Dead wrong

How can the leader of the YBF deny the link between gun death rates and liberal ownership laws, asks Mick North.

In America, where guns are easily available and the firearms laws are liberal, thirty people are shot and murdered every day. In Great Britain, where gun ownership is restricted and the firearms laws are strict, there have been thirty gun homicides in the last ten months. The UK's gun death rate, among the lowest among industrialised countries, is nearly one-fiftieth of that of the US. This huge difference reflects the fact that there is a direct correlation between the level of gun ownership in a country and its gun death rate. Given this, one has to question why anyone, and especially anyone associated with a major political party, would suggest that Britain adopts America's liberal gun ownership laws. But this is just what Donal Blaney has been advocating.

Blaney is the leader of the Young Britons' Foundation, an offshoot of the Conservative party's youth wing. At least 11 Tory parliamentary candidates have been involved with the YBF, which has organised radicalising trips to the US that have included firearms training courses.

No one doubts that gun crime remains a worrying problem in the UK, but its scale is often exaggerated and the contribution of weapons such as airguns and imitation guns downplayed. It is claimed that tightening the British gun laws, especially the prohibition of handguns, has failed to stop gun crime, indeed that gun crime here has been "spiralling out of control". But that flies in the face of all the recent data which show the total number of firearm offences falling steadily for the last five years, the number of gun homicides at its lowest for at least twenty years and the number of gun injuries down by more than half in the last six years. These trends have been ignored, not just by Blaney and those who want wider gun ownership but also by senior Conservatives who use distorted gun crime data to push their Broken Britain agenda. The fear of gun crime is very strong, and whatever the motives it is cynical to play on this and inflate these fears.

At the heart of Blaney's position, however, is the idea that it is good for individuals to own guns, yet there is no objective evidence that this makes for a safer society. A gun in the home actually increases the risk that a member of the household will be shot and killed. The slaughter of thousands of US citizens each year shows just how poorly widespread gun ownership protects the population as a whole. Ultimately the arguments used by those advocating liberal gun laws are based on their own obsessions, their need to possess and handle weapons whatever the cost to others.

Firearms legislation should have little to do with individual rights and all to do with public safety. Until 1996 this country's policy on gun legislation was unduly influenced by the shooters who felt their needs should be put before the safety of the general public. All that changed when a gun club member shot a class of infants at Dunblane Primary School, killing sixteen of them and their teacher. Legally-owned guns are not immune from abuse, indeed they are still frequently used in school and workplace shootings in the US and elsewhere. Widening gun ownership would simply expand not restrict their unlawful use.
The views of Donal Blaney and the gun-toting activities of the YBF are a reminder to those who care about protecting the public from guns that we need to remain vigilant. The risk of being a victim of gun crime in the UK is thankfully very low, a situation which must never be compromised by a radical libertarian agenda.

