Return to: Home | Politics | Law & Reform

Britain's converted gun problem

Jeremy Sare

Published 24 November 2008

The blanket ban on handguns following the massacre of 16 children in Dunblane in 1996 means Britain has some of the toughest controls yet street gun crime has risen inexorably

If you get shot today in London, Manchester or Liverpool, chances the weapon will be a converted handgun.
 
The conviction of a 13 year-old boy in south London last week for possession of a converted Russian CS gas pistol, highlighted the pervasive use of these weapons and underlined the government's failure to check Britain’s growing gun culture.
 
In fact the Baikal IZH-79, has been used in several killings in London including the gruesome murder of 17 year-old James 'Dre' Smartt-Ford at an ice rink in Streatham last February. 

In October, Kenyatta Mulenga was convicted of the murder of former British heavyweight boxing champion, James 'Big Bad' Oyebola by shooting him in a nightclub with a similar converted model.
 
The Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, likes to boast about Britain having, “some of the toughest gun laws in the world” and probably only Japan could be considered tougher.

The blanket ban on handguns following the massacre of 16 schoolchildren in Dunblane in March 1996 has prevented similar mass killings from legally-owned pistols such as those witnessed in US, Germany and Finland. But in the meantime street gun crime has risen inexorably.

Last year, there were nearly 10,000 firearms offences in England and Wales, a third higher than in 1998 with 566 people fatally or seriously injured.
  
The street weapon of choice now is the Baikal; once considered to be the “Lada of the gun world”, its robustness has now become its main selling feature and it costs about £1,000. These CS pistols are manufactured in the Russian city of Izhevsk (home of the Kalashnikov) then are exported to Lithuania or Germany and converted into 9mm calibre weapons.

In May, seven men, including two Lithuanian brothers, were convicted of supplying converted Baikal pistols which the Greater Manchester Police described as the "largest connected network of illegally held weapons ever seen in this country". The illegal gun market in Britain is now huge; last year the Met alone seized more than 1500 pistols.
 
Despite Britain’s tough gun laws, it clearly has very porous borders - and there are still other loopholes which criminals are able to exploit.

In August, illegal gunsmith, Grant Wilkinson, was sentenced to life imprisonment for converting and selling 90 automatic Mac-10 pistols. What almost passed unnoticed was the fact all the guns were bought legally. A Mac-10 is nothing less than a submachine gun capable of firing 1,000 rounds per minute.

Wilkinson’s weapons have been linked directly to over 50 shootings including the murder of WPC Sharon Beshenivsky in Bradford.
 
The government's approach to rising gun crime has been a mainly legislative one, aimed at the individual possessor; in 2006, the Home Office increased sentencing to a mandatory minimum of five years for possession of an illegal weapon.

This much heralded measure has had “negligible” impact on the streets. The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies in their June report, said there was, “no compelling evidence' that the enforcement-led strategy is likely to prove a durable or effective way of dealing with firearm related offending”.

The government's impotence has allowed gun culture to thrive. Government adviser, Dr Duncan Campbell said recently, there is now, "almost epidemic proportions of murders of young people." In response to cut-backs on anti-gun community projects he added, "black youths are being left to die".

In January, the home secretary met with the parents of murdered schoolboy Rhys Jones and chose that inappropriate moment to make an announcement to ban all 120,000 legally owned de-activated weapons. Worse still, the law change has been stalled, if not dropped entirely – nearly a year later, the Home Office has not even begun its consultation as promised.
 
The Gun Control Network has been influential in establishing greater restrictions on gun ownership, including laws on imitation weapons brought in 2006. Chair of GCN, Gill Marshall-Andrews said, “We were very pleased they agreed to close the loophole on de-activated weapons and when we met with Jacqui Smith it all seemed to be going ahead. Then nothing.” The real reason is likely to be simply money. Many of these de-activated guns are valuable antiques; the bill for compensating gun owners and dealers would dwarf the £90m paid out after the handgun ban.

But crimes associated with domestically re-activated weapons are relatively small compared with imported converted weapons. The government would be better advised to invest these sorts of sums into its new UK Border Agency to try to at least slow the flood of converted weapons like the Baikal.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

30 comments from readers

gjdagis
24 November 2008 at 19:31

When will people learn that gun laws which restrict the general populace from arming themselves are totally useless ? Criminals will ALWAYS have guns and there is absolutely nothing any government can do about it. It's time to allow the people, law abiding people, to protect themselves and act as a viable alternative to those who would do harm !

borderline
24 November 2008 at 19:37

I believe Britain's government would best resolve the

gun issue by repealing the knowledge and principles

to how guns work. Maybe deleting portions of our

educations - like the physics, metallurgy, chemistry,

machining technology and maybe even the

knowledge of guns entirely.

