Gun control enforcement UK style

[Hangingon]

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/printable_version.cfm?o
Regional news

Police Matrix squad: Lay down your guns or we will make your lives a miseryFeb 18 2008


EXCLUSIVE by Ben Rossington, Liverpool Echo

MERSEYSIDE’S gun criminals are having the sights turned on them in a new hard-hitting police crackdown.

The anti-gun, anti-gang Matrix squad plans to make life miserable for those at the top end of the gun crime ladder.

(snip)

They will be served with a notice that will list the options for the police if the shootings do not stop.

Those options include:

* Surveillance of targeted criminals 24 hours a day.

* Going after the criminal for any offence, no matter how small or petty, to disturb their lifestyle.

* Eviction from their home.

* Social services considering if their children are at direct risk and considering them for removal.

* Making them the subject of a section 60 order, giving the police powers to stop and search without cause or reason at any time day or night.


These guys get pretty serious.

[provis99]

1. the gun nuts in America won't like this

[Spoonman]

3. I don't see anything

about due process (evicted from homes) or unreasonable search and seizure (stopped and searched at any time).

But I guess you are willing to sacrifice all your rights to get rid of those evil guns?!

[Hangingon]

5. Sadly, this is based on a Boston program

The article states that "the ideas taken up by the Matrix Squad are based on a project developed in Boston in the mid-1990s".

[bossy22]

7. my father

who is very anti-gun is/was against the boston program. He always said no matter how much he hated guns, he would never sacrafice due process to get rid of them.

[bossy22]

6. i dont know how any person

who believes in democracy and due process can like this. You can be against guns all you want, but to throw away due process and have searches and seizures without warrants should always be a no no. sounds like something Bush and co. would do

[SteveM]

24. Hey, where did provis99 go?

[wtmusic]

2. Handguns have been illegal in the UK since 1997

Zero school shootings. It works.

[Hangingon]

4. If you read the article, you will learn it isn't working.

Guns are linked to criminality and gangs. Hence the greation of the "Anti-gun, anti gang matrix". It is very difficult for a citizen to obtain a gun - shotgun, rifle or pistol - in the UK. It appears to lend credence top the old saying, "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

[Spoonman]

8. Let's do some simple math

UK handgun registration began in 1903 (105 years) and registration for all guns was applied in 1920 (88 years)(excluding shotguns). In 1988 (20 years) registration was applied across the board to all firearms. Handguns have been ILLEGAL to own since 1997 (11 years).

Basically 105 years of "gun control legislation", outlawed the ownership of most firearms and they STILL have crimes being committed with firearms.

Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,<26> from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06. "Injury" in this context means by the use of the gun as a blunt instrument or as a threat, or by being shot. In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. The number of homicides committed with firearms has remained between a range of 46 and 97 for the past decade, standing at 50 in 2005/06 (a fall from 75 the previous year). Between 1998/99 and 2005/06, there have been only two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales. Over the same period there were 107 non-fatal shootings of police officers - an average of just 9.7 per year.<27>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

I guess that bullshit "no guns no crime" doesn't apply when you use that "new math" they teach nowadays.

[wtmusic]

10. Let's read the actual quote.

• "87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only." -- many of which crimes are committed with replicas or airguns.
• "No guns no crime" -- Not that bullshit gun nut meme again. Did anyone imply that gun control would ensure Utopia? Some of us do believe that LESS murder is better than MORE. These are advanced concepts, pay attention.
• You want new math? Let's look at homicides/suicides -- real statistics, with gun deaths per 100,000:

USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

Where's England? Waaaay down at the bottom with a rate that is 1/26 that of the US. Maybe we should be following their example, doncha think?

[johnbraun]

11. Fallacy of the single cause.

Fail.

There is no evidence that the people killed with a gun would still be alive if guns were outlawed. Just like those that kill themselves will hang themselves if no poison is available, those that would kill will use a knife if a gun is not available. You should be looking at overall murder rate, and the CDC did the largest study of gun control laws ever conducted, and was unable to find any link between gun control laws and reduced crime.

In other words, it's the culture, not the guns.

And your list includes Switzerland, a country with literally an assault rifle in every closet. :)

[Hangingon]

13. A sidebar story to the origina: Carry a Knife - Go to Jail

"Merseyside youngsters caught carrying a knife face automatic jail for a first offense".

"A Whitehall source said: "Although violent crime accounts for only 1% of all crime, its impact is devastating. We aim to stamp out the knife and gang culture which has already claimed too many young lives".

[Politically Homeless]

17. Re: Let's read the actual quote.

Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04

Canadian gun laws are not nearly as strict as most Americans think they are. It's pretty easy to get a long gun there.

Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49

Ditto European gun laws.

Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10

Very funny you should cite Switzerland, since it has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world and there's a machine gun in almost every household there.

Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

The murder rate among Japanese-Americans here in the gun lovin' U.S. is even lower than that in Japan. Nice try, though.

Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02

The rate of gun violence was just as low in these countries before the adoption of strict gun control.

Do you stupid gun-haters ever give up? Don't you ever get tired of making asses of yourselves?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tejas]

19. game, set, match

"For example, ask yourself why Japanese Americans have lower rates of violent crime and suicide than native Japanese, despite living in an American society where guns are extremely commonplace."


That is an outstanding comment you made there. Guns grow on trees in the US but the death rate is lower than in Japan. Don't worry, some anti will be along shortly with some Brady-math to dispell these facts.

:)

[iverglas]

21. "Two problems with your lies"

Could you identify what these "lies" are for us?

You've said you have problems with them, but you haven't said what they are.

Surely if you're going to accuse another DU member of telling lies, you should be specific.


Meanwhile ...

Stop blaming inanimate objects and look at the cultures and attitudes of the people using them.

How's about YOU stop making false statements about other DU members?

You may truly believe that the person you are addressing is "blaming inanimate objects" for something. If so, you're confused, but your statement is still false. You need to acknowledge that there is no factual foundation for that belief and keep it to yourself -- or, if you are going to state it publicly as an accusation, produce a factual foundation.

Or you may know perfectly well that the person you are addressing is not "blaming inanimate objects" for anything, and be accusing him/her of doing that solely for the purpose of making him/her look like a very stupid person. In that case, you need to stop doing it. Of course, a decent person would retract the false accusation.

[Longtooth]

22. Very good points.

Thank you.

[krispos42]

12. Yet. Regardless, at what cost?

[gorfle]

14. At what cost?

Handguns have been illegal in the UK since 1997 Zero school shootings. It works.

As we have recently seen, shotguns are also used in school shootings.

I'm not willing to give up our Constitutional right to bear arms for resisting tyranny in the name of criminals.

[bossy22]

30. any gun can be used in a school shooting

just because they havent had one again doesnt mean the ban is working....they went decades with modern handguns without a single school massacre...in fact the first real mass shooting wasnt into 1987 in hungerford by Michael Ryan

[krispos42]

20. Yup, zero school shootings.

Of course, they also went hundreds of years without one until the 1997 Dunblane massacre, too.

How's that elephant repeller that you bought working, anyway? I haven't heard about any elephants in your neck of the woods, must be working great!





Hasen't done squat for othe overall homicide rate, though. It's up 40% percent or so (historic highs) since they banned and confiscated "assault weapons" back in 1987 and handguns back in '98. But, hey, gun-related deaths are at record lows!

And how did that July 7th bombing work out? Guess it doesn't deserve notice becuase it's not gun-related.

[bossy22]

29. whats interesting about dunblane

was that Thomas hamilton really shouldnt have had a gun if the police were doing their job....there were many recomendations by the Police service that Thomas hamilton was unstable and should not have his firearms certificate renewed. If also remember that one of those recommendations came from the FLO himself (firearms liason officer- the one in charge of handling firearms licenses)- but that the chief (who signs off on all licenses) ignored the recs

...and look what happens

many lives can be saved by people actually doing their job

[jody]

9. IMO a danger exists with the first two options using the word "criminal" when "suspect" is more

likely.

Giving LEO the option to harass anyone "suspected" of a crime can easily result in abuse.

[Tejas]

15. Sounds like Chief Timoney's ultimate dream

If he could have it that way, he would in a heartbeat.

[spin]

16. The Brits are also cracking down on knifes...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3181965.ece

It's always interesting to see how the people involved in a situation think. Here's a link to a British knife forum: the Blades, Britain & the Law subforum... http://www.britishblades.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=39

Check out the "Ask-A-Cop, knives and related issues" and the "The Law FAQ" stickies.

A bit from "The Law FAQ" section: (note: a "lock knife" is a pocket knife that locks in the open position.)

Q: Are lock knives illegal to own?
A: No! You can quite legally buy, make, sell, import or gift a lock knife. It is perfectly legal to own and use a lock kinfe on your own property, or on private property where you have the landowners permission. It is, however, ILLEGAL to carry a lock knife in a public place, unless you have a good reason to do so.

Q: Are fixed blade knives illegal to own?
A: No!

Q: Are kitchen knives illegal to own?
A: No!

Q: Can I carry a lock knife (or a fixed blade knife) in a public place just because I feel like it?
A: No, it is ILLEGAL to carry a lock knife in a public place without a good reason.