Photo: Robertnelson 2007

Mick North works at the Gun Control Network

11 Mar 2010 10:54

Comments

• Posted by dizzy on 11 March 2010, 12:57:01 PM "A gun in the home actually increases the risk that a member of the household will be shot and killed." Likewise the more cutlery in the drawer the more risk of someone being stabbed and killed. Also the more plug sockets in the home the increase of risk that someone will be electrocuted and killed. Ban cutlery! Ban plug sockets!
• Posted by Scott Freeman on 11 March 2010, 1:00:54 PM Every empirical claim in this article is wrong.
• Posted by Simon on 11 March 2010, 1:31:23 PM This is hysterical rubbish with little evidence to back it up. Gun crime has risen massively since handgun ownership was outlawed. FACT Hamilton and Ryan had psychological problems, they were not representative of normal shooters. FACT Following the introduction of mandatory gun ownership laws in Kennesaw Georgia, crime plummetted by 74% in one year. FACT
• Posted by Christian on 11 March 2010, 1:35:16 PM Your efforts to portray YBF supporters as "gun toting" maniacs is completely laughable. I was on that trip to the US. A session at a shooting range (which included 3 hours of safety training) was nothing more than controlled shooting in a safe, and busy, indoor gun range. You make it sound as if we ran an assault course with ammo belts jangling round our chests. Pathetic. On the same trip we visited the national monuments in Washington, including the war memorials (incredibly moving). We also visited the Air and Space Museum. Are you now going to suggest that YBF is bent on intergalactic domination, too? Give it a rest.
• Posted by Geoffrey on 11 March 2010, 2:27:25 PM The ONLY systemic gun crime in the UK, is with the use of illegally held guns. The Police are usually responsible for more deaths per year through firearms incidents, [sometimes on their own staff] than any other single type of recurring situation. Government statistics reveal firearms use is safer than both horse-riding, and fishing, by some considerable margin. Once every 5 years or so, a shotgun is used by it's legal owner, to kill himself and sometimes his family. Fire and sharp/blunt objects are the usual alternatives, and incidents with these are already far, far higher. Any case for further restrictions, just simply couldn't hold water. Rather, it's time some compulsory/voluntary gun training was undertaken, so teenagers were shown just how dangerous/terminal firearms misuse can be. Any group taking the time and trouble to get familiar with legally held firearms ought to be applauded. Wisdom through experience?
• Posted by Sophia on 11 March 2010, 3:15:23 PM It's well known that people who like guns are just a bunch of violent lunatics - they might not have committed any offence yet but it's only a matter of time. I think that ALL guns should be banned and anyone who has previously owned one should be psychologically screened and then monitored to make sure he does not pose a threat to society.
• Posted by Barry on 11 March 2010, 3:19:46 PM How many people know this emotional , non-factual claptrap is written by a man who lost his daughter at Dunblane? You could hardly get less objective. The UK is not America, but American rights to bear arms developed from the Enbglish Bill of Rights. Before the first decade of the 20th century there were no firearms laws. Many peple carried pistols and kept them in their homes. Crime was minimal. Since the inception of the Firearms Acts,1920, armed crime has increased year on year. Assaults and break ins have spiralled. Now, apart from a few legal exceptions, only criminals have pistols. Since they were banned in 1997, pistol crime has increased. Whatever the likes of the GunContrl Network says, they are in cahoots with the United Nations, whose aim is a new world order of unarmed people subject to the wishes of a world government. A disarmed public is vital to this aim, never lose sight of that. Mick North, unfortunately fuelled by emotion and loss, is one of their 'useful idiots,' as he and his fellow Snowdroppers were for Blair and Howard at the election following the Dunblane murders.
• Posted by Baz on 11 March 2010, 3:19:56 PM The Dunblane tragedy was by someone who was not fit to own any sort of Firearm, it has been well documented that the Police were at fault by letting him have a FAC (Firearms certificate) and there was mention of the Chief officer being in same lodge as Hamilton in Freemasons. FAC holders in this country are very carefully scrutinised and thoroughly checked out these days before being granted the FAC, in fact they are among the MOST law abiding people in this country I have been to every State in the US and those that allow the carrying of Handguns tend to have the most polite people! And burglaries are practically non existent in houses where the occupants are likely to be armed The "Gun control network" will exaggerate any statistics they can in order to make them suit their purpose I am a gun owner and I do not break ANY laws, not even parking offence.
• Posted by Baz on 11 March 2010, 3:20:27 PM The Dunblane tragedy was by someone who was not fit to own any sort of Firearm, it has been well documented that the Police were at fault by letting him have a FAC (Firearms certificate) and there was mention of the Chief officer being in same lodge as Hamilton in Freemasons. FAC holders in this country are very carefully scrutinised and thoroughly checked out these days before being granted the FAC, in fact they are among the MOST law abiding people in this country I have been to every State in the US and those that allow the carrying of Handguns tend to have the most polite people! And burglaries are practically non existent in houses where the occupants are likely to be armed The "Gun control network" will exaggerate any statistics they can in order to make them suit their purpose I am a gun owner and I do not break ANY laws, not even parking offence.