THEN, we would have a gun free safe society. One

with no freedoms, no personal responsibilities and

very limited knowledge. But a dumb society is a safe

society.

Surely Gill Marshall-Andrews will approve.

PlanetStarbucks
25 November 2008 at 14:00

I would be tempted to think (though I would not like to offer such information as fact) that a rise in the acceptance of violence is perhaps a key factor. For a related example take smoking. I watched The Mask again recently and was surprised to see Jim Carrey smoking in a kids film. Now smoking is banned and the thought of showing it as an acceptable habit, perhaps even one that increases the sexual prowess of the individual, would be heresy. Therefore when one is surrounded by idols who carry guns to enforce their own law (Obama's favourite TV character is Omar from The Wire and James Bond is the quintessential law into himself), how can one expect others not to follow this?

This is compounded by a laissez-faire system that encourages rampant risk-taking and wealth creation with no recourse to moral or ethical principals. The only fundamental difference I can see is that one game is regulated by the world (in terms of banking) and the other isn't.

shazbat1
25 November 2008 at 17:43

To: gjdagis .

I agree with your train of thought. Here in the US, the tide of public opinion allows 75 % of the states residents to carry a firearm by permit. The vast majority of gun crime here (read: almost 100%) is done as it is in the UK, by criminals,gang members etc...

It's high time the UK Parliament woke up to that fact. They could empower honest law abiding citizens to be able to peotect themselves. But wait, don't you folks have a law that prohibites defending oneself too aggressively? Americans too often read how one UK citizen or another, has been arrested on the basis of that innane law.

Best regards,

fsilber
25 November 2008 at 18:12

Why don't you try passing gun laws similar to the laws which keep heroin, cocaine, and marijuana out of the hands of criminals? Also, I salute your success in preventing the kind of mass gun attacks that we have seen in the U.S., Germany, and Finland; perhaps you could build on that success with similarly strong bomb-control laws.

Forlornehope
26 November 2008 at 17:49

Anyone suggesting that the USA could be any kind of model simply has not looked at the numbers. According to the Center for Disease Control there are just under 30000 firearms deaths a year. No, I have not added an extra zero; it is horrendous. Most of these are either homicide or suicide. That would convert to 5000 in the UK instead of the present number of less than 100.

bexeleyspeed
27 November 2008 at 18:22

Actually of the US deaths for Homicide, police officers who shoot to kill account for about half, we don't include this in UK stats. Suicides account for 72% (21600 deaths) in the US. The Japanese suicide rate is Twice that of the US overall, yet the Japanese have virtually no gun ownership. Murder (as we call it in the UK) in the US with a gun is actually about 4500 deaths a year. Forlornehope, The US population is 5 times UK population, so the real figure would convert to 900. If you are suggesting that murder is easier based on what weapon you have about then you are missing the point.

gbcps12
28 November 2008 at 20:03

The crime rate in the the UK is always compared to that in the USA as though the UK's is much lower than the USA's. If you took the system for gathering crime stats that is used in the USA and use that exact same system in the UK you would find the UK's crime rate would take off like a rocket.

steve mitchell
28 November 2008 at 20:20

IT will happen where ever the criminal mind breeds! If a country bans guns or a country dose not. We should ask Rebeca Peters how to solve the problem. Here in Arizona I carry my handguns and will continue to carry as will, I am 49 years old and no murder, rapes have happend to my family or me! If it is to happen my family and I will fight back with a volley lead from our conselled pistols! Or my AR-15 with many 30 round cilps loaded!

antileft
29 November 2008 at 05:00

Of course, banning guns will mean less guns, which will mean less people getting shot. Anyone who thinks that by giving more people guns we re somehow going to stop shootouts needs to learn how to think properly. Simple as that. No need for debate here- just learn how to think properly.

Forlornehope
29 November 2008 at 10:57

Bexelyspeed,

Afraid not, the numbers for people killed by "legal intervention" are actually 414 for the latest available data. The number for homicide in the same year was over 12000. That is equivalent to over 2000 for the UK. As most people know Japan has a different cultural view of suicide. There have been several research studies showing that firearms suicides are incremental. It is simply too easy to point a gun and pull the trigger.

It really is important to go to the actual source data in these discussions. Anything else is just arm waving.

Thor
29 November 2008 at 13:44

Its much easier to carry a firearm around to protect yourself than a cop as the cop is alot heavier!plus theres not enough for each and every one of us. Notice how the police always are trying to find out who killed the poor person who has been murdered! its after the fact youre dead! Bad guys are practical they look for helpless prey! None of them want to be shot!

