With gun crime in the UK rising at an alarming rate the question must be asked,
Is the gun ban in the UK working?

The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.

The ban was hoped to reduce the number of firearm related crimes in the UK, but recent statistics have shown that in the last few years more and more people are turning to the gun as a way of solving their problems!

Would allowing guns back in the UK make it less of a novelty to own one for youngsters and gang members, or would it just increase the problem ten-fold???


Your Views?????

Would allowing guns back in the UK make it less of a novelty to own one for youngsters and gang members, or would it just increase the problem ten-fold???

I think it would increase the problem. Most guns used in crimes in Britain have been obtain illegally. It would be much better just to introduce a law that said if you are found in possession of a fire arm and you don’t have a permit for it you go to prison for life, no questions asked.

That for me would be a much bigger deterrent to younger people and "gang members"

I live near Hungerford (where the Dunblane massacre happened) and know people involved, and people that died. There is no reason to own a gun in Britain (except for hunting) imo.


[edit on 19-5-2005 by Burgess]

[edit on 19-5-2005 by Burgess]

Well if you're all unarmed sheep being led to the NWO slaughterhouse, I'd say it's working...

Burgess says:

It would be much better just to introduce a law that said if you are found in possession of a fire arm and you don’t have a permit for it you go to prison for life, no questions asked.

Burgess, please understand that I am not a Brit, and, except for what I read and a couple of business trips to Yeovil, do not have any experience with life and politics in the UK.

However, it is comforting for me to know that you so implicity trust your governmental system and the people who run it -- that you are willing to eliminate a basic tool in protecting your life, property, and freedoms (not necessarily in that order).

Comforting, but also a bit confusing.

Perhaps that's because we live in different countries. In any event, we Yanks tend to be a bit more distrustful of the people in Washington DC than you do your your folks at 10 Downing Street.

As Aceofbass has pointed out the gun crimes do not usually invilve guns, only replicas or such things as paintball guns.

The ban is working fine.

Let's just take away everyones rights for and to everything make everyone stay inside the rest of their lives and then we don't have to worry about anyone ever dying of guns and crime .... Wooo Hooo ... Well accept those new born babies that the mothers were going to kill anyways ... or the children that are/were going to be abused anyways and then grown up and kill a bunch of people in a mass terrorism threat or turn gay because thier parents didn't work out .... Refer to Ellen de generes ... lalala .. just the other day I was reading about how she had problems growing up ... I wonder if that is what she was trying to stay away from ... was the same problems that her mother and father had had ....

Why does anyone need weapons anyway? Leave the shooting and killing to the military, their payed for it, thats what they do.

Though I am partial to the odd BB gun and air rifle, oh and going shooting with the ATC. But thats legal, and Im not an idiot with them, I respect the power they can give and bring.

I've lived in the UK for about 15 years and I can say the difference between there and here (the US) is astonishing in terms of gun crime. I'd say the gun laws are definitely working in the UK. You'd read about a gun related offense in the UK maybe once or twice a month, nationwide, as opposed to multiple times each day in the US, per city alone.

-koji K.

here is the thing, if you ban guns to the public, then crimials can only carry guns. Why? cause those murders, killers, rapist got their guns illigally anyway, there is a black market for those killers. the more you ban guns the more chances of people die from guns. Why? well, if i were a killer and i know that guns are ban, but i got my gun anyhow at the black market, and i want to kill someone, and i know the person i going to kill probility have no gun since guns are ban. this increase my chance of killing someone. if guns are not ban, well then i have to question if killing that person might get me kill as well as they got a might or might not have a gun.

Originally posted by ulshadow
here is the thing, if you ban guns to the public, then crimials can only carry guns. Why? cause those murders, killers, rapist got their guns illigally anyway, there is a black market for those killers. the more you ban guns the more chances of people die from guns. Why? well, if i were a killer and i know that guns are ban, but i got my gun anyhow at the black market, and i want to kill someone, and i know the person i going to kill probility have no gun since guns are ban. this increase my chance of killing someone. if guns are not ban, well then i have to question if killing that person might get me kill as well as they got a might or might not have a gun.

perhaps, but you need to factor law enforcement into the equation. i realize this is not always possible in more remote areas of the country, but then in such areas you have a lower density of gun crime to begin with. the point of banning guns is not only to keep less guns off the street, as there will always be a black market, but also to ensure succesful prosecution of criminals carrying guns. if you're going to kill someone with a gun, it's not usually done in the form of walking into someone's house and calling them out for a duel, or even some form of assasination, it's usually a crime done in the heat of the moment. which in many times serves as an exculpatory defense in court. however, if gun posession were a felony, killing someone with a gun would be felony murder (ie, murder charge brought as a result of death caused while comitting a felony), every time. making guns illegal would give the law an edge in combating drug related crime, gang crime, all sorts of things.

-koji K.