• Posted by redDawn on 11 March 2010, 3:24:45 PM I totally agree with Sophia! The only people that should have guns are the authorities that control our society - the concept of ordinary citizens being allowed to possess firearms seems crazy!
• Posted by Baz on 11 March 2010, 3:26:56 PM Thankfully rubbish as posted by "Sophia" above is obviously hysterical claptrap, there are many gun owners amongst the Political parties including David Cameron (Deer Stalker) so according to Sophia he is a raving nutcase Has she been checked out like every gunowner has to be? She certainly seems to be suffering some sort of Paranoia, so wouldnt get any sort of gun!!
• Posted by Baz on 11 March 2010, 3:30:40 PM RedDawn how do you think Vermin would be controlled? Do you think we have enough Army personnel or Police to do it for you? Cars kill many times more people in this country than privately owned guns ever have, so does alcohol and fatty foods, would you like all those banned form private use? Get a life
• Posted by Micahel on 11 March 2010, 3:33:58 PM Very poor reporting by a second rate hack. Theis article shows no balance and is extremly biased towards the authors membership to NGC. Gun crime is commited by gangs with illegally imported and banned handguns. Sporting shooters value their certificates and lifestyle too much to use them unlawfully. The few incidents that do occur are not representative of the whole and if Sohphias arguement is to be used then cars should be banned as they count for many a pedestrians death, we should all use public transport unless we are a part of the authorities?
• Posted by mick on 11 March 2010, 3:35:39 PM members of the public who own and use firearms have to go through a very thorough vetting process before being allowed to purchase and use them legally. you could, of course go and buy an illegal weapon for £50 and do untold damage with it on the streets. the very fact that this is ILLEGAL seems to escape the minds of most people. All they are capable of seeing is that guns = death. Personally, I have no time for these sad, misinformed individuals.
• Posted by Tony on 11 March 2010, 3:49:00 PM The most frightening thing I have read on this site is this:- ''The only people that should have guns are the authorities that control our society '' Anybody who truly thinks this is a total fruitloop. If you want to be controlled by men with guns then you are totally bonkers !! We need to be protected from stupid people like this.
• Posted by Barry on 11 March 2010, 3:49:15 PM Reddawn: Why should only the authorities have weapons? What if they turn them on us? You haven't a single brain cell between your ears if you think that 'authorities' can ever be trusted. As others have pointed out, UK firearms certificate holders take ownership of guns responsibly. Also, the training of police officers who carry guns is woefully inadequate. I bet you've never even seen, let alone used a gun. I suspect your only knowledge comes from Hollywood nonsense where anyone holding any gun will end up killing people with it. Grow up and join the real world instead of slavishly following this dangerous leftie rubbish.
• Posted by Jase on 11 March 2010, 3:55:42 PM It's comments such as Sophia's that is typical of misinfomed , ignorant people who have totally lost a grip on reallity,get a life or do some research before posting drivell.
• Posted by jay on 11 March 2010, 4:20:59 PM I’m with Sophia on this. NOT. Why not ban all those horrible guns and while where at it knifes to (oh I forgot we already did that) and not for getting table forks, spoons,cars,trains,motorbikes,cricket bats, baseball bats and just about everything else in daily use. Its about time some people gained some common sense instead of spouting crap and wanting things banned. If we ban guns then knifes will be used to kill and banning knifes hasn’t solved anything because they forgot to ban kitchen knifes (real clever). If someone wants to kill someone then they could easily break a big branch off a tree and kill them with that but then this would mean banning trees and cutting them all down so we all end up dead. (No oxygen to those who don’t know) People who don’t know about guns or who are not educated in their use always fly of the deep end wanting them banned but if they decide to learn and be educated then they will see that they are no more dangerous than the person behind them. To those who don’t like guns then gain some knowledge and gain some common sense before spouting your mouth. If you want to ban something then ban people with no common sense and those who want to cause harm to others.
• Posted by Nikon on 11 March 2010, 10:17:52 PM The usual ill-thought out hysteria from Mick North. I feel sad about the loss he suffered in the Dunblane massacre but suffering a breavement did not turn him into an instant expert on crime. Among other errors, he has always refused to address the fact that Britain always had a low rate of gun crime even in the days when firearms were easily available.
• Posted by Keith on 11 March 2010, 11:36:07 PM I find this article very poorly thought out or deliberalely misleading. Yes there are more gun deaths on the US than the UK. There is also a massive population difference. Surely a gun death rate by population would be a far more accurate way of putting the figures accross. I also noted that there is no breakdown in the figures to diffentiate between legaly held and illegal firearms.
• Posted by Stephen on 12 March 2010, 12:09:51 AM What strange people some of you are. Knives & Forks can be dangerous - of course - but unlike hand guns, they have a far more common legitimate use. How do you kill vermin ? - well most people ring rentokil - but for a few in the countryside you might use a shot gun. Not a hand gun or an AK47 - a common or garden 12 bore. (which incidentally was for many years - and for all I know still is - by far the most common fire arm used in armed robberies in the UK) I can not possibly imagine that any party wanting to promote widespread ownership of guns in the UK could ever be elected to Government - it just isn't going to happen. I would point out though that Mick North's murder rate figures are somewhat misleading - the US's rate being around 5 times that of England's (per capita) - England's being one of the lowest rates, but the US being a long way from the higher one's such as Honduras - with around 58 intentional homicides per 100,000 per year - if life expectancy is say 60, then that's about a 1 in 28 chance of being murdered (not accurate I know - but it's still pretty damned high) (My source is just Wikipedia btw - it may be prone to inaccuracies)
• Posted by David Robertson on 12 March 2010, 2:51:23 AM More spineless liberal whining. Get a grip, Nancy.
• Posted by Alex Innes on 12 March 2010, 8:47:24 AM I get failry dismayed when I read the kind of bar-room rants that I've seen on these postings. It is a matter too serious for this sort of often unreasoned confrontational non-debate. I still remember the dismay that hung over Dunblane for months, and the deep anxiety felt by so many parents actross Scotland. I have lived in a part of Europe where gun ownership was hugely widespread. One armed robbery took place in our small town. No shouts for control, of course. But that's a different culture, with a more responsible public, and far less (reported) violent crime generally. Ban cutlery and motorbikes - hmm. Neither cutlerly nor motorbikes are designed solely for the projection of munitions with direct lethal potential. That's what guns are for. The more firearms there are the more criminals find it easiy to get and hold them. That's why they need in the UK rigorous controls. Simples!
• Posted by artin on 12 March 2010, 9:06:19 AM "The more firearms there are the more criminals find it easy to get and hold them" Although it's very easy to make this link I think you'll find that the majority of illegally held section 5 firearms that are seized in this country have been smuggled in from overseas - one downside of our open boarders and proximity to mainland Europe with it’s rather relaxed gun laws.
• Posted by jay on 12 March 2010, 9:10:32 AM If guns are ever banned outright then people who want to cause harm will find something else to use so why not use a little common sense and think about it for those who still spout crap and dont think it will happen?? Its true that vermin are controlled by the use of shotguns,rifles and other tools for the job such as traps but shotguns are legal and so are rifles so pistols should be know differant. I havent met a man yet that isnt angry and sorry about what happened at Dunblane but if guns where never invented then whats to say another weapon wouldnt have been used?? If people want to kill then they will so may be this area should be looked at rather than taking one tool from them and still leaving them 1000's more to use.
• Posted by Gaz A, Former GCN supporter on 12 March 2010, 10:18:36 AM The comments from Baz are correct. I used to agree with the GCN until I read the Cullen Report and the transcripts from the Enquiry. Most of what he says is true, Hamilton wouldn't have gotten his FAC if it wasn't for the incompetence of the police (not sure about the Masonic stuff though). Thing is, I do sympathise with Mr North, but that doesn't change the quite undisputable fact that what he and the GCN did (and are doing with replica and air guns) is wrong. Misuse should never be used as a reason to penalize proper use. It's irresponsible and foolish.
• Posted by joe FD on 12 March 2010, 10:46:51 AM That's right. All together now: Guns don't kill people. Inadequate right-wing rambo-fantasist nut-jobs kill people. Now go back to the Coffee House, trolls.
• Posted by Paul on 12 March 2010, 12:56:24 PM Oh, I see. Take away their guns and they will seek alternative ways of killing people. Feeding them to death with fatty foods strikes me as a tad slow, though. I would, however, treat anybody with extreme suspicion if they are in the habit of carrying a kitchen knife around in public, especially the sharp variety. If it's not guns that kill people then what should we do: take the people away from the guns or the guns away from the people? Both!
• Posted by Alex Innes on 12 March 2010, 6:13:07 PM I'll take no credit for the event, but I'm glad that since I got involved, the tone seems to have moved on from abusive. Thank you. I was trained to fire guns, generally very accurately. There was never any doubt in my mind what it was they were designed to do, accurately. Some, like some older machine guns and shotguns, are design to be relatively inaccurate, to increase your chance of hitting something. They all have their function, including culling mink, deer, or deer, shattering clay pigeons, defending us, and so on. Rigorous control helps ensure that these are the purposes to which they are put. And then, people using firearms for legit purposes have to screened, again with rigour - that was the Hamilton problem. And they take identified risks in training and in use. Anything like greater casualisation of control will simply extend use to the less competent and to the criminal. Illegal guns certainly do come in from sources outside the UK. Enabling more home sourcing would not make matters better. And yes, of course, if I met you socially and found that you carry a Stanley knife, I'd rather put in some distance. I suppose that's the people bit: why the knife? Why the shotgun? You'd reallly need a very good story for either. I'd presume the Stanley knife in the pub indicates a disturbed world view, or criminal intent, or both. I'm not sure that if you come to your community for a firearm licence, you shouldn't have to work very very hard to move us from making the same sort of assumption. Legitimate users should not have a problem, but they should reasonably expect that it's not any easier than getting a licence to fly a helicopter (another usful object with lethal potential). Its a tough old world, but you might see why I'd rather be here and not live in Texas, where ther are lots of licenced firearms, a corresponding proliferation of illegal weapons, and bigger morgues. And if you are in any doubt at all, ask a police officer.
• Posted by steve on 13 March 2010, 1:34:48 AM

