

2. The Bill of Rights of 1688 made it clear that Parliament considered that there was a right for citizens to have arms and by the mid 18th century the Common Law was very clear in recognising a constitutional right to have arms which Parliament had no authority to breach in general terms. In the early 19th century, perceived dangers of major disorder resulted in the "Six Acts" amongst which was the Seizure of Arms Act 1820 which appeared to abrogate the right to keep arms. Debates in Parliament made it clear that the Government accepted that there was indeed a right to keep arms but their view was that the Constitution allowed for qualification of that right for a limited period and in specific areas. The Seizure of Arms Act automatically lapsed after two years and was applied only to specified areas of the country. Until the start of the 20th century, therefore, the right to keep arms was vigorously upheld by Parliament and all attempts at legislation to restrict arms generally or firearms in particular failed completely.

3. That aspect of the American Constitution which relates to the right to keep arms is, in fact, no more than a modification of the English Common Law at the time of the American Revolution, the major difference being that the Americans created a written constitution largely because the British has ignored the rights of the colonists, not least in respect of their keeping of arms.

4. So far as is known the peculiar situation of Scotland has not been researched. Parliament may have abrogated any right to keep arms by the Disarming Acts of 1715 and 1746, but the Seizure of Arms Act 1820 applied to Renfrewshire and Lanarkshire, so that by that time Parliament clearly accepted the right to keep arms in Scotland and it may be that the Disarming Acts should be seen in the same constitutional light as the Seizure of Arms Act, as legislation applied for a specific purpose to a specific area.

5. The evidence shows that, despite the existence of an absolute right to keep arms and the very widespread ownership of firearms as evidenced by the state of the gun trade at the time, the use of firearms in crime and disorder was extremely rare.

6. The Pistols Act of 1903 was the first piece of legislation to attempt some control on pistols. It required only that a prospective purchaser provide proof that he held a gun licence available on demand at a post office, or that he was a householder, or was to proceed abroad. Despite its apparent weakness, the Act did have an effect on sales of pistols, though that does not appear to have in any way influenced the low levels of misuse which existed.

7. Specific incidents during the early part of the 20th century prompted various calls for legislation, often supported by statistics which, though in some ways illuminating, are not comparable with modern statistics. Incidents like the Sydney Street Siege resulted in proposals to require licensing of aliens who possessed firearms. None of this legislation reached the Statute Book and, at the time of World War I, firearms were freely available and, for example, officers in the armed forces provided themselves with pistols which they retained when they left. By that time automatic weapons had become available. The Gatling gun had been available from the 1860s and the Maxim machine gun, essentially the same as machine guns in service until very recently, became available in the 1880s. Self loading pistols were available in large numbers including the Mauser, Luger, Colt and various Brownings. The revolvers of the day were, in essence, little different from the revolvers now available.

8. During the early part of this century anyone, respectable citizen, criminal or lunatic, could walk into a gunshop and buy any firearm he wanted. The law prohibited sales to persons who were drunk at the time, and those wishing to buy a pistol would have been required to call first at a post office to obtain a 10 shilling gun licence. Despite that, statistics provided by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis showed that the use of firearms in crime was very rare indeed as the following table shows:

Link (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/ukparl_hl?DB=ukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=firearm+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap25.htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match)

I actually think it was the Guberments goal to breed the gun owning mentality out of it's subjects :|

meh

02-21-2005, 03:27 PM

Geezah

02-21-2005, 03:44 PM

Did they 'breed out' gun ownership or did criminals 'breed in' gun crime? Was there a real need for criminals to own guns before? Or is it a symptom of modern culture, increased risk to the criminal and other factors? How many of the gun owning population 'back then' carried?

Firearm Ownership is up and violent crime is at an all time 27yr low over here in the US, now if you use that logic and apply to the UK, at the beginning of the last century gun ownership was up and gun crime was low. This strikes me almost like a bully mentality, if the crim is fearful that they may get a good slap if they give it the large then they might not be so willing to give it a go, but if they know that they have nothing to fear from their potential victim it would give them a green light.

I agree that the knee-jerk bans have caused no change to the level or change of gun crime and deprived legitimate users the ability to practice a hobby/sport they enjoy. I for one would of loved the opportunity to shoot in this country (I still take part in the occasional clay shoot). I disagree that the increase in gun crime or crime in general is related to our lack of guns.

The knee-jerk bans have had a large affect on firearm related crime, it has skyrocketed, and I blame the rise in crime in general on the fact that criminals(majority) currently have nothing to fear from the Police or law abiding citizen.

Mr Gently Benevolent

02-21-2005, 05:41 PM

meh

02-21-2005, 05:49 PM

Firearm Ownership is up and violent crime is at an all time 27yr low over here in the US, now if you use that logic and apply to the UK, at the beginning of the last century gun ownership was up and gun crime was low. This strikes me almost like a bully mentality, if the crim is fearful that they may get a good slap if they give it the large then they might not be so willing to give it a go, but if they know that they have nothing to fear from their potential victim it would give them a green light.

