More Grist for the Gun Control Discussion -- UK Gun Crime Continues to Rise

[Overpaid Slacker]

Guns Out Of Control In Gun-Control Britain (from CQ)

British laws have some of the most restrictive gun-control regulations in the West. Even so, for years the British have seen gun crime skyrocketing (http://http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/23/nshot323.xml) as more and younger criminals realize the advantage they have with a firearm in hand:

The number of young people prosecuted for firearms offences has soared by 20 per cent in the past five years, it was revealed earlier this month.
In 2001, 1,193 youngsters under age 21 went to magistrates courts on gun related charges. By 2005, that had risen to 1,444. The statistics come after a recent wave of gun crime in Britain’s inner cities, with many victims not even out of their teens.

Shadow home affairs minister James Brokenshire said: “The rise in gun crime demonstrated by these figures is alarming.”

In April Bernard Hogan-Howe, the chief constable of Merseyside Police, insisted new laws to make reporting information on shootings and possession of guns a 'duty’’ were essential because people were too scared to come forward.

This is not a new story. Over three years ago, I noted the sharp increase in gun-related murders in both England and Wales, as well as other Western gun-control nations. In fact, the murder rate dropped in the United States during the same period, even though gun control had lost steam in American politics.

Britain banned handguns of all kinds ten years ago. Within just a couple of years, the homicide rate had risen over 40%. Violent crime rates more than doubled in three years. The graphic from the 2003 Canadian study shows a hockey-stick increase in violent crime that rivals the chart used by climate-change advocates.

Four years later, Britain still can't figure out why disarming the victims has created a spike in gun-related violence. When criminals have a near-certainty that they outgun potential victims, it removes the most immediate disincentive for an attack. Instead of rethinking the entire idea of criminalizing law-abiding citizens who only want to defend themselves, now British authorities want to criminalize law-abiding citizens who won't volunteer testimony about criminals.

And they don't stop there. The Telegraph reports that one candidate to be the next Metropolitan police commissioner wants to press charges against victims of gun violence who are too terrified of reprisals to testify. That's correct; they want to arrest the victims they've disarmed. He's already ordering police to "stop and search suspects regularly", which at least sounds as if British police have started to conduct searches without any probable cause to find guns. (can you freaking believe this?!? -- JP)

Why not just allow law-abiding citizens the right to arm themselves? It can't get much worse than it already has become over the last ten years. If nothing else, Britain shows that a national policy of gun control leaves an entire country of victims for criminals to exploit.

[legion]

They fear that allowing average people to own guns will result in an even more dramatic increase in crime.

Worst of all, it may make people realize that they are far better at protecting themselves than the government--and that further measures for "protection" will just create more victims.

[Rick Lee]

Hate of guns is as much a cultural thing there as love of them is here. Rational thought has little to do with it in either place. But I'd always rather be a citizen than a subject.

[id10t]

Another thing is that people who fight back - base ball bat, broom stick, fists, whatever - even in their own home have had serious charges pressed against them, sometimes with more punishment than the criminal...

[Rick Lee]

IIRC, breaking and entering is not even illegal in England. The intruder just can't cause any physical harm to the homeowner.

Neil Peart, drummer for Rush, had a fan break into his tour bus in England. When Neil arrived after the show, he was surprised by the guy who refused to leave. Neil security guys quickly subdued the guy and held him for police who refused to charge him with anything because he had not stolen anything or harmed anyone.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by legion

They fear that allowing average people to own guns will result in an even more dramatic increase in crime.

Worst of all, it may make people realize that they are far better at protecting themselves than the government--and that further measures for "protection" will just create more victims.

Probably doesn't help that their cops carry nightsticks as "weapons".

[legion]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

IIRC, breaking and entering is not even illegal in England. The intruder just can't cause any physical harm to the homeowner.

Neil Peart, drummer for Rush, had a fan break into his tour bus in England. When Neil arrived after the show, he was surprised by the guy who refused to leave. Neil security guys quickly subdued the guy and held him for police who refused to charge him with anything because he had not stolen anything or harmed anyone.

And London police announced last year that they will stop investigating small roberies and thefts...

[Overpaid Slacker]

... right in the midst of growing Islamic issues in Londonistan.

Anybody else get the perfect storm piss shivers just thinking about what even a few score armed militants could get away with in London (or other parts of the UK)?