[edit on 19-5-2005 by koji_K]

[edit on 19-5-2005 by koji_K]

The ban has had no impact on firearms crimes whatsoever. All handguns were held only by licenced sports shooters and not the general public.
The ONLY people impacted by the handgun ban were the legitimate owners and not the criminals. There has never been one shred of evidence to link legitimate firearms ownership in the uk to firearms crimes.

It was purely a knee-jerk reaction by the government, egged on by the usual misinformed press.

Ahem, explained before, but no one seems to understand, IF YOU BAN GUNS ONLY CRIMINALS WILL HAVE GUNS! The whole point of being a criminal is that you BREAK THE LAW! Only people who follow the law, IE not criminals, will follow a gun ban!

In fact, places where it is legal to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rate then ones that ban guns. In fact there is a city in Georgia that made it ILLEGAL TO NOT OWN A GUN! and they have one of the lowest crime rates in the COUNTRY of AMERICA!

Also, now that Aussies/brits banned guns, they are now going to ban swords, knives, machettes, so forth cause guess what? Ban one weapon, a new one is used. Banning things don't work. Murder is "banned" yet it happens. Theft is "banned" but it happens. Instead of punishing the crime, punish the people who commit the crime! Instead of arresting the gun, knife, bat, theft, jaywalking, arrest the person who killed with the gun, bat, knife, or committed theft/jaywalking. But no, you are suppose to beat jaywalking/speeding with a baton but let the person who did it go. Doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by Britguy
The ban has had no impact on firearms crimes whatsoever. All handguns were held only by licenced sports shooters and not the general public.
The ONLY people impacted by the handgun ban were the legitimate owners and not the criminals. There has never been one shred of evidence to link legitimate firearms ownership in the uk to firearms crimes.

It was purely a knee-jerk reaction by the government, egged on by the usual misinformed press.

You're using a US-style argument to justify the UK's situation. In the UK, the floodgates, as it were, haven't been opened yet. There simply aren't enough guns floating around to reach the critical mass where any two-bit criminal can get his hands on a gun. Usually its higher profile stuff only in the UK (gang crime, yardies and triads come to mind), so a gun ban keeps the guns off the streets, in a very literal sense, in the UK.

-koji K.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
IF YOU BAN GUNS ONLY CRIMINALS WILL HAVE GUNS!

Yes! That's the whole point!

The idea is, if only criminals have guns, then prosecution is all the more easier, because gun ownership is a crime! The police can identify criminals at once, why? Because they've got the guns! The man who may one day kill someone isn't going to get his chance, because the cops can put him away for owning the gun, they don't have to wait till they use it.

-koji K.

[edit on 19-5-2005 by koji_K]

Originally posted by koji_K

Originally posted by James the Lesser
IF YOU BAN GUNS ONLY CRIMINALS WILL HAVE GUNS!

Yes! That's the whole point!

The idea is, if only criminals have guns, then prosecution is all the more easier, because gun ownership is a crime! The police can identify criminals at once, why? Because they've got the guns! The man who may one day kill someone isn't going to get his chance, because the cops can put him away for owning the gun, they don't have to wait till they use it.

-koji K.

[edit on 19-5-2005 by koji_K]

on the other hand there will be a higher increase in death by guns, and thats how most killers kill people that way, a bullet is cheap. a life is not.

Originally posted by Burgess

I live near Hungerford (where the Dunblane massacre happened) and know people involved, and people that died. There is no reason to own a gun in Britain (except for hunting) imo.

I believe you are confusing two separate events here.

1. Michael Ryan going on the rampage in Hungerford, England on August 19th 1987

2. Thomas Hamilton's shooting spree in Dunblane, Scotland on March 13th 1996.

Surely there is no village or district near Hungerford called Dunblane.

Other than that, agreed, no guns are necessary except for hunting.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Burgess says:
Perhaps that's because we live in different countries. In any event, we Yanks tend to be a bit more distrustful of the people in Washington DC than you do your your folks at 10 Downing Street.

Actually I would say the opposite is true. Far more sheeple in the U.S.

IMHO I would say that gun ownership in the U.S. has more to do with the John Wayne culture you have and the criminal thing is just an excuse to play out your John Wayne fantasies.

I was born and raised in the UK and moved to the U.S. 16 yrs ago. There was never a gun problem when I was living there. Criminals rarely used guns because they were hard to get, unlike the U.S.
It's imported American culture than is causing the gang and gun problems now. When I was living there we were quite happy using our fists. Guns are for cowards IMHO.

Arming the population to protect against criminals is another case of bailing out the basement without fixing the holes in the roof. How about stop making guns. How about make it impossible for gun culture to even get started. End of problem, no?

I would hate to see the U.K become like the U.S. but it looks like it's happening.

Is it illegal to hunt and do shooting sports now in the UK -- like trap, skeet, sporting clays, 5 stand or competitive pistol shooting etc. Those are things DH and I do and I was wondering about how it worked with the gun ban in the UK -- or can you get special licenses for those sports.