More UK madness

[interlock]

The same media enabled legislators to ban handguns after Dunblane, again the disinformation given to the public and outrage made them demand the government ban them. Emotive reasoning based upon lies that the British public would be safer etc. etc. etc.

we also have to add to the equation the fawning politicians who will do anything to gain some votes. They jumped on this bandwagon BIG TIME and said that they had banned handguns because they were the party of law and order.

 

[NMGonzo]

It appears to be more to the story, and it is not about the surrendering of the weapon.

 

[natman]

It appears to be more to the story, and it is not about the surrendering of the weapon.

It wouldn't surprise me that there could be more to the story.

However, until someone actually posts a coherent account the newspaper article is all we have to go on.

 

[25 Pdr]

More info.............

http://www.guntrader.co.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=137764&p=157105#p157105

 

[azyogi]

werewolf " which states?" all of them
"and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges" shorn-off is britspeak for sawed-off, doesn't say and couldn't find out how much was "shorn-off" if it were less than 18.5" would be a crime here. Do you really think BATFE would take kindly to 'I found it by the garden wall'

 

[natman]

Excellent analysis here:

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/11/paul-clarke-anatomy-of-injustice.html

"Whatever the outcome, any injustice suffered by Paul Clarke will be the result of a strict liability offence, a misconceived and illiberal mandatory sentencing regime, the decisions to arrest and then charge, the decision to prosecute, the decision to not strike the case out, and the decision of the jury."

 

[Colonel]

A serving Police Officer, (Sim G), has made this statement on UK a Forum, www.guntrader.co.uk which if true would explain the case..........

http://www.guntrader.co.uk/phpBB3/vi...156821#p156821

Later in the same thread, that "serving Police Officer" admitted that he had made the whole thing up about Clarke being dishonorably discharged, having stolen ammuntion, etc., simply to play devil's advocate.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Carl N. Brown at #38
The additions that Clarke had been caught stealing ammo in the Army, had allegedly assaulted someone but the weapon was not found, and the gun he turned in had previously been owned by him, (and I am not clear that that is true or just a rhetorical argument),.....

Colonel at #57
Later in the same thread, that "serving Police Officer" admitted that he had made the whole thing up about Clarke being dishonorably discharged, having stolen ammuntion, etc., simply to play devil's advocate.

OK, before I fall for that, which is it?

 

[rainbowbob]

No personal offense intended, throdgrain, but your sig-line speaks volumes to me:

We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.

See...now that's the whole problem in the UK right there. Being forced to expect somebody else (the state?) to do violence on your behalf while you sleep unarmed.

This thing is getting much debate on www.airgunbbs.com , the biggest U.K shooting forum.

The fact "the biggest U.K shooting forum" is about airguns speaks for itself.

The only good part about the UK's position on gun control is the clear evidence it presents of the resounding failure of such laws to reduce violence, and the stark cautionary tale it provides to the US.

 

[throdgrain]

Mate no disrespect to you either, but don't believe everything you're told.

Air rifles are very very popular in the U.K, they were before the hand gun ban too, partly because of the limited space we have here in the South East of England, where a lot of the population live. You still have huge expanses of space in the U.S, as I'm sure you know back-stops are a real problem with a .308

Airgunbbs has a large section for shotguns and rifles too, and the opinions expressed there are often a lot more vociferous and opinionated on the subject of gun law than they are on this forum.

Please dont beleive either that in this country there is huge gun crime because of the (idiotic) hand gun ban. That is simply not the case. Google it if you dont beleive me

My signature quote is from George Orwell. It's saying that although society looks down on rough fighting people, when the sht hits the fan those are the people who sort things out. It's the same in your country as it is here.

 

[lykoris]

Natman,

I very interesting read.

Compare and contrast - blog that is objective and factual versus a newspaper that is sensationalist demagoguery.

Sad state of affairs when we must now rely upon our fellow citizens investigative skills in their spare time to obtain informative news in the blogosphere rather than paid professional journalists from mainstream media.

The difference is overwhelming between the blog and article.

 

[natman]

Quote:
Carl N. Brown at #38
The additions that Clarke had been caught stealing ammo in the Army, had allegedly assaulted someone but the weapon was not found, and the gun he turned in had previously been owned by him, (and I am not clear that that is true or just a rhetorical argument),.....

Quote:
Colonel at #57
Later in the same thread, that "serving Police Officer" admitted that he had made the whole thing up about Clarke being dishonorably discharged, having stolen ammuntion, etc., simply to play devil's advocate.

OK, before I fall for that, which is it?

The allegations made on the guntrader.co.uk forum by "SimG" are not true.

Here's his first post:

S5, you base your tirade on a provincial news paper article? How much more of this actual case do you know?