A eighteen year old girl armed with a pump shotgun attacked by two or three big men will likey not be raped and killed! they will more than likey go look for someone else to rape! But if no one is armed! Then its like walking thru the candy store picking pieces of helpless candy to eat,refer to police trying to slove your murder! Bad guys will always have weapons and usually come in packs,even if they are armed with baseball bats and you have one, you have no chance!if youre armed with A shotgun or good pistol , they will run! Taking all means to defend themselves from the citizens only means they are lambs set out for the kill! It will not say killed with a gun! which will mean gun crime has gone down! But there will be just as many ,more likey more murdered just the same as they cant defend themselves! refer to solving your murder! and it appears bad guys are not deterred by laws they obtain guns ! The swiss have the right idea everyone in their country is armed,and they have almost no crime,what little they do have is committed by tourists.When will those who tend to look at the world thru rose colored glasses wake up from their fantasy world and smell the coffee? If someone wants to commit suicide they can jump in front of a train or a thousand other ways to end it all.Taking away a citizens way to defend themselves does not reduce crime only the way they are murdered. Let them defend themselves=less crime , not= refer to solving your murder

Thor

Forlornehope
29 November 2008 at 14:42

I happened to be in the USA on 9/11. While the rescue workers showed heroism of the highest order, the general reaction was the most disgusting, yellow bellied funk on the part of a whole nation that I have ever seen. The main reason that people want guns is that they are scared. Walter Scott summed up my country's idea of heroism "he rode all unarmed". Only cowards need guns.

Thor
29 November 2008 at 22:03

Only a fool knows no fear! Only a fool would not equip him or herself with tools to defend themselves or their family in the best way they can! Better to encounter the bad guy and have the weapon to survive and walk away the so-called coward alive! Than be the so-called hero who did not arm himself if weapons were there to use and die! For Hero or not if your dead! Youre dead! and what will that accomplish? The bad guys kill you and your family and live to kill another Day.Walter Scott can sum it up for your country I guess! For this so-called coward has twice survived encounters with the bad guys where if not armed would have died,instead I walked away.Once for myself and once for the life of a child who was being murdered. That child grew up to be a fine young man!

Thanks to this coward who was armed!!!

Thor

shortwave62
30 November 2008 at 06:02

Forlornehope,

You've been nurseing from the bottle of liberalism and it's affected your thought process.During WW II and the bombing of London do you consider all of your kinsman cowards for arming themselves even though London wasn't on the front line.When the WTC was hit nobody new if that was it or just the beginning,was there sleeper cells waiting to attack schools or public malls...no one knew.When our public arms it's self like that,it's to defend our country and our homes if need be.There was no mass crime spree afterwards.

Now let's compare our poverty area coverage to the UK's. If you take the square Kilometer area of all the slums and poverty area of the US and fit it in the UK it would take up half of your country and thats with no free space,just houses and apartments and streets....about 30,000,000 people in that class alone.If 5% of your country is athiest and 95% is religious,do you ban religion so as not to offend the none believers? So if 1 or 2% are criminals and 98 or 99% of the whole isn't. You believe in taking away the rights from the good, thinking it's going to change the thought process of a criminal.Bottom line is...If guns kill all of mine must be defective,because most of mine are 20yrs old or so and still haven't jumped up and shot someone.Maybe if the UK would have made stiffer laws in the first place,like 20yrs for first time offenders of violent crimes with a weapon,people would have had second thoughts and half or more wouldn't have happened in the first place.

**** I would rather have a gun and not need it...Than need a gun and not have it.****

Signed: One Disgusting Yellow Bellied Funk From Texas

CHEERS

Dan Clark
30 November 2008 at 07:53

Most don't remember but in world war 2 Britain begged the U.S. for small arms to arm their people against the Germans. We sent boat loads they gave them out, After the war they started collecting them again. The country was much safer with the public armed then as it would be now. Looks to me like the Brits need to clean out the Government Liberals and take back their country and their future. Dan Clark Miamisburg, Ohio. U.S.A.

Forlornehope
30 November 2008 at 09:04

And how about the 500 children killed every year in the USA with firearms accidents? The fact is that the murder rate in the UK is tiny by comparison with the USA even though the overall crime rates are much the same. The pattern of murders is, however, very similar with 80% being "friends" and family. It is not "the bad guys" doing the killing but the people in the house with the guns. The availability of guns simply makes killing too easy.

If you want guns in your country that is your choice but you seem to pay a very heavy price for it.

