UK: Government to get broader power to search homes in wake of shootings...


PDA






Mr.V.
February 18, 2007, 01:36 PM
Well, now you can officially say (as if you couldn't before) that even when a strict gun ban exists, the only way to enforce it is with random searches...

Oh yeah you can also say that banning guns does nothing...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18022007/397/gun-crime-measures-reviewed-0.html

Tony Blair has insisted the wave of gun crime sweeping Britain's cities is "a specific problem within a specific criminal culture".
Announcing a major review of firearms laws in the wake of five fatal shootings in London, the Prime Minister argued gun violence is not a "general state of British society".
One man was shot dead in east London on Saturday and three others were wounded in shootings in Manchester as armed gangs continued to show their contempt for the law.

The latest attacks came after a spate of gun murders in south London in less than a fortnight, including the deaths of three teenage boys.
Mr Blair has ordered a review of gun laws to help police deal with Britain's inner-city gang culture.
He is considering proposals including lowering the age at which the mandatory five-year sentence for carrying a gun can be imposed from 21 to 17.
Police could also be given new powers, similar to those of the new Serious Organised Crime Agency, to mount surveillance of the homes of people suspected of possessing and using firearms.
A summit this week will bring together ministers, police and community leaders to discuss how best to tackle the problem.
Mr Blair acknowledged there was a "real problem" but said gun crime, and violent crime in general, fell in London over the past year.
He said: "We have got to analyse what is going wrong here. Is it a general state of British society, British young people? And I think it isn't.
"It is about a specific problem within a specific criminal culture to do with guns and gangs, which doesn't make it any less serious, incidentally, but I think it's important therefore that we address that actual issue.
"How do we make sure that these groups of young people within these specific criminal cultures, who are getting into gangs at an early age and using guns, how do we clamp down on them very hard and provide solutions for that?"
Mr Blair earlier described the shooting of three teenagers in south London as "horrific, shocking and tragic beyond belief".
On Friday Conservative leader David Cameron argued British society was "badly broken" in the wake of the murders of the schoolboys.

If you enjoyed reading about "UK: Government to get broader power to search homes in wake of shootings..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
agricola
February 18, 2007, 01:50 PM
Noone should be surprised - this is what the UK Government usually does after "firearms outrages" (and to add to the report there were a sizeable number of commentators and "community leaders" calling for replica weapons to be banned), though admittedly this time people seem less willing to go along with it (Blair was asked in the interview whether this wasnt a knee-jerk response, and the other board on which I post has seen very many people come to the conclusion that the 1988 and 1997/8 bans have had absolutely zero effect).

What is of course at the root of the problem is the widespread and criminal failure of the Youth Justice System to effectively deal with youth crime.

Ryder
February 18, 2007, 01:55 PM
Mr Blair earlier described the shooting of three teenagers in south London as "horrific, shocking and tragic beyond belief".


I would only say it was beyond belief if it happened to him since we know that isn't a possibility. He has protection, they didn't.

Mr.V.
February 18, 2007, 02:02 PM
and to add to the report there were a sizeable number of commentators and "community leaders" calling for replica weapons to be banned
I love to link people to articles in the BBC about increased gun violence in the UK despite a virtual ban on most weapons,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1741336.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
but when you read the comments about them you can see that there are people saying exactly what you are describing..."so many of these 'guns' are replicas. We need to ban replicas"

I had no idea that all these "replicas" could shoot bullets too. No wonder they want to ban them =)

pacodelahoya
February 18, 2007, 04:04 PM
That's a joke right?

I thought guns were banned in England?:rolleyes:

Standing Wolf
February 18, 2007, 08:50 PM
Tell me again, please, why we sacrificed so many American lives to save England from the Germans?

Pilgrim
February 18, 2007, 09:21 PM
"How do we make sure that these groups of young people within these specific criminal cultures, who are getting into gangs at an early age and using guns, how do we clamp down on them very hard and provide solutions for that?"
Midnight basketball leagues?

Pilgrim

Professor K
February 18, 2007, 09:52 PM
Or a shooting club.

Oh wait, that's not PC anymore. Nevermind it's an activity minors and adults can both enjoy equally and get kids and adults to get along better.