  It is sad to see comments on this list from people like Baz and a few others, spouting the usual inflammatory rubbish that always comes out whenever guns are mentioned. Thank goodness for those that take a more sensible view. At the end of the day guns are designed for one purpose only - to kill. There is no other reason to have them, they do not have any alternative use. Sporting use merely provides alternative targets to a living creature, whether it be human or animal and does not detract from the real purpose of the gun. I agree that the majority of gun owners are responsible and that the majority of criminal offences are carried out by using illegally held guns. However the restrictions on firearms ownership means that there is no likelihood of them being carried around openly in public. It is a different situation with handguns which can be easily concealed. We have very good firearms laws in this country and under no circumstances should they be relaxed to let people such as Baz loose in the community armed with a weapon. The comments about rising gun crime are simply not true as anyone can find out by studying the Home Office statistics. The rise quoted is in air gun and imitation gun crime, which is subject to far less control. This is where the gun owning lobby should be concentrating their efforts. If they lent their weight to the lobby seeking more control over air and imitation weapons they would find that they would have a lot more support from the general public.

• Posted by Dennis on 13 March 2010, 10:00:52 AM

  Steve on 13 March 2010, 1:34:48 AM, said... "The rise quoted is in air gun and imitation gun crime...". Many of the apparent rises in 'gun crime' are as a result of changes in the law - new offences create more recordable statistics! ... Egg and chicken?

