Gunman shoots 18 people.

[Wolverine]

(I wish I could post tables....)

You can.

Year|UK M|UK W|US M|US W
1991 | 20.95 | 6.69 | 20.07 | 4.66
1992 | 21.07 | 6.70 | 19.53 | 4.59
1993 | 20.48 | 6.48 | 19.70 | 4.58
1994 | 19.90 | 6.13 | 19.58 | 4.44
1995 | 20.22 | 6.11 | 19.48 | 4.35
1996 | 19.19 | 5.99 | 18.97 | 4.29
1997 | 19.00 | 6.10 | 18.35 | 4.34
1998 | 21.10 | 6.24 | 18.16 | 4.29
1999 | 20.72 | 5.99 | 17.15 | 4.04
2000 | 19.92 | 6.20 | 17.11 | 4.00
2001 | 19.30 | 5.80 | 17.61 | 4.10
2002 | 18.68 | 5.83 | 17.95 | 4.26
2003 | 18.14 | 5.78 | 17.63 | 4.25
2004 | 18.08 | 6.03 | 17.70 | 4.61
2005 | 17.51 | 5.83 | 17.75 | 4.47

 

[Rolfe]

Why do you think that disarming law-abiding citizens will make the crime rate, homicide rate and suicide rate go down when it plainly did not in the UK?

Where did the gun deaths go? If taking away guns saves lives, whey are there the same number of deaths after they took away the guns?

The suicide rate spiked the reporting period AFTER 1997, too, when all of their guns were heavily controlled or confiscated.

.... how safe Britain is because of the gun ban.

Why do you keep doing this?

You have been told several times now that what happened in 1997 was of essentially no significance to ordinary law-abiding citizens. They were not "disarmed", because they were never armed in the first place. Their guns were not "taken away", because they didn't have any.

There has never been any culture of ordinary lawabiding citizens keeping guns at home. The tightening of the law in 1997 affected only a tiny proportion of the population, target shooters who for some reason best known to themselves kept their guns at home. I don't know the number of guns removed from circulation at that time, but as a proportion of the adult population of the country it would inevitably have been insignificant - because only an insignificant percentage of the adult population kept such a weapon at home even before the legislation.

It is therefore completely irrelevant, and indeed intellectually dishonest, to post statistics such as suicide figures as evidence that this "gun ban" had no effect. Since these people had no access to firearms even before 1997, then it's hardly surprising there was no change in the situation.

In spite of being informed differently, you keep referring to this "gun ban", and "disarming lawabiding citizens" in terms that suggest that before 1997 Britain was like the USA, with a high percentage of the adult population owning guns and keeping them at home and even walking around with them, and that in 1997 these guns were "taken away". This is not so. Nobody was walking around the streets (legally, anyway) with a gun even before 1997, and very very few people kept guns in their homes. I don't know the details of the pre-1997 law, but to the best of my knowledge, nobody could legally keep a loaded weapon in their home then either.

The law was introduced to try to reduce even further the chance of something like Dunblane happening again. Thomas Hamilton was a member of a gun club, and, as was legal before 1997, he kept guns in his home. This was extremely rare. It was not usual behaviour at all. Nevertheless, the incident showed that allowing this to happen at all was something that could be exploited by homicidal maniacs.

There was no possibility that this legislation would affect suicide rates, because gun availability was so restricted even before 1997 that any possible change could never show up in statistics. It was intended to affect public massacres by madmen. In this, so far as we can tell with the limited data available, it has been successful.

Rolfe.

 

[Drudgewire]

Yes, the gun enthusiasts always worry about that... they never worry about the dead people, oddly enough. Every post where guns are mentioned, they come a'running, lest someone think of asking them to keep their guns unloaded and locked up.

It's a right that non-Americans don't seem to be longing for. I wonder why?

They haven't experienced the joy of keeping a loaded gun in their nightstand, and the dreams of sugar plums that come with a secure night's sleep.

 

[Rolfe]

They haven't experienced the joy of keeping a loaded gun in their nightstand, and the dreams of sugar plums that come with a secure night's sleep.

