Talk:Firearms regulation in the United Kingdom/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Use of GCN (or other website source) as a reference to government published statistics

I do not believe that it is appropriate for source references, e.g. number 74, to point to the GCN website. I accept that they may (?) have (in this case) taken their figures from an official source, but I would have thought that the actual reference on this page should point directly to that official source. The GCN have an agenda against firearms ownership and therefore are a biased source. I feel if their site is used, the reference should state something along the lines of "according to the GCN" or "from the GCN website" etc. Trg22 (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Quite right. I've change the link to a direct one to the appropriate statistical bulletin on the Scottish Government site. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Commonwealth games 2014 mirroring Olympic games 2012

In the Olympic games section it mentions the Bisley range was passed over in favour of building a more expensive temporary range although I did hear that Bisley was a private range. The Commonwealth games are being held in Glasgow, a city towards the west coast of Scotland. The shooting range again is a temporary one and way over on the east coast of Scotland here. Pleasetry (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Dorney Lake is also a private facility, but it didn't stop it receiving public funds to enable it to be an Olympics venue. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Firearms description irrespective of ideology

I have properly described the British police firearms irrespective of loaded ideological terminology with a link to both their wiki articles and the manufacturers web pages which describe as such. I have included for factual purposes the fact that they are semi-automatic so please for the very last time stop deleting the main weapons that British police now use along with the cites and descriptions and for the record a 'semi-automatic' rifle is an assault rifle irrespective of its fire mode. Why is it so important to one editor not to list the G36c as a firearm regularly used by the British armed response units? Twobells (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. Nobody who knows the first thing about firearms would describe as a "sub machine gun" or "assault rifle" a weapon that is semi-automatic only - that sort of flagrant misrepresentation is the stuff of the sensationalist press. If you persist in introducing deliberate factual inaccuracies to this article, I will regard them as vandalism, and treat them accordingly. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately assault rifles or weapons are the term that's being used even if they are semi automatic. See Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban or the SLR. Pleasetry (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

What happens in America has no bearing on the content of this page. The term you refer to is not even remotely in widespread use in the UK, and not the one used by the British authorities to describe the short semi-automatic rifles used by UK police ([1], [2], [3], [4], etc.). "Carbine" is a widely known and recognised term, and is appropriate for this page. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Police can call them whatever they want. The former label covers their weapons more accurately as they are not all assault rifles neither does semi auto stop it being an assault or battle rifle as the SLR proves. Pleasetry (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle is a battle rifle, not an assault rifle (not least because they use a full-powdered rifle cartridge), but then the UK police don't use them, so there is no comparison. UK police use short semi-automatic rifles, i.e. carbines. Any attempt to "sex up" their description is the stuff of sensationalist gutter journalism. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Note the SLR is still a battle rifle regardless of it being full or semi automatic. UK police use semi automatic assault rifles and other assault weapons.

However as you've mentioned sensationalist gutter journalism there should be a section on the effect that has had on gun politics in the UK. Pleasetry (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The FN-FAL is a battle rifle by virtue of it firing a full-powered rifle cartridge, which the semi-automatic carbine versions of the MP5, G36, LMT Defender, etc. do not, so they're not battle rifles. There is no such thing as a "semi automatic assault rifles," because an assault rifle by definition must have at least one full-automatic or burst-fire mode, which again the carbines used by the British police do not have. "Assault weapon" is a term that had no place in UK law or common UK usage.

If you find reliable sources dealing with the media misrepresentation of firearms, then they can be used. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Other guns use a full power cartridges yet they are not battle rifles. Pleasetry (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

And? Nick Cooper (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It shows that just because they share the same characteristics doesn't mean they are the same also if you cut the size down it would also be a carbine but still a battle rifle. The police are using assault rifles that have been modded but they're still assault rifles.Pleasetry (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No, to be an assault rifle, the weapon must have certain characteristics, one of which is the ability to fire on full-automatic, which the versions of the G36, LMT Defender, etc. used by UK police do not have. UK police have used the term "carbine" for many years to accurately describe the weapons they use (and, indeed, the semi-auto Sterling used previously), and there is no reason for us to not follow suit here.

You have already breached WP:3RR twice in the last 48 hours trying to impose your POV edit. I would suggest that you stop now before I escalate this matter. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do. Your argument is only based on your pedantic view of what an assault rifle is which differs from their intended use and what everyone else calls them. The Dailymail calls them assault rifles too Pleasetry (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a sensationalist and scare-mongering tabloid, Wikipedia is not. "Assault weapons" is a controversial and highly disputed American legal term - it has no place here. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I have multiple valid sources while you're parroting the police line. Pleasetry (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

And what exactly is your issue with "the police line"? It's an accurate description of what they use, while "submachine gun" or "assault rifle" is not. Why do you think we should ignore factual inaccuracy, in favour of media sensationalism or misrepresentation? Nick Cooper (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Multiple sources have contradicted your biased position. Pleasetry (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Police sources universally use "semi-automatic carbine" (http://www.met.police.uk/sco19/training.htm], [5], [6], [7], etc.); the issue has been clarified in Parliament (e.g. [8]); and even if the media often gets their descriptions wrong, they do occasionally acknowledge such mistakes (e.g. [9]). Why is reflecting this "biased"? Why is it not "biased" for you to mis-represent semi-automatic weapons as fully automatic ones by inaccurately calling them "submachine guns" or "assault rifles"? Why do you want to make it seem like UK police are armed with more powerful/serious/dangerous/whatever weapons than they actually are? On Wikipedia we strive to remove ambiguity, yet you are trying to impose a massive misrepresentation on this page and others. Why is that? Nick Cooper (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Please don't say I'm trying to misrepresent them when the edits clearly show they're semi automatic and this is an issue that's been brought up with other editors. As I've stated on another article, there is disagreement in a few articles on exactly what a carbine as it could mean any sort of short rifle. So as these are assault rifles or sub machine guns that have their selectors stuck to single shot it makes more sense to call them that.Pleasetry (talk) 07:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's completely false to claim the weapons in question, "have their selectors stuck to single shot." The MP5s have a semi-automatic trigger group fitted, that would need complete replacement or destructive modification to make fully-automatic; as the AR-15 page states apropos the BTP's LMT Defenders:

"Semi-automatic AR-15s for sale to civilians are internally different from the full automatic M16, although nearly identical in external appearance. The hammer and trigger mechanisms are of a different design. The bolt carrier and internal lower receiver of semi-automatic versions are milled differently, so that the firing mechanisms are not interchangeable."

UK police weapons are incapable of fully-automatic fire, so by definition cannot be described as "submachine guns" or "assualt rifles." Why should we pander to the ignorance of the scare-mongering media? Nick Cooper (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

To convert to full auto is a different issue,which I presume you're also mistaken on, but the fact remains that the police weapons aside from the AR-15,which is an assault rifle derivative, are modified assault wewapons and if people read the label then they know what kind of gun to expect. That's excluding the unknown guns that pop up now and again. Pleasetry (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You are the one who has implying that UK police firearms can be easily converted to fully-automatic; I am saying that it is nowhere as simple as your comments have suggested (i.e. "selectors stuck to single shot..."). The AR-15 may well be a derivitive of an assault rifle, but it is not an assualt rifle in itself (one of my air pistols looks exactly like a Walther P88, but obviously that doesn't make it a semi-automatic pistol). As has already been noted, "assault weapons" is an American legal/political term that is very much disputed in that country, but is little used in the UK. In both contexts, it is far more ambiguous - and therefore inhrently inapprorpiate for Wikipedia - than a simple factual, accurate, and citable description of "semi-automatic carbine." Nick Cooper (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

So are Assault rifle or weapons which covers more than the guns you've mentioned so not liking the name or thinking it's too American is a weak reason and it is you who has brought up the issue of converting them to full auto. Pleasetry (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

An "assault rifle" by definition must have at least one fully-automatic or burst-fire mode, which UK poice firearms emphatically do not. "Assault weapon," far from being "too American" is in fact a term that is to all intents and purposes only American, but is highly controversial and disputed even there. It is virtually unknown and certainly not widely understood elsewhere in the world.

You implied conversion was easy first by your ludicrous claim on 6 February that the firearms used by UK police merely, "have their selectors stuck in single shot..." Nick Cooper (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This editor still doesn't seem to get it, the standard official term for G36 is a assault rifle irrespective of which selective fire modes it employs, the G36C as used by British police forces is a semi-automatic assault rifle as described: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle, the 'sexing up' accusation is probably the most POV statement I have ever come across on Wikipedia and has no such place here. Subsequently we have consensus and the term 'assault rifle' stands. Finally, you personally attacked me suggesting I knew nothing about firearms, for the record I have shot since I was twelve, been an NRA member since I was fourteen and I work in the defence industry. I have visited Oberndorf and they call the G36 as employed by the Briish police an assault rifle. Twobells (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC).

