Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Troike wrote:
Ah, the Telegraph, a right-wing paper. And they've made a poll which is mostly going to recieve votes from Telegraph readers. Clearly there are no issues of bias here.

Ahhh... the time old tactic of attacking the source instead of the message when they threaten your world view.

Also it was a poll to pick the favourite of a number of choices, PM term limits, more green spaces and a flat tax are not the sorts of things that excite conservative voters.

Even before the ban, you weren't allowed to walk around with a handgun in the UK. It is not like people were packing, and others were afraid to rob them in case they pulled a gun. There was no deterrent in that regard.

There is no widespread desire to own handguns in the UK.

My personal feeling is that owning a handgun doesn't make you feel free, it makes you feel powerful, and some people like feeling powerful. Talking about freedom is better than talking about power though.

 djones520 wrote:

 Troike wrote:
Ah, the Telegraph, a right-wing paper. And they've made a poll which is mostly going to recieve votes from Telegraph readers. Clearly there are no issues of bias here.

Ahhh... the time old tactic of attacking the source instead of the message when they threaten your world view.

If a source has a political bias it's relevant. Or do you not question the validity of anything you see in a newspaper?

 djones520 wrote:

 Troike wrote:
Ah, the Telegraph, a right-wing paper. And they've made a poll which is mostly going to recieve votes from Telegraph readers. Clearly there are no issues of bias here.

Ahhh... the time old tactic of attacking the source instead of the message when they threaten your world view.

So you don't think the fact that fact that the source isn't an objective one, in that it has a clear political stance, and the fact that this poll's participants are very likely to share said political stance doesn't matter? This is not objective data.

 djones520 wrote:

 Troike wrote:
Ah, the Telegraph, a right-wing paper. And they've made a poll which is mostly going to recieve votes from Telegraph readers. Clearly there are no issues of bias here.

Ahhh... the time old tactic of attacking the source instead of the message when they threaten your world view.

If the source is possibly biased it's a valid point.

 Troike wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Troike wrote:
Ah, the Telegraph, a right-wing paper. And they've made a poll which is mostly going to recieve votes from Telegraph readers. Clearly there are no issues of bias here.

Ahhh... the time old tactic of attacking the source instead of the message when they threaten your world view.

So you don't think the fact that fact that the source isn't an objective one, in that it has a clear political stance, and the fact that this poll's participants are very likely to share said political stance doesn't matter?

My bad, you were referring to the original article about the poll. I thought you were referencing the other links that had the telegraph talking official government numbers.

 Troike wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Troike wrote:
Ah, the Telegraph, a right-wing paper. And they've made a poll which is mostly going to recieve votes from Telegraph readers. Clearly there are no issues of bias here.

Ahhh... the time old tactic of attacking the source instead of the message when they threaten your world view.

So you don't think the fact that fact that the source isn't an objective one, in that it has a clear political stance, and the fact that this poll's participants are very likely to share said political stance doesn't matter?

Of course not, context doesn't matter when it doesn't suits you. That's why he's hanging a lot on the 40% stat to the exclusion of all else.

Also, I think it's worth pointing out that the poll was dealing with lots of things, rather than guns specifically. It was a case of "pick the thing you like best out of these various hot issues" rather than "have a think about your thoughts on gun ownership and give us an idea of your stance".

We can't really use this to say what people (or Telegraph readers, in this case) think about gun ownership. Not exactly, anyway.

 djones520 wrote:

And I agree that the differances in culture are a big thing in play here. American's want there guns, Brits don't. I'm not arguing that Brit's should have guns. Just pointing out that since the ban there has been a climb in numbers. You seemed to argue that the rates don't matter because the numbers are small. I'm just curious, at what point does it matter for you? What number would you have to see for it to be "significant"?

When you deal with such low numbers, percentiles sound far worse than they are.

from 06 to 07, the murder rate of handguns fell by 57%, that's massive, until you realize it's 29 less dead people by hand gun in a nation as populous as the UK, which could represent 2 less 'business handovers' by criminal organizations in major cities or one less psycho on a rampage. When we consider very low figures, single instances can greatly swing the %.

Look back over the figures I cited earlier, the mean is actually fairly steady over time (36 per year).



It also means you can find things like 'gun crime climbed by 40%' when the homicide rate by firearm in the UK actually fell.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

And I agree that the differances in culture are a big thing in play here. American's want there guns, Brits don't. I'm not arguing that Brit's should have guns. Just pointing out that since the ban there has been a climb in numbers. You seemed to argue that the rates don't matter because the numbers are small. I'm just curious, at what point does it matter for you? What number would you have to see for it to be "significant"?