• Posted by Scott on 13 March 2010, 12:23:37 PM

  I am more or less a pacifist. I have never been in a fight in my life, have never been a victim of or witnessed violent crime, and have no desire to cause anyone or anything harm if it is within my power to prevent it. But get this... I own guns. I have several shotguns that are all owned legally on licence, stored securely so that no-one other than myself can access them, and are only used for clay pigeon shooting. I see people spouting off the same dull clichés regarding this article about "guns being only made to kill", well once upon a time many centuries ago that may have been the case, but not any more, now guns can have perfectly legitimate recreational uses. I for one go shooting every other weekend with my brother and father, it's a family hobby that gets us all off of our collective arses and outdoors to enjoy some quality time together. The majority should never be punished for the actions of a minority. We could take this to another level: Muslim extremists kill people, so why don't we just ban the Muslim faith from the UK and make its practise illegal? All of them, the moderates, the casuals, the (small number) of extremists, get rid of them all in one fell swoop. Do you really see that happening? It would save a few lives every year, but would criminalise and stigmatise thousands upon thousands of innocent people. Never advocate banning anything, because the next thing to go could be something that you hold dear.

• Posted by Tommo on 13 March 2010, 3:19:32 PM

  I totally agree with Baz's comments. However I cannot understand redDawn's comment that "The only people that should have guns are the authorities that control our society - the concept of ordinary citizens being allowed to possess firearms seems crazy!" I take it from this redDawn that you are happy and content living in a controlled society - and which 'authorities' do you refer to?? It's a scary concept...!! Also.. "the concept of ordinary citizens being allowed to possess firearms seems crazy!"... well I rather fancy being a citizen than a subject; because, following your premise, that's exactly what we would all become. Just a load of 'sheeple', benign, without a voice.. and totally compliant. IS that what you want?

• Posted by Gaz A, Former GCN supporter on 15 March 2010, 9:45:51 AM

  Personally, I find the "Sheeple" comments to be a little off the mark. Mind you, the "Rambo wanna-be" comments are far worse. I always found it quite disturbing as a progressive how many of my fellows try to, quite laudably, stop the harassment and bullying of minorities, yet as soon as gun owners show up, it's out with the "GUN NUT!" screams. Well, at least we've improved. From what I've read, some gun owners were attacked in the post-Dunblane hysteria for the crime of bringing forward legitimate criticism. Just ask Mike Yardley. That was part of the reason I stopped believing in the GCN. I couldn't look in the mirror and see anyone but a bully. What good person could? I've heard it said that any person can make an error, but that error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it. If any of us truly deserve the mantle of progressive, we should acknowledge our mistakes, starting with the 1996/7 bans. It's the right thing to do.