Maybe you'll like to go over to assault rifle and impose your cosmetic interpretation by removing the long-standing requirement of an automatic/burst mode, then? Whatever you choose to belong to gives you no more authority here to impose your bias than if you were a member of the Tufty Club. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

With respect you simply misunderstand the concept of the assault rifle, a assault rifle MAY have 3 fire modes but not necessarily. I suggest you visit the G36 article and read up on the C varient, thanks. Twobells (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that you stop POV-pushing. Assault rifle does not say one "may" have a burst fire option, but that it is "selective fire," which does state, "at least one semi–automatic and one automatic mode." In any case, ultimately British police define the long firearms they use as "semi-automatic carbine," that's good and accurate enough to use here. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The G36C is an assault rifle used throughout the United Kingdom by the British police, why you keep deleting any reference to it is POV and completely unacceptable, Nick wikipedia doesn't define firearms according to how the British police refer to them, the police have a very POV position for political reasons to describe them as such irrespective of the fact that the G36c semi auto carbine is an assault rifle. Now please stop deleting reference to the G36c and its definition as an assault rifle as we have (and have had) consensus for quite a while. 81.110.28.183 (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia also does not define weapons as you would like them to be. An assault rifle by definition must have a fully-automatic or burst-fire mode. Any firearm that does not have one cannot accurately be described as an "assault rifle." Full stop. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Enough, we have consensus which you are trying to ignore, any further attempt to delete the entry will result in a complaint against you. Twobells (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Such a threat is quite ironic, given your continued breaches of WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH (e.g. your continue cherry-picking of a few mentions of the G36 being used by certain forces does not prove that it is more common than the MP5SF in police service). The bottom line is that you cannot appeal to consensus to support a falsehood. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a British page, and British language is more appropriate. We firearms enthusiasts drop in typically with US-dominated language and ideas, and tend to impose them on the British situation in ways that create false ideas that suit US RKBA agendas. I deny absolutely that there is consensus to adopt unregulated American political constructs on this article. ChrisPer (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by that however there's plenty of valid sources to call them assault rifles or weapons. Pleasetry (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

There are also plenty of valid sources that confirm that something without a full-automatic or burst-fire mode, by definition, cannot be an "assault rifle." "Assault weapon" is a controversial and highly-disputed American legal and political term that has no meaning in the UK. The media frequently decribe any armoured vehicle with tracks and a gun on top (and sometimes even without) as a "tank," but that doesn't make it so.Nick Cooper (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The sources are there but as you well know but in addition to that the police have used any manner of weapons on occasion so it is only right that you go back and revert your edit. Pleasetry (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the British police do not use full-automatic or burst fire weapons, thus any source that describes any firearm used by them as an "assault rifle" or "(sub)machine gun" is factually incorrect. Media misreporting does not over-ride factual accuracy. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

There are valid sources for my claims. While the police may use general semi automatic assault rifles to the best of my knowledge there isn't anything to stop them arming themselves with other weapons. Pleasetry (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Prove it. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Gun Control and Violent Crime

As the anonymous IP that first created the section below that was promptly dismantled, it is hard to convey my original point without having to go back and read what you deleted. When I first posted this, I was almost positive that I was not talking about gun violence, but rather violent crime. The pro-gun POV is not that gun control legislation has no effect on gun crime, but rather that gun control has an insignificant effect on overall violent crime, of which gun crime is a sub-category. To reiterate, if I am someone who intends to commit murder, then I will do so by any means possible. If guns are off the table, then I will turn to knives, blunt weapons, fists, homemade explosives, etc. There is quite a consensus among Britain's news media on the rise of violent crime, and I will list my sources:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-188906/Rapes-rise-violent-crime-soars.html (Slightly old, but still within the decade we have been talking about)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4359744.stm (Slightly less old, but again, still within the decade)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7400372/True-scale-of-violent-crime-rise-revealed.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256474/Violent-crime-risen-44-13-years-Labour.html

http://www.uturnuk.org/the-problem/violent-crime

Sorry if that was not clear -- I had meant to start this topic on violent crime as I said. I will leave my signature stamp this time so that my responses won't be deleted and mistrusted as "anonymous."--173.76.46.132 (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I see that no one has continued the discussion on the original subject, so I took the liberty to create a new section. I am also including a recent study from Harvard University (if anything, a highly left-wing source) that asserts that empirical evidence shows that gun control has an insignificant effect on overall violent crime. Again, the pro-gun rights camp is arguing not that gun control has no effect on gun homicides, but rather that gun control has an insignificant effect on the overall violent crime. Thank you, and please continue discussion.

Here is the study: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

137.54.0.243 (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Mail piece is undated, but is probably from some time in 2004, as it deals with the 2002/03 crime figures, which it is now clear were inflated by new counting rules that came in that year. For example, it highlights an 27% increase in rape from 9,002 to 11,445 wheareas following years showed a fairly static trend, including falls in some years.

The second (2010) Mail piece leads with a headline that runs contrary to what the actual article says. The British Crime Survey shows that since 1996, the trends in various violent crime have been either effectively static, or falling. The contemporaneous Telegraph article pulls the same trick. The BBC piece leads on an anomalous three-month rise within an overall fall. U Turn UK seems ton be a rather obscure pressure group, and clearly tries to play teh figures to suit their own agenda.

The bottom line, though, is that none of the above UK-originated pieces you link to make the connection between violent crime - whether rising or falling - and the presence or absence of civilian-held firearms. As noted previously, only around 50,000 people were affected by the handgun bans - less than 0.1% of the population. The idea that "taking away" guns that the vast majority of the population didn't even had - and which certainly were not available for "self defence" - was somehow the cause of the pre-2002/03 historical rise in violent crime in the UK is as ludicrous as attributing the post-2002/03 fall in it to the same. And, of course, the obvious corollary of the suggestion that more gun control has no effect on overall violent crime is that it won't be affected by relaxing gun controls, either. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Gun Organisations and Mainstream Policies

How is it that in an article on gun politics, it appears we only have PRO- gun organisations in the UK?

GCN might have exactly six members historically and one active now, but shouldn't that be relevant to 'the politics'? Couldn't activist media and public service, political parties or Police organisations and individuals be discussed as political actors?ChrisPer (talk) 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess it's just a reflection of the fact that there really are hardly any specifically anti-gun groups, and those that do exist seem to have very little profile. Historically there was the Snowdrop Campaign, but they seem to have dissipated once their immediate object was reached. The only vaguely current group I'm aware of is Mothers Against Guns, who supply the media with the occasional condemnatory quote, but don't seem to do much else. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference to Trespass

In the section for classification of airguns, before the individual sections for each country, there is the sentence "Any person on private property without permission is trespassing; possession when doing so of even a low-power air weapon with no ammunition makes this the serious crime of armed trespass, subject to heavy penalties.". Since this is included in a section not marked as being specific to England & Wales, one would naturally assume this applied to the entire UK. However, I'm (at least 99%) sure this DOES NOT apply in Scotland, as trespass is a FAR more specific offense under Scots law. I'm unsure if this is relevant to the North of Ireland either. As such this should either be removed as being inaccurate or at best misleading and only partially true since it only applies to one jurisdiction. Foolish Child (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, the section "Gun control legislation in the United Kingdom" includes mention of 16th century acts. This is misleading as the United Kingdom didn't even exist as an idea until the Union of the Crowns in the 17th century, so clearly these acts only apply to one jurisdiction and not the UK as a whole. This should either be clarified or removed as being outwith the scope of this article. Foolish Child (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

In the section relating to trespassing with firearms reference is made to the name of the offence committed as being "armed trespass" and that it being a "serious" offence. The offence is dealt with by section 20 of the Firearms Act which is entitled "Trespasing with a Firearm". The use of the phrase "armed trespass" is therefore not correct as it suggests that there is a general offence of trespassing whilst in possession of any arm or weapon, which there is not - it only applies to firearms. The terminology should be changed to "trespassing with a firearm".--AJLFF (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Spree Killings: Dunblane

The entry relating to the Dunblane shootings contains the following paragrpah and cites no references.