I think shooting is a good sport, because an adult and minor can both be just as good as eachother. Whereas, baseball or basketball, when your little, your parents always kick your ass in it and you dont wanna play since they kick your ass so much, then when you become a teenager, you kick your parents ass, and then they dont wanna play anymore. Shooting, you can kick your parents ass at any time, and your parent can kick your ass at any time.

Also, it's a sport anyone can do really. Basketball, if you're fat/disabled, you're bad at it, and if you're bad at it, you dont want to play. Shooting can be done by anyone with hands and eyes, so a lot more people can do it.

It's more accessible. Ask male age 3-21 if he wants to try firing a gun, and he will most definitely say yes. Whereas not everyone wants to play basketball, they'll most definitely want to at least try a few shots.

Also, it satisfies the general male need for explosions and stuff.

Seriously, I think youth shooting would be a great idea.

Same with airsoft, UK was trying to ban that a while back, but luckily the UK airsoft community put up such a big stink :) and got it exempted from the "anti social behavior" bill or whatever. Town organized youth airsoft games would be a great way to stop kids from doing stuff they shouldnt be doing, while letting them have fun, not have as much of a generation gap as with other activities, and get in shape, too.

Baba Louie
February 18, 2007, 10:42 PM
What is of course at the root of the problem is the widespread and criminal failure of the Youth Justice System to effectively deal with youth crime.Ranking right up there with poor or non-existent parenting, i.e. the initial attempt to civilize each generation, keeping the savage at bay.

Art Eatman
February 19, 2007, 12:03 AM
The Powers That Be (TPTB) in England have seemingly created a scofflaw atmosphere insofar as criminals are concerned. We've read article after article coming from English papers wherein the public at large was advised to generally comply with Bad Guys' wishes and make no resistance or reprisal.

We read where people who essay self-defense are then targeted by police as vigilantes.

Why is anybody at all surprised that the problems of violence have increased?

Art

Fosbery
February 19, 2007, 02:08 AM
Seriously, I think youth shooting would be a great idea.

Already being done:

http://www.basc.org.uk/content/young_shots

thexrayboy
February 19, 2007, 02:16 AM
You get the government you deserve. I'm not sure what the Brits did to deserve this abuse but apparently they are going to get it in full measure.

gc70
February 19, 2007, 02:25 AM
Tell me again, please, why we sacrificed so many American lives to save England from the Germans?

So we will have a clear example of the direction we do not want our country to take.

bowline
February 19, 2007, 04:13 AM
Feedback...
Self Defense is, apparently, a crime in Britain, with serious consequences.
Criminal behavior, on the other hand, results in 'wrist-slap' punishment.
The youth aren't blind - and increasingly turn toward 'anti-social' behavior. Why not? There isn't any real downside, and they exert some control in their lives. They're someone to be respected, which is a heck of a lot more desireable than the poor shmuck they just slapped, or mugged.
As more turn toward this behavior mode, and crime rates increase (almost exponentially, we've seen) the police and courts tend to ignore (thus 'normalize') the less serious offenses. This naturally has the effect of encouraging the lesser offenses, and bringing the more serious offenses closer to 'acceptable behavior'.
The reaction of the government, in the finest traditions of 'This isn't working, lets' do it harder' is, of course, to strengthen prohibitions on self defense, rather than strengthen prohibitions against crime.
With this sort of 'positive feedback' mechanism in place, the system has no other option - it will continue to result in higher overall crime rates and a strong trend toward more violence. This will eventually lead to a 'system crash' - in this case, societal collapse, followed by (take your pick) totalitarianism, or anarchy.
Anyone with foresight and a lick of sense is going to get out while the getting is good. No way short of an overwhelming wave of common sense will Britain survive this train wreck.

Lew
February 19, 2007, 04:33 AM
But there appears to be unease at the prospect of rank and file officers carrying guns on the beat. Many fear that such a move would be counterproductive, inviting more criminals to arm themselves with higher grade weaponry.

