Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!andromeda!topaz!husc6!seismo!mcvax!ukc!jmh From: jmh@ukc.ac.uk (Jim Hague) Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: Firearms ownership (in the UK) Message-ID: <1721@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 21-Jul-86 10:37:22 EDT Article-I.D.: eagle.1721 Posted: Mon Jul 21 10:37:22 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jul-86 04:12:06 EDT References: <902@kontron.UUCP> <182@suneast.uucp> <923@kontron.UUCP> Reply-To: jmh@ukc.ukc.ac.uk (Jim Hague) Organization: U of Kent at Canterbury, Canterbury, UK Lines: 95 Disclaimer - I haven't the time or inclination to go and gather facts on this, so the below must count only as opinion. Also my comments only apply to mainland Britain - Northern Ireland is obviously a different kettle of fish. Now read on .... In article <923@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: >The majority of burglaries in the U.S. are of unoccupied dwellings as well. >But when a burglar breaks into an occupied dwelling here, they know there >is at least a possibility the occupants will kill the burglar. Doesn't >sound like that's even a remote possibility in Britain. True enough. The burglar killing the owner is also a very remote possibility. Personally speaking, if I ever find myself having to confront a burglar, I'd rather that neither of us were armed. Even if I came off worse, I think I'd regard my property of being of less importance than my life. >Accidental gunshot deaths in the U.S. are VERY low -- less than two thousand >a year, most of them hunting accidents. (I presume that Britons are allowed >to hunt, and I presume they make mistakes, also.) Hunting in the UK is not at all comparable to that in the US. Hunting with firearms over here is done by a tiny minority, and the weapon used is then almost invariably a shotgun. Hunting with rifles, it seems to me, is very rare indeed. The vast majority of the UK population do not hunt at all (the only people I know who hunt are foxhunters), and indeed have no wish to. The sporting use of rifles and pistols is confined (pace above comment) to target shooting. The reguations on rifle ownership are very strict. From memory, to own a rifle you must be a member of a licensed rifle club, which will have a secure armoury where the weapon and all ammunition must be kept and accounted for. Each application for a permit can be rejected by the police for any reason they see fit - I don't think there is any appeal. A shotgun licence is much easier to obtain, but I don't know the details. >My understanding is that criminal use of handguns has been on the rise for >some years in Britain, in spite of the difficulties in obtaining them. >Why keep honest people disarmed so that the criminals have the advantage? Again, true enough. However, a couple of points. Use of firearms during a robbery is confined almost exclusively to pre-planned robbery of a bank or Post Office. It is a very out of the ordinary mugging or robbery from the home that involves firearms. So, are those caught up in an armed robbery at more of a disadvantage because they are unarmed ? I don't think so - it seems to me that if the criminals work on the assumption that everybody is likely to be armed they are more likely to shoot somebody making a wrong move. By far the most common weapon used in an armed robbery is the shotgun. This is, coincidentally, by far the easiest weapon to obtain legally. In response to this the Government has been considering tightening up the laws on shotgun ownership. Note, I am *not* saying the shotguns used are legally registered ones, used by their owners, merely that the general availability of shotguns is much higher than other firearms. >But not because guns are not legally available -- because the population >of Britain is more peaceful with ALL types of weapons than the population >of the U.S. ..... Firearms aren't the reason that Britain is >so much less crime-besieged. Now, I'm far from convinced that making firearms generally available here would do anything to the crime rate other than increase it. The argument is that burglars, rapists and whoever are much less likely to ply their trade because they fear the victim may be armed. Given that US society is armed, it would therefore seem to me that the propensity of the average American to rob and main his/her fellow man must be astronomical. No. It seems to me much more likely that the crime rate is determined by factors other than the possible consequences to the criminal. In this case widespread ownership of firearms would at best make little impact, and at worst increase the amount of serious crime - a handgun can so easily promote a minor offence (e.g. a pub brawl) into a major one. Finally, the lifting of restrictions on firearm ownership would be a monumental political mistake for any Government of the UK. Reason ? Widespread ownership of firearms would necessitate the arming of the police as a matter of course. It is probably difficult to appreciate the impact this would have if you haven't been bought up in a society where the police are unarmed. The police themselves view such a move with extreme disfavour. I have heard it said that any party which dared to put a speed limit on the autobahns in Germany would be politically crippled for about 20 years - for me, at least, arming the British police forces would make a similar impact. -- Jim Hague UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!jmh Failure has gone to his TG: 72:MAG10135 head. - Wilson Mizner.