That is absolutely true, Drudgewire. Not after 1997 - and not before 1997 either.

Maybe you could explain this to Gagglenash, he doesn't seem to understand this.

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

Why do you keep doing this?

...snip...

I don't know the number of guns removed from circulation at that time, but as a proportion of the adult population of the country it would inevitably have been insignificant - because only an insignificant percentage of the adult population kept such a weapon at home even before the legislation.

...snip....

Somewhere in the region of 50,000 people were affected by the change in the law.

To put it into perspective prior to 1997 there were over 3 million legally owned firearms in the UK, after the 1997 legislation there were still over 3 million legally owned firearms in the UK.

...snip...


It is therefore completely irrelevant, and indeed intellectually dishonest, to post statistics such as suicide figures as evidence that this "gun ban" had no effect. Since these people had no access to firearms even before 1997, then it's hardly surprising there was no change in the situation.

In spite of being informed differently, you keep referring to this "gun ban", and "disarming lawabiding citizens" in terms that suggest that before 1997 Britain was like the USA, with a high percentage of the adult population owning guns and keeping them at home and even walking around with them, and that in 1997 these guns were "taken away". This is not so. Nobody was walking around the streets (legally, anyway) with a gun even before 1997, and very very few people kept guns in their homes. I don't know the details of the pre-1997 law, but to the best of my knowledge, nobody could legally keep a loaded weapon in their home then either.


...snip...

That is correct - prior to 1997 all handguns in the home had to kept unloaded and locked away when not required, the ammunition for the gun had to be separately locked away. The police had to approve the storage of all hand guns and ammunition and had the right to spot-inspect the storage of your hand gun in the home at any time.

No member of the public in the UK has legally had a loaded hand gun in their home or on their person in public for over 70 years. The change in legislation in 1997 did not remove one legal gun from "the streets" or any guns kept (unloaded) in the home.

 

[Drudgewire]

That is absolutely true, Drudgewire. Not after 1997 - and not before 1997 either.

Maybe you could explain this to Gagglenash, he doesn't seem to understand this.

Rolfe.

No way man. People with guns scare me.

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

Somewhere in the region of 50,000 people were affected by the change in the law.

To put it into perspective prior to 1997 there were over 3 million legally owned firearms in the UK, after the 1997 legislation there were still over 3 million legally owned firearms in the UK.



That is correct - prior to 1997 all handguns in the home had to kept unloaded and locked away when not required, the ammunition for the gun had to be separately locked away. The police had to approve the storage of all hand guns and ammunition and had the right to spot-inspect the storage of your hand gun in the home at any time.

No member of the public in the UK has legally had a loaded hand gun in their home or on their person in public for over 70 years. The change in legislation in 1997 did not remove one legal gun from "the streets" or any guns kept (unloaded) in the home.

Technically, you may have to make that "GB" rather than "UK". If I recall correctly certain people (a very small number) in Northern Ireland were allowed to keep handguns at home. All those collecting tins in New York and Boston went a long way for the IRA....

 

[articulett]

Yes... they all parrot the same lines courtesy the NRA... they use statistics to convince themselves that the guns aren't the cause of the US's very high homicide rate...

Here are their basic myths and the answers: http://www.guninformation.org/

They imagine that all the gun deaths would have been knife deaths or something else and that other countries have a slew of other kinds of violence that they are protected against. Everyone in American probably knows someone whose life was ruined by a gun; few know anyone whose life was saved by having one at the ready.

The US is a real outlier in youth crime and homicide among other things. The worst problems are in "red states"-- where you see the religious right and the powerful gun lobby...

Although this study shows a correlation between societal dysfunction and religiosity... I suspect the homicide and juvenile crime have more to do with guns and irrationality and general scientific ignorance in general than religion:

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html

It is a weird hybrid thing because some of the biggest gun supporters are also extreme religious nuts as are the survivalists and other kinds whom one doesn't really want to see armed. Right to life... unless you're on their property. Very paranoid people. The ones jumping in to support guns on this forum are probably among the most rational... I don't know if that makes anyone feel more secure. I have to avoid these threads, because it makes me feel hopeless. Their guns don't make them safer and yet they never imagine their guns being used to cause harm! None of the gun owners do. We have a very, very powerful gun lobby in America and you can see the myths they promote and actual statistics not culled to promote this idea that guns at the ready make people safer.