JP

[Rick Lee]

Tom Clancy wrote about some ragheads shooting up a crowded shopping mall in VA in Teeth of the Tiger. At least in VA, there's an excellent chance of some of the shoppers being armed, even if the cops will never get there until it's all over. In England the terrorists would have to run out of ammo and get too tired of running before anything stopped them.

[Joeaksa]

Just had a 15 year old boy shot yesterday in the UK. Police arrested 2 perps within a couple of hours but what about the kid who is dead?

Criminals forgot to turn in their guns and are armed to the teeth, especially in countries where owning guns by its citizens is outlawed. The only thing it does is make the typical citizen totally dependent on the police for their protection. The police cannot be everywhere all the time, so the law abiding citizen is injured or dies in the process.

The facts prove that gun control does not work but the bleeding heart lib still have not learned.

[legion]

Originally Posted by Overpaid Slacker

Anybody else get the perfect storm piss shivers just thinking about what even a few score armed militants could get away with in London (or other parts of the UK)?

JP

Yes. Yes I do.

And after the next tragedy, my spider sense tells me that even MORE laws that harrass victims and make citizens prime targets will be passed. I wonder if any politician across the pond will ever acknowledge the solution to the problem. No, they will say that their counter-productive measures just need more time, more money, or need to be more strict. (Sound familiar?)

[Aerkuld]

This is an area where Britain has some major rethinking to do. But you do understand that a large proportion of police officers do have firearms? Some choose not to carry them or don't get the firearms certification, but there are a significant number that do carry or have access to them. It isn't as if none of them have them and they just wave a pointy stick at the gunman.

[Rick Lee]

If they are issued a sidearm and choose not to carry it, then yes, they just wave a stick at a gunman. What else can they do? Yell "Stop! Er.....or I'll yell stop again!"? Any cop who is unarmed while on duty might as well be a meter maid. How can they protect anyone? A criminal, by definition, won't obey laws and would probably laugh at an unarmed cop.

[dhoward]

They do have that funny whistle...

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by dhoward

They do have that funny whistle...

And really dapper hats.

In Elmer Keith's book Sixguns he relates a story about attending an NRA convention in Washington D.C. This was in the '50's, and it was already illegal to carry a gun in our capital. While he was there, some guy went nuts on a street corner and managed to shoot and kill several people, and to injure several more, before the police arived to subdue him. Elmer's comment on all of this? "He would have been doing good to get the second one in my home town..." (Salmon, Idaho for those who may not know who Keith was.)

[onewhippedpuppy]

Someone needs to dredge up the story of the UK homeowner that was arrested for shooting an intruder, I think it was once posted in OT. Along the lines of a poor old man, whose home had been broken into multiple times, police did nothing. Eventually he had enough, and when someone broke in he went to the stairs and shot into the darkness with his shotgun. Of course, he hit a burglar, and ended up going to jail. Could have qualified for early release, but would not express remorse.

We think our laws are messed up?! In many states, at least the red ones, that case would not even make it to court. You break into someone else's home, you are at their mercy. That's the way it should be. Sad when the criminals have more rights than the victim.

[Aerkuld]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

If they are issued a sidearm and choose not to carry it, then yes, they just wave a stick at a gunman. What else can they do? Yell "Stop! Er.....or I'll yell stop again!"? Any cop who is unarmed while on duty might as well be a meter maid. How can they protect anyone? A criminal, by definition, won't obey laws and would probably laugh at an unarmed cop.

I know what you're saying. But as an example my ex-wife's brother in law is a senior officer and firearms certified. He just does not feel comfortable carrying a firearm I guess as he feels it may elevate a dangerous situation. If it gets to the point where a firearm is required then I suppose he will call for back-up marksmen or whatever. I would suppose that 99.9% of the time he never comes into contact with a member of the public with a firearm. It isn't as if every criminal has one (yet). I have to believe that he has a very good idea what he's doing and it appears to have worked for him so far. Despite not carrying a firearm, I am certain that he always wears a bullet proof vest while on duty.

I suppose what the gun control law can do is make it very easy to prosecute anyone found with a firearm.

[Rick Lee]

Wears a vest but doesn't carry a gun? That's like carrying a rubber in your wallet but never talking to girls. I just don't get it. A gun is like a fire extinguisher or first aid kit or flashlight. When you need it, there is absolutely no substitute and it can save your life. Sure, you can always call for help when you don't have what you need. That's not a good plan. I don't even live that way as a private citizen and it's unimagineable for a cop.

[FOG]

"But as an example my ex-wife's brother in law is a senior officer and firearms certified. He just does not feel comfortable carrying a firearm I guess as he feels it may elevate a dangerous situation. If it gets to the point where a firearm is required then I suppose he will call for back-up marksmen or whatever. "

I would seriously question his training and competency. The introduction of superior force with a willinglness ( do not read eagerness) to use force de-escalates force. If it gets to the point where a firearm is neeeded it will be over before anyone shows up, 30-45 seconds.

"I have to believe that he has a very good idea what he's doing and it appears to have worked for him so far. "

I would place it working more on luck than knowledge.

I have served with four commonwealth officers, and to a man they were at 1st shocked at availability of firearms and had the liberal city/European misconceptions. After a while and some study they realized their mistakes and all four lamented the fact they wouldn't be returning to the same circumstances.

[MFAFF]

Oh dear oh dear oh dear..

OK guys... which of you has lived in the UK, had a gun permit there? had to get rid of it because of the ban...?

Any one here? Rick? Overpaid? Legion? Yes? No? Other than Milou, anyone?

Right then from the horses' mouth...

Even during the period from the late 1940s until the ban having a gun in a manner which could be used was not legally possible. You were not able to have a loaded gun in your own home, legally, a loaded shot gun yes, a loaded rifle no, a pistol, if you were permitted own one, no again.

This had been the case for over 50 years....

What you have to understand is that unlike the US, the UK has never had the same widespread gun ownership as the US, it has never had this perceived deterent value of gun ownership, because even when guns were legally owned, in order to be a law abiding owner you were forced to have the gun in a locked cabinet in one place, the bolt in a safe elsewhere and the ammo separate as well....how useful is that if somebody comes in.... F- all frankly, even if you can assemble the gun quickly...Deterent factor zero.

I had to have a security bolt installed in the boot (no station wagons or hatchbacks allowed) in order to legally carry my own weapon from home to the range to fire the damn thing... It had to be locked to this fixed point with the bolt in the car in order for me to remain legal....

Again how useful is that as a deterent.. zero.

So get it out of your minds that gun ownership here prior to the ban was a deterent. Having owned one at the time I cannot honestly say how it could have been if you wanted to remain legal and the owner of your weapon. It was not reliably possible.... imagine arriving at your local sh0oting range and being met by the local Police Firearms officer doing a spot check on how you carry your weapon to and from the range. It happened more often than you imagine.

As I see it the increase in gun crime is related to two factors.... one is simply the increase in the number of illegal guns being available on the UK market, this is directly related to the increased openness of our borders and the consequent decrease in security at that point.

Secondly that increase has reduced the price of the guns, making it easier to acquire one as a 'status symbol'.

It is not as a direct result of the ban...

Note that whilst gun crime, as in shooting an 11 year old on his bike 'cos he has 'dissed some gangsta' is increasing we see no corresponding increase in significant armed robbery, in security van hijacks, or car jacking.. what would be easier to do? Every morning guys I see the same F430 Spider being driven up the Kings Road....I know its going to stop at a certain redlight. Nothing would be easier to wait there, Glock in hand and jump in the car at the stop light, force the guy out and rive away.. believe me with a modicum of planning that car is is the back of a transporter with 2 mins of the heist and off to the Middle East by lunchtime and I'm $150K better off.. etc, where the leverage obtained by the use of guns would yield the greatest results and rewards.

If you are going to mug or attack someone because he 'dissed' you then regardless of them being armed you will do so, you will shoot them in the back or from a car whilst they ride their Harley home (see Gerard Tobin killed last week), or as they are riding down the street . I'm sure that in those cases the victims would have been better off carrying guns. They never knew what hit them and chances are those around them had no clue either until after the event and the gunmen had moved away.

So please guys... love your guns in your society, with its history of ownership , use and enforcement, don't try to compare it to here or to apply your relationship to guns to a society that has had a very different one.

And Aerkuld.... I'm not sure where you get that tidbit from... the only officers I know who carry firearms in service are rated officers who are in the Firearms Unit of the relevant force. If they are not on the Unit they are not allowed to carry firearms, they have no choice. If they are on the Unit and rated they do, again they have no choice. There are sufficient numbers of distinctively marked Police cars here in London to appreciate how many are armed and the 'arsenal' they carry in the 'cab' and in the truck.... wars have been started with less. Between the HK MP5s and the Glocks there is the potential to throw a lot of lead in the right direction.

Sorry to be so blunt but as some have said on this board...if ya don't vote here, don't comment... The same 'could apply' to making comments about places where you don't vote....