Q: Can I carry a lock knife in a public place if I have a good reason?
A: Yes.

Q: Can I carry a fixed blade (sheath) knife in a public place if I have a good reason?
A: Yes.

Q: What constitutes a "good reason"?
A: According to section 139, subsections 4&5 of The Criminal justice Act 1988....

(4) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article with him in a public place.
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had the article with him—

1. for use at work;
2. for religious reasons; or
3. as part of any national costume.

Q: Are there any other good reasons?
A: Yes. What constitutes a good reason is a matter for common sense, the police and the courts. There is no exhaustable list defined in law. If you think you have a good reason and a police officer disagrees, it'll be up to the courts to decide your fate.

[Firethorn]

23. Sorry, no links...

I've read about this a number of times.

In the UK you can be prosecuted for carrying a weapon if you possess anything 'in a public place' that you brought along to use as a weapon to defend yourself.

There have been people prosecuted for carrying canes, umbrellas, etc... when they didn't 'need' them.

They've been cracking down on knives, I saw one proposal to ban all pointed kitchen knives.

Heck, one WTF moment I had was when I read an article about how they were removing fire exinguishers from the common areas of an apartment complex.

In many of the stats I've read, Britain now exceeds the USA for violent crime, and in many cases, it's violent crime against innocent parties much more so than the USA. In the USA, most murders, for example, are felon on felon. Surveys of burglaries, for example, found that you were far more likely to be burgled in the UK than the USA.

I attribute a lot of it to the virtual banning of self defense. They say that the police should handle protecting the people, then fail to provide enough police protection for the people. Hot burglaries(where the residents are home) are three times the rate as the USA. A burglarer in the USA will spend far more time making sure the house is empty precises because he's afraid he'll be shot by the residents. A UK burgler has far less to worry in that regard.

[bossy22]

25. found a link

the fire extinguisher tale is true

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7290003.stm

this is the most rediculous garbage i have ever seen....as a fire fighter i believe that the fire extinguisher is one of the best inventions ever...it has saved countless homes in my short carreer. Its better to have an extinguisher fight a small fire...then have an entire Battalion fight a big fire...

"Extinguishers can only be used to put out a fire that's discovered at ignition."
i guess this guy must be a paper fireman...wait a second hes a spokesperson- shouldnt spokespeople for the FD have a bit of knowledge about firefighting....this is the biggest load of crap ive seen...ive put out a large kitchen fire with a water can before (well most of it)...this is garbage

but then again this isnt surprising coming from a country who's fire service is too afraid to go into a burning building to attack a fire...

[iverglas]

31. some people say the strangest things

but then again this isnt surprising coming from a country who's fire service is too afraid to go into a burning building to attack a fire...

Eh?

[bossy22]

32. the UK fire service

does not do interior attacks of building fires unless there is a person trapped...In the US and canada, interior attacks are the norm- we go in to stop the fire at its source and minimize its damage

its a little bit more risky but it can be done safely if you take the correct precautions and pull out if there is a sign of structual collapse

[gorfle]

26. hahahah - religious reasons.

2. for religious reasons;

I imagine there will be many sects of a new church - the Church of Self Defense. :)

[iverglas]

27. maybe you know

2. for religious reasons;

The kirpan "is one of the five articles of faith that every baptized Sikh is supposed to have on their person, all the time". I happen to think this is moronic, but then I think all religion is moronic.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/03/02/kirpan-scoc060302.html

But the ruling re-establishes a lower court decision, which allows Sikhs to wear kirpans under certain conditions. The knife must be worn under the clothes and sewn into a sheath.

Under thoses conditions, "the kirpan is almost totally stripped of its objectively dangerous characteristics," the court said. "Access to the kirpan ... is now fully impeded by the cloth envelope sewn around the wooden sheath. In these circumstances, the argument relating to safety can no longer reasonably succeed."

The court threw out arguments from lawyers for the Quebec school board that originally implemented the ban. It said there is no suggestion the kirpan is a weapon of violence or that Gurbaj, who was 12 when the court case started five years ago, intended to use it as one.

The argument is "disrespectful to believers in the Sikh religion and does not take into account Canadian values based on multiculturalism," wrote Justice Louise Charron.

"If some students consider it unfair that Gurbaj Singh may wear his kirpan to school while they are not allowed to have knives in their possession, it is incumbent on the schools to discharge their obligation to instill in their students this value that is ... at the very foundation of our democracy."

[iverglas]

28. I was wanting a place for this

[enfield collector]

33. I wonder if that defense would have worked for the branch davidians?

"our religion requires us to have un-registered machine guns?"

[iverglas]

34. I would think

that as long as they kept them sewn up in cotton pouches concealed about their body ...