When you deal with such low numbers, percentiles sound far worse than they are.

from 06 to 07, the murder rate of handguns fell by 57%, that's massive, until you realize it's 29 less dead people by hand gun in a nation as populous as the UK, which could represent 2 less 'business handovers' by criminal organizations in major cities or one less psycho on a rampage. When we consider very low figures, single instances can greatly swing the %.

Look back over the figures I cited earlier, the mean is actually fairly steady over time (36 per year).



It also means you can find things like 'gun crime climbed by 40%' when the homicide rate by firearm in the UK actually fell.

Still not answering my question though. I've got no horse in this race. You guys can do what you want with your country. In the event I ever get stationed there I've already got someone to hold onto my guns while I'm gone. But I would like to know what the British viewpoint of significant numbers are.

You guys have attacked our violence rates plenty enough, even though we've seen statistically significant drops in violence over the last 15 years. As much as 69% in some categories, resulting in thousands, to tens of thousands fewer victims, all while the number of privately owned guns have gone through the roof in our country.

 Fifty wrote:
Even before the ban, you weren't allowed to walk around with a handgun in the UK. It is not like people were packing, and others were afraid to rob them in case they pulled a gun. There was no deterrent in that regard.

There is no widespread desire to own handguns in the UK.

My personal feeling is that owning a handgun doesn't make you feel free, it makes you feel powerful, and some people like feeling powerful. Talking about freedom is better than talking about power though.

well, owning a gun does actually make you free to own a gun. You can be free to not own a gun, and i can be free to own one. that does sound more free then "you can be free to not have a gun"

we have two groups of people, those that use guns properly, and those that do not.

those that do not, are unaffected, if not helped, by banning those who do use guns properly from using them so.

That I know plenty of people who have been asking for their guns back for years in England, a couple ex pats actually compete with me here on occasion as well, because while thats a valid overview of my life experience, in your mind Im sure I am either fictitious or a statistical fluke.

The laws were always about just getting guns out of citizens hands, and never the criminals, never about saving lives.

If you are really that afraid of your neighbors, and that ambivalent about the career criminals I dont know what to say. I just dont see my adult neighbors who pass background checks owning a gun being anything but an ASSET in case they end up being the first responder to some career criminal making his paycheck of them.


No one was talking about the stereotypical "power" complex, thats basically a nicer way of arguing by insult. Really no better then arguing gun owners only do it for "compensation" of certain nature.

Ugh. Just googling around, I'm seeing loads of websites touting this poll around as proof that British citizens want handguns legalised. Goddamn.

No we dont, thats just stupid.

Edit: at the article not OP

 djones520 wrote:

Still not answering my question though. I've got no horse in this race. You guys can do what you want with your country. In the event I ever get stationed there I've already got someone to hold onto my guns while I'm gone. But I would like to know what the British viewpoint of significant numbers are.

You guys have attacked our violence rates plenty enough, even though we've seen statistically significant drops in violence over the last 15 years. As much as 69% in some categories, resulting in thousands, to tens of thousands fewer victims, all while the number of privately owned guns have gone through the roof in our country.

You do have a horse in this race, or rather you're trying to hoist the results of this race to apply to your horse.

As to what significant numbers are, I have no idea, ideal numbers would be 0, and continually climbing numbers of Homicide would be pertinent, but the figures I've already provided prove the homicide rate is not increasing year on year. So a rate of death increasing consistently would be relevant.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:


But Britons seem unconvinced by the law. The proposer, known as "Colliemum" asked, "...why should only criminals be 'allowed' to possess guns and shoot unarmed, defenceless citizens and police officers?"

Did anyone else read this and think "Why would I want to Shoot unarmed, defenceless citizens and Police Officers?"....So much for sentence structure.

I don't want this nor is it allowed, and I don't feel anything for this incoherent argument.

 Fezman wrote:
The gun laws in this country work.

It amuses me how the quote from the proposer asks "why should only criminals be 'allowed' to possess guns?" Why the inverted commas? They're not "allowed" to have guns, that's kind of the point. If they have them, they're breaking the law.

Fortunately I think I can say with certainty that nothing will come of this. I've frankly got to wonder how the mind of the person who came up with this proposal works. They see that despite guns being tightly controlled, a small amount of gun crime still exists. Their solution is to introduce more guns and make them easier to acquire. Yay, logic!