Thor
30 November 2008 at 15:25

Actually Forlornehope oh boy! out of 80,000,000 gun owners in the U.S.A. yep 80 million we only seem to have about 1,500 deaths ayear all age groups due to accidental gun causes statistics from the F.B.I. but we have found that they are lumping other deaths in with the children deaths,death by gang causes with stolen or illegal guns!! or as we just had in our area a child killed by another who found a gun under a mattress,mattress was on floor as that was about the only furniture in apt. but there was lots of drugs, needles,etc around from the mothers druggie boyfriend,the gun was his,stolen! I think maybe its druggies we should get rid of along with gang members. legal gun owners on the most part are alittle safer with their firearms nowadays! So even with the gang related deaths lumped in with the accidental per gun owner it equals .000188

Of course There are 700,000 Doctors in the U.S.A. and accidental deaths caused by Doctors per year are 70,000 that equals 0.171 per Doctor a year much greater than gun owners Statistics of the Dept of Health and human services. So remember guns don't kill!!! Doctors do! I with held the statistics on Lawyers as i was afraid the shock might make people to panic and seek medical attention! Thor

Forlornehope
30 November 2008 at 18:34

Thor, my point is that you may well wish to have widespread gun ownership and that is clearly your democratic decision. The argument that the UK would be a safer place for the law abiding if we followed your example does not fit with the facts. Your 1500 deaths due to accidents would be 300 here and in fact the numbers are almost zero. We do have an increasing problem with gun violence. There were almost 100 deaths due to firearms last year. This is still an order of magnitude lower than an equivalent figure for the USA.

You can make a valid libertarian argument on the right to bear arms. However to argue that people in general are safer when guns are freely available to private citizens flies in the face of the data. By no possible manipulation of the data for the two countries can the relative numbers be reversed. This is not about liberal versus conservative politics. It's about the math!

Thor
30 November 2008 at 20:33

Sorry Forlornehope! but i think your way of thinking matches your user name! The fact that we have 1,500 accidental deaths and you only 100 wereas you are supposed to be a gun free zone is exactly the point!

Your math does not count in those who are killed(murdered)maimed,kidnapped,raped,etc.due to the fact that they cannot defend themselves.The very thing that you feel is to dangerous to be in the hands of free citizens is causing more deaths by them not having them.All creatures in this world have a right to live and defend themselves from predators! A so called Gun free Zone merely lets predators know there will be less problems hunting their prey in that area. An elderly couple just recently in my area were attacked in their own driveway by a man on a motorcycle he beat the old man 82 to death took his wallet and drove off! If he or his wife would have had a firearm the odds would have been evened.I had a good friend who was in a so called gun free zone years ago,so he obeyed the law and left his gun inside his car later a homeless drug addict who had a knife stabbed two people and killed my friend. My own mother who lived by herself was awakened one night by the back door being broken down,she tried to call for help only to find he had cut the phone lines,she being fearful of guns had taken the 22 pistol i gave her but hid it in the top of a closet and the bullits elsewhere. She managed to get both the revolver and bullits scared as she was and trembling loaded two into it,she then pointed it at the top of the door which was about to give and fied the two shots into the top of the door,the intruder had managed to pry the hinge and one lock loose but when she fired he ran! her neighbors heard the shots and called the police! Where it not for that gun she would most likely be dead!! To many times have i seen the results of what happens to a unarmed part of the population,whereas the media never tells of the countless lives saved by the presense of a gun. Thor

Thor
30 November 2008 at 20:42

I could not get all of it into the area! The math of it all points to more lives saved by the presense of a firearm to defend oneself or family than lives lost by it.

Unless you count the bad guys lives! Which i do not as they gave up any right by their actions to do evil.

So i guess it boils down to those who are willing to fight for their own life or their familes and those who chose to be lambs left for the wolves! I think that one should have the right to choose for oneself and if choosing to fight should have the freedom to own the firearms to do so,those who choose not to,do not have to own them but do not have a right to deny others their right. Thor

Forlornehope
30 November 2008 at 21:44

Thor,

You obviously live in an area where you need guns for your protection. Here we just don't have these kind of problems. You are welcome to your guns. Funnily enough I have worked in many places in your great country and never heard of anyone having such experiences. You have my sympathy but there are much pleasanter and safer places to live!