How about the bloke was dishonourably discharged from the Army for stealing ammo? Or that he was suspected of shooting another doorman over drug business, but the case was discontnued due to lack of evidence, ie a gun? Or how about the fact that the shotgun he handed in had previously been licensed to him and had had the barrels and stock cut off and a partial serial number recovered through forensics as the number had not been ground off enough?

The CPS decide upon the charge and base that on the evidence wihich must provide a more than 50% chance of conviction. Likewise, the CPS prosecute the case based on this evidence. And the major point that you seem to ignore in your rant is that the jury, 12 ordinary people, took only 20 minutes to find him guilty!

I've known juries take a hell of a lot longer on cases where there has even been an admission in the box!

A little quote from Churchill for you, "Better to say nothing and people think you're a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt..."

Then a few posts later he admits:

Oooh, been away for a couple of days and it looks like I started a bit of a storm.......!

Firstly, I do not have any "insider knowledge", nor am I privvy to any facts surrounding this case. I took a couple of quotes from the article and BS'd around them to illustrate to S5 that there could certainly be more around this than was reported

At best his choice of language was irresponsible. He has the nerve to chide the previous poster for not knowing all the facts, then proceeds to make up a bunch of allegations and present them as facts.

Then when people question it, he says "no, I was just kidding".

If you are going to speculate in this fashion, you need to make it crystal clear that's what you are doing with phrases like "WHAT IF.....".

One thing in his post I do agree with. "Better to say nothing and people think you're a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt..."

Well there's no doubt in my mind who's proven himself a fool.

 

[rainbowbob]

Please dont beleive either that in this country there is huge gun crime because of the (idiotic) hand gun ban. That is simply not the case.

I didn't mention "gun crime". What I wrote was...

The only good part about the UK's position on gun control is the clear evidence it presents of the resounding failure of such laws to reduce violence.

My point was that strict gun control has proven that violent criminals will continue to use whatever tools are readily available to commit violence. I don't have a citation at hand, but gunfacts posted data indicating that wherever strict gun control was instituted - violent crime has risen tremendously.

It stands to reason that if the potential victims do NOT have firearms with which to resist - any kitchen knife or length of pipe will do nicely to further the predatory criminal's intentions.

 

[lobo9er]

WOW rebecca peterson dream world over there

 

[Zoogster]

It stands to reason that if the potential victims do NOT have firearms with which to resist - any kitchen knife or length of pipe will do nicely to further the predatory criminal's intentions.

No worries, they have been trying to ban pointed kitchen knives since 2005 over there:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7508404.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4581871.stm

"Kitchen knives could be redesigned so that they retain their cooking function, but are not lethal. But as it stands, you can go into a supermarket and buy for £10 something that's a murder weapon - no questions asked."

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

Its like a fairy tale of only pillows and nerf toys over there. Except its not.

 

[natman]

Natman,

I very interesting read.

Compare and contrast - blog that is objective and factual versus a newspaper that is sensationalist demagoguery.

Sad state of affairs when we must now rely upon our fellow citizens investigative skills in their spare time to obtain informative news in the blogosphere rather than paid professional journalists from mainstream media.

The difference is overwhelming between the blog and article.

There is certainly a difference in tone. The facts seem to be pretty consistent between the two. It was revealing that the police seem to have violated their own standards for how firearms turn ins should be handled. The prosecutor neatly sidesteps the issue by saying that the standards are for the police, and since he's a prosecutor, they're not his concern.

Zero tolerance and gun bigotry run amuck.

 

[throdgrain]

It stands to reason that if the potential victims do NOT have firearms with which to resist - any kitchen knife or length of pipe will do nicely to further the predatory criminal's intentions.

Again this is where you are wrong though

Whether crime rates have risen or not, this is nothing to do with the hand gun ban. People prior to the ban did not have the legal opportunity to own a hand gun for self defence anyway! And although there were lots of us who did own pistols, it was nothing like the amount of people, per capita, who own handguns in your country.

This isnt a criticism of the way you do things, but I really don't think you understand how it is in this country. Which isnt "things have changed now and crime is rampant on the streets because people can no longer defend themselves with thier hand guns" , no matter what you are told in your country.

People never did defend themselves with hand guns in this country. You're putting your own standards onto someone elses country. Again. The only change is that poor souls like me who like shooting are further restricted in what we can do .

You know, as previously discussed, we have large gun forums in the U.K. There are American members who post there, but we don't post stuff criticisizing thier laws or way of life. It's up to them. Neither do they post telling us how we should change. Yet on here there seems sometimes to be a attitude of more opinion than knowledge, which comes over time and time again.

I only come here because I love Remington and Mossberg shotguns, and find it a useful resource. However in future I think I may stay in the shotgun section, and leave your guys to you wild ideas, because lets face it, you dont want to know what it's like, you simply want to tell me what it's like ...