You should include the statistics on murder and assautl in general as well. Same for rape if thats not included.

 easysauce wrote:

The laws were always about just getting guns out of citizens hands, and never the criminals, never about saving lives.

You realise that this sentence doesn't make any sense whatsoever? If it is illegal for someone to own a gun then it is also illegal for a criminal to hold a gun.

 easysauce wrote:

If you are really that afraid of your neighbors, and that ambivalent about the career criminals I dont know what to say. I just dont see my adult neighbors who pass background checks owning a gun being anything but an ASSET in case they end up being the first responder to some career criminal making his paycheck of them.

Until your neighbours disgruntled teenage son grabs his dad's gun and goes to the nearest school and starts shooting everyone in sight.

Look at the numbers that MGS posted: 36 gun related deaths on average each year out of 62 million people.

Please, please, please keep you gun "freedom" laws out of Europe we really don't need them.

Allow me to provide a measured, restrained and I feel widely representative response of a typical UK resident to this claim of the Telegraph's.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

...yes, that was restrained.

I know those of you over the pond might be thinking that I can't possibly speak for an entire nation, but trust me... the British haven't ever really *had* guns. How could we want them *BACK*? Even in the days that they were available without legal recourse, most people couldn't afford them.
We simply have never been in a position like the US where it's not considered unusual to have a firearm in the house. Hell, it's a little eccentric even to own a sword.

Anyone who is quoting British Gun murder Stats....Read this please, starting at pg 55.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116483/hosb0212.pdf

Gun Crime figures do not always correlate to Death Rate. You can have alot of Gun-Crime without many fatalities, such as Armed Robbery or intimidation / Threatening behaviour. Pistol whipping is recorded as a Gun Crime and not an assault.

Equally an individual with a Single weapon can cause disproportionate Harm. Especially in a country with a very low Gun Murder rate.

Case in Point, 0.1 per 100,000 in Norway has been skewed by Anders Beering Brevik's gun massacre and the high number of dead will skew the figures.

In Britain, despite what any third party makes our statistics and says the Murder Rate is higher than in the US, well it might be but the it isn't murder using guns or firearms. So it's muddying the waters.

If you have a Firearm weapon, even a replica, a mock-up or something that looks vaguely like a gun in public, British Police will do a full-on tactical take down. Quite simply there is no reason to carry a Weapon in Public, unless you are a Police Officer, part of one of the Security services or the Military on Guard or Ceremonial Duties.

Farmers etc can have Weapons for pest control, but you cannot carry it in Public. So it must be kept securely and on Private land.

PhantomViper wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

The laws were always about just getting guns out of citizens hands, and never the criminals, never about saving lives.

You realise that this sentence doesn't make any sense whatsoever? If it is illegal for someone to own a gun then it is also illegal for a criminal to hold a gun.

It does make sense, one of the arguments about banning guns in the US is, "Criminals don't care about whether or not guns are banned, they will possess guns regardless. Banning guns takes guns out of the hands of people that can legally own them and thus defend themselves should they be met with a firearm." It becomes a leveling of power.

If the UK doesn't have problems with guns because less than 40 people are killed by guns every year on average, then that's fine, keep them banned, it works for their culture and their country, it currently "doesn't" work for our country. We're just diametrically opposed on this stance.

Also to the level of significance, is this survey providing significant numbers for polling participants? I know you can generally get a statistically significant response after a thousand or so people, but what the Telegraph gets 1.7 million views a day? (still trying to get their numbers of unique view/visitors), so potentially 11,000 people out of 1.7 million saw that, clicked on it, and completed the poll. Does 11,000 people answering this not provide a level of significant results, or do they need to add about 89,000 more? I'm honestly asking, I barely passes statistics in college

 Frazzled wrote:

 Fezman wrote:
The gun laws in this country work.

It amuses me how the quote from the proposer asks "why should only criminals be 'allowed' to possess guns?" Why the inverted commas? They're not "allowed" to have guns, that's kind of the point. If they have them, they're breaking the law.

Fortunately I think I can say with certainty that nothing will come of this. I've frankly got to wonder how the mind of the person who came up with this proposal works. They see that despite guns being tightly controlled, a small amount of gun crime still exists. Their solution is to introduce more guns and make them easier to acquire. Yay, logic!

You should include the statistics on murder and assautl in general as well. Same for rape if thats not included.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22275280

EDIT :

Really for interest more than info really but

http://www.reedstargetshootingclub.co.uk/

is the website that the one person I know who goes shooting attends.