• Posted by Steve on 16 March 2010, 5:15:37 PM Regarding Scott's comments about the main purpose of guns being to kill. That is exactly what they are designed for. I did not go on to say that they should all be banned and I accepted that the majority of gun owner have them for legitimate purposes. That is not the argument. I was brought up in a shooting fraternity and certainly none of my family misused their guns and I would always protect their right to keep them, as they do, securely in accordance with the UK firearms laws. The argument for hand guns is another kettle of fish. These can be concealed and are the weapon of choice for criminals in much the same way as they used to cut down shotguns, which they found easier to obtain because they were able to steal them from owners who did not look after them properly. Nowadays they can get handguns far easier because of the numbers being smuggled in from Eastern Europe. There should be a concerted effort by everybody who has an interest in the subject to make the authorities put more effort into the prevention of these imports. Gaz seems to have misunderstood the priorities of GCN. I have followed their website with interest for a number of years and have seen no sign of a bullying attitude but a lot of very common sense. At least they do not distort the figures like the pro gun lobby but look into them in detail and find the true picture. Heaven help this country if there is a relaxation on gun ownership and possession. I would hate us to go the same way as America. Because of our gun laws we have the only police force in the world, as far as I know, which does not routinely arm all its officers and speaking as a former police officer I can assure you that I never wanted to be armed and neither did any of my colleagues. I know that there are a lot more armed officers now and consequently there are the occasional unfortunate accidents but think how many there would be if everybody had a gun. The argument about carrying a gun for self defence is laughable because in the vast majority of cases the person being threatened with a gun would not have the time to think quickly enough to draw his own weapon. The attacker would also be far more inclined to shoot immediately if he thought his victim might be armed. Leave the current legislation alone. It provides us with a lot of security. There may be one or two anomalies which can be sorted out such as the proliferation of imitations and airweapons which are not properly controlled, despite the recent restrictions on their sale but on the whole our gun laws are amongst the best in the world and should remain so.
• Posted by Gaz A, Former GCN supporter on 17 March 2010, 9:54:07 AM (Is anyone else finding the no breaks in posts confusing?) When I was referring to "bullying", I meant the GCN representatives at a gun control conference years ago, and their treatment of Mike Yardley, who was there to discuss the facts of the bans being demanded at the time. On replicas, there was no need for a ban on their sale at all. Take Airsoft for example. The GCN first said such replicas have "no legitimate sporting purpose" (a lie, the fact Airsoft exists is a sporting purpose, and a legitimate one at that). Then it was "Airsoft guns don't take much work to fire real bullets" (another lie, the pressures that replicas and real weapons can take are very different). Finally, after several attempts to point this out, the current article on the GCN website refers to the criminal modification of replicas in Japan, to try and justify a ban over here. No attempt to apologise for their previous accusations. All they've done since their inception is use the deaths of innocent people to demand unfair and unjustifiable restrictions on people who, it cannot be disputed, are just as innocent as the people who the GCN claim to be doing this for. All for the "Greater Bad". If the GCN admitted their wrongdoings and apologised for them, at least as publicly as they did when they made said accusations, I may regain some respect for them.
• Posted by Freedom and Liberty for this I on 16 April 2010, 12:56:30 PM The areas in the US with the most gun deaths actually have the most restrictive laws. In Washington D.C, handguns have been totally banned since the 1970s. It, however suffers from the highest crime and murder rates in the entire nation. Then look at Vermont and New Hampshire. Almost zero gun laws at a state level yet they both have the lowest murder rates in the US and violent crime levels lower than in the UK. Armed homeowners deter burglars. FACT. Would you rather break into someone's home in Texas or the UK? Go figure. In the UK, if a women pulled out a can of pepper spray on a rapist, SHE would be charged for possession of a section 5 firearm. You think you're free?
• Posted by Zinc on 16 April 2010, 1:07:56 PM If you think the UK's gun laws are 'sensible' read this: http://tablebear.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/justice-in-the-uk/ How is locking someone up for a minimum of five years for having an old pistol in their loft fair?
• Posted by Graham Showell (BritainNeedsGu on 16 April 2010, 6:04:03 PM "The more firearms there are the more criminals find it easy to get and hold them". In that case, the opposite must also be true - in that less legal guns means less crime. So why has armed violence increased so much in the UK in the last 13 years ? America always gets mentioned whenever people talk about legalising guns. In fact it's often the only argument against gun ownership that we hear. Some people say that this "proves" that more guns means more crime, though they frequently fail to explain the situations regarding the low gun violence in Switzerland and the very high levels of gun violence in Mexico. It's true that the US has more legal guns and more gun crime but that has always been the case, even when both countries had no gun laws. America's gun violence has plummeted in recent years, but at the same time gun sales have increasing massively. Mick North and others like quoting figures and comparing gun murders in the US and the UK. Well, here's a question - how many gun murders in the US are carried out by previously law-abiding people using legally held guns ? After all, we have seen here that banning guns does not stop criminals getting them, and law-abiding people are the only ones that will ever be disarmed by gun control laws.
• Posted by Gaz A, former GCN Supporter on 26 April 2010, 8:13:35 PM "How is locking someone up for a minimum of five years for having an old pistol in their loft fair? " It's not. Nor is it sensible by any legitimate use of the word. And yet, in a country claimed to be tolerant, we find joy in such intolerance. I'm actually amazed that a site that claims to be for progressives supports such regressive and irresponsible groups as the GCN. A repeal of the unjustified 1997 ban would be the right thing, the *progressive* thing to do, and yet nobody has the courage to tell the truth and say "We were wrong", least of all, the GCN. As I said before, if they did that and told the truth for a change, I might regain some respect for them.