"Personnel of the Police Firearms Licensing Office were unaware of Hamilton's expulsion by the Scout Association, nor were they aware of allegations made against him regarding unsavoury behaviour on a number of boy's summer camps he had organised, allegations that would have exposed his poor character. The tragedy led to improvements in inter-departmental sharing of Police Intelligence and deeper background checks of firearm certificate applicants."

This is not true. The licensing office was most certainly aware of Hamilton's unsavory behavior towards young boys and that he was probably unsuitable to possess firearms.

Firearm Certificates were personally signed by the deputy Chief Constable a Mr McMurdo, although on Hamilton's final remewal it was signed by an acting deputy CC as McMurdo was unavilable.

McMurdo and Hamilton had a long history of correspondence. It was because of this contact that one DS Hughes addressed a memorandum to CDD Mc Murdo expressing concerns that Hamilton was; " ... an unsavoury character and unstable personality." and, "I would contend that Mr Hamilton will be a risk to children whenever he has access to them and that he appears to me to be an unsuitable person to possess a firearm certificate in view of the number of occasions he has come to the adverse attention of the police and his apparent instability.", also, "I respectfully request that serious consideration is given to withdrawing this man's firearm certificate as a precautionary measure as it is my opinion that he is a scheming, devious and deceitful individual who is not to be trusted"." — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJLFF (talk • contribs) 17:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Use of biased and misleading fringe sources

Two editors have attempted to introduce and retain the following text in the "Impact of firearm legislation" section, in the paragraph dealing with the levels of firearms crime:

"However, recent evidence shows that these statistics may have been 'massaged' to bring credence to UK gun legislation." [10]

I would note the following:

1. The cited opinion piece discusses crime figures in general, not firearms offences in particular, which the above contested text implies.

2. The cited opinion piece explicitly claims that crime figures in general have been, "'massaged' to convince British subjects the gun ban worked" and, "distorted to one extent or another in order to make the gun ban look successful."

3. The cited opinion piece implies that - but for this supposed manipulation - crime figures in general would be higher, because of the ban on handguns.

4. The cited source is Breitbart.com, described on Wikipedia as an American, "conservative news and opinion website."

5. The cited opinion piece is based on a report on Ammoland.com, which is self-evidently a highly pro-gun website with an US domestic agenda.

Neither the cited opinion piece nor the report it is based on mention four very important details:

a. That the handgun ban only affected 50,000 people (i.e. <0.1% of the population).

b. Those handguns were not held for self defence purposes.

c. The criminal use of firearms in the UK is and always has been rare.

d. Handguns - and previously semi-automatic rifles - were not banned to reduce their use in crime in general, but rather to restrict their availability to the likes of Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan respectively, i.e. to prevent the commission of mass-murder with legally held weapons.

Whether point c is a reflection of points a & b, or vice versa, is a matter of opinion, but the reality is that taking away weapons that were never held for self defence from <0.1% of the population was clearly not going to have any effect whatsoever on crime levels in general. Before the handgun ban, prospective criminals would not have reasonably expected to encounter potential victims armed with handguns, so the outlawing of such handguns can hardly have resulted in the change of attitude the cited opinion piece - and the report it is based on - is predicated on.

Whether or not UK crime statistics are fit for purpose is a matter of debate in the UK media, but it is never linked to the removal of non-self defence handguns from <0.1% of the population. Home Office counting methods have changed several times over the last fifteen, in some cases to include events that had not previously been counted as crimes, which obviously made the figure "go up" (e.g. previously there was a minimum value limit on criminal damage offences), while others were to remove incidents that were not actually crimes, which would have the opposite effect. Whatever the reasoning behind these changes, the idea that justifying the handgun ban was one of them is ludicrous.

In consideration of points c & d above, it is highly questionable whether either Breibart.com or Ammoland.com can be considered as fitting and unbiased commentators on an issue that provokes barely any debate in the UK, but much in the US. In other words, commentary on a UK issue through a US pro-gun tinted lens is not appropriate. Of the two cited UK sources, the Independent does not make any connection with the handgun ban, nor firearms crime as a whole, while the Daily Mail piece also does not mention the handgun ban, but - as noted on this Talk page previously - misrepresents the trend in firearms crime at the time of publication (2009), and runs contrary to subsequent events, so is effectively worthless. The cited BBC piece deals only with the arming - or rather not - of police officers, and makes no mention of the handgun ban. It is unclear why Justfacts.com has been cited, especially since the limited figures used there are now quite old. In particular the homicide rates stop at 2008, even though the general falling trend in number (and rate per million of population) of offences has continued, i.e.:

2008/09 - 668 (11.8)

2009/10 - 626 (11.1)

2010/11 - 648 (11.5)

2011/12 - 521 (9.7)

In addition, historically only a small percentage of homicides have even involved the use of firearms in the first place, e.g. 42 (8%) in 2011/12.

The bottom line is that the banning of handguns did not - and could not - have any effect on UK crime in general, and even firearms crime in particular, and it is highly misleading to try to pretend that it could or was even intended to. I am therefore removing the contested text. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• The use of the word 'bias' and 'opinion' is entirely yours, and I believe reveals your own seeming prejudice against having certain information in the article, that being that handgun crime increased since the handgun ban.

1 Wrong. The citation refers to a report "...examining crime in Britain since "restrictive firearm laws virtually banned handguns" in 1997" The Other references and sources provided to support the argument about the validity of crime targeting, and the resulting statistics indicating a rise in handgun crime you deleted.

2 That's correct. So? Your point?

3 Right, and wrong. The report does not suggest general crime has increased 'because' of the hand gun ban'.

4 So? Wikipedia relies on all sorts of valid sources, are 'conservative news sources' not allowed? I think not.

5 The report was 'published on Ammoland'. It makes no difference to the 'fact of the matter' where it is published. One should not eliminate the citation and argument because it goes against your bias, one should provide a better counter-argument of refutation of the reports findings. Preferably cited and sourced.

I fail to see how your 'four very important details' are relevant to the argument in any way. Handgun crime increased after the handgun ban... period. Your points have nothing to do with anything being debated here. And your 'matter of opinion' is not what Wikipedia is about, right? Of course handguns were banned to reduce their use in crime.

I would prefer readers of this article be better informed than they are, and certain details should not be omitted to satisfy an editors prejudice or confused argumentation. Considering this, I believe that sources questioning the reality of UK crime statistics are perfectly valid and that is to what the removed articles from.

The BBC article provides a bar chart showing the rise in handgun crime after the 1997 handgun ban (and it's falling trend prior).

Justfacts.com shows the rise in murder rates over time but also the points at which major gun control laws were introduced. Dated it is, but it includes those points of major legislation and is useful as a result.

The Independent article is highly relevant as it supports the proposition that crime statistics are 'massaged', do not reflect crime accurately and is written by a 'long-serving frontline [police] officer.' Removing sources like this is just plain wrong.

The bottom line is:

a The banning of handguns did not lead to a reduction in hand gun crime.

b The level of hand gun crime in the UK may be higher than is shown in official statistics, due to their manipulation and the way in which crime's are reported and the Police fulfill their crime statistic targets. I am therefore reinserting the contested text and hope to continue to improve the paragraph and article with better references from more sources. Stephenjh (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

1. No, you are wrong. The contested text immediately follows figures on firearms crimes, while both the opinion piece and the original article try to link the handgun ban directly to the levels of crime in general. The Independent and Mail articles deal with firearms crimes, but neither make any link with the handgun ban, and - as explained on this Talk page previously - the Mail piece misrepresented the position at the time of publication (2009), and runs contrary to subsequent events, i.e. a continued decline in such crimes. What you have done by adding the Independent and Mail pieces is actually a classic example of synthesis, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.

3. You seriously don't think the Breitbart and Ammoland piece are not doing that? That seems very naive of you.

5. Of course the source of the article is significant. I doubt whether a contested report on a UK anti-gun website would be given much credence on the US gun politics page.

The "four very important details" are most certainly relevant, because both the Breibart and AmmoLand pieces are predicated on the idea that banning handguns had a significant effect on crime in the UK in general, when the reality is that such handguns were far too rare - and not available for self defence - to have much significance even before they were banned.