There's a legal section and a FAQ that may -- or not -- be of interest and relevance.

 Alfndrate wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

The laws were always about just getting guns out of citizens hands, and never the criminals, never about saving lives.

You realise that this sentence doesn't make any sense whatsoever? If it is illegal for someone to own a gun then it is also illegal for a criminal to hold a gun.

It does make sense, one of the arguments about banning guns in the US is, "Criminals don't care about whether or not guns are banned, they will possess guns regardless. Banning guns takes guns out of the hands of people that can legally own them and thus defend themselves should they be met with a firearm." It becomes a leveling of power.

If the UK doesn't have problems with guns because less than 40 people are killed by guns every year on average, then that's fine, keep them banned, it works for their culture and their country, it currently "doesn't" work for our country. We're just diametrically opposed on this stance.

Also to the level of significance, is this survey providing significant numbers for polling participants? I know you can generally get a statistically significant response after a thousand or so people, but what the Telegraph gets 1.7 million views a day? (still trying to get their numbers of unique view/visitors), so potentially 11,000 people out of 1.7 million saw that, clicked on it, and completed the poll. Does 11,000 people answering this not provide a level of significant results, or do they need to add about 89,000 more? I'm honestly asking, I barely passes statistics in college

We have to be careful about statistics from Newspapers, The Telegraph is quite right of Centre (Republican leaning I think in your terms ) so alot of it's content caters to that audience, equally the Guardian is left - Leaning ( Liberals / Democrats). So it's like polling 11,000 Republicans and saying it's a fair representation of the public's views on Democrats.

So actually the National Audit Office (NAO) or Office for National Statistics (ONS) are setup as independent arms of government to perform Independent statistical analysis and they often upset Governments because what they say might not be Politically Convient to the Administration of the day.

The problem with independent is that they aren't influenced by Politics, or painting a rosy picture for political convenience. They are very reputable and their figures and methods are very robust.

Oh and for some context to British Constitutional Affairs..

Until recently, English statute was not concerned with absolute rights and rights that were recognized in law, such as the right to life have traditionally been part of the common law. There is an English common law right to keep and bear arms for self-protection but the possession of certain arms is controlled for the common good. The right to bear arms was not specifically made legal until the Bill of Rights 1689. The first serious control on firearms after this was not made until the passing of the Pistols Act 1903 more than 200 years later.

So allow me to get this straight.

Since the gun ban has been passed, more gun crimes have been committed, ergo the gun ban does not work?

I mean, that's some pretty woolly thinking and reading of statistics. The conclusion is inherently flawed, as it fails to consider the serious possibility that without the gun ban, gun crime would be even higher still. Just because gun crime is on the rise does not necessarily equate to the gun ban being ineffective.

After this thread what American values should we project onto Europe next and pretend that everyone feels that way? Soda cup size? Ford F150 in every driveway? Bloated military budgets? Kissing a breast is NC-17 but cutting it off is R or PG-13? I mean, really, there is a smorgasbord of things to choose from.

Of course, I think the other side should be doing the same as well, and find European values that the US should pretend to hold.

Everyone has there homework for the day.

 Ahtman wrote:
After this thread what American values should we project onto Europe next and pretend that everyone feels that way? Soda cup size? Ford F150 in every driveway? Bloated military budgets? Kissing a breast is NC-17 but cutting it off is R or PG-13? I mean, really, there is a smorgasbord of things to choose from.

Of course, I think the other side should be doing the same as well, and find European values that the US should pretend to hold.

Everyone has there homework for the day.

US to Europe: the joy of of Tex Mex.
Europe to the US: COnvince the Wife the I need a Ducati (almost there!!!)

Just waiting for D-USA to come onto this thread and throw down on somebody because he had to say for the 1 millionth time that gun crime is recorded differently in the UK compared to the USA

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Just waiting for D-USA to come onto this thread and throw down on somebody because he had to say for the 1 millionth time that gun crime is recorded differently in the UK compared to the USA

No... Violent Crime is recorded differantly.

 Frazzled wrote:
US to Europe: the joy of of Tex Mex.

Their sad, bland taste-buds may not be ready for such an adventure, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. A-

 Frazzled wrote:
Europe to the US: COnvince the Wife the I need a Ducati (almost there!!!)

Seems nice, but if you could have worked Bugatti in instead of Ducati, it would have been more internet relevant. B-

Bugatti's are out of my price range. I'm going to ride it, not hide it in an airconditioned garage and wipe it down with a cloth diaper....