Talk:Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neutrality[edit]

This article obviously needs a lot of work as it it was coming across as an anti gun control rant - hardly NPOV. I have tried to make it a bit more neutral but what it really needs is facts. All contributions towards improving this are appreciated. SaintedLegion (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality issues with this article persists, particularly the section on "gun crime after the ban" which is still blatantly anti gun control and cherry picks statistics from primary sources (as opposed to using secondary sources). I've put a NPOV template on that section until it is resolved. Trolligarch (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion between the two 1997 Acts[edit]

As mentioned in the article, there were two Firearms (Amendment) Acts in 1997, which seems to have confused some editors. I have removed the following statement from the article which applies to the other Act:

The UK government has been heavily criticised for delays in implementing the firearms register under the Act – the register had not been created nine years after the passing of the act[1].

The introduction of a national register is a requirement of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 while the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 does not make any reference to a register.
Editors should be especially careful when introducing new information to this article and confirm that the correct article is being edited. Road Wizard (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is this nonsense?[edit]

Any calibre between .22 and .357 magnum is permissible in long barrelled pistols. ^[1] The ban was about auto and semi auto, not revolver, who on earth wrote this rubbish? Twobells (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that looks like there is more than one "idiot" here. (I would not normally use the term but I didn't start it.) Ordinary length full-bore revolvers, for example a .38 Webley, were indeed moved in to Section 5 by the Firearms (Amendment) Act. However since the Act specifies a size, in the years following the Act revolvers with barrels longer than specified and with extensions to their overall length have become available in Great Britain.

BTW automatic weapons of any sort have been banned from civilian use since before the Second World War.

I could say who on earth wrote this rubbish - but I won't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.119.74 (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.shootingshow.co.uk/go-shooting-pistols

Gun crime after the ban - removal[edit]

I’m deleting this section for the following:

1: Numerous users have noted in talk and edit summaries that it is flawed.

2: It quotes statistics from entirely primary sources (WP:PRIMARY) and therefore constitutes original research (WP:OR)

3: It is clearly biased against gun control (WP:NPOV).

4: The stats quoted are not comparable. The office of national statistics (the only source used in this section) changed their recording practices in 1998 and in 2002: they explicitly state that they do not compare current crime levels with those prior to March 2003 for this reason (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/methodologies/crimeinenglandandwalesqmi). Not only does this invalidate the section, but clearly shows that it is OR as no reliable source would attempt to compare the two figures.

There is zero merit in retaining this section in its current form. This is the worst sort of content in wikipedia: the stuff that superficially seems reliable is what gives this place a bad name. If properly sourced and neutrally written, such a section would be a very good addition to the article, but for now I cannot see any good reason to keep it. John wiki: If you have a problem, don't mess with my puppy... 20:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.shootingshow.co.uk/go-shooting-pistols

[1]