10th Anniversary of Dunblane and Results of Gun Control

[Jeff Higgins]

The Times March 14, 2006


A policy that backfired
By Ross Clark



THE FAMILIES of the 16 children and one teacher murdered by Thomas Hamilton in Dunblane Primary School ten years ago yesterday lit candles in solemn memory of the victims. Britain’s criminals, on the other hand, marked the occasion as they mark every other occasion: with rounds of gunfire.
It is depressingly apt that the tenth anniversary of Dunblane should have coincided with a fatal gunfight at a Salford pub, which left two men dead and sent children playing in a nearby park running for cover.



The handgun ban introduced after Dunblane has silenced gun clubs and forced Britain’s Olympic shooters to practise overseas, but it certainly hasn’t prevented the criminal classes from arming themselves like never before.

In 1996, 7,753 crimes involving firearms were reported to police in England and Wales, and 49 homicides were committed with guns. In the last year for which figures are available, 2003-04, the corresponding figures are 24,094 crimes and 68 homicides.

Perhaps without a handgun ban, the figures would now be even higher. Then again, maybe banning handguns has driven more criminals to use knives: 237 people were knifed to death in England and Wales in 2003-04, compared with 197 in 1996. Either way, the dismal results of the handgun ban should be required reading for all politicians before they vote to ban anything.

It must have seemed tempting, in the wave of public grief that followed Dunblane, to believe that the act of outlawing weapons would reduce the propensity of the citizenry to commit foul crimes. Just look at America, implored the anti-gun lobby: that country has high gun-ownership and a high murder rate.

Conveniently, campaigners did not draw attention to Norway and Switzerland, which combine some of the highest rates of gun-owner- ship with the lowest crime rates.

I don’t like guns. To me, double-bore pistol-shooting lives up to its name. But, little though I cared for the rights of shooters and much though I sympathised with the victims of Dunblane, the evidence now points me to an obvious conclusion: that an outright ban on handguns was a pathetic gesture that has disrupted peaceful sports but done absolutely nothing to make any of us safer.

[Drago]

Unfortuntely, those that should be listening are not.

[masraum]

Didn't Oz just do this in the last couple of years? I just don't think it matters much. People will find a way to dominate and kill each other no matter what you do.

[red-beard]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
Perhaps without a handgun ban, the figures would now be even higher. Then again, maybe banning handguns has driven more criminals to use knives: 237 people were knifed to death in England and Wales in 2003-04, compared with 197 in 1996. Either way, the dismal results of the handgun ban should be required reading for all politicians before they vote to ban anything.

It must have seemed tempting, in the wave of public grief that followed Dunblane, to believe that the act of outlawing weapons would reduce the propensity of the citizenry to commit foul crimes. Just look at America, implored the anti-gun lobby: that country has high gun-ownership and a high murder rate.

Conveniently, campaigners did not draw attention to Norway and Switzerland, which combine some of the highest rates of gun-owner- ship with the lowest crime rates.

I don’t like guns. To me, double-bore pistol-shooting lives up to its name. But, little though I cared for the rights of shooters and much though I sympathised with the victims of Dunblane, the evidence now points me to an obvious conclusion: that an outright ban on handguns was a pathetic gesture that has disrupted peaceful sports but done absolutely nothing to make any of us safer.

The Cities in the US which have the harshest gun bans, also have the highest murder rates. WHAT? That doesn't make any sense. Actually, it does. Criminals don't legally purchase guns and don't legally own them. Where citizens are disarmed, the criminals run wild, knowing they are not likely to be harmed.

Right conclusion - wrong sentiment.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by red-beard
The Cities in the US which have the harshest gun bans, also have the highest murder rates. WHAT? That doesn't make any sense. Actually, it does. Criminals don't legally purchase guns and don't legally own them. Where citizens are disarmed, the criminals run wild, knowing they are not likely to be harmed.

Right conclusion - wrong sentiment.

Wrong conclusion.

Those cities had high crime rates and murder rates and thus enacted gun bans to try to curb the violence. I don't think you can find valid data and a real accurate stat analysis to arrrive at any conclusion that the rate increased solely for the reason of the ban.

[FrayAdjacent911]

Stevepaa,

Data likely wouldn't show that weapons bans INCREASED violent/gun related crime...

... but it sure as hell won't show that it did anything to REDUCE that crime!


If bans worked, L.A., Chicago, D.C.... would all be very very safe cities.

[legion]

There have been a series of random shootings in Chicago. Dailey is calling for even stricter (and possibly state-wide) bans on guns. He ignores the fact (as does the press) that all of the shooters did not legally own the guns.

[ChrisBennet]

Ah come on, it's obvious that gun bans decrease violent crime. You have to look no further than our prisons - all weapons are banned and look how safe they are. Oh wait....

-Chris

[TheMentat]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins


Conveniently, campaigners did not draw attention to Norway and Switzerland, which combine some of the highest rates of gun-owner- ship with the lowest crime rates.

I agree with alot of what has been said thus far... Gun control has a weak, if not non-existent, correlation with violent crime.

Perhaps the violent crime rate is more negatively correlated with the degree of socialism of that country?

[pbs911]

Originally posted by stevepaa
Wrong conclusion.

Those cities had high crime rates and murder rates and thus enacted gun bans to try to curb the violence. I don't think you can find valid data and a real accurate stat analysis to arrrive at any conclusion that the rate increased solely for the reason of the ban.

And anti's will never have the data to support such a self interested conclusion. However, probaly the best data is available from those States that once had a high gun violence rate and a decrease was documented upon enacting shall-issue CCW legislation. No where has data been shown to rebut the conclusion that shall issue CCW licences resulted in higher gun violence crimes. Conversly, every State/City that has enacted draconian gun regulations has seen an increase in gun related violent crimes. This isn't brain surgery.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by masraum
Didn't Oz just do this in the last couple of years? I just don't think it matters much. People will find a way to dominate and kill each other no matter what you do.

I don't know who said it, "when you have unlimited gun ownership you have an ocaisional tragedy, when you disarm a society, you have rampant criminality, and eventual genocide".

[fastpat]

Originally posted by stevepaa
Wrong conclusion.

Those cities had high crime rates and murder rates and thus enacted gun bans to try to curb the violence. I don't think you can find valid data and a real accurate stat analysis to arrrive at any conclusion that the rate increased solely for the reason of the ban.

Gun bans or controls have never reduced the murder rate in any country that has tried doing so, not once, ever.

Further, since the correlation exists cross culturally and in different nations, it strongly indicates that gun bans do increase both crime rates and murder rates.

[Hugh R]

I remember reading that after Florida started issuing CCW's the car jacking of rental cars leaving the airport increased. Why? because the criminals knew that the people leaving the airport in rental cars didn't have guns. Someone from Florida can chime in here, but I believe the rental car companies started taking their logos off of the rental cars.

[id10t]

Anyone got recent stats on crime in Kennesaw Georgia?

[kach22i]

Originally posted by fastpat
Gun bans or controls have never reduced the murder rate in any country that has tried doing so, not once, ever.

Further, since the correlation exists cross culturally and in different nations, it strongly indicates that gun bans do increase both crime rates and murder rates.

The introduction of guns into Africa, Indonesia, Central America and other previously gun free societies, no matter what century you want to talk about has been a disaster for the population.

Lets not make broad sweeping generalizations. Pick an example and examine all the factors giving them the consideration they deserve.

One generalization which I may harbor myself, is that guns in the hands of one segment of the population and not the other will shift the balance of power.

[Milu]

The Times, which published the article at the start of this thread, along with its sister paper, the Sunday Times, was at the forefront in stirring up the raging media hysteria to ban handguns after Dunblane.

The aftermath of Dunblane was my wake-up call. Looking at the UK from the outside now I like the Brave New World even less. I don't believe it is better anywhere else. Simply that the UK is further down the road than the rest of Europe. I despair.

Pre ban a top of the range Browning hi power was around £800 plus all the hassle of the paperwork. I could buy something similar "off-ticket" for about £200. Yet it was the 50,000 legitimate, licensed handgun owners who were victimised. It is my understanding that prices have not risen much in the UK. I shall not comment on the easy availability of eastern block arms in Europe.

IMHO people in the UK were mostly ignorant of firearms or largely indifferent as they were outside their normal lives. Most owners were very discreet about what they had. The Dunblane campaign was very much media orchestrated and on the eve of an election 99% of politicians and all three main parties jumped on the bandwagon and tried to outdo each other with more extreme measures.

I left the UK but I have never forgotten or forgiven. I am still disgusted by the whole affair, the kneejerk reactions, the ease with which the public was manipulated and the scum in Whitehall and Westminster. I said at the time, and believe even more now that it was the thin end of the wedge. How much freedom have we all lost in the last ten years? How much more will we lose? The really sad part is that our children are growing up thinking living in the modern police state is the normal state of affairs.

[Joeaksa]

I was in London on the 10th anniversary of Dunblane. Saw several very strong and pointed editorials about the failure of the laws to protect the public. In fact, every editorial that I saw was damming in the laws that were a knee jerk reaction to the shootings.

Remember that the killer in Dunblane was a legal gun owner but this did not stop the govt from ramming through legislation banning any and all pistol ownership.

JoeA

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
was a legal gun owner

Did you mean to type illegal, Joeaksa?

Hey, it's early here too - the coffee is just kicking in.

[red-beard]

Originally posted by kach22i
One generalization which I may harbor myself, is that guns in the hands of one segment of the population and not the other will shift the balance of power.

I couldn't agree more! Everyone should be able to exercise thier right to self defense. And this is the basis of converting permitting from "may issue" to "shall issue".

May issue means that, at the discretion of the 'Official", the permit can be issued. This generally leads to the elite being issued permits, but not law abiding citizens. Examples are NY State and NYC and L.A. & Riverside Counties.

Shall issue means that after meeting a defined set of criteria, the 'officials' must issue the permit. The discretion is in the setting up of the criteria, not who you know. No discrimination is allowed. Examples: Florida, Texas, Ohio, AZ, WA & Orange County CA.

[red-beard]

No mistype. It was a legal gun owner. He had mental issues and the police knew about him and the firearms. They refused to remove the firearms from him. That was the real failure.

In the US, if you have any mental health issues, under Federal law, you are not allowed to purchased firearms. NICS is more than a database of felons.