:banghead:



I pretty much never use the smilies but I'm at a loss for words.

bowline
February 19, 2007, 04:45 AM
Through the simple feedback mechanism (in the perpetrators mind) of "that hurt me, I don't want to do it again", effective self defense of any sort tends to reduce crime.
Ineffective self defense, of course, encourages crime. For this exercise, we can also class as ineffective any action which results in greater punishment than that of the criminal.
The system in place in Britain now is designed to encourage crime. Increased crime leads to greater power given to the government to combat the problem. When this power is used to further destroy effective self defense...
You can see where this vicious cycle is headed...

agricola
February 19, 2007, 05:40 AM
This is the biggest problem with THR and debate over the UK.

We have a genuine problem, which pretty much most people have identified and are opposing, and yet we somehow lapse into the same old idiocy from the likes of some about "self-defence being illegal" (in spite of a whole cartload of facts and cases, and repeated posts on THR proving it isnt) and ludicrous comments about the war (please, will someone read to Standing Wolf even a child's book about the Second World War?), instead of talking about the issue at hand.

sterling180
February 19, 2007, 12:14 PM
Blair hasn't mentioned replicas or real guns,because the sneaky little creep,knows that he has run out of reasons,to ban guns.He now knows that 9 years on,the total handgun ban has done nothing,but he realises that it is sensible to categorise gun crime,in to a different category,which is not included into the misuse of legal guns.Notice no action on legally-held weapons,but the GCN will start their stench soon and we unfortuante folks(their intended victims.) will fall victim,to their proposed,gun purges.

Sounds like Stalin's Soviet Purges of the 1920s and 1930s,doesn't it? Notice a similar colour code,anywhere-too?

He is more worried about legal owners going psycho-instead and having to answer,to the public and media,for why he never enforced stricter gun control,if he chose not to-after Dunblane

Those kids and their parents were to blame,for their own actions.If the parents,washed their hands of these punks,then they would start to realise,that it isn't worth it-at all.Now it is very easy for kids to get sucked in with gangsters,starting their criminal careers of as errand boys,but they were old enough to comprehend,that they were wrong,for getting involved in drug and gun crime.

Members of the BNP and other deranged individuals,like to kill or seriously hurt,these types of troublemakers-including pikies-so these kids should wise up and think about their actions,otherwise nutcases like David Copeland,David Tovey,Anthony Hughes,Micheal Ryan and Thomas Hamilton,might start a race war against black people-with or without illegal or legal weapons.

Seriously, I think youth shooting would be a great idea.

Im not being funny or racist in anyway,but those particular types of coloured kids are not the sort of kids,who would warm,to youth shooting projects,nor would their parents warm to them-either.Perhaps scouts groups and military cadets,are worth more time and investing heavily in-in terms of equipment,weapons,etc,etc and not those undisciplined clowns.After all shooting sports are disciplines themselves-arn't they? Shooting properly,in a focused environment,doesn't appeal to them,in anyway-however National Service or 5 years in a bootcamp/jail -might work,to straighten out those tossers,with a chip on their shoulders.

Dave Mills of the Airgun Training group,in the Midlands,had first-hand experiance of those kids that commit gun crimes,in an estate in the Midlands

sterling180
February 19, 2007, 04:54 PM
Tell me again, please, why we sacrificed so many American lives to save England from the Germans?

Hello,it's the UK and not just England and secondly American efforts,in terms of arms and men,(before and after the USA entered WW2.) were back then and still to this day, remembered very highly and those who made the effort,are still held in the highest regard.


The Brits are very grateful for the American war effort and for US citizens donating their guns for our cause,but the USA entered the war two years after the UK,France and Poland,first entered.Many Brits remembered that the USA,didn't want to enter the war in Europe,because it wasn't any concern,of the USA. So please don't say such stupid things like that.

We have stupid liberal polititions in power,who are soft and the interfearing EU,from Brussells,so this is why we have half the problems we have today.

Great Britain and her Commonwealth,Poland and the Free French,all sacrificed their lives,for the freedom of speech and strove to liberate the free world,of Nazi tyranny-TWO years before the USA did.Remember the battle of Britain,lots of Canadians,Aussies,South Africans,Poles, British and even American pilots,fighting the Luftwaffe over the English channel and over the white cliffs of Dover.Many good men,from all of those countries died in that battle.

The Norway campaigns,etc,etc, were fought by Britain for two years,without the USA,officially joining the war.The Royal Navy suffered heavy casulties on the seas,with the loss of several ships,including aircraft carriers-too.