 

[Darat]

Technically, you may have to make that "GB" rather than "UK". If I recall correctly certain people (a very small number) in Northern Ireland were allowed to keep handguns at home. All those collecting tins in New York and Boston went a long way for the IRA....

That's why I added the phrase "member of the public". I am sure there were non-legislative and perhaps legislative exceptions made prior to 1997 (as there are undoubtedly today i.e. "Personal Protection Weapon").

ETA: You do remind me of a pertinent fact - the post Dunblane legalisation did not apply to Northern Ireland since that was already covered under even more restrictive gun control legalisation.

 

[INRM]

Articulette,

It's not really the gun issue I'm worried about. I'm worried about the government using any excess in crime -- and shootings make the headlines -- as justification to spy on the american population more and more to look for anyone who might possibly pose the slightest risk of doing something.

INRM

 

[Drudgewire]

Their guns don't make them safer and yet they never imagine their guns being used to cause harm! None of the gun owners do. We have a very, very powerful gun lobby in America and you can see the myths they promote and actual statistics not culled to promote this idea that guns at the ready make people safer.

The myths are on both sides, and no one side is guilty of finding stats that suit their argument while the other uses solid data.

And while I won't speak for other gun owners, I imagine my guns causing harm to innocent people all the time. Part of being a responsible owner is being vigilant in the care of them. If you become complacent and let it slip your mind you're carrying a potential instrument of death, you become a statistic.

 

[Rolfe]

Somewhere in the region of 50,000 people were affected by the change in the law.

My memory of the detail of this isn't perfect. Can you remind me (and perhaps all of us) what actually changed after Hungerford and then after Dunblane?

As far as I remember, after Hungerford some sorts of automatic weapons were banned, however handguns were not affected and people who legally owned guns were still able to keep them at home (under certain restrictions which you highlighted).

Then after Dunblane, was it not that handguns were entirely banned, and that owners of legal target-shooting weapons had to keep them on the gun club premises?

So, what is the breakdown of the 50,000 people?

Owners of handguns who couldn't keep them any more. However, this was always a small number of people, and most of these would in any case either have kept them at a gun club or if they kept them at home they would have been unloaded and locked up, with the ammunition locked away separately, all this subject to police inspection. And they would most emphatically not have been walking the streets with the things. Certainly, this didn't remove any significant number of weapons from the path of anyone bent on suicide.

And then there were owners of still-legal weapons who were then required to keep them at their clubs. However, I believe a substantial number of these people already kept the things on gun club premises before it was made a requirement. With that group, I don't think we can say that all of them who were actually affected by the new legislation really had to change their behaviour at all.

I know two people who were vocally bitching about the tightening of the legislation - one I heard bitching after Hungerford, and the other after Dunblane. However, neither of them even kept a gun at home before the change in legislation, and the tenor of the remarks in both cases was general anti-increased gun control in principle, rather than complaining that they had been personally obliged to alter their behaviour.

But supposing all the 50,000 people you quote as being "affected" were indeed obliged to remove a gun that had previously been in their home. Population of Britain, a bit over 60 million. At a guess, 50 million adults? So, 0.1% of the adult population.

This is the extent of the change that happened in 1997, that Gagglenash seems to think should have been evident in overall crime and suicide statistics.

Oh, even if the US could manage to get itself to the pre-Hungerford situation (1987) in Britain, I think their streets and the playgrounds would be a great deal safer than they evidently are.

Rolfe.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Why do you keep doing this?

You have been told several times now that what happened in 1997 was of essentially no significance to ordinary law-abiding citizens. They were not "disarmed", because they were never armed in the first place. Their guns were not "taken away", because they didn't have any.

There has never been any culture of ordinary lawabiding citizens keeping guns at home. The tightening of the law in 1997 affected only a tiny proportion of the population, target shooters who for some reason best known to themselves kept their guns at home. I don't know the number of guns removed from circulation at that time, but as a proportion of the adult population of the country it would inevitably have been insignificant - because only an insignificant percentage of the adult population kept such a weapon at home even before the legislation.