 

[lykoris]

I had written a lengthy reply but it has gotten lost in the world of the internet As such I will be as brief as possible.

Natman,
If you believe there is only a difference of tone between the two articles then it's pointless discussing it - we will have to agree to disagree. I regret my original reply was lost because it would have illustrated this.

Essentially there are two issues here.

1. The specifics of this case at hand.

2. The broader question of the media and how they shape public perception on a given topic.

I'm more concerned by point 2.

Where once the media was the watchdog of the public(to the extent it was doing its job) it has now become another branch of government to mold public opinion and by default enact legislation with public approval. This is not aimed at any country but my own observation when I read media around the world.

In the Republic of Ireland this year the overwhelming majority of the media printed blatant misinformation, (one could argue propaganda goebbels would have been proud of within certain tabloid papers), to sway public opinion to ban centerfire pistols. A repeat if you will of the stellar performance of the UK media in banning semi-auto centerfire rifles/handguns. Australia another example, Germany yet another and the list goes on.

Look at the entire developed world and the continued legislation that 'regulates' firearms which never ceases to stop and where draconian legislation is forced through after some incident.

Here in the EU, we now effectively live in a political union, having only had a monetary union between 16/27 members for 10 years. We already have an EU directive on firearms legislation that was passed without the knowledge of citizens. And this trend of further legislation will continue, with the full support/assistance of the media if any question of 'reasoning/public support' arises. A generation from now I wonder what this federal government will look like when all power continues to be centralised in Brussels.

This is what worries me, the broader trend and an ignorant public that are unaware of history and blindly believe the conclusions of articles in the press.

 

[natman]

I had written a lengthy reply but it has gotten lost in the world of the internet As such I will be as brief as possible.

Natman,
If you believe there is only a difference of tone between the two articles then it's pointless discussing it - we will have to agree to disagree. I regret my original reply was lost because it would have illustrated this.

Essentially there are two issues here.

1. The specifics of this case at hand.

2. The broader question of the media and how they shape public perception on a given topic.

I'm more concerned by point 2.

Where once the media was the watchdog of the public(to the extent it was doing its job) it has now become another branch of government to mold public opinion and by default enact legislation with public approval. This is not aimed at any country but my own observation when I read media around the world.

..........

This is what worries me, the broader trend and an ignorant public that are unaware of history and blindly believe the conclusions of articles in the press.

On point one I expect we actually agree more than you might think. While the newspaper article takes a more emotional and less objective approach, both it and the blog think that Clarke has been treated unfairly.

On point two we agree completely. What made this newspaper article distinctive was that it was an article written in the UK that supported the defendant in a gun case. Most UK newspaper articles, and many internet posters, seem to feel no punishment is too draconian, no suspension of civil rights is too extreme, no distortion of the truth is unforgivable if there is a gun involved.

 

[rainbowbob]

Again this is where you are wrong...

People prior to the ban did not have the legal opportunity to own a hand gun for self defence anyway!...People never did defend themselves with hand guns in this country. You're putting your own standards onto someone elses country. Again.

You mean in YOUR lifetime. From what I've read elsewhere, the ability to obtain a license to keep a firearm for self defense was effectively eliminated with the 1937 Firearms Act.

...the Home Secretary decided that self-defence was no longer a suitable reason for applying for a firearm certificate, and directed police to refuse such applications on the grounds that "firearms cannot be regarded as a suitable means of protection and may be a source of danger"

...we have large gun forums in the U.K. There are American members who post there, but we don't post stuff criticizing their laws or way of life...Yet on here there seems sometimes to be a attitude of more opinion than knowledge...

...in future I think I may stay in the shotgun section, and leave your guys to you wild ideas, because lets face it, you dont want to know what it's like, you simply want to tell me what it's like...

I agree that our criticisms of your government's firearm restrictions can be quite harsh. I, for one, mean no disrespect to you or to your fellow citizens.

We view these confiscatory laws and draconian restrictions with great fear and distrust because we disagree with them vehemently - but more importantly because we know there are those in OUR country who would replicate them if they could.

 

[throdgrain]

But they don't actually want to know, they just want to type stuff

 

[lykoris]

On point one I expect we actually agree more than you might think. While the newspaper article takes a more emotional and less objective approach, both it and the blog think that Clarke has been treated unfairly.

On point one I believe we both agree an injustice would appear to have been committed as you initially put it of ‘zero tolerance run amock’. However, there is a greater loss to the public interest from the ‘emotive reasoning’ of the newspaper article.

I believe the greater issues are a product of the more impartial factual approach rather than the emotive reasoning that plays the demagogue card.
The blog discusses the specifics of the case at each stage but more importantly discusses both sides of the story and expands upon the real issues.