The BBC article does not, as you claim, include a "bar chart showing the rise in handgun crime after the 1997 handgun ban." The chart rather shows the number of all firearms (excluding air weapons) offences between 1969 and 2011. This peaked at 10,088 in 2005/06 ("06" on the chart), of which 4,672 (46%) was handguns, although a fair number were probably imitations, considering that known imitations accounted for a further 3,277 (32%). By 2010/11 ("11" on the chart) these numbers were 3,105 (44%) and 1,620 (23%) out of 7,024 respectively. For 2011/12 it was 2,651 (44%) and 1,377 (23%) out of 6,001 respectively. This gradual reduction in the various types - as well as the overall total - is not consistent with any single change in counting/reporting rules. The peak year for handgun offences was actually 2001/02 (i.e. four years after the handgun ban) with 5,874 out of 10,024 (i.e. 59% - a context lacking from your recent addition of 44% for 2010/11) - it's generally been declining ever since. The idea that it climbed because of the handgun ban, and then only fell due to claimed manipulation of crime figures as a whole borders on a conspiracy theory.

Yes, the Justfacts page does show that the homicide rate was rising between 1967 and 2001, and then - exceptional events omitted - declining to 2008 (actually 2008/09). Since then declining trend has continued. Homicide is, of course, the most robust of crime statistics, because there's no ambiguity in a dead body. More importantly, only 42 out of 521 homicides in 2011/12 actually involved firearms, which is just 0.7% of firearms offences.

Yes, "handgun crime" did increase after the handgun ban, but purely by coincidence, rather than any causal link. It also then declined, mainly because a lot of the previous increase was can reasonably be attributed to the wide availability - and misuse - of cheap realistic imitations, which were then subject to new legal restrictions.

No, banning handguns did not lead to a reduction in handgun crime, but then it was never meant to. The claim that "hand gun crime in the UK may be higher than is shown in official statistics" is not proven, and more importantly, no UK sources are even suggesting that it is, let alone that such manipulation was supposedly done to justify the handgun ban specifically.

Ultimately, the idea that we should defer to an opinion piece on an obscure right-wing American - in turn riffing on a report on a highly pro-gun American website - on such a contentious claim is ludicrous. I am therefore deleting the biased and misleading synthesis from the article, and will continue to do so. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that it is you that is synthesising! There are two 'debates' or points that need to be made clearer here. Firstly, that the handgun ban did not reduce handgun crime and that handgun crime increased after. I don't think that I have tried to make out that the ban caused the increase (in handgun crime), but an increase in handgun crime will obviously add to the overall increase in the crime rate statistically. Are our wires crossed?

The second point is that statistics and crime reporting are susceptible to manipulation and that is where the Independent article really adds weight to the argument, explaining very well how the figures are 'massaged'. It isn't supposed to directly link to the handgun ban per se, because it's not about that, it's about the figures.

This separation in what is being discussed is clear to me. It seems to me that you are linking the arguments in a way I had not intended.

5'Credence on a US gun politics page' is irrelevant, this is Wikipedia and totally different. A balance should be struck.

You have said that 'both the Breibart and AmmoLand pieces are predicated on the idea that banning handguns had a significant effect on crime in the UK in general'. I don't read it like that. Breitbart points out that the figures have been so massaged that perhaps they do not show the full picture, as they conclude '...what are the exact crime numbers in Britain? The honest answer is that no one knows because the statistics have been so manipulated.' This is in response to Piers Morgan's apparent claims - which is where the guns come in - and as a separate (specific) subject one may include levels of gun crime in those debatable statistics.

Ammoland also questions the validity of crime rate statistics in the UK, in response to Morgan's statements. 'In 1997, a restrictive firearms law virtually banned handguns in Britain. Crime rose rapidly, but then, according to government figures, crime began to fall. Is this really so?'

Again, your statement that 'the reality is that such handguns were far too rare - and not available for self defence - to have much significance even before they were banned' makes no sense to me at all. I'm simply not following this line of argument at all. I don't see the connection to the points I am trying to make.

The BBC article I admit I did not title correctly, haste more than anything. I should have said firearms... though under certain conditions air weapons are classed as firearms and certified accordingly, they are after all covered by firearms legislation. But as we have established, hand gun crime increased after the ban and, as a percentage of firearms crime, it increased through 2004 - 2008, even after the VCR Act 2006 which restricted realistic imitations further. The percentages for England and Wales are:-

2002/3 - 23%

2003/4 - 21%

2004/5 - 19%

2005/6 - 22%

2006/7 - 23%

2007/8 - 24%

2008/9 - 30%

2009/10 - 29%

2010/11 - 28%

These figures were taken from the source you deleted "Firearm crime statistics, Standard Note: SN/SG/1940, Last updated: 30 January 2012

Author: Gavin Berman

The data only runs from 2002/3 because as I pointed out (again deleted by you) "Due to the implementation of the National Crime Recording Standard in April 2002 data prior to this date are not directly comparable with later figures." (See above reference). That is why the figure you mentioned for the "peak year for handgun offences" being 2001/02 was not included or mentioned in my recent addition of 44% for 2010/11 (from the same source).

"The idea that it climbed because of the handgun ban, and then only fell due to claimed manipulation of crime figures as a whole borders on a conspiracy theory." I agree, but only you have stated this. It should be pointed out that handgun crime rose after the ban, and as a percentage of firearm crime has not changed that much. But the change in the way data is collected and analysed prior to 2002 should be mentioned, as should the pressure on police forces to make their targets.

You stated the "...claim that "hand gun crime in the UK may be higher than is shown in official statistics" is not proven, and more importantly, no UK sources are even suggesting that it is. But UK sources have been claiming exactly this for years "A former head of CID with Nottinghamshire police has also claimed that incidents of gun crime have deliberately not been logged by the force, effectively halving its number of recorded shootings" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1487992/Police-officers-manipulate-the-statistics-to-meet-robbery-and-burglary-targets.html

I can see that I am going to have to work my way through every section of this article over time, fact check and improve where required. Stephenjh (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you are being deliberately obtuse by pretending that it is not the intention of both Breitbart and AmmoLand to imply that crime rose because handguns were banned, and further that because that is taken as fact, and subsequent fall "must" therefore be the result of manipulation of the statistics. The Breibart piece even ends with, "the evidence suggests such manipulation has resulted in a crime rate that should be higher than gun control proponents have claimed," in other words an obvious implication that there is a casual link between crime as a whole and the handgun ban.

I presume that you are aware that the crime figures are now the responsibility of the Office of National Statistics, rather than the Home Office, yet they continue to fall. If we were to buy the argument that they are somehow being minimised at source, then how come they have been falling progressively year on year? That would mean that the number of "exclusions" would have to be actively increased in each subsequent year, and where is the evidence for that? You have offered up a single anecdote, but are you seriously extrapolating a single report relating to one force nine years ago to the entirely of the UK today? Nick Cooper (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have removed the section about gun crime figures being massaged, as they were not backed up by reliable sources (or, indeed, by any sources at all). The "massaged" quote comes from Breitbart, which (apart from being an opinion piece on an unreliable site with obvious POV issues) is basing itself on the Independent piece - which doesn't mention gun crime figures at all, only general crime statistics. The other three sources also do not mention any manipulation of gun crime figures. Black Kite (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Questioning of the Statistics / data gathering - disallowed?

I'm a little concerned that any questioning of the statistics, or the gathering of data toward them, seems to be deleted as soon as it appears. It's as if the numbers given are sacrosanct and contrary viewpoints disallowed. e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25831906 (recently) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/3222063/Gun-crime-60pc-higher-than-official-figures.html This was apparently too old too http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1487992/Police-officers-manipulate-the-statistics-to-meet-robbery-and-burglary-targets.html

What is permissible then? How old may a reference be, especially when referring to historic statistics in the article? Is the UKSA not noteworthy? Or retired heads of police CID departments? Stephenjh (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• The problem with the last one is that it's a claim by a single person. The others, as you say, are somewhat out-of-date (and the Telegraph one is unverified as well). If we could have a current source that actually confirms that gun crime is being under-reported, for whatever reason, then that would be fine. But at the moment we haven't. I suppose the claim by the ex CID man could be mentioned as long as it was made clear that it was only his claim, but that certainly wouldn't belong in the lede paragraph.
• Meanwhile, the sentence I removed is basically synthesis - even if the crime statistics as a whole are being under-reported (and that source is full of "may have", "it is likely that", "it is possible that" etc.), that doesn't necessarily mean that gun crime is as well - it simply doesn't say that.
• The other problem (and it's a big one) is that the sentence removed tries to contradict the previous one, and is therefore insinuating that the rate of gun homicide is being under-reported. Even the Telegraph doesn't claim this (indeed it would be almost impossible to under-report murder statistics) - it is saying that offences such as gun-smuggling and illegal possession are being under-reported. Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It's notable that even if we allowed such a synthesis, it could equally be countered by the fact that completely separate NHS data shows that admissions to A&E due to violence have dropped every years for the last five years, and there has been a steady declining trend over the last decade. This is the data on which hospitals get paid, so clearly they - unlike the police - won't be interested in minimising the numbers.