It is therefore completely irrelevant, and indeed intellectually dishonest, to post statistics such as suicide figures as evidence that this "gun ban" had no effect. Since these people had no access to firearms even before 1997, then it's hardly surprising there was no change in the situation.

In spite of being informed differently, you keep referring to this "gun ban", and "disarming lawabiding citizens" in terms that suggest that before 1997 Britain was like the USA, with a high percentage of the adult population owning guns and keeping them at home and even walking around with them, and that in 1997 these guns were "taken away". This is not so. Nobody was walking around the streets (legally, anyway) with a gun even before 1997, and very very few people kept guns in their homes. I don't know the details of the pre-1997 law, but to the best of my knowledge, nobody could legally keep a loaded weapon in their home then either.

The law was introduced to try to reduce even further the chance of something like Dunblane happening again. Thomas Hamilton was a member of a gun club, and, as was legal before 1997, he kept guns in his home. This was extremely rare. It was not usual behaviour at all. Nevertheless, the incident showed that allowing this to happen at all was something that could be exploited by homicidal maniacs.

There was no possibility that this legislation would affect suicide rates, because gun availability was so restricted even before 1997 that any possible change could never show up in statistics. It was intended to affect public massacres by madmen. In this, so far as we can tell with the limited data available, it has been successful.

Rolfe.

"Reduced," isn't, "eliminated," right? Just checking.

Oh - and - couldn't the tragedy have been stopped equally well by proper enforcement and review of the existing laws? Hadn't the shooter at Dunblane been kicked out of the gun club for gun-related jackassulation? Didn't the local guy in charge of issuing permits KNOW he'd been kicked out of the club and still issued the club permit anyhow?

Seems like an oversight program would have cost you guys a LOT less and accomplished the same goal.

Ain't hindsight wonderful.

ANYHOW!

The 1997, and there's that word again, draconian UK gun laws in Britain are held up as the NUMBER ONE reason the United states should pass gun laws involving the complete removal of handguns from the hands of private citizens, reduction in other types of firearms allowed to be possessed by private citizens, and federally mandated storage requirements for all firearms.

Sound familiar?

"gun ban," is easier to say than, "complete removal of handguns from the hands of private citizens, reduction in other types of firearms allowed to be possessed by private citizens, and legally mandated storage requirements for all firearms..."

and you DID BAN handguns, right?

(Oh - and - those Olympics in 2012? Are they planning to arrest the target shooting teams? Just asking. That seems to be the first instance where an Olympic event will have been outlawed.)

We are promised, for our significant investment of time, manpower and money, reduction in violence, murder and suicide rates, based on the low associated rates in Britain, which the the ones doing the promising attribute to YOUR law.

My point is that the promised reductions did not happen in Britain.

It wasn't the number of murders. That didn't change.

It wasn't the frequency. Apparently they'd only had two of these statistically insignificant stochastic event jackassulations. (You've got a 15-year MTBJ, right? Mean Time Between Jackassulation?)

It was just that you guys were bombarded by day after day of front page and television coverage of suffering and pain for the deaths of a few people while all the other deaths happened on page three of the paper and got a single mention on the evening news.

...and again - is there LESS suffering and pain because a knife was used as the murder weapon?

...and people say, "have you no heart that you don't care about these deaths?" Yes - I care about them. I even care about the ones on page three, which seem to slip by the ones fixated on the front page.

I just extend my sympathies, say my prayers and move on. I don't seek to change laws that will apply to a fifth of my country's population because of some odd-off tragedy that happens to spawn a media feeding frenzy.

If these promised reductions didn't happen in Britain, with you reasonably level headed, law-abiding, and admirably stiff upper lipped (and I'm not saying that facetiously... you all are AMAZING) guys, what chance does it have of working over here with us clamoring rednecks (again, not facetiously)?

Did you have a significant percentage of your handgun owners rolling around with those ridiculous and offensive, "They can take my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers?"

We do.

