Gun crime in the UK doubled — after they banned handguns
Dunblane had a more dramatic impact. Hamilton had a firearm certificate, although according to the rules he should not have been granted one. A media frenzy coupled with an emotional campaign by parents of Dunblane resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison.
The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself.
Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens who have come into the possession of a firearm, even accidentally, have been harshly treated. In 2009 a former soldier, Paul Clarke, found a bag in his garden containing a shotgun. He brought it to the police station and was immediately handcuffed and charged with possession of the gun. At his trial the judge noted: “In law there is no dispute that Mr. Clarke has no defence to this charge. The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant.” Mr. Clarke was sentenced to five years in prison. A public outcry eventually won his release.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
‘One of the main incentives of running was continued Secret Service protection so we can have men with guns around at all times,’ Obooba joked.
Akzed on December 27, 2012 at 11:03 AM
Pure coincidence. No cause-and-effect here, no siree. /s
RoadRunner on December 27, 2012 at 11:07 AM
In their non-stop quest to control human behavior liberals always end up doing more harm.
They are insane. Nations of the world should get together and select a suitable land mass that all liberals (i.e. progressives, socialists and communists) can be relocated to. They will then be free to impose their policies on themselves and no one else.
They can ban whatever they like, including carbon … and live out their days controlling each other instead of us.
darwin on December 27, 2012 at 11:08 AM
very interesting.
sesquipedalian on December 27, 2012 at 11:08 AM
What do you make of the fact that they had 11,227 offences involving a firearm in a country that has banned handguns?
Oh excuse me, I think I just bumped into the elephant in the room.
WisRich on December 27, 2012 at 11:19 AM
Why only stats from 2 areas?
What constitutes “offenses”?
How did the overall crime rate fare?
Confirmation bias?
Mimzey on December 27, 2012 at 11:19 AM
So in 2011, the number of gun crimes fell to 11,000. In 2000, the number of gun crimes was 3,685.
That’s quite the spike over 10 years. In fact, the British government even quantified it. Gun crime spiked up 89% in the decade after the ban was enacted. It’s now falling again.
You call that a win??
Washington Nearsider on December 27, 2012 at 11:21 AM
Perhaps your liberal brain doesn’t comprehend what you just said. Firearms are banned yet they were involved in 11,227 recorded offenses. That means banning guns doesn’t work, and only people who intend to break the law have them leaving law abiding people unprotected.
You and your controlling friends should just leave people alone. Keep your nose out of everyone’s business and your hands of of their pockets.
darwin on December 27, 2012 at 11:21 AM
Now compare it with stats before the ban.
ddrintn on December 27, 2012 at 11:21 AM
Well it’s like that WaPo graph that moonbats were waving around for days, the one showing “assault deaths” to be in steep decline although gun ownership has been steadily increasing over 20 years.
ddrintn on December 27, 2012 at 11:23 AM
britain has one of the lowest rates of gun violence in the world, but keep failing.
sesquipedalian on December 27, 2012 at 11:33 AM
the outcome doesn’t matter,its the thought that counts,dummy
ChunkyLover on December 27, 2012 at 11:33 AM
Forced buyback. This is exactly what Feinstein is proposing.
darwin on December 27, 2012 at 11:34 AM
How does their overall violent crime rate compare to the US?
Mimzey on December 27, 2012 at 11:36 AM
So in 2011, the number of gun crimes fell to 11,000. In 2000, the number of gun crimes was 3,685.
That’s quite the spike over 10 years. In fact, the British government even quantified it. Gun crime spiked up 89% in the decade after the ban was enacted. It’s now falling again.
You call that a win??
Washington Nearsider on December 27, 2012 at 11:21 AM
Washington Nearsider on December 27, 2012 at 11:36 AM
Over 11,000 firearm offenses in a country that has banned firearms.
darwin on December 27, 2012 at 11:36 AM
People really need to stop trying to introduce facts into the gun discussion, it upsets the progressives and they aren’t interested anyway.
clippermiami on December 27, 2012 at 11:37 AM
On Drudge …
Feinstein going after handguns. She is nuts.
darwin on December 27, 2012 at 11:40 AM
There’s no way we can deport 10 million (?) illegal aliens, but confiscating 300 million legal firearms? No problem.