Now I won't go on about WW2 anymore,but you get the picture.In 1939,the USA could have entered the war,should have,by all rights,but didn't.I think that your polititions and some citizens,didn't want to-anyway.

However,I like and respect North America and your way of life,so no hard feelings.Better over there then here,now.

Fosbery
February 19, 2007, 05:08 PM
Quote:
But there appears to be unease at the prospect of rank and file officers carrying guns on the beat. Many fear that such a move would be counterproductive, inviting more criminals to arm themselves with higher grade weaponry.




I pretty much never use the smilies but I'm at a loss for words.

I don't want police carrying guns, and I'll tell you why: because I can't. If the people must be disarmed, then so should the state. If we could be properly and at all times armed, then I would have no problem with police being armed, but until then, nuh uh. Right now they can carry pepper spray and expanding batons, neither of which are legal to own, let alone carry.

Baba Louie
February 19, 2007, 05:37 PM
In 1939,the USA could have entered the war,should have,by all rights,but didn't.I think that your polititions and some citizens,didn't want to-anyway.True. Rooseveldt knew that the US populace did not want to enter that European War and even gave speeches to that effect, knowing full well we had to help out. Hence the Lend Lease. He had to fight to do that.

Part of the problem today. No one wants to intervene in the bad stuff that happens. No one wants to use violence even to beget violence (Cops don't want to carry guns cause then maybe the criminals will carry MORE guns), especially if they use it first in a pre-emptive strike instead of "talking the problems out and appeasing the problemchild".

Those that dare to strike first are castigated as evil for choosing the "wrong target" or using the "wrong words or cassus belli" or just not plain old turning the other cheek over and over and over... and when they do just that, are raped by the other part of society that says, "Too Bloody Soft, You're Going Too Bloody Soft!" It's happening in the UK, it's happening here in the US, it's happening in France... this is not one nation's problem. It's everyone's problem when morals break down from earlier established standards to accomodate the newest "lowest common denominator".

No one wants to crack down on a race or a religion when it's the one or two troublemakers within that need to be eliminated. No one likes to hear that, let alone DO THAT, it's just... bad form, I guess. Whether believing in something is bad form or fighting for something you believe in is bad form, you can be sure that either or both is going to take some valuable time you should be spending earning a living and that someone else's Momma is going to cry foul and/or get some payback at your expense, be it the politically elected gangs or the local street gangs.

Multiply that by the hundreds or even thousands and all that most governments will do is CRACK DOWN ON EVERYBODY and most of those governed citizen/subjects will say... "It's what you've got to do to stop the madness, OK. If that's the way it must be OK" (thanks Roy Orbison).

But the madness doesn't stop then.

It's only just begun.

Do not forget what happened to Orwell's Winston Smith.

benewton
February 19, 2007, 05:57 PM
Same old, same old.

SSDD.

Gun control reduces to the same thing in the end.

The crooks are the only people with guns.


Good for us, I guess, is the fact that roughly three quarters of them wear uniforms, and we can detect them on sight, but, in the end, it's all the same result.

Mk VII
February 19, 2007, 07:50 PM
Tell me again, please, why we sacrificed so many American lives to save England from the Germans?

So you could have your unsinkable aircraft carrier moored off the north-west coast of Europe a few hours flying time from Russia, Libya and other places.

Neo-Luddite
February 19, 2007, 08:21 PM
'Twixt my house and thy house the pathway is broad,
In thy house or my house is half the world's hoard;
By my house and thy house hangs all the world's fate,
On thy house and my house lies half the world's hate.

For my house and thy house no help shall we find
Save thy house and my house -- kin cleaving to kind;
If my house be taken, thine tumbleth anon.
If thy house be forfeit, mine followeth soon.

'Twixt my house and thy house what talk can there be
Of headship or lordship, or service or fee?
Since my house to thy house no greater can send
Than thy house to my house -- friend comforting friend;
And thy house to my house no meaner can bring
Than my house to thy house -- King counselling King.

-R. Kipling

#shooter
February 20, 2007, 03:11 PM
Serious Organized Crime Agency
…as opposed to the Frivolous Giddy Superficial Un-organized Crime Agency

If you enjoyed reading about "UK: Government to get broader power to search homes in wake of shootings..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!