Did you have people, way before the ban, going out and burying firearms caches in your public forests?

WE DO!

Did you already have nutcase, jackassulating, and well equipped military, "militias," already training in military maneuvers and tactics, preparing for the day when they'll be called to arms to fight for the right to take their rightful place as the leaders of a New America?

WE DO!!

AND THOSE ARE A FEW OF OUR CURRENTLY LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS!!!

The anti-gun people, here, are promising a HUGE payoff based on the results obtained elsewhere, when all the Elsewherians really got could have been just as easily gained by turning off the TV when the News came on. The law didn't stop the murders. It just moved them all back onto page three, where people seem to think they belong.

Out of sight, out of mind. Invisible insanity.

So, yes, I persist in calling it a ban, because it would be if it were implemented over here.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

ARRRRGH! A fixup - the Brits don't keep suicide stuff on, "all ages;" Just 17 and up. The addition of a mess of younglings to the population diluted the rate per 100,000.

This is a corrected table of the 17 and up suicides.

Year |	UK Me |	UK Wo |	US Me |	US Wo |US M NG|US W NG
1991 |	20.95 |	 6.69 |	26.32 |	 5.91 |  9.32 |  3.57
1992 |	21.07 |	 6.70 |	25.60 |	 5.79 |  9.08 |  3.54
1993 |	20.48 |	 6.48 |	25.82 |	 5.79 |  8.93 |  3.38
1994 |	19.90 |	 6.13 |	25.68 |	 5.61 |  9.10 |  3.31
1995 |	20.22 |	 6.11 |	25.55 |	 5.51 |  9.39 |  3.27
1996 |	19.19 |	 5.99 |	24.90 |	 5.48 |  9.15 |  3.26
1997 |	19.00 |	 6.10 |	24.04 |	 5.41 |  9.08 |  3.35
1998 |	21.10 |	 6.24 |	23.78 |	 5.42 |  9.11 |  3.35
1999 |	20.72 |	 5.99 |	22.47 |	 5.12 |  8.57 |  3.24
2000 |	19.92 |	 6.20 |	22.32 |	 5.06 |  8.60 |  3.18
2001 |	19.30 |	 5.80 |	23.00 |	 5.18 |  9.14 |  3.34
2002 |	18.68 |	 5.83 |	23.39 |	 5.40 |  9.46 |  3.61
2003 |	18.14 |	 5.78 |	22.96 |	 5.36 |  9.37 |  3.57
2004 |	18.08 |	 6.03 |	22.97 |	 5.76 |  9.84 |  3.86
2005 |	17.51 |	 5.83 |	22.98 |	 5.82 |  9.70 |  3.86

Since I felt like I had to do the correction, anyhow, I added the promised non-gun suicide rate as well.

The suicide rates are NOT nearly identical, after all - just similar. Still, if so many of our suicides are gun related, and, as the anti-gun folks say, banning guns will eliminate the suicides, then why is the rate so high in the UK, and the question remains: Why was there no significant drop after all the guns were unloaded and locked up or removed?

 

[volatile]

Is research really that hard?

"The 2012 Olympics: Following the awarding of the 2012 Olympic Games to London, the government announced that special dispensation would be granted to allow the various shooting events to go ahead, as had been the case previously for the 2002 Commonwealth Games.[14]"

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Yes... they all parrot the same lines courtesy the NRA... they use statistics to convince themselves that the guns aren't the cause of the US's very high homicide rate...

Here are their basic myths and the answers: http://www.guninformation.org/

,,,and yet, your, "answer," to my posts from GB's home office DO NOT ADDRESS THE CRIMES you guys harp on: Homicide and suicide.

I notice that they've also abbreviated the Y axis somewhat to make the change look larger. I'll only address the dark solid line and the bottom line to demonstrate the range....

Your chart:

A 20% reduction? Wow.

GB's actual Home Office chart, All Crime:

20% reduction? Not seeing it.

Burglary in a dwelling:

A real drop there,
__________
So: Why don't they address homicde, suicide, violent crime, robbery, drug offences, criminal damage, and theft from the person of another... you know... the kinds of crimes where guns are most often used?

For cites and more charts, please go over to another post.

Lesse - how do I spell dis-in-gen-you-us....

Oh - and - I am no longer associated with the NRA, refuse to be so because of their support for jackassulating law-breakers, and decline to use any of their data, providing I know it's theirs.

Oh - and - ROLFE: SEE?!?!!? 1997 made your country a crime-reducing paradise on EARTH!!

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

... snip ...

I know two people who were vocally bitching about the tightening of the legislation - one I heard bitching after Hungerford, and the other after Dunblane. However, neither of them even kept a gun at home before the change in legislation, and the tenor of the remarks in both cases was general anti-increased gun control in principle, rather than complaining that they had been personally obliged to alter their behaviour.

Wow - being concerned for the rule of law and the population at large instead of their own self-interest!

Them SUNZABICHES!

But supposing all the 50,000 people you quote as being "affected" were indeed obliged to remove a gun that had previously been in their home. Population of Britain, a bit over 60 million. At a guess, 50 million adults? So, 0.1% of the adult population.

Yes - who really cares about majority rule, minority rights, if it only applies to a VERY small minority, right? Well - law determines rights, after all, and you guys just gave it up. We'll have a bit of a harder time of it because of that whole constitution and second amendment thing, but still....

This is the extent of the change that happened in 1997, that Gagglenash seems to think should have been evident in overall crime and suicide statistics.

See long, boring, opinion-laden other post about my concern.

Oh, even if the US could manage to get itself to the pre-Hungerford situation (1987) in Britain, I think their streets and the playgrounds would be a great deal safer than they evidently are.

Rolfe.

I surely wish I could find some of that pre-1987 statistical data so I could see how things were working out for you. Do you happen to have any links to it?

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Is research really that hard?

"The 2012 Olympics: Following the awarding of the 2012 Olympic Games to London, the government announced that special dispensation would be granted to allow the various shooting events to go ahead, as had been the case previously for the 2002 Commonwealth Games.[14]"

'Tis when you're knee-deep in reposting Home Office charts and fixing spreadsheets. Thanks for the word.

 

[Rolfe]

Hi

Wow - being concerned for the rule of law and the population at large instead of their own self-interest!

Them SUNZABICHES!

Er, no. Not at all concerned about the rule of law and the population at large. Merely concerned about the possibility of their pet hobby being curtailed. And as these two people happen to be good friends of mine, I don't really appreciate them being described in such terms.

Yes - who really cares about majority rule, minority rights, if it only applies to a VERY small minority, right? Well - law determines rights, after all, and you guys just gave it up. We'll have a bit of a harder time of it because of that whole constitution and second amendment thing, but still....

Way to totally change the subject.

Your point was that after this massive step of taking "everybody's" guns away, you would have expected to see some change to suicide and/or crime statistics. My point was that guns were "taken away" from only the very small minority (Darat pegged it as 0.1% of the population) who actually had such guns in the first place. Nowhere near enough change to imagine you'd see any difference in these statistics.

The question of "rights" wasn't even an issue in the discussion of these numbers.

Though, as it happens, the public discussion at the time was rather to the effect that the ordinary citizens' and their children's right not to be massacred by some crazed gun nut rather trumped anyone's "right" to indulge in a hobby of target shooting.

See long, boring, opinion-laden other post [and entriely irrelevant] about my concern.

I surely wish I could find some of that pre-1987 statistical data so I could see how things were working out for you. Do you happen to have any links to it?

How things were working out for us then was that a surprising amount of lattitude was actually allowed in terms of gun ownership and even keeping them at home, so long as they were locked up unloaded, and the ammunition locked up separately. However, gun ownership was still a very minority interest, very few people did indeed keep such guns at home, and (as now) nobody legally walked the streets armed.

In spite of this, nobody was afraid to go to bed at night, "home invasions" were unheard-of, and there was no lobby demanding any extension of rights to keep weapons.

Rolfe.

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

Hi


Did you have people, way before the ban, going out and burying firearms caches in your public forests?

WE DO!

And so did we. They are called the Irish Republican Army. I believe some American gun owners know them quite well.