The 2008 Telegraph piece is something of a red herring, because even it acknowledges:

Home Office spokeswoman said: "Gun crime figures have only ever included offences involving the use of a firearm. These counting rules for these figures were drawn up by the Home Office in conjunction with police."

She added: "There are five offences which are not included in the firearm statistics, and which can be tried for in the courts."

In other words, the same rules have always applied to the collection of data, rather than something introduced recently, therefore they are not the "cause" of recent and consistent observed falls. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

well, gun crime could increase whilst hospital admissions decrease etc... I'm just concerned about statistics given here. Stephenjh (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It could, indeed - it's just that there's no reliable sources showing that it has. Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Obviously. It's an example - to a suggestion - that has little to do with the topic anyway. I still think that if one is going to quote statistics over a period of years (which are actually not directly comparable due to changes in the way they were calculated after a certain point) then referencing with older sources is absolutely fair. In fact they probably should be included as they relate to the era. Stephenjh (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

There are only two points in time when the reporting rules changed, but as noted previously, they won't have an influence on homicides as a whole, let alone the minority due to firearms use. As regards other crimes, the fact that there are a couple of step changes in specific years doesn't mean that the trends in between "don't count." Nick Cooper (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The A&E data fall correlates to the fall in violent crime as a whole, of which gun crime is an obvious subset. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Now you are synthesizing. Forget the irrelevant. Total gun crime statistics are not directly comparable over time, due to the change in the methodology of calculation. That's the point and quite clearly indicated through the sources. Stephenjh (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it's a reasonable interpretation of the indicators available, not a proposal to amend the article. I also think you're misinterpreting the implications of the two instances when the counting rules as a whole - i.e. not for firearms offences in particular - changed.

The change in counting rules on 1 April 1998, and the introduction of the NCRS in 2001/02, both coincided with apparent sharp rises in all firearms offences, although the first (+8.4%) was with within the range of fluctuation in immediately preceeding years (i.e. between +10.0% in 1992 and -10.6 in 1997), and the second (26.6%) was not a complete outlier (e.g. +22.1% in 1999/00). More importantly, in both instances the rises continued in subsequent years, and only started to level off in 2002/03 and 2003/04, then started to fall consistently in every single year to 2011/12 2012/13. Although the Home Office caveats figures before and after the 2006 VCR Act, it came slap in the middle of the same steady fall. We see almost exactly the same pattern for non-air weapon offences across the same time period. In short, the impact of the two changes to the counting rules has been vastly overstated, particularly by the sensationalist press. Neither saw a massive increase in offences that can be solely apportioned to those changes, nor a massive descrease, either. In fact, if you graphed the figures and asked people to indicate where they thought counting rule changes were introduced, they'd have a very hard time correctly identifying the relevant years. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The sources themselves say the figures can't be compared due to the changes. Period. Stephenjh (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but the individual changes don't mean that the rising/falling trends before, between, and after them them didn't happen. It's also not the case that any of the changes "caused" subsequent rising/falling trends. It may, in fact, be useful to include a graph showing the total number of firearms offences, as well as the air weapons/non-air weapons split, over the years, obviously with the rule change points indicated. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Is that Original Research? Or is it cited? Rhetorical. Stephenjh (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

What, graphing published figures? Hardly. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

'Your' graphing of published figures "which are not comparable". Full circle. Stephenjh (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's be clear what we're actually talking about, i.e.:

This shows the total and air weapon/non-air weapon breakdown from 1992 to the most recent data available. The vertical purple lines show the introduction of the changing counting rules ([1] - 1 April 1998), the implementation of the National Crime Recording Standard ([2]/[3] - 1 April 2002), and the introduction of more explicit guidelines for weapon classification ([4] - 1 April 2004 - the HO states that it, "may have increased the recording of firearm offences, particularly those committed by imitation weapons").

Now, clearly each one of those three changes was going to have an effect, but only relative to the years either side of them, while the trends in between cannot be so affected. In particular, while one might attribute the rise between 1997/98 and 1998/99 to the counting rule change [1], it obviously can't have caused the subsequent continued rises in the next three years. Similarly, even if one was to argue that the "more explicit guidelines" [4] resulted in the fall between 2003/04 and 2004/05 (even though that runs contrary to what the HO thinks the effect was), the same cannot be said of the consistent falls for the following eight years.

You are also mistaken in claiming that it is said that the figures, "are not comparable," when in fact the HO/ONS state they are, "not directly comparable" (my emphasis). While it is clear that at least the first two of the changes will have resulted in crimes being included that would not have been previously, the very fact that the increases in the years immediately subsequent to them are only marginal and within the range of previous changes shows that the effect was not so great as to completely distort the overall picture in the way you seem to be suggesting. Certainly the HO previously and the ONS currently have no problem with publishing essentially the same graph, showing the most recent years (e.g. Figure 3.2 in the most recent ONS release showing 2002/03 to 2012/13), but still spanning some or all of these changes in the process. If the HO/ONS can graph and publish the same figures, then so can we. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Horden massacre

Hello, I added some information about the Horden massacre. It was reverted by someone for reason "not a spree killing". A spree killing is defined as "killings at two or more locations with almost no time break between murders". Questions:

• Is the crime section of this article limited only to a single class of gun crime: spree killings? If so, why?
• How does the Dunblane massacre count as a spree killing? The children and teacher were all shot dead in the same gymnasium.
• How is a gun massacre, which was nationwide news, but took place in a single location, not relevant to this article?

77.97.210.38 (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• MPs to take part in gun licensing debate sparked by Horden massacre

77.97.210.38 (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Although I understand that technically the killings all took place in the same place and may not be categorised by the FBI definition as a "spree", there are plenty of reliable sources (Guardian, ITV, Chronicle, Daily Mail, Mirror, Sunderland Echo etc.) that do call it a "spree": horden shooting spree 77.97.210.38 (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You simply can't put this isolated shooting in the same category as Hungerford, Dunblane, or Cumbria. The first two led directly to changes in firearms law, and while the latter did not, it led to a wide public debate. Horden did not. End of. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Knife crime

Do you think this article should note, while gun crime is low, crimes is high? 1,000 knife crime victims in London each month, shocking new figures show from www.standard.co.uk/news, Justin Davenport, Crime Editor, Published: 01 July 2013. [11] Not having guns does not lower crime. Telecine Guy 22:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Compared to what? According to the Bureau of Justice statistics, of 14,610 homicides in the US in 2011, 17.2% were a "knife or blunt object" - i.e. around 2,513 - 0.79 per 100,00 of population. In comparison, in England & Wales in 2011/12, there were 209 with a "sharp instrument" and 51 with a "blunt instrument" - i.e. a total of 260 - 0.46 per 100,000 of population. In other words, the US rate is 72% higher than the E%W rate. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Firearms offences?

would I be correct in thinking that an increase in "gun crime" over a period when there is a "clampdown" does not mean the "clampdown" has been unsuccessful but the number of offences of possession have increased, but not the number of actual shootings?--Streona (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid that you would not be correct - "clamp downs" are always on licensing and with ultra-minuscule exceptions, licensed owners do not commit offences.

For example in the 1997 Act Target Shooting with handguns was banned. So one could not license handgun for that purpose. This had no effect whatsoever on the illegal use of firearms because the perpetrators were still committing the same offences that were extant before the ban. For example being in possession of a firearm without lawful authority.

Spurious "Crime Prevention Research Center" citation

An anon IP has added the text:

However, it should be noted that overall homicide rates increased after the gun ban legislation and overall homicide rates are higher now than before the gun ban legislation was passed. [12]

This is highly misleading, given that number and rates had been steadily increasing since 1961. The graph on the cited page does show a pronounced spike for "2003" and similarly high rates either side. Not mentioned anywhere on the page, though, is that "2003" on the graph correlates to the year 2002/03 in Home Office figures, which includes 172 aggregated victims of Harold Shipman, without which teh rate would have been much lower. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

British Police More Routinely Armed

More and more press coverage on the police being routinely armed, I think it is important for balance to clarify that it is the general public who's access to firearms is 'tightly controlled'. A recent police survey found that over 50% of the public want officers armed. Also, I will be updating the article soon in reference to civil liberties and how they pertain to the Home Office scoping exercise and the firearms licencing medical waiver, regards. Twobells^t@lk 20:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Total misrepresentation. The two cited sources merely state that Authorised Firearms Officers (AFOs) in Scotland and some specific English forces are being deployed to routine (i.e. non firearms) incidents. "Routine arming" of police would generally be taken to mean that the rank and file of officers are being armed, not that specialist firearms officers are being use to deal with non-firearms incidents. The reported practices represent a widening of AFOs' roles, rather than an increase in numbers - and commensurate deployment - of armed officers. As stated in the Telegraph piece, to have officers on duty and not use them is a waste of resources.

Your claim that, "However, in recent years these figures have come under increasing scrutiny after press reports that the statistics were being manipulated" is also highly misleading being placed immediately after statistics relating to firearms homicides only, not firearms crime in general. Taking the cited references in turn:

• The Telegraph 18 Oct 2008: This highlights the fact that not all offences involving firearms are reported as firearms crime, but this is definitional quibbling. "Firearms crime" as reported are in fact "recorded offences involving the use of firearms" in the categories of violence against the person (inc. homicide, attempted murder, etc.), robbery, burglary, and criminal damage. Offences of possession and trafficking are not and never have been included in the firearms crime figures, and a Home Office spokeswoman is quoted as such. In this context it is misleading to claim "manipulation," because this is not akin to specific offences being excluded after years of being included. It is highly unlikely that the omition of possession and trafficking offences has affecting the overall trend of falling firearms crime since 2003/04. If possession and trafficking offences accounted for an additional 60% in 2007/08, then it would be hard to argue that they would have accounted for any significantly greater amount in 2012/13, either.
• The Guardian 15 Jan 2014: This deals with crime statistics in general, and make no mention of firearms crime specifically. There is no elaboration of whether suspected unreliability is a recent or a long-term trend. It does, however, note that the Crime Survey for England & Wales (formerly the British Crime Survey), remains reliable, and supports the idea that crime rates overall are falling.
• Evening Standard 7 Oct 2014: This article merely reports the firearms crime figures for London over a 3½ year period, and yet acknowledges that they are falling, "now at [their] lowest level for six years." Nick Cooper (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Twobells, please stop attempting to insert misleading and/or misrepresentative text to this article.

• You cannot insert a claim of unreliability of statistics immediately after statistics about firearms homicides. Whatever other issues there maye be, the homicide figures are considered the most robust, as there can be no definitional quibbling over a dead body. To imply that firearms homicide figues are being "manipulated" is a gross distortion.
• That certain crimes involving firearms are not - and never have been - included in the reported firearms crimes statistics does not make them unreliable. "Firearms crime" as reported have always been crimes which are enabled through the use of firearms, i.e. violence against the person (inc. homicide, attempted murder, etc.), robbery, burglary, and criminal damage. Offences of trafficking and illegal possession have never been included, so they have no bearing on the self-evident falling trend in the long-standing definition of firearms crimes. If trafficking and illegal possession added another 60% in 2008, they almost certainly added a similar proportionate before and since, making no change to the overall falling trend. However, the currenty ONS figures do now include "possession offences," stating that this was previoously included in the "other" category, suggesting the Telegraph article may be fundamentally flawed in the first place.
• That the small minority of police officers who are AFOs in some forces are now being deployed to routine incidents to make better use of limited police resources is not significant enough to be included in the lead. I have transferred this information to Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom, where it is more appropriate.
• The removed paragraphs deal with events in 2007-2009, which have now been superseded by subsequent actual events. There is little point in saying that one specific subset of firearm crime was rising in 2007, when it subsequently fell. The 2009 Telegraph article is in itself misleading in claiming that firearms crime had doubled in the previous ten years by citing the 5,209 recorded offences in 1998/99 and the 9,865 in 2007/08. In fact the high was 11,088 offences in 2005/06, which was followed by a fall to 9,645 in 2006/07. In other words, offenecs rose between 1998/99 and 2005/06, but then started falling, and they have continued to fall every year since to 4,845 in 2013/14. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

American style lobbying

The stats have been updated. The role of UK shooting organisations does not involve active political opposition. Gun politics is the wrong name for this article. Gun policy, gun laws or gun control. But I can see all every article about a country say 'Gun Politics'. This is done to match the US lobbying technique to "teach the controversy". Change the name of every other country's gun control article, and leave the US to their own machinations. 120.136.34.176 (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Seems like a very US-centric debate being forced on all the other articles. Second Quantization (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Air rifle legislation in Scotland

The "Scotland" section devotes most of it's detail to the proposed legislation regarding air rifles in Scotland, including a lengthy quote from the originator of a petition against the proposal. Obviously some mention is needed, but I feel that it is currently unduly balanced against those opposing the petition, and that this level of detail about one petition is possibly too great for this general article covering the entire history of the subject. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems pretty balanced to me, also the regional government made a fundamental mistake in the white paper with their describing an air weapon as a 'firearm', an air pistol or rifle is only a 'firearm' if it is involved in a crime, describing them as 'firearms' by the regional government suggests bias, regards. Twobells (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Lots of things in the UK are "firearms", if they fall outside the narrower definition of something else. An air weapon that's over the power limits to be accepted as an air weapon (in the legal sense) is treated as a firearm. You can quite commonly have an air rifle (especially for pest control) that's something like a pre-charged rifle or carbine and have to hold it on a FAC. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Gun politics in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121125041400/http://www.basc.org.uk:80/en/shooting/target-shooting/ to http://www.basc.org.uk/en/shooting/target-shooting/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120804073733/http://www.basc.org.uk:80/en/departments/game%2Dand%2Dgamekeeping/game%2Dshooting/ to http://www.basc.org.uk/en/departments/game-and-gamekeeping/game-shooting/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

What Happened To The Pro and Anti Shooting Lobby List?

Why was this deleted? Such a list is notable. Twobells (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Unsupportable claims

Twobells has introduced the following text:

Many members of the public increasingly own sporting rifles and shotguns while legally-held gun-related crime is down. However, illegally-held firearm crime has risen quite considerably in the last few years.

In short, this makes three claims:

1) Legal firearms ownership is widespread ("many") and increasing

2) "legally-held gun-related crime is down"

3) Use of illegally-held guns is rising

I would suggest that these claims are either misleading or factually inaccurate.

For the first the cited Telegraph article claims:

"In fact, gun ownership is at record levels. Some 1.2 million pick up a gun on a fairly regular basis today, more than ever before."

The UK population is 64,511,000 so 1.2 million is a mere 1.9%. This does not constitute "many." There is no historic usage data stated, but we can take the number of Firearms Certificates (FAC) and Shotgun Certificates (SGC) on issue as a proxy:

1995 = 141,700 & 653,800

1996 = 141,900 & 638,000

1997 = 133,600 & 623,100

1998 = 131,900 & 627,600

1999 = 132,300 & 625,700

2000 = 125,400 & 602,500

2001 = 119,600 & 577,200

2002 = 117,700 & 559,000

2002/03 = 118,600 & 561,800

2003/04 = 122,100 & 569,900

2004/05 = 126,400 & 572,400

2005/06 = 127,900 & 563,600

2006/07 = N/A & N/A

2007/08 = 128,528 & 549,207

2008/09 = 138,728 & 574,946

2009/10 = 141,775 & 580,653

2010/11 = 141,840 & 564,269

2011/12 = 143,166 & 562,696

2012/13 = 147,695 & 570,726

2012/14 = 151,413 & 582,923

2014/15 = 153,603 & 582,494

This shows that the number of FACs has not significantly increased, especially when one takes the increasing population into account, and while the number of SGCs has show a greater increase, it is modest and linear. In this context the claim that, "Many members of the public increasingly own sporting rifles and shotguns," is highly misleading.

For the second claim - that "legally-held gun-related crime is down" - the cited 2012 Huffington Post article does not actually directly refer to the use of licensed firearms in crime in the UK at all, and in fact does not refer to any UK data beyond the fact that homicides commited with firearms were down to 51, which I believe refers to the most recent (at the time) figure for England & Wales.

Lastly, the third claim - that use of illegally-held guns is rising - cites a paywalled Times piece that cannot be easily checked, but the preview suggests focuses on urban crime, and notes that, "the number of occasions when a firearm was discharged in London leapt to 352, an increase of 16.5 per cent compared with the previous 12 months." In other words, a very low number which is prone to extreme year-on-year fluctuations, and one based on only one geographical area at that. In fact, the number of crimes involving non-air weapons and air weapons for the past 24 years has been:

1992 = 7,243 + 6,098 = 13,341

1993 = 7,730 + 6,337 = 14,067

1994 = 6,002 + 7,165 = 13,167

1995 = 5,866 + 7,568 = 13,434

1996 = 6,063 + 7,813 = 13,876

1997 = 4,904 + 7,506 = 12,410

1997/98 = 4,903 + 7,902 = 12,805

1998/99 = 5,209 + 8,665 = 13,874

1999/00 = 6,843 + 10,103 = 16,946

2000/01 = 7,471 + 10,227 = 17,698

2001/02 = 10,024 + 12,377 = 22,401

2002/03 = 10,248 + 13,822 = 24,070

2003/04 = 10,338 + 13,756 = 24,094

2004/05 = 11,069 + 11,824 = 22,893

2005/06 = 11,088 + 10,438 = 21,526

2006/07 = 9,645 + 8,836 = 18,481

2007/08 = 9,865 + 7,478 = 17,343

2008/09 = 8,199 + 6,041 = 14,240

2009/10 = 8,082 + 4,931 = 13,013

2010/11 = 7,040 + 4,295 = 11,335

2011/12 = 6,022 + 3,510 = 9,532

2012/13 = 5,158 + 2,977 = 8,135

2013/14 = 4,842 + 2,867 = 7,709

In other words, almost totally consistent falls in the use of non-air weapons since the high of 2005/06, and consistent falls in the use of air weapons since the high of 2002/03. In this context, a claim that "illegally-held firearm crime has risen quite considerably in the last few years" cannot be regarded as anything other than utterly false. I am therefore reverting Twobell's edits. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You suggest? Take it up with the various authors but please do not revert from some sort of WP:POV position. I just cite the legitimate sources and the facts and statistics contained therein. Twobells (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The sources you cite simply do not support your interpretation of what they are saying. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read the articles Nick, they state exactly that. Look, you must stop employing WP:NOR on Wikipedia, regards. Twobells (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Here are a couple more citations for you. Look, I have plenty more legitimately-sourced citations if you want them Nick. I believe strongly in showing good faith but why are you consistently trying to revert and remove legitimate citations relating to UK gun crime? Remember the G36? You reverted those citations too, for years after the assault rifle was in general use in the UK among British police forces, why? Twobells (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

No, you were reverted on that point because you repeatedly tried to claim that semi-automatic carbines are "machine guns" or "assault rifles," which by definition they are not. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I have never suggested that the G36 is a 'machine gun', you are confusing me with someone else, I stated that the G36 is an assault rifle which it is again supported by the overwhelming evidence that you consistently ignore. With respect Nick, your pov agenda driven by WP:NOR has no place on Wikipedia, best wishes. Twobells (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC) Twobells (talk)

No, you will not revert credibily sourced citations, that is against best Wikipedia policy and Nick you should and do know better, stop chancing it. Your WP:OR has no place on Wikipedia, regards. Twobells (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Pointing out that published statistics refute your synthesis of news reports is not original research. Less than 2% of the population regularly using firearms does not constitute "many," and the report does not support your claim of a substantial increase in ownership, which is not borne out by the SGC and FAC statistics. You cannot extrapolate a recent increase in a low base rate of urban gun crime to claim that, "illegally-held firearm crime has risen quite considerably in the last few years," when the published national figures on firearms crime show the exact opposite, i.e. consistent falls over the last decade. In short, stop misrepresenting or just plain lying to pursue your own agenda. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Nick, you are constantly having to retreat to WP:NOR in your defence, the authors citations I added state the statisistics clearly and these authors come to their conclusions which the citations support, yet you have taken the same stats and come to another conclusion and promote that personal research in this article which is blatant WP:NOR, reverting edits that include legitimate citations that clearly with no sophistry, state the facts, to then go on and state that I am 'lying' when all I am doing is following best wiki practice by including relevant numerous citations from legitimate sources is beneath you, regards. Twobells (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

No, your citations do nothing of the sort. You are, of course, free to quote from each the exact text which you believe supports your three claims, and particularly the emphasised parts i.e.

1) Many members of the public increasingly own sporting rifles and shotguns

2) while legally-held gun-related crime is down

3) illegally-held firearm crime has risen quite considerably in the last few years

Nick Cooper (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

All editors are free to read the articles which support the authors conclusions, what you not are permitted to do is employ WP:NOR to further your agenda. Also, Nick you need to calm down, the link you are directing people to is an empty .xml template. http://s4.postimg.org/eoe5lhm4t/your_Link.png. Also, what it you that deleted the pro and anti-gun organisations? In closing I see you have edit warred here before so I will be referring your actions to administration, regards. Twobells (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll take that as an acknowledgement by you that you cannot quote the text in the articles that support your bogus claims.

The link is http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-violent-crime-and-sexual-offences--2013-14/rft-appendix-tables.xls If you can't open that, it's time you got a new PC. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I have just spent the last ten minutes since I wrote the above arranging arbitration, yet you again, assume some soft of bad faith, regards. Twobells (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, I am trying to help you with this table and this is what editors get when they click on your link: http://s11.postimg.org/h3nm81637/hislinkg.png Edit, you seem to be trying to post this link, correct: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-376027 ? I am using Excel 2016 and your link just resolves to a blank .xml template. Twobells (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

No, that's the page the link to the spreadsheet appears on. The other link is direct to the spreadsheet itself. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

In fact, gun ownership is at record levels. Some 1.2 million pick up a gun on a fairly regular basis today, more than ever before.

Gun deaths last year in the UK at 51 were down by 18 percent , yet private gun ownership continues to grow with 1.8 million legally held

Gun crime is increasing in urban areas across the country, prompting fears of a resurgence in gang activity.

Twobells (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You claimed that, "Many members of the public increasingly own sporting rifles and shotguns." As already stated, 1.2 million is 1.9% of the population, and thus does not constitute "many" as would be commonly understood. Shooting remains a pastime practiced by a very small minority of the population, regardless of whether or not it has increased recently (a small minority that has increased from an even smaller minority is still a small minority). The cited source does not specify what the number of practitioners has increased from and certainly the claim that there has been a significant increase in the ownership of "sporting rifles" is not supported by the number of FACs on issue.

You claimed that, "legally-held gun-related crime is down." The originally cited January 2012 Huffington Post article stated: "Gun deaths last year in the UK at 51 were down by 18 percent..." This does not correlate with either of the three previous reporting years numbers of firearms homicides, or the subsequent one, i.e.:

2008/09 = 39

2009/10 = 39

2010/11 = 58

2011/12 = 42

Regardless of this anomaly, the number of homicides commited with firearms being at a low does not support the much higher level claim that, "legally-held gun-related crime is down." The HP article makes no mention of any other firearms crime statistics, and certainly none relating to "legally-held" firearms.

You claimed that, "illegally-held firearm crime has risen quite considerably in the last few years." As already stated, the number of crimes involving both non-air weapons and air weapons - and the combined total - have been falling consistently over the last decade. In terms of "the last few years," the actual numbers for the last five have been:

Year	Non-air weapons	Air weapons	Total
2009/10	8,082	4,931	13,013
2010/11	7,040	4,295	11,335
2011/12	6,022	3,510	9,532
2012/13	5,158	2,977	8,135
2013/14	4,842	2,867	7,709

The cited September 2015 Times article is paywalled, and so cannot be read in full, but in the visible preview states:

"Gun crime is increasing in urban areas across the country, prompting fears of a resurgence in gang activity. Statistics reveal that gun crime overall, including possession of a firearm, increased by 12 per cent in the capital in the year to September. However, the number of occasions when a firearm was discharged in London leapt to 352, an increase of 16.5 per cent compared with the previous 12 months."

From this it is clear that the article in dealing with urban firearms crimes, which are prone to severe fluctuations due to the low base line. Given that the national figures have been consistently and demonstrably falling for more than five years, for you to say that "illegally-held firearm crime has risen quite considerably in the last few years" is, to be frank, a complete lie. It is also dishonest of you to claim that the cite source corroborates your lie. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You are attmepting to use sophistry along with WP:NOR to argue your case when the citations from legitimate sources clearly state the case, however, this is not enough for you Nick, you take statistics that franky are only part of the picture then use original research to make your claim, a claim you then introduce into a Wikipedia article which is completely unacceptable. All my edits include the actual quotes from the articles cited yet you seemingly cannot accept the authors conclusion, as well as clearly having an inability to accept that the statistics are only part of the picture, increasingly, authors cite that much gun crime is not reported as such including, incredibly the possession of a firearm.

On the contrary, you are making claims that are simply not supported by the citations you have applied to them (and which in some cases are clearly refuted by authoritative sources), either because you don't understand what you are reading, or because you hope readers will accept your misleading/factually inaccurate claims without checking further.

This matter is really very simple:

1) The Daily Telegraph report does not support your original claim that, "Many members of the public increasingly own sporting rifles and shotguns." The report does not mention ownership, only that, "Some 1.2 million pick up a gun on a fairly regular basis." 1.2 million is less than 2% of the population of the UK population; <2% is not "many." The article's claim that, "gun ownership is at record levels," is false given that the number of Firearms Certificates and Shotgun Certificates on issue were:

1968 = 216,300

1971 = 190,600 + 715,500

1974 = 185,900 + 767,000

1979 = 169,600 + 782,100

1980 = 168,000 + 781,900

1981 = 164,900 + 785,200

1982 = 162,700 + 780,600

1983 = 159,800 + 783,400

1984 = 160,300 + 798,400

1985 = 160,400 + 819,300

1986 = 160,300 + 841,000

1987 = 159,000 + 861,300

1988 = 155,400 + 882,000

1989 = 149,400 + 865,100

1990 = 142,500 + 802,300

1991 = 138,600 + 724,600

1992 = 136,800 + 689,200

1993 = 138,400 + 681,100

1994 = 140,200 + 670,000

1995 = 141,700 + 653,800

1996 = 141,900 + 638,000

1997 = 133,600 + 623,100

1998 = 131,900 + 627,600

1999 = 132,300 + 625,700

2000 = 125,400 + 602,500

2001 = 119,600 + 577,200

2002 = 117,700 + 559,000

2002/03 = 118,600 + 561,800

2003/04 = 122,100 + 569,900

2004/05 = 126,400 + 572,400

2005/06 = 127,900 + 563,600

2006/07 = N/A + N/A

2007/08 = 128,528 + 549,207

2008/09 = 138,728 + 574,946

2009/10 = 141,775 + 580,653

2010/11 = 141,347 + 564,269

2011/12 = 141,820 + 562,696

2012/13 = 146,426 + 570,726

2012/14 = 151,413 & 582,923

2014/15 = 153,603 & 582,494

In other words, the current number of FAC is lower than it was at any point prior to 1990, and the number of SGCs is lower than it was at any point prior to 2002. How, then, can anyone reasonably claim that, "gun ownership is at record levels"? Certainly your amended text of, "Increasing numbers of the public own firearms in the UK," is misleading in the context of the low numbers overall.

2) The Huffington Post article does not support your claim that, "legally-held gun-related crime is down." It makes no mention of any UK crime statistics beyond a low for "gun deaths," likely meaning homicides, most of which are not committed with legally-held firearms, anyway. I see that you have not attempted to amend this claim, nor provide citations to corroborate it.

3) The paywalled Times article does not support your claim that, "illegally-held firearm crime has risen quite considerably in the last few years." ONS figures quoted above show that this is categorically not the case, with overall numbers of firearms crime falling consistently over the last decade.

I see that you have now tried to deflect this point by questioning the recording of firearms crime in general. As I believe has been pointed out to you previously, it is the case that possession offences have never been included in the overall numbers for firearms-enabled crime, because by definition they generally only count crimes in which firearms are used. Even if possession offences amounting to 60% are not included now (although some clearly are tabulated in the HO/ONS returns), they were not included ten years ago, or twenty years ago, or thirty years ago. Their supposed none inclusion does not affect the reported number of firearms-enabled crimes, and so it is highly misleading to highlight the (non-)issue in the lead as you have.

I would note as an aside that the old Telegraph article you have cited dates from 2008, when Labour was in power, and quotes Tory MP Dominic Grieve, who presumably forgot all about the matter completely when he subsequently became Attorney General. Clearly the issue was merely being used as a stick to beat the then-current administration. In addition his complaint that the Home Office should be relieved of responsibility for the compilation of statistics is now redundant, given that it actually happened several years ago. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand what WP:OR is Nick, you cannot hypothesize using your own Original Research claiming you know what a government minister was thinking then claim that as 'fact', Wikipedia is only interested in the citations and the sources state exactly that which I have written, just because you make an assumption from your WP:OR does not mean you can then claim ownership of the article and state your supposition as fact. You keep citing the government statistics but the journalists and authors cited in the sources have far more up to date information and they have legitimate concerns that the state is not telling the whole story, again, born out by the citations. Every single citation bears out what I have written, it is straight-forward, does not rely on WP:OR nor hypothesis, regards.Twobells (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You clearly did not understand the meaning of "I would note as an aside..." That Grieve's comments were clearly politically motivated is an adiditonal point that does not invalidate the reason for removing your misleading text in the first place.

On the other hand, you trying to hand-wave away the national figures for firearms-enabled crime does not wash. Those up to 2013/14 are the most recent full-year figures available; the 2014/15 ones will be available early next year. You simply cannot extrapolate a shift in the first six months of the year in the low base line of urban firearm-enabled crime to claim that, "illegally-held firearm crime has risen quite considerably in the last few years," given that the national figures show consistent falls over the last decade. National firearms-enabled crime has categorically not been "rising" in any way, shape, or form - and certainly not "considerably" - "in the last few years." That the reality is the complete opposite is a fact, and you have absolutely no compelling evidence that even remotely suggests otherwise. In 2013/14 such crimes were at a lower level than they were than in any of the previous twenty-two years. This despite the fact that crimes are counted now that would not have been counted under the rules in use prior to the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard, which first affected figures for 2001/02.

Contrary to your insistance, the citations you have provided do now corroborate what you are claiming. While you have been asked more than once to quote the exact text from the articles which corroborates you claims, you have failed to do so. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

With respect, you continue time and again to employ WP:OR in your defence of the indefensible which is to remove uncontencious referenced material, again, you are hypothesizing what a government minister might be thinking then employing that in your argument as to why these clearly neutral referenced material should be removed, seemingly, you just don't get it. Essentially, what you are doing is consistantly employing WP:OR in your attempts to revert non-contencious referenced material, that is not a valid defence for reverting these edits. You claim that it is me that 'hand-wave away national figures' when it the considered opinion of the authors and journalists, not mine and that brings us again to the crux of the matter, in that you are conflating MY edits with their well-researched articles. Again, I have to remind you that each of the the edits reflect exactly what the sources state, which is:

1: members of the public increasingly own firearms

2: legally-held gun-related crime is down

3: illegally-held firearm crime has risen quite considerably in the last few years and that the national statistics do not reflect actual gun crime rates, regards.Twobells (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I repeat, with added emphasis: "You clearly did not understand the meaning of "I would note as an aside..." That Grieve's comments were clearly politically motivated is an adiditonal point that does not invalidate the reason for removing your misleading text in the first place."

You only introduced the quote attributed to Grieve part way through this process. You were wrong before you did that, and remain wrong now, regardless of the quote.

1) Firearms ownership remains the preserve of a tiny minority of the population.

2) Your cited source does not say that, and you have failed to quote the bit you think does, despite requests.

3) Your cited source reports a recent spike in urban firearms crime based on interim mid-year figures. It does not say firearms crime as a whole - "illegally-held" or otherwise - is rising, and you have failed to quote the bit you think does, despite requests.

The figures for firearms-enabled crime as a whole show that it has been falling steadily and consiutently over the last decade. Fact. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You still don't get it do you? Essentially, you are hypthocising what a government minister may or may not be thinking and further what his agenda is, supposedly, all in order to keep non-contentcious edits off the article, Wikipedia is only interested in the source material as reflected by the citations nothing else. Twobells (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, are you seriously trying to suggest that the only reason I have reverted your couterfactual edits is because of what I think the motivations were of a then-shadow minister, which you didn't even introduce until several days into the process?! Look, whatever Grieve did or didn't say is completely immaterial and has no bearing whatsoever on the lack of validity in what you have been trying to claim. And, not to overdo the point, your sourecs don't actually say what you claim they are saying. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

No matter how many times you try to say it or attempt to confuse the issue which is the fact that you reverted non-contentious, reliably-sourced, referenced material for reasons only known to yourself. The sources reflect my edits to the letter, however, you have hypothicized from the source material to make your own conclusions which any editor reading this talk page may see for themselves, regards.Twobells (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Then it is truly amazing that multiple editors have looked at your claims and your sources, and have all come to the conclusion that you're wrong. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

What's truly amazing is, in the light of recent data how wrong they were. Twobells (talk) 11:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)