Thats not really what I asked. My point being is that the assertion you made was that the reason 'gun crime' was low in the early part of last century was the fact a larger amount of the population was armed. But was it really, gun possesion doesnt indicate intent for self-defence, ability to use for self-defence or that the criminals were particularly afraid of the 'armed population'. More guns equals lower crime might work in the social situation of the US in the last 27 years but is this the same for the UK at the turn of last century? Its an honest question based on the information you've shared to date.

The knee-jerk bans have had a large affect on firearm related crime, it has skyrocketed, and I blame the rise in crime in general on the fact that criminals(majority) currently have nothing to fear from the Police or law abiding citizen.

Again is this truely the case or would 'gun crime' have increased regardless of any firearms ban ala Bacilluspolymyxa's points. Again the way most guns had to be stored by law prior to the ban would have precluded their use as self-defence weapons in all but limited circumstances. I would also argue that our Police response to firearms related crimes has also become better as a direct result of lessons learned from Hungerford, Dunblane and other situations.

Again I'm all for legal gun ownership over here. It just seems you have a more informed position than me but there are some bits that I don't quite follow.

:)

Geezah

02-22-2005, 10:39 AM

The knee-jerk bans have had a large affect on firearm related crime, it has skyrocketed, and I blame the rise in crime in general on the fact that criminals(majority) currently have nothing to fear from the Police or law abiding citizen.When crime was at low levels the public did not have the right to carry firearms so I do not see how the bans caused any increase in crime, on the subject of home invasion which has increased I would go as far as to say the decline in dog ownership may have something to do with this (a fact mentioned in crime prevention report some years ago). Home invasion and theft in rural areas is up but the level of gun ownership in these areas has never dropped and the fact stands that if you meet a hooded intruder at the bottom of the stairs you would have little regard for his welfare whatever the penalties. As far as I am concerned its social changes and drug use that has driven up crime in the UK.

I agree with you somewhat on your last point, that increased drug use has caused social changes which in turn has caused an increase in crime, increased immigration I would also say has also had an affect on the increase in violent crime.
I remember back in the 70s you could leave your front door open during the summer and wouldn't have to worry so much about someone entering your home, today that is not the case, and it's almost like a free pass for low lifes just to come on in and play the Generation Game.
Anyway, during the early part of the last century weren't crimes commited more against the establishment than the individual?

5. The evidence shows that, despite the existence of an absolute right to keep arms and the very widespread ownership of firearms as evidenced by the state of the gun trade at the time, the use of firearms in crime and disorder was extremely rare.

They say that firearm ownership was up but gun crime was extremely low, again was this gun crime against the individual that was low?

8. During the early part of this century anyone, respectable citizen, criminal or lunatic, could walk into a gunshop and buy any firearm he wanted. The law prohibited sales to persons who were drunk at the time, and those wishing to buy a pistol would have been required to call first at a post office to obtain a 10 shilling gun licence. Despite that, statistics provided by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis showed that the use of firearms in crime was very rare indeed as the following table shows:

Anyone could go into a gun store and purchase a firearm and looking at #5 they say that the state of the gun trade at the time was evident in very widespread ownership of firearms. So this leads me to believe that 3 to 4 generations ago it was the norm to own a firearm but how many households owned one?
What would the equivalent of 10 shillings then be today in Pound Sterling and maybe this had an affect on the numbers of privately owned firearms, was this 10 shilling license needed for every firearm purchase, but again how many lower class households would be able to afford the 10 shilling license?
If this was out of reach for the lower classes, you would only find middle and higher classes owning them, but it was still something that was available by purchasing a license from the post office.

Geezah

02-22-2005, 12:04 PM

Did they 'breed out' gun ownership or did criminals 'breed in' gun crime? Was there a real need for criminals to own guns before? Or is it a symptom of modern culture, increased risk to the criminal and other factors? How many of the gun owning population 'back then' carried?

Could it be that both have taken place, the Guberment have set forth an agenda to make it as hard as possible to purchase a firearm and thus make it more of a hassle to purchase one and that outweighs the enjoyment of shooting them, thus slowly but surely people forget what it used to be like before restrictions were imposed.
Is the increase in criminal use due to the fear factor, status symbol, self defence(if you can call it that) or availibilty, who knows currently only the bad guys seem to be carrying on a daily basis.
How many of the gun owning population carried, who knows, I'm guessing when you purchased a firearm license, if you purchased a handgun you would be able to carry it but without any type of CCW license I doubt we will ever know the numbers that did.

I disagree that the increase in gun crime or crime in general is related to our lack of guns.

Now compared to 100yrs ago, you are seeing more individuals becoming targets of of violent crime, currently there is no equalizer, the crims have a green light knowing they have nothing to fear from their victims.
The Guberment only recently gave into public pressure to assure law abiding citizens that they could use deadly force if someone was to break into their home that they would not be subject to prosecution(so long as they did not go over the top).

But I personally believe that from my experiences that the increase is due to the fact that the law abiding are not able to fight fire with fire.

I was told a while back if you look like a victim you will be treated like one.