Knott Buyinit on December 27, 2012 at 11:40 AM
But a higher rate of violent crime than even the US.
ddrintn on December 27, 2012 at 11:40 AM
WOW
darwin on December 27, 2012 at 11:41 AM
sadly, you’re wrong.
sesquipedalian on December 27, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Feinstein wants to ban deadly ‘devises’.
http://twitchy.com/2012/12/27/a-bill-to-ban-deadly-devises-sen-feinstein-is-on-it/
LOL – she can’t spell, but she wants her ridiculous gun-grab bill to be taken seriously.
Pork-Chop on December 27, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Crimes in UK are reported separately. So England & Wales report crime itself, Scotland reports itself as does Northern Ireland. The self governing states within the British Isles, such as Jersey, Guernsey inc. the
Bailiwicks of Alderney and Sark, and the Isle of Man all would report independently.
Interestingly in all of the self governing states residents can own any firearm including machine guns as they still use the firearms laws that the UK adopted in the early 1920s. Resident is the key word and becoming a resident on one of the islands is very difficult if nigh on near impossible unless you’re born there or have verifiable ancestry.
Britcop on December 27, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Would mind responding to this:
Do you acknowledge, sesquip, that gun crime is now higher, over 80% higher, than before the gun ban was implemented.
We can’t have an intelligent debate unless we agree on the facts of the issue. How you interpret those facts is another matter. You do want to deal with facts, don’t you? Don’t facts and data matter?
WisRich on December 27, 2012 at 11:45 AM
see above.
i clearly do not. also, gun crime was increasing in the 1990s because crime in general was increasing.
sesquipedalian on December 27, 2012 at 11:48 AM
No, in the article by the Beeb that was referenced:
ddrintn on December 27, 2012 at 11:49 AM
sesquipedalian on December 27, 2012 at 11:45 AM
So the UK banned guns in 1997, and according to your link, gun violence “rose heavily during the late 1990s to peak at 24,094 offenses in 2003/04,” but the ban didn’t immediately impact gun violence?
If 1997 isn’t the late 1990s, what is?
Washington Nearsider on December 27, 2012 at 11:50 AM
It increased by 89% between 1998 and 2009. And, that’s just the beginning:
* In the 12 years following the gun ban, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77% to 1.158 million – or more than two every minute.
* In 2006, there were 92,455 reported rapes in the US, which had a population of 299.4 million, or 30.88 per 100,000 residents. In contrast, there were 85,000 reported in the UK, which had a population of 60.409 million. As a result, the rape rate in the UK was 140.71.
US: 30.88 rapes per 100,000 residents.
UK: 140.71 rapes per 100,000 residents.
* Country: # of violence crimes…rate/100,000 residents
1. UK: 1,158,957…2,034
2. Austria: 133,546…1,677
3. South Africa: 732,121…1,609
(Yeah, THE UK HAS TWENTY POINT EIGHTY-NINE PERCENT (20.89%) MORE VIOLENT CRIMES THAN THE VERY VIOLENT SOUTH AFRICA.)
4. Sweden: 108,004…1,123
5. Belgium: 107,885…1,006
6. Canada: 306,559…935
7. Finland: 41,664…738
8. Netherlands: 111,888…676
9. Luxembourg: 3,233…565
10. France: 324,765…504
The US was: 1,318,398…466
(Yeah, THE UK HAS SEVENTY-SEVEN POINT ZERO-NINE PERCENT (77.09%) MORE VIOLENT CRIMES THAN THE VERY VIOLENT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.)
* In 2010, in the United States the total number of crimes reported was 10,329,135. 1,246,248 of those were violent crimes and 9,082,887 were property crimes. The US population in 2010 was 308,745,538; thus, the per capita rates for both types of crimes were: 0.404% and 2.94%.
In 2010, in the United Kingdom, the total number of crimes reported was 9.718 million. 3.808 million of those were violent crimes and 5.91 million were property crimes. The UK population in 2010 was 62,262,000; thus, the per capita rates for both types of crimes were: 6.12% and 9.49%.
Oh, and my friends from My Progressive Little Ponyland, removing guns doesn’t remove intent, which is why you should read what happens next:
Gun Bans: Mad Dogs & Englishmen
M2RB: Leon Russell
Resist We Much on December 27, 2012 at 11:50 AM
Why were there over 11,000 firearm offenses in a country that banned firearms?
darwin on December 27, 2012 at 11:51 AM
homicide by firearm per 100,000:
england & wales – 0.07
us – 2.97
next.
sesquipedalian on December 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM
why do people commit murder when it’s against the law?
sesquipedalian on December 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM
The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America, according to new research.
Washington Nearsider on December 27, 2012 at 11:55 AM
stop repeating false statistics.
sesquipedalian on December 27, 2012 at 11:55 AM
See above.
ddrintn on December 27, 2012 at 11:55 AM
Ummmm…as usual your own graph contradicts you.
ddrintn on December 27, 2012 at 11:56 AM
interesting! alas, irrelevant. we’re talking about guns, not violent crimes. as you well know, most european countries have incredibly strict gun laws, yet they’re not crime capitals of anything.
sesquipedalian on December 27, 2012 at 11:57 AM
So you admit banning firearms only take them out of the hands of law abiding people leaving them defenseless.
darwin on December 27, 2012 at 11:57 AM
Yep. Bottom line.
ddrintn on December 27, 2012 at 11:58 AM
And we’re talking about gun use in crime in the UK before and after the ban, not gun use in the UK compared to gun use in the US. Stay on topic.
ddrintn on December 27, 2012 at 11:59 AM
Clean up on aisle 5!
Chuck Schick on December 27, 2012 at 11:59 AM
How totally and completly obtuse. But at least in your response, you acknowledge gun crime was higher than before the ban.
So next, you say “crime in general was increasing”. I agree. What changed in the UK that might have caused a spike in crime?
Could a law banning handguns play a factor?
WisRich on December 27, 2012 at 12:01 PM
you fell foul of both. idiot.
sesquipedalian on December 27, 2012 at 12:02 PM
Keep firmly in mind that the Measurements of Gun Crimes was altered during the period in question as well.
In the U.S. if a single individual went on a Spree and committed Several Gun Crimes in one day, we count each one individually as a Separate Crime.
In Britian, they began measuring that as Just One Big Crime for that day. (It helped keep the numbers down.)
jaydee_007 on December 27, 2012 at 12:02 PM
I’m using your own standard, idiot. You’ve been totally pwned, you have no facts.
ddrintn on December 27, 2012 at 12:04 PM
yes, gun crime went up and is now steadily falling, as i hope we can all agree by now. the same way the iraqi surge initially increased the rate of attacks against US troops. ok, bad example, the surge failed, but you get my point.
sesquipedalian on December 27, 2012 at 12:04 PM
Why?
ddrintn on December 27, 2012 at 12:05 PM
Certainly you can read your own chart, can’t you?
Were there more firearm offences in the 14 years after the 1997 ban or the 14 years before? Simple question.
Chuck Schick on December 27, 2012 at 12:06 PM
Interesting. Thanks for the info.
So, in a sense, you can own a firearm..even a machine gun, but you can’t buy one or import one?
Mimzey on December 27, 2012 at 12:06 PM
Please stop sesquip! Every time you throw out a piece of evidence to refute us, it actually backs up our point.
Your chart clearly shows a HUGE spike in crime after the ban was implemented.
Take the blinders off my friend, look at the whole chart, not just the last 3 years.
WisRich on December 27, 2012 at 12:06 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »