http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/scotland.cfm?id=799992002




Thu 25 Jul 2002



printer friendly email article
New low, but one in 12 households still has gun

HAMISH MACDONELL Scottish Political Editor


THE number of firearms in circulation is at an all-time low, but there are still 180,000 legally-owned guns in Scotland - one for every 12 households.

Official figures from the Scottish Executive showed that there were 60,000 firearms and 120,000 shotguns legally owned in Scotland.

This is the lowest number of firearms officially in circulation in Scotland since records began, largely as a result of the handgun ban brought in after the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton murdered 16 primary school pupils and their teacher in March 1996.

Pat Greenhill, an anti-gun campaigner and Dunblane councillor, said the reduction would be welcomed by the whole community.

She added: "There was considerable support locally in the wake of what we suffered here to try to reduce the number of firearms that were in circulation, so this has to be good news. I hope this trend continues because it has to be to everyone’s benefit that there are less guns out there to fall into the wrong hands."

Legislation was introduced banning handguns in the wake of the massacre in the Dunblane Primary School gym hall.

An amnesty to allow the handing in of high-calibre handguns took place between July and September 1997, with a similar hand-in period for smaller weapons in February 1998.

This amnesty, as well as the requirement that gun permits are renewed regularly, has increased the accuracy of the statistics and reduced the number of guns in circulation.

Executive figures also show that the amount of gun crime in Scotland has decreased .

The latest available statistics, for the year 2000, showed that there were 938 offences in which a firearm was used - the lowest level since records began and 9 per cent down on the previous year.

Read it

Guns in circulation has dropped and accordingly so has guncrime.

Neon

I read that there are 120,000 shotguns and 60,000 firearms in Scotland.

These legaly owned firearms are not the problem, are they?

Nope just the other legal firearms that were handed in.If you want to make a offhand irrational judgement only guns willingly handed in would ever be used in crimes.

you can read it like that Sixgun but there were MORE guns in ciculation with a HIGHER gun crime therefore there are now LESS guns in circulation with a LOWER guncrime

Neon

180,000 firearms in circulation with only 938 crimes involving firearms speaks for a low crime rate, period.

How are crimes in general? Decreasing as well?

I doubt that the downturn in "gun crime" has much to do with the draconian gun laws than with an overall decrease of crimes in general. Fact is that guns do not commit crimes, people do. People are the factor to focus in on why crimes go up or down.

Yes, but gun usage in crime is a big issue in the U.K at the moment. It's not so much the crime but the lethaltiy of the crime which worries people in the U.K.

Neon

Like illegal dope, the criminal gangs can get all the illegal guns they need. Mostly used to fight each other as they protect (or steal) large shipments of narcotics from rival gangs.

The only guns turned in are the ones that were legal to begin with. Thus only the law abiding gun owner is affected by any ban on firearms.

Of course we see that many guns are still legal and still in circulation. The shotguns are obviously necessary for the farmers to deal with pests that threaten livestock. The other weapons legaly owned are evidence that the wealthy elites have a very different set of laws that apply to them.

Most owners of handguns were responsible and would not commit crime with it.

Should we ban all cars cos people go ram raiding?

Dunblane 16 kids killed.

On the roads - 3000 kids killed.

A stupid fucking kneejerk reaction to ban guns. Since the ban, guns crimes have gone up.

So again we see the criminal prospering whilst the law abiding citizen suffers once more at the hands of the criminals.

The Uk is a bullshit country with bullshit laws.

I never even owned a fucking gun!!

If the use of cars were really only considered to be for ram raiding and not a needed part of a lot of peoples lives then there would be one.Guns mainly are used to kill in what ever situation they`re put in.
Your statistics dont tend to agree with mine if you think they`ve gone up then.

Weapons are necessary for self defense. Thus they are very necessary for peoples lives.

The only people who don't see this are the pacifist hoplophobes that abhor righteous self defense more than they do crime.

Do you get off on your guns, mister hoplophile?

Every thread, I'm going to fill my arguments with hoplophile. Hoplophile! Hoplophile!

I use the term "hoplophobe" to describe the phobia that people have for firearms. The most common reason for this phobia is lack of knowledge. This is very much live people that are afraid to drive an automobile. The way to lose such fear is to gain knowledge and skill so as to master the machine and be in control of it.

The term 'pacifist' is an accurrate description of those that abhor defensive actions. Thus very pertinant to the discussion here.

Now, take the gun control movement. It is one part hoplophobia mixed with one part pacifism. Thus my statements are correct.

BTW, whats with the psuedo-freudian innuendo? You can do better than that.

Pacifist, in my book, means "against violence" not against "defense." One can defend without being overly aggressive. However, I've mentioned time and time again that cowardice is the one thing worse than violence. If an adult walked up and started hitting me, I wouldn't just take it, but neither would I kill him. I would attempt to disarm him and at most knock him out. If someone were to rob me, I'd much rather give him my money than risk him shooting me. I don't consider that cowardice but caution; what is more important, life, or property? Did you know that "the pursuit of happiness" was originally the right to property, according to Adam Smith? Now, I do understand your possible argument that someone might kill you even if you give them your money, and I'd like to say I have a response, but I do not yet. I do want to see what the statistics are for robbery without death and robbery with death are, however. It's my speculation that there are more robbers who don't want to kill than those that do.

I do not believe violence solves any problems, merely postpones intensified problems. Look at the Middle East. Do you HONESTLY believe that violence is going to solve anything there?

I will defer to one of the few men I respect. Ghandi.

The only weapons I need are my acid tongue, menacing glare and bare hands to rip a person's lungs out before they can even think of drawing a weapon on me.

I am a menstruating woman.

Fear me.

I think not

I'm going to have to agree that guns can deter UNARMED or LESSER ARMED assailants. But if a criminal and victim both have guns the safest thing to do is give him your wallet. You've both got your guns, his will invariably be in hand as a threat. He will 99.9% percent of the time shoot you and take your wallet and maybe your gun too. WIldwest shootouts were based on both opponents being unarmed. Lets see how often the harnessed gun guy would win in confrontations where the other guy had his gun drawn and trained.

As to guns lessening crimes, in the above situations they will, BUT legal freedom to guns increases their overall avaiability on the black market and how many crimes are committed where the crimninal is brandishing a legally purchase pistol.

Neon

::shrugs::

Okely-dokely.