Think Gun Control Stopped Mass Shootings In The UK? Think Again!

Web Page
Facebook
YouTube

The UK and the US, while they have much in common, also have many differences.  One of the greatest differences has always been, you guessed it, firearms.  The first thing to realize

about the UK is that even before gun control, there were few gun crimes.  Also, largely due to the much smaller amount of public land, hunting and target shooting were never something that many average people participated in.  In addition, when comparing figures, we must remember that the US has 4.9 times the UK population.

UK Mass Shooting Incidents

On August 19, 1987 the UK experienced its' first major mass shooting.  A man used a handgun and two semi-automatic rifles to kill 16 people and wound another 15 in and around Hungerford.  Without any pesky 2nd Amendment to get in the way, the UK quickly passed a total ban of all semi-automatic rifles.  In other words, the UK went even further than a so-called "assault weapons ban", on top of other pre-existing gun control laws that would likely be unconstitutional here.  Problem solved, right?  Wrong.

Nine years later, on March 13, 1996 the UK's second major mass shooting happened at Dunblane Primary School near Stirling, Stirlingshire, Scotland.  A man used four handguns to kill 16 children and one teacher and wound 15 others.  Even though gun control failed to stop this mass murder, British politicians decided that more gun control would stop the next attack - so, they banned all cartridge handguns. Effectively all modern handguns  were confiscated - even those privately owned by military officers.  Problem solved, right?  Wrong.

Fourteen years later, on June 2, 2010, the UK experienced its' third  major mass shooting.  A gunman killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England.  HIs weapons?  A double barreled shotgun and a .22 rimfire bolt action rifle.  This time, although there was discussion of more gun control, no new laws were passed.  Of course, with a handgun ban, a semi-auto rifle ban, licensing of owners, registration of all firearms, limits on ammunition, storage requirements and home inspections - there wasn't much left except to ban the few legal firearms.  This time there was no new gun control.

So, what lessons can we draw?

First, before we look at the effect of the UK's gun laws, let's compare the rate of these mass murders. The US population is 4.9 times that of the UK.  If the UK had the same population as the US, they would have experienced 14.7 mass shootings with eight or more killed between 1987 and 2010.  How many shootings with eight or more killed did the US have during the same time period?  According to CNN's research, the US had 15 such incidents.  That's right, the UK's population adjusted figure is essentially the same as that of the US.

The Effect Of UK Gun Control Laws

Let's look at the gun control laws the UK had in place before that first major mass shooting, the UK had the following gun control measures in place: Licensing of all shotgun owners, with licenses only being denied for cause.  Licensing or rifle and pistol owners with licenses being able to be denied without a need to demonstrate any reason at all.  Registration of all firearms.  Police permission required before each firearm was purchased.  Strict storage requirements.  Police inspection of the homes of gun owners.  These measures, many of which would violate our 2nd Amendment, did not stop any of these incidents.

After the 1987 mass shooting, the UK went beyond the assault weapons ban that gun control advocates are pushing here in the US.  They banned all semi-automatic rifles.  The result: Just as gun rights advocates here in the US are predicting, the next mass shooter simply changed to handguns.  It didn't work.

After the 1996 mass murder, the UK banned virtually all handguns, only allowing non-cartridge models loaded with loose powder and bullets.  This didn't work either.

After the 2010 incident, the UK had another gun control debate.  Given that in this case the firearms used were a .22 rimfire rifle and a double barreled shotgun, about the only measures left would have been to ban all civilian firearms.  This was too much, even for the UK.  After this incident no new laws were passed.

So, gun laws that far exceed what can be done here in the US did not stop mass shootings in the UK.  The UK has far few incidents because they have far fewer people - not because their gun control laws stop or reduce major mass shootings.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that when the people you are killing are unarmed, any firearms that can be reloaded with cartridges can still kill a whole lot of people.  So, unless we were to confiscate all the modern firearms in the United States, except for muzzleloaders, the effect upon mass shootings will be the same as the effect was in the UK - which is to say, no effect at all.  Clearly, that level of gun confiscation is both a legal and practical impossibility.

Instead of fighting over gun bans that are likely to be struck down by the courts, doesn't it make more sense to focus upon the measures we all agree upon?

Things such as:

Fixing the broken background check database by requiring states to report all prohibited persons or lose 100% of their federal funding.

Fixing the broken mental health system so the dangerously mentally ill are treated and kept off the streets until they have been successfully treated and added to the background check database as prohibited persons.

Enforcing laws that, when a person is convicted, result in a firearms prohibition.

Enforcing our existing gun laws.  Especially our laws against prohibited persons possessing or attempting to purchase firearms, straw purchases (where a person with a clear record buys a gun for a prohibited person) and against black market gun"dealers".

Had the above been done, the Parkland mass murderer would not only have been unable to buy guns through legal channels, he would have been in jail or a mental institution.  These things will have a much greater effect than fighting over laws that have been proven not to stop mass shootings.