Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:10, 17 December 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Firearms regulation in the United Kingdom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Firearms C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive 1: Nov 2004 – Dec 2006 /Archive 2: Dec 2006 – Nov 2010 /Archive 3: Jan 2011 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

References

American style lobbying

The stats have been updated. The role of UK shooting organisations does not involve active political opposition. Gun politics is the wrong name for this article. Gun policy, gun laws or gun control. But I can see all every article about a country say 'Gun Politics'. This is done to match the US lobbying technique to "teach the controversy". Change the name of every other country's gun control article, and leave the US to their own machinations. 120.136.34.176 (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Seems like a very US-centric debate being forced on all the other articles. Second Quantization (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Air rifle legislation in Scotland

The "Scotland" section devotes most of it's detail to the proposed legislation regarding air rifles in Scotland, including a lengthy quote from the originator of a petition against the proposal. Obviously some mention is needed, but I feel that it is currently unduly balanced against those opposing the petition, and that this level of detail about one petition is possibly too great for this general article covering the entire history of the subject. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems pretty balanced to me, also the regional government made a fundamental mistake in the white paper with their describing an air weapon as a 'firearm', an air pistol or rifle is only a 'firearm' if it is involved in a crime, describing them as 'firearms' by the regional government suggests bias, regards. Twobells (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Lots of things in the UK are "firearms", if they fall outside the narrower definition of something else. An air weapon that's over the power limits to be accepted as an air weapon (in the legal sense) is treated as a firearm. You can quite commonly have an air rifle (especially for pest control) that's something like a pre-charged rifle or carbine and have to hold it on a FAC. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Gun politics in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121125041400/http://www.basc.org.uk:80/en/shooting/target-shooting/ to http://www.basc.org.uk/en/shooting/target-shooting/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120804073733/http://www.basc.org.uk:80/en/departments/game%2Dand%2Dgamekeeping/game%2Dshooting/ to http://www.basc.org.uk/en/departments/game-and-gamekeeping/game-shooting/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

What Happened To The Pro and Anti Shooting Lobby List?

Why was this deleted? Such a list is notable. Twobells (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Unsupportable claims

Twobells has introduced the following text:

Many members of the public increasingly own sporting rifles and shotguns while legally-held gun-related crime is down. However, illegally-held firearm crime has risen quite considerably in the last few years.

In short, this makes three claims:

1) Legal firearms ownership is widespread ("many") and increasing

2) "legally-held gun-related crime is down"

3) Use of illegally-held guns is rising

I would suggest that these claims are either misleading or factually inaccurate.

For the first the cited Telegraph article claims:

"In fact, gun ownership is at record levels. Some 1.2 million pick up a gun on a fairly regular basis today, more than ever before."

The UK population is 64,511,000 so 1.2 million is a mere 1.9%. This does not constitute "many." There is no historic usage data stated, but we can take the number of Firearms Certificates (FAC) and Shotgun Certificates (SGC) on issue as a proxy:

1995 = 141,700 & 413,600

1996 = 141,900 & 418,300

1997 = 133,600 & 305,000

1998 = 131,900 & 295,000

1999 = 132,300 & 296,400

2000 = 125,400 & 296,800

2001 = 119,600 & 301,000

2002 = 117,700 & 311,000

2002/03 = 118,600 & 316700

2003/04 = 122,100 & 342200

2004/05 = 126,400 & 358300

2005/06 = 127,900 & 368600

2006/07 = N/A & N/A

2007/08 = 128,528 & N/A

2008/09 = 138,728 & 435,383

2009/10 = 141,775 & 451,131

2010/11 = 141,840 & 464,839

2011/12 = 143,166 & 477,888

2012/13 = 147,695 & 498,048

2012/14 = 151,413 & 507,867

2014/15 = 153,603 & 525,125

This shows that the number of FACs has not significantly increase, especially when one takes the increasing population into account, and while the number of SGCs has show a greater increase, it is modest and linear. In this context the claim that, "Many members of the public increasingly own sporting rifles and shotguns," is highly misleading.

For the second claim - that "legally-held gun-related crime is down" - the cited 2012 Huffington Post article does not actually directly refer to the use of licensed firearms in crime in the UK at all, and in fact does not refer to any UK data beyond the fact that homicides commited with firearms were down to 51, which I believe refers to the most recent (at the time) figure for England & Wales.

Lastly, the third claim - that use of illegally-held guns is rising - cites a paywalled Times piece that cannot be easily checked, but the preview suggests focuses on urban crime, and notes that, "the number of occasions when a firearm was discharged in London leapt to 352, an increase of 16.5 per cent compared with the previous 12 months." In other words, a very low number which is prone to extreme year-on-year fluctuations, and one based on only one geographical area at that. In fact, the number of crimes involving non-air weapons and air weapons for the past 24 years has been:

1992 = 7,243 + 6,098 = 13,341

1993 = 7,730 + 6,337 = 14,067

1994 = 6,002 + 7,165 = 13,167

1995 = 5,866 + 7,568 = 13,434

1996 = 6,063 + 7,813 = 13,876

1997 = 4,904 + 7,506 = 12,410

1997/98 = 4,903 + 7,902 = 12,805

1998/99 = 5,209 + 8,665 = 13,874

1999/00 = 6,843 + 10,103 = 16,946

2000/01 = 7,471 + 10,227 = 17,698

2001/02 = 10,024 + 12,377 = 22,401

2002/03 = 10,248 + 13,822 = 24,070

2003/04 = 10,338 + 13,756 = 24,094

2004/05 = 11,069 + 11,824 = 22,893

2005/06 = 11,088 + 10,438 = 21,526

2006/07 = 9,645 + 8,836 = 18,481

2007/08 = 9,865 + 7,478 = 17,343

2008/09 = 8,199 + 6,041 = 14,240

2009/10 = 8,082 + 4,931 = 13,013

2010/11 = 7,040 + 4,295 = 11,335

2011/12 = 6,022 + 3,510 = 9,532

2012/13 = 5,158 + 2,977 = 8,135

2013/14 = 4,842 + 2,867 = 7,709

In other words, almost totally consistent falls in the use of non-air weapons since the high of 2005/06, and consistent falls in the use of air weapons since the high of 2002/03. In this context, a claim that "illegally-held firearm crime has risen quite considerably in the last few years" cannot be regarded as anything other than utterly false. I am therefore reverting Twobell's edits. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You suggest? Take it up with the various authors but please do not revert from some sort of WP:POV position. I just cite the legitimate sources and the facts and statistics contained therein. Twobells (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The sources you cite simply do not support your interpretation of what they are saying. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read the articles Nick, they state exactly that. Look, you must stop employing WP:NOR on Misplaced Pages, regards. Twobells (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Here are a couple more citations for you. Look, I have plenty more legitimately-sourced citations if you want them Nick. I believe strongly in showing good faith but why are you consistently trying to revert and remove legitimate citations relating to UK gun crime? Remember the G36? You reverted those citations too, for years after the assault rifle was in general use in the UK among British police forces, why? Twobells (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

No, you were reverted on that point because you repeatedly tried to claim that semi-automatic carbines are "machine guns" or "assault rifles," which by definition they are not. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I have never suggested that the G36 is a 'machine gun', you are confusing me with someone else, I stated that the G36 is an assault rifle which it is again supported by the overwhelming evidence that you consistently ignore. With respect Nick, your pov agenda driven by WP:NOR has no place on Misplaced Pages, best wishes. Twobells (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC) Twobells (talk)

No, you will not revert credibily sourced citations, that is against best Misplaced Pages policy and Nick you should and do know better, stop chancing it. Your WP:OR has no place on Misplaced Pages, regards. Twobells (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Pointing out that published statistics refute your synthesis of news reports is not original research. Less than 2% of the population regularly using firearms does not constitute "many," and the report does not support your claim of a substantial increase in ownership, which is not borne out by the SGC and FAC statistics. You cannot extrapolate a recent increase in a low base rate of urban gun crime to claim that, "illegally-held firearm crime has risen quite considerably in the last few years," when the published national figures on firearms crime show the exact opposite, i.e. consistent falls over the last decade. In short, stop misrepresenting or just plain lying to pursue your own agenda. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Nick, you are constantly having to retreat to WP:NOR in your defence, the authors citations I added state the statisistics clearly and these authors come to their conclusions which the citations support, yet you have taken the same stats and come to another conclusion and promote that personal research in this article which is blatant WP:NOR, reverting edits that include legitimate citations that clearly with no sophistry, state the facts, to then go on and state that I am 'lying' when all I am doing is following best wiki practice by including relevant numerous citations from legitimate sources is beneath you, regards. Twobells (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

No, your citations do nothing of the sort. You are, of course, free to quote from each the exact text which you believe supports your three claims, and particularly the emphasised parts i.e.

1) Many members of the public increasingly own sporting rifles and shotguns

2) while legally-held gun-related crime is down

3) illegally-held firearm crime has risen quite considerably in the last few years

Nick Cooper (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

All editors are free to read the articles which support the authors conclusions, what you not are permitted to do is employ WP:NOR to further your agenda. Also, Nick you need to calm down, the link you are directing people to is an empty .xml template. http://s4.postimg.org/eoe5lhm4t/your_Link.png. Also, what it you that deleted the pro and anti-gun organisations? In closing I see you have edit warred here before so I will be referring your actions to administration, regards. Twobells (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll take that as an acknowledgement by you that you cannot quote the text in the articles that support your bogus claims.

The link is http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-violent-crime-and-sexual-offences--2013-14/rft-appendix-tables.xls If you can't open that, it's time you got a new PC. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I have just spent the last ten minutes since I wrote the above arranging arbitration, yet you again, assume some soft of bad faith, regards. Twobells (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, I am trying to help you with this table and this is what editors get when they click on your link: http://s11.postimg.org/h3nm81637/hislinkg.png Edit, you seem to be trying to post this link, correct: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-376027 ? I am using Excel 2016 and your link just resolves to a blank .xml template. Twobells (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

No, that's the page the link to the spreadsheet appears on. The other link is direct to the spreadsheet itself. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

In fact, gun ownership is at record levels. Some 1.2 million pick up a gun on a fairly regular basis today, more than ever before.

Gun deaths last year in the UK at 51 were down by 18 percent , yet private gun ownership continues to grow with 1.8 million legally held

Gun crime is increasing in urban areas across the country, prompting fears of a resurgence in gang activity.

Twobells (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You claimed that, "Many members of the public increasingly own sporting rifles and shotguns." As already stated, 1.2 million is 1.9% of the population, and thus does not constitute "many" as would be commonly understood. Shooting remains a pastime practiced by a very small minority of the population, regardless of whether or not it has increased recently (a small minority that has increased from an even smaller minority is still a small minority). The cited source does not specify what the number of practitioners has increased from and certainly the claim that there has been a significant increase in the ownership of "sporting rifles" is not supported by the number of FACs on issue.

You claimed that, "legally-held gun-related crime is down." The originally cited January 2012 Huffington Post article stated: "Gun deaths last year in the UK at 51 were down by 18 percent..." This does not correlate with either of the three previous reporting years numbers of firearms homicides, or the subsequent one, i.e.:

2008/09 = 39

2009/10 = 39

2010/11 = 58

2011/12 = 42

Regardless of this anomaly, the number of homicides commited with firearms being at a low does not support the much higher level claim that, "legally-held gun-related crime is down." The HP article makes no mention of any other firearms crime statistics, and certainly none relating to "legally-held" firearms.

You claimed that, "illegally-held firearm crime has risen quite considerably in the last few years." As already stated, the number of crimes involving both non-air weapons and air weapons - and the combined total - have been falling consistently over the last decade. In terms of "the last few years," the actual numbers for the last five have been:

Year	Non-air weapons	Air weapons	Total
2009/10	8,082	4,931	13,013
2010/11	7,040	4,295	11,335
2011/12	6,022	3,510	9,532
2012/13	5,158	2,977	8,135
2013/14	4,842	2,867	7,709

The cited September 2015 Times article is paywalled, and so cannot be read in full, but in the visible preview states:

"Gun crime is increasing in urban areas across the country, prompting fears of a resurgence in gang activity. Statistics reveal that gun crime overall, including possession of a firearm, increased by 12 per cent in the capital in the year to September. However, the number of occasions when a firearm was discharged in London leapt to 352, an increase of 16.5 per cent compared with the previous 12 months."

From this it is clear that the article in dealing with urban firearms crimes, which are prone to severe fluctuations due to the low base line. Given that the national figures have been consistently and demonstrably falling for more than five years, for you to say that "illegally-held firearm crime has risen quite considerably in the last few years" is, to be frank, a complete lie. It is also dishonest of you to claim that the cite source corroborates your lie. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You are attmepting to use sophistry along with WP:NOR to argue your case when the citations from legitimate sources clearly state the case, however, this is not enough for you Nick, you take statistics that franky are only part of the picture then use original research to make your claim, a claim you then introduce into a Misplaced Pages article which is completely unacceptable. All my edits include the actual quotes from the articles cited yet you seemingly cannot accept the authors conclusion, as well as clearly having an inability to accept that the statistics are only part of the picture, increasingly, authors cite that much gun crime is not reported as such including, incredibly the possession of a firearm.

On the contrary, you are making claims that are simply not supported by the citations you have applied to them (and which in some cases are clearly refuted by authoritative sources), either because you don't understand what you are reading, or because you hope readers will accept your misleading/factually inaccurate claims without checking further.

This matter is really very simple:

1) The Daily Telegraph report does not support your original claim that, "Many members of the public increasingly own sporting rifles and shotguns." The report does not mention ownership, only that, "Some 1.2 million pick up a gun on a fairly regular basis." 1.2 million is less than 2% of the population of the UK population; <2% is not "many." The article's claim that, "gun ownership is at record levels," is false given that the number of Firearms Certificates and Shotgun Certificates on issue were:

1968 = 216,300

1971 = 190,600 + 715,500

1974 = 185,900 + 767,000

1979 = 169,600 + 782,100

1980 = 168,000 + 781,900

1981 = 164,900 + 785,200

1982 = 162,700 + 780,600

1983 = 159,800 + 783,400

1984 = 160,300 + 798,400

1985 = 160,400 + 819,300

1986 = 160,300 + 841,000

1987 = 159,000 + 861,300

1988 = 155,400 + 882,000

1989 = 149,400 + 865,100

1990 = 142,500 + 802,300

1991 = 138,600 + 724,600

1992 = 136,800 + 689,200

1993 = 138,400 + 681,100

1994 = 140,200 + 670,000

1995 = 141,700 + 653,800

1996 = 141,900 + 638,000

1997 = 133,600 + 623,100

1998 = 131,900 + 627,600

1999 = 132,300 + 625,700

2000 = 125,400 + 602,500

2001 = 119,600 + 577,200

2002 = 117,700 + 559,000

2002/03 = 118,600 + 561,800

2003/04 = 122,100 + 569,900

2004/05 = 126,400 + 572,400

2005/06 = 127,900 + 563,600

2006/07 = N/A + N/A

2007/08 = 128,528 + 549,207

2008/09 = 138,728 + 574,946

2009/10 = 141,775 + 580,653

2010/11 = 141,347 + 564,269

2011/12 = 141,820 + 562,696

2012/13 = 146,426 + 570,726

In other words, the current number of FAC is lower than it was at any point prior to 1990, and the number of SGCs is lower than it was at any point prior to 2002. How, then, can anyone reasonably claim that, "gun ownership is at record levels"? Certainly your amended text of, "Increasing numbers of the public own firearms in the UK," is misleading in the context of the low numbers overall.

2) The Huffington Post article does not support your claim that, "legally-held gun-related crime is down." It makes no mention of any UK crime statistics beyond a low for "gun deaths," likely meaning homicides, most of which are not committed with legally-held firearms, anyway. I see that you have not attempted to amend this claim, nor provide citations to corroborate it.

