Gun Culture in the UK (from the Economist)

Covert Mission

New member
This is an editorial from the generally excellent ECONOMIST Magazine, Aug. 12-18, 2000 issue, via the internet: http://www.economist.com

So much for the effectiveness of Britain's (opressively) strict gun control laws, in keeping guns from criminals. The truth is evident: only the law abiding have been disarmed. Criminals, whose preferred tool is the gun, can, will, and do get them. What a concept. It should have been properly titled "Is a criminal gun culture taking root in Britain?"

-------------------------------

BRITAIN
Ê
Smoking barrels
Is a gun culture taking root in Britain?Ê

"IT WAS the kind of thing you might expect in Dodge City, but not in Slough. On August 3rd, as three defendants stood in the dock of a magistrate court in Slough (a small town just outside London), a gang of gun-toting men swaggered in. They fired into the ceiling, sent officials and lawyers diving for cover, and freed two of the accused. Together, they sped off, reportedly shooting into the air as they went.
The audacity of the crime was startling. Although police quickly found the getaway car and arrested one of the two men who had been sprung, the escape emphasised the easy availability of guns. It also showed the willingness of even small-time crooksÑthe defendants faced charges of burglaryÑto make use of them. A few days earlier in Peckham in south London, a shooting outside ÒChicagoÕsÓ nightclub wounded five women and three men. This attack, and several others in south London, have been blamed on competition between rival drug gangs. All these incidents have sparked talk of a new Ògun cultureÓ in Britain.

Since a shooting in Dunblane in Scotland in 1996, when a gunman killed 16 children and their teacher, private ownership of handguns above .22 calibre has been banned in Britain. Self-loading and pump-action shotguns are also prohibited. Groups dedicated to gun control describe BritainÕs laws as the worldÕs Ògold standardÓ, noting that the countryÕs regulations are among the toughest anywhere. An amnesty following the Dunblane killings also saw some 200,000 guns of different sorts handed in from private homes, though many more are thought to be held illegally.

Have these tighter laws achieved their aim of reducing the amount of gun crime? Despite the recent incidents, the figures suggest that they have. Offences involving firearms (not counting airguns) dropped from 5,209 in 1996 to 3,143 last year, with a particular decline in the use of guns for robbery. The number of murders where a gun was used also declined, from an average of 62 a year in England and Wales in the three years before tougher gun laws were introduced in 1997, to 54 a year on average since then. (In comparison there were 32,436 deaths due to gun violence in America in 1997, of which 13,252 were murders.)

[reader's note: this doesn't take into account the large population disparity between the US and the UK. The comparison should have been listed as "murders per 100,000 population" for example.]

But although there has been a general decline in the number of crimes committed using guns, there has been an increase in the sub-set of crimes called Òguns used for violence against the person.Ó These have risen steadily from 1,206 in 1995 to 1,746 offences last year. A House of Commons committee report earlier this year noted Òa generally increasing trend in the misuse of firearmsÓ and recommending that tighter (and simpler) laws be considered.

Giving evidence to that committee, the Home Office also suggested that Òamongst 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.Ó That, says the government, is in part because of the depiction of guns in the media which tempts the Òweak-mindedÓ. But it is also thought to be a culture imported by criminals who have arrived from more violent parts of the world, such as the Caribbean. In particular, gangs such as the Yardies (those linked with Jamaican criminals and smugglers of drugs from the Caribbean to Britain), use guns to settle disputes and to protect their share of the illegal drugs market. Gangs with no connection to the Yardies, but with similar practices, operate in most of BritainÕs larger cities.

Black communities especially have endured a recent increase in violence between gangs. A permanent unit in the Metropolitan Police, Operation Trident, was set up last month to fight gun crime in London. In particular the unit of 160 officers will target those who murder and shoot within black communities, mainly gangs. Evidently there is a need for such a unit. Dave Cox, a spokesman for it, says that, despite Òa huge barrier of fearÓ, the public has responded with an overwhelming amount of information, reflecting the Òclimate of tension created in the community by the violenceÓ.

Drug money and gang warfare have driven demand for weapons; smuggled guns from Eastern Europe have helped to provide the supply. Pump-action shotguns and automatic weapons are available on the black market, and are carried by some criminals. But handguns are increasingly popular, and when used prove to be more likely to cause death or serious injury than other sorts of guns. Pistols can be bought for a few hundred pounds from underworld dealers; some even build their own or ÒreactivateÓ guns which had previously been disabled. BritainÕs criminals have little trouble getting hold of guns, if they want them."
 
I note that they make the mistake of only examining crimes with guns. By their logic, if 'gun' crimes continued to decrease, but innocent people were being beaten and knifed to death in greater numbers, then that would likewise prove the efficacy of 'gun control' laws.

I am continually impressed with the apparent impact of firearms ignorance upon such analyses. It is hard for me to conclude that this is truly a result only of ignorance ... it appears there is an editorial bent as well. Thus, such examinations are very superficial, and only begrudgingly accept any challenge to the logic of these anti-self defense laws.

If we are lucky in the U.S., foolish policies like those in Great Britain and Australia will be shown for the shams they are ... and, before we continue much further down the same path.

Thanks for posting this article.

Live and let live. Regards from AZ
 
Gun related crimes have also decreased in the USA during that period without total confiscation like in the UK.

Has more to do with demographic shifts and a settling down of drug wars.
 
The article is completely untrue, the UK Government's own figures show that the use of firearms in crime has continued to rise unchecked by the Acts. Even the Government admits that they have had no effect.

There has been no change in the number of murders involving firearms, the majority of which involved shotguns. Also the Governments own figures show that the 1997 Acts had no effect whatsoever on the use of handguns in crime.

The details regarding the law are also incorrect. Handguns, with the exception of Muzzle Loaders, are completely banned in the UK.

All in all a pretty shoddy piece of journalism. Mendacious, inaccurate and misleading.

------------------
"Quemadmoeum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."
("A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands.") -
Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD).
 
Note that their "statistics" are not for the United Kingdom as a whole, but only for selected parts of it. If we could delete parts of our country, ignore diffences in sizes of population and cut and paste murder rates by weapon of choice, then we could make ourseleves look as good as we preferred.
Note that they conveniently try to scapegoat their growing probelems on "blacks". No evidence of this is given. I simply would not want to go this long discredited ploy in any search for solutions. There are shades of Hitler and Slavery here for sure in the "respected" journal.
Note that the assertion that handguns are more leathal than rifles and shotguns simply flies in the face of physics. Enough said on this, since this is a firearms forum.

[This message has been edited by Herodotus (edited August 15, 2000).]
 
As a former subscriber to the Economist, I consider that publication to be the program guide for the new world order. The gist of their articles seems to be that the peasantry should be sufficiently free to make themselves useful in the economy. That means being productive little workers, and even accumulating enough wealth and income to be voracious little consumers. But they should not be free enough to pose a potential threat to the status quo. Hence their anti-gun stance.

Until that occurred to me I could not reconcile their economic freedom stance whith their anti-gun views. Their inconsistent application of the principle of personal freedom erodes their credibility, IMHO. But they're hardly alone in that, are they?

The Economist is full of crap. Ignore them, like I do.
 
Mark,

You raise some good points. I've always looked to the Economist for world news on far-flung places, which the US media ignores totally as if they don't exist. They also sometimes have an interesting perspective on US politics and events. I'll admit that I've never seen them comment on guns, but I'm not surprised that they take the same view as the major media in the US, e.g. ANTI-gun.

Pity the good, law-abiding, EX gun owners in the UK, and fight, that it doesn't happen here.
 
Back
Top