Thor
30 November 2008 at 23:03

Poor Forlornehope! you also have my sympathy! Its obvious that you are one of those people that lives in the house with rose tinted windows and walks thru life with those rose colored glasses i spoke of ! For i live in a nice rural area but predators are everywhere! Youre life has never ran afoul of the monsters that lurk in the shadows,for i know for a fact they exist in your country as well,for several of my friends live there and have lived there! Seven years as a police officer taught me that all areas have them and innocents never understand how much danger they are in until it comes calling,I was a boy scout and my motto stays the same ALWAYS BE Prepared! I wish that the world was as you envision it and that all the innocents could never know the horrors that lurk around them,i'm sure most make it thru life by sheer luck but then that day may come when you are unlucky enough to stumble into reality.Hopefully that will never happen to you because i fully believe there are more good people than evil! But they do exist and its better to be prepared for even that smallest WHAT IF! You seem like one of the good ones if somewhat out of touch with the real world! May your life always be as you envision it and no evil cross your path or any of your family! Be well friend! Thor

Napoleon
06 December 2008 at 23:48

Britain is at present the only country in all of Europe without any legally owned handguns, although the Irish may be close to banning them four years after allowing their citizens to own them again. Britain will be unable to field a pistol team in the 2010 Olympics because the government is worried that all target shooters are potential criminals. Britains gun crime is no worse or better than other European nations that do allow handguns. The idea that banning guns will prevent suicides is ludicrous. Pehaps they better ban lengths of rope and bottles of Paracetamol and build ten foot walls on the top of every cliff. If the worst were to happen Britain would be unable to defend itself. The politicians in this country are defended by bodyguards that carry guns. What makes them more valuable than the rest of us?

Smoking_gun
10 December 2008 at 10:22

The police in the UK have firearms availabe. Trouble is they are only going to be used to defend themselves. The police arive after the event, well after a crime has been reported, well after good people have been killed or raped.

The police cannot be there to defend you at the moment you need that defence. If you want defence against such crimes you need to be allowed to provide it for yourself.

UK laws on the possesion of pepper or Mace sprays is outdated and wrong. Women at least should be permitted to carry it. Our law banning "noxious substances" is based on the use of mustard gas during WW1 and its high time it was reassesed.

A recent report in the Times highlighted that if Indians were permitted concealed carry the Bombay attacks would probably have been less destructive to life and property.

If a selected proportion were permitted concealed or even open carry they just might prove a deterent effect to would be violent criminals or terrorists. Or they might even be there to save the life of your loved one.

jack
05 January 2009 at 16:43

Why do people think its ok for police to have guns but not the public,the police won't be there in time if a madman strikes.And the argument of banning guns means less guns on the street is obsurd,firearms were always very well regulated in the uk as other european countries so the police knew who had them,unlike the US were it is relatively easy for a criminal to get his hands on a gun due to too relaxed gun laws,banning guns is never the answer the cause is.If you ban something then you only create a new market for criminals to exloit and as shown time again cfiminals will always find ways to eather buy make or modify arms.This i not the stone age the knowledge of how to make firearms is all around us,banning knifes would do exactly the same thing but you could always make a knife in 5mins with a bit of metallurgy,its all obsurd stop criminalizing the innocent civilian after all,all those civlians handed there guns in,hardly seems like the kind of thing you would do if you were a criminal now would it.i wish you could enjoy something in this country without the despots saying what we should and shouldn't do all the time,honestly the death rates going to raise in this country from people killing themselves over boardem,don't drink,smoke ,smile ,have fun ,laugh to much,hell jus don't bother living.

And why do they always compare the violence in the UK with the US,the US is what 50 the size of the uk.

just go all the way and compare the UK with israel i'm sure you'll find the crime rate in the uk a lot lower then

jack
05 January 2009 at 16:59

Also because of the already tight gun laws in the UK before the dunblane massacre,the police had already warned that this man should not be allowed to own firearms yet the judge ignored this,so the process of gun ownership was not to blame here,again it was those who banned the guns who were to blame

And i feel sorry for all those people who have killed themselves using being added to the list,They can't even kill themselves easily s if it wasn't already bad enough.

The uk is a moron run society were we feel sorry fo those who comit crime and criminalize those who don''t,Id be happy if only woman could carry guns here the thought of somthing happening to someone thaat could be avoided is sickening,adnd all those people who are to selfish to think of what it is like for the victim who has gone through all this are very selfish and evil people for doing so,go and have a drink and a merry time with the rapists and murderes you car so much about,It s these politicians who are the criminals aiders and abbeters in crime

jack
05 January 2009 at 17:02

sorry about my typing slow connection speed jumbled up the letters a bit

jack
05 January 2009 at 17:19

like i say the thought of someone being raped or murdered is sickeing and stopping anything which could prevent this is in itself evil

jack
05 January 2009 at 17:21

rty

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

Read More

Vote!

Should we build new nuclear power plants?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker