Imposing harsh minimum sentences for gun possession is the best solution.

In America, people blame guns for crime. In Britain, people blame knives for crime. Neither point is true. The problem is dangerous and violent people attacking each other. Just because someone has a knife or gun it does not mean that they will murder or even harm another person. The majority of people can and should be trusted to behave responsibly.

Increasing minimum sentences for simple gun possession would create far more problems that it would solve.

Imagine a grandmother who decides to keep her late father's 'family heirloom' World War II pistol, a man that finds an old pistol during a clearout of his attic or a terrified woman who's been subjected to a vicious rape or assault and now carries a gun illegally for personal protection.

Would sending any of these people to jail do anything to reduce violent crime ? Of course not, but if minimum sentences are in place there would be no choice BUT to jail them, regardless of whether there was any criminal intent or not.

It's important to remember that not every one in possession of a firearm intends to commit a crime.

(Source  -  BBC News - June 2010)

(Source  -  BBC News - March 2009)

We should arm the police to deal with gun violence and gun massacres.

Firstly, I don't see why public servants (which the police are) should have rights that are denied to everybody else. The police won't be able to protect you if you're attacked because the bad guys will always make sure they're not around before they strike. For that reason, it's YOU that needs to be armed, not the cops.

The police are not your bodyguards and they cannot protect you from criminals. When police attend a 999 call, in more than 95% of cases the crime is over and all the police can do is take a statement, call an ambulance or take a photo of the dead victim's body.

Some people think that gun massacres can be prevented or stopped if the police are armed. Of course, evidence from places that have routinely armed police (such as the U.S.) shows that this sort of thing never happens. However, if the public are armed they are basically everywhere at once, and can end incidents quickly with minimal loss of life.

Guns in the hands of the people are tools of liberty and freedom. When only the government and police have guns, a country can very easily become a police state. The section called "Guns and Tyranny" explains this in more detail.

We've always had tough gun laws in Britain.

You may be surprised to learn that before 1920, Britain had no laws concerning the carrying or ownership of guns.

A quote from firearms expert and former police officer Superintendent Colin Greenwood -

"England entered the twentieth century with no controls over the purchasing or keeping of any type of firearm, and the only measure which related to the carrying of guns was the Gun Licence Act, requiring the purchase of a ten shilling gun licence from a Post Office. Anyone, be he convicted criminal, lunatic, drunkard or child could legally acquire any type of firearm and the presence of pistols and revolvers in households all over the country was fairly widespread.

England at that time was a country where guns of every type were familiar instruments and where anyone who felt the need or desire to own a gun could obtain one. The cheaper guns were very cheap and well within the reach of all but the very poor. The right of the Englishman to keep arms for his own defence was still completely accepted and all attempts at placing this under restraint had failed."  

The UK had very little violent street crime or armed violence during this time.

Legal access to firearms has been restricted progressively since 1920, right up to the strict and grossly unfair gun laws that we have today. It's also noticeable that violent crime rates have risen each time the country's gun laws have been tightened. 

(Source - BBC News November 2007 ) (PDF File)

(Source - The Right To Armed Self-Defence by David Botsford) (PDF File)

Britain has only a fraction of the violent crime of the United States.

This may surprise you, but the UK has more violent crimes each year than all 50 US states put together.

According to the British Crime Survey, the UK had more than 2.5 million violent crimes in 2008. This works out to be a violent crime rate of 2,000 offences per 100,000 residents.

The United States, with a population 5 times that of the UK, had only 1.4 million violent crimes during the same period. This works out to be a violent crime rate of 466 offences per 100,000 residents

This means that Britain has a crime rate that is actually more than 4 times that of the United States. The true violent crime rate of the UK is probably far higher as many people simply don't bother reporting crimes as they feel that nothing will be done.

The reason is for this difference in crime rates is that in the U.S. concealed handguns appear to deter criminals from committing crimes.

In the UK, there is nothing to deter criminals at all.

(Source -  Federal Bureau Of Investigation 1989 - 2008 Crime Statistics )

(Source - Telegraph Newspaper  -  July 2009) (PDF File)

Won't more guns make the UK's youth violence problem so much worse ?

The problem of youths in the UK carrying knifes and other weapons and using them to commit crime has only come about because victims of crime are unarmed, and these thugs know it.

This, together with the fact that they only ever attack people when they are in groups, means that violent youths know they'll never lose if they decide to commit a robbery or other violent crime.

Anyone that's ever confronted one of these thugs when they're alone knows that they are neither tough nor brave. In fact, they are nothing more than pathetic cowards.

The possibility of being killed by an armed victim each time they attack is going to deter a large percentage of these cowardly thugs.

The remaining youths will be affected in 2 ways - either they'll learn and stop attacking innocent people, or they won't learn and they'll inevitably end up being killed by a decent citizen acting in self-defence.

I believe that if the majority of law-abiding, responsible adults are armed, the problem of juvenile crime will decrease rapidly and will reach insignificant levels within just a few years.

Another consideration is that a victim will be in a much better position to defend himself against multiple attackers if he is armed, regardless of what weapons his attackers are carrying.