The origins of the law that causes Clarke to be treated unfairly and how rigid/inflexible they are in their interpretation.

The blog addresses the greater threat an inflexible law system poses to society, where innocent people are put in jail.

Mandatory minimum sentences for a range of firearms offences were introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, one of the most notorious and illiberal statutes ever passed by Parliament. The director of the pressure group Liberty stated:

"In years to come, as more innocent people emerge after years in prison caused by these plans, we'll wonder how Parliament let this shameful attack on justice get into law".

The legislation relating to mandatory minimum sentences for a range of firearms offences were not even properly scrutinised by Parliament. They were introduced at the very late (and post committee) "Report stage".

Emotive reasoning in media treats the public as if they have the intelligence of children, they will come to expect and act as such if repeated often enough. Whilst the media often love the simple dichotomy of black/white; right/wrong; bad/good, the constant repetition and simplification of issues into this framework results in a public that becomes bipolar in their analysis.

This will only change when people demand it with their wallet.

I find it ironic the author of the blog pays tribute to the journalist calling her ‘a tribute to journalism’. That accolade should be solely reserved for him.

What made this newspaper article distinctive was that it was an article written in the UK that supported the defendant in a gun case.

You will call me a cynic but I would argue the emotive reasoning approach to journalism is by design a product of profit margins and the need to sell newspapers. As such I’m skeptical of the altruistic value you would seem to give this newspaper article or indeed the journalist.

Most UK newspaper articles, and many internet posters, seem to feel no punishment is too draconian, no suspension of civil rights is too extreme, no distortion of the truth is unforgivable if there is a gun involved.

And there is where the greatest injustice of all lies.

It comforts me to know the blogosphere is opening up the public domain to a more thorough analysis of an event. Diversity of opinion is the basis of evolution and there is much to be said that this option is available on the internet, a medium which has enabled the true compass of humanity to mean revert. At the touch of a finger I can read the same story from two separate sides and numerous publications.

However, as Jefferson noted, that doesn’t make me any the wiser but at least I can obtain the other side of the story.

 

[Zoogster]

Most UK newspaper articles, and many internet posters, seem to feel no punishment is too draconian, no suspension of civil rights is too extreme, no distortion of the truth is unforgivable if there is a gun involved.

Which is a real danger seen here in the United States as well.
Many gun rights groups have long repeated the mantra of needing harsher punishments, anytime someone threatens or advocates a loss a gun rights.
Even after punishments catch up, the defensive mechanism has been relied upon for so long that even if the punishment is 10,20 or even 30 years, they call for harsher punishments. As well as supporting the permanent suspension of "inalienable rights".

It has made much of the gun rights crowd easy pawns for passing draconian legislation on a wide range of fronts. Legislation they don't see themselves as ever being on the wrong side of...
Yet with "from my cold dead hands" and "molon labe", and "I will have a boating accident" comments clearly they intend to break the law if faced with UK type restrictions.
The community having been a key component of jacking the sentences up to draconian levels and supporting permanent lifelong losses of rights, I wonder how they will like decades behind bars for illegal acts like possession of a banned type of weapon or possession of a firearm after being made a prohibited class (by breaking the law and not turning in the banned things), etc if such restrictions are ever passed.

It is easy to think of criminals as "them" until liberties or freedoms once taken for granted are themselves crimes.
Things like possession of various items. Or self defense.
It is for that reason I no longer use the term "law abiding citizen" as a positive attribute in differentiating between predatory criminals and good people.

In some places like the UK someone exercising a large number of the liberties in the USA is by definition committing criminal acts. It is only criminals who have freedom over there now, (and only until they are caught.)
As more things are outlawed (or heavily restricted) the general citizens in such places comes to know a new "normal". As new people are born and raised never having known such liberties themselves, they support even greater draconian punishments for those who break any law in exercising them. Reinforced by the media and the government programming everyone on just how great a threat any other option, like liberty, would be.

 

[rainbowbob]

It is easy to think of criminals as "them" until liberties or freedoms once taken for granted are themselves crimes. Things like possession of various items. Or self defense.

It is for that reason I no longer use the term "law abiding citizen" as a positive attribute in differentiating between predatory criminals and good people.

Well said. I too have found myself avoiding the term "law abiding citizen" as a synonym for non-violent, non-predatory "good people".

 

[Nick5182]

No good deed goes unpunished

Amen to that. I can't believe how ridiculous the gun laws are over there, someone just trying to do what he believes is right, an ex-soldier even, and they arrest him and will sentence him with no less than 5 years? I'd hate to see what happens to someone trying to defend themselves from a mugger over there.

"You assaulted your attacker. That's a minimum of two years, Buddy!"

WHAT THE HELL?!