3) The paywalled Times article does not support your claim that, "illegally-held firearm crime has risen quite considerably in the last few years." ONS figures quoted above show that this is categorically not the case, with overall numbers of firearms crime falling consistently over the last decade.

I see that you have now tried to deflect this point by questioning the recording of firearms crime in general. As I believe has been pointed out to you previously, it is the case that possession offences have never been included in the overall numbers for firearms-enabled crime, because by definition they generally only count crimes in which firearms are used. Even if possession offences amounting to 60% are not included now (although some clearly are tabulated in the HO/ONS returns), they were not included ten years ago, or twenty years ago, or thirty years ago. Their supposed none inclusion does not affect the reported number of firearms-enabled crimes, and so it is highly misleading to highlight the (non-)issue in the lead as you have.

I would note as an aside that the old Telegraph article you have cited dates from 2008, when Labour was in power, and quotes Tory MP Dominic Grieve, who presumably forgot all about the matter completely when he subsequently became Attorney General. Clearly the issue was merely being used as a stick to beat the then-current administration. In addition his complaint that the Home Office should be relieved of responsibility for the compilation of statistics is now redundant, given that it actually happened several years ago. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand what WP:OR is Nick, you cannot hypothesize using your own Original Research claiming you know what a government minister was thinking then claim that as 'fact', Misplaced Pages is only interested in the citations and the sources state exactly that which I have written, just because you make an assumption from your WP:OR does not mean you can then claim ownership of the article and state your supposition as fact. You keep citing the government statistics but the journalists and authors cited in the sources have far more up to date information and they have legitimate concerns that the state is not telling the whole story, again, born out by the citations. Every single citation bears out what I have written, it is straight-forward, does not rely on WP:OR nor hypothesis, regards.Twobells (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You clearly did not understand the meaning of "I would note as an aside..." That Grieve's comments were clearly politically motivated is an adiditonal point that does not invalidate the reason for removing your misleading text in the first place.

On the other hand, you trying to hand-wave away the national figures for firearms-enabled crime does not wash. Those up to 2013/14 are the most recent full-year figures available; the 2014/15 ones will be available early next year. You simply cannot extrapolate a shift in the first six months of the year in the low base line of urban firearm-enabled crime to claim that, "illegally-held firearm crime has risen quite considerably in the last few years," given that the national figures show consistent falls over the last decade. National firearms-enabled crime has categorically not been "rising" in any way, shape, or form - and certainly not "considerably" - "in the last few years." That the reality is the complete opposite is a fact, and you have absolutely no compelling evidence that even remotely suggests otherwise. In 2013/14 such crimes were at a lower level than they were than in any of the previous twenty-two years. This despite the fact that crimes are counted now that would not have been counted under the rules in use prior to the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard, which first affected figures for 2001/02.

Contrary to your insistance, the citations you have provided do now corroborate what you are claiming. While you have been asked more than once to quote the exact text from the articles which corroborates you claims, you have failed to do so. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

With respect, you continue time and again to employ WP:OR in your defence of the indefensible which is to remove uncontencious referenced material, again, you are hypothesizing what a government minister might be thinking then employing that in your argument as to why these clearly neutral referenced material should be removed, seemingly, you just don't get it. Essentially, what you are doing is consistantly employing WP:OR in your attempts to revert non-contencious referenced material, that is not a valid defence for reverting these edits. You claim that it is me that 'hand-wave away national figures' when it the considered opinion of the authors and journalists, not mine and that brings us again to the crux of the matter, in that you are conflating MY edits with their well-researched articles. Again, I have to remind you that each of the the edits reflect exactly what the sources state, which is:

1: members of the public increasingly own firearms

2: legally-held gun-related crime is down

3: illegally-held firearm crime has risen quite considerably in the last few years and that the national statistics do not reflect actual gun crime rates, regards.Twobells (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

• C-Class Firearms articles
• Unknown-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles
• C-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Unknown-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment