Gun Control, UK - Young guns: a chilling tale of mystery

[Snowden]

Young guns: a chilling tale of mystery



Ross Clark



The horrible death of 15-year-old Billy Cox — shot on Wednesday in his own home on an estate in Clapham — could not have come at a more poignant moment: a day after Unicef published a provocative report claiming that British children have a worse deal than their counterparts anywhere else in the developed world. It is one thing to try to laugh off the reputation of the archetypal British teenage hoody for his junk-food diet and low cultural aspirations; quite another to overlook the fact that increasing numbers of young Britons are dying at the point of a gun.

It has taken a spate of three killings in South London in twelve days, and the conclusion of a murder trial, to bring home the fact that the victims and perpetrators of gun crime are getting younger and younger. Also on Wednesday an 18-year-old Angolan refugee, Roberto Malasi, was jailed for a minimum of 30 years for the cold-blooded shooting of a guest at a christening in Peckham and the fatal stabbing two weeks later of a woman motorist he felt had shown him “disrespect”. Remarkably, as has often been pointed out, we have now seen a doubling of gun crime in a decade since some of the tightest gun-control laws in the world were introduced. [Emphasis mine. It proves my claims about gun control.]

Even the claimed success of Operation Trident, with gun killings in London falling from 18 in 2004-05 to 15 in 2005-06, obscures an uglier figure: that over the same period non-fatal shootings rose from 185 to 251. All of this appears to suggest that while Londoners continue to try to murder each other with guns they are becoming steadily worse shots. It may even be a function of the youth of the some of the shooters.

It isn’t easy to establish why gun crime should have become so prevalent. In spite of the recent youth killings having occurred less than a rifle shot from expensive South London residential suburbs, the underworld of the gun remains an obscure place. Nor, in spite of the small army ferried in for the grim task of taping off and examining murder scenes in recent days, are the police fully involved in resolving the problem.

This cannot be easily blamed n officers themselves: not when those communities oppressed by the gangsters are so reluctant to use the official forces of law and order except for the business of clering away the bodies. According to one prisoner interviewed for a recent Home Office study, he began to carry a gun after being kidnapped, assaulted and dumped in woodland, shot at, and had seen another man shot and robbed at gunoint on several occasions. Yet not one of these offences did he, or anybody else, report to the police, for fear of reprisals.

That Home Office study, conducted by three academics from the University of Portsmouth and based on interviews with eighty prisoners, provides perhaps the best available insight into the rise of gun crime in London. Many of its findings, it is true, could easily be guessed at: for example, that most gun criminals are involved in the drug trade and that the black community is hugely overrepresented. Moreover, those involved with gun crime tend to have grown up fatherless and in the absence of good male role models have gravitated towards gangs whose names reflect the banal landscape of urban Britain, such as the “Burger Bar Crew”. Their members spend their lives pathetically in search of something they call “respect”, a quality that they seem to believe flows more readily if one wears thick gold chains and Nike Shox at £130 a pair.

Yet out of 170 pages of interviews do emerge some worthwhile insights, with repercussions for public policy. Above all there seems to be a connection between the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the increasing tendency of youths to carry and use guns. The Act imposed a mandatory five-year sentence on any adult caught in possession of an illegal firearm: hence the need for criminals to appoint more innocent-looking youngsters to carry and look after their weapons for them.

Moreover, the mandatory nature of the sentence — which overlooks many young black men taking to carrying guns not in order to instigate criminal acts but to defend themselves after threats have been made against them — acts as a deterrent against suspects making early guilty pleas and cooperating with the police in investigating other crimes.

The evidence appears also to point against one argument favoured by middle-class drug users: that gun crime only happens because drugs laws keep prices artificially high, and that if recreational drugs were legalised, the market would collapse and the violence would subside. In fact, some of the criminals interviewed pointed to the falling price of drugs as a cause of the rise in gun crime: unable to afford their Nike trainers through peddling drugs alone, criminals have started robbing rival gangs.

The study also provides some evidence that the strict gun control laws introduced after Dunblane are at least doing something towards the growth in gun killings. While the price of a shotgun in the criminal underworld has fallen to £50 and the price of a handgun to £150, there is no great flood of illegal guns into the country. The weapons being bought and sold by criminals are mostly old or have been crudely converted from replica firearms. Frequently these fail to fire properly and in some cases have injured the user.

It would be reassuring to think that as the nation’s stock of illegal guns decreases further in quality they will explode in their users’ faces ever more frequently. But realistically we are only going to arrest the appalling spree of recent gun crime if we accept that the solution will involve more than simply scooping up and jailing for five years every black man caught in Peckham with a gun.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1392328.ece

[Chrisj]

Originally Posted by Snowden

. Remarkably, as has often been pointed out, we have now seen a doubling of gun crime in a decade since some of the tightest gun-control laws in the world were introduced.




The study also provides some evidence that the strict gun control laws introduced after Dunblane are at least doing something towards the growth in gun killings. While the price of a shotgun in the criminal underworld has fallen to £50 and the price of a handgun to £150, there is no great flood of illegal guns into the country. The weapons being bought and sold by criminals are mostly old or have been crudely converted from replica firearms. Frequently these fail to fire properly and in some cases have injured the user.

It appears that the only people to have suffered from the crack down on hand guns are those who were licienced to hold them. Sports shooters have to go abroad to practice for competition and as a consequnce this law has had a negative effect on their competitiveness. As usual the authorities appear unable or unwilling to act until public concern forces the issue. The fact that black youths are amongst the worse culprits makes matters worse because the police are reluctant to target them, every time a minority group are targeted the liberal media instantly screams discrimination. The Metropolitan Police are still sensitive about the institutionally racist slur the MacPherson inquiry imposed on them after the Lawrence affair. There is no outcry about white males being targeted in drink driving campaigns because they are likely to be the culprits, it should be the same regardless of the ethnic or social background for any criminal offence. The Met after the bombs in London were reluctant to target Muslims in stop and searches because they were worried about being branded racist and when the Deputy commissioner fans the flames by claiming it was now a criminal offence to be a Muslim in Britain it did not help the situation.

[Snowden]

Originally Posted by Chrisj

It appears that the only people to have suffered from the crack down on hand guns are those who were licienced to hold them. Sports shooters have to go abroad to practice for competition and as a consequnce this law has had a negative effect on their competitiveness. As usual the authorities appear unable or unwilling to act until public concern forces the issue. The fact that black youths are amongst the worse culprits makes matters worse because the police are reluctant to target them, every time a minority group are targeted the liberal media instantly screams discrimination. The Metropolitan Police are still sensitive about the institutionally racist slur the MacPherson inquiry imposed on them after the Lawrence affair. There is no outcry about white males being targeted in drink driving campaigns because they are likely to be the culprits, it should be the same regardless of the ethnic or social background for any criminal offence. The Met after the bombs in London were reluctant to target Muslims in stop and searches because they were worried about being branded racist and when the Deputy commissioner fans the flames by claiming it was now a criminal offence to be a Muslim in Britain it did not help the situation.

Not only a bad law, but the politically correct opinions that are undermining the ability of law enforcement. To me, this politically correct blather is paving the way for the downfall of civilization. Strange, isn't it? People are trying to make everybody feel good about themselves, but they are instead making it almost impossible to tell the truth or act in a way to enforce the good laws.

A criminal can and will always get a gun or whatever he wants in order to commit the crime. The law abiding citizen will become the victim more and more unless that law is rescinded.

[Snowden]

I sent this article to a friend in Australia, and she replied:

"The guns debate has been going on everywhere for years now. it's not surprising that people are resorting to guns and protection...the law...at least here...is an ass as they say. If a robber comes into your property and you hit him with a baseball bat or such, then he can sue you. This is crazy. I think we should be able to protect ourselves. Of course they say we can use necessary force to repel the burglar, however it is an ambiguous line. We have known criminals here who get arrested time and time again only to be freed by the courts because people are afraid to testify. I feel for the regular police officers who put themselves in danger to arrest criminals when they know they will probably never come to trial or be incarcerated."

We go through this in this country as well; not always, but quite a bit. It was much worse in England, wasn't it, Chris? My youngest daughter-in-law is from Salisbury; she and my son met when he went to the University of Lancaster as a third year abroad student.

The last time they visited England, her former maid of honor - whoops! Maid of honour! and her husband were closing their kitchen door and opening a new one to the back garden, because they hoped it would make their home safer. People there were going to enormous expense to try and make the homes secure in such ways, because they were not allowed to protect themselves in their own homes.

[jonathan_ddr]

I blame the bloody foreigners we let into the country!!
Ex-Warsaw Pact, African states, Bad Muslims (There are some good ones out there) aka Extremist; all they see is us as rich easy pickings with our unwillingness to deport people as they have Human Rights and why; the Bloody UN and Good OL USA with its anti colonisation and the IDIOT EU and our government who will not stand upto them and put the British People First.
Jon

[Chrisj]

Originally Posted by jonathan_ddr

I blame the bloody foreigners we let into the country!!
Ex-Warsaw Pact, African states, Bad Muslims (There are some good ones out there) aka Extremist; all they see is us as rich easy pickings with our unwillingness to deport people as they have Human Rights and why; the Bloody UN and Good OL USA with its anti colonisation and the IDIOT EU and our government who will not stand upto them and put the British People First.
Jon

Until the UK government accepts its first responsibility is the protection of its citizens and not grandstanding on the world stage as the guardian of political correctness then matters will not improve. Successive governments have taken a soft line on crime which encourages the criminal element to become ever more blatent and aggressive. You have more chance of being arrested and prosecuted for attempting to protect your family and property than you have for breaking and entering. Tony Martin being a case in point that many of the Americans of this board will find hard to understand.

Around a thousand criminals who should have been deported were released to commit more crimes because of the incompetence of officials both in the immigration and court systems. These criminals are not by any stretch of the imagination harmless, many were violent or sex offenders who have continued to commit crimes. Some who were due to be deported were kept in prison whilst their deportations were being arranged, this apparently contravened their human rights so they recieved compensation running into many thousands of pounds. If there was any justice in this country this compensation would have been passed on directly to the victims of the crimes they were imprisoned for. The civil liberties groups claim deportation after serving their prison sentence is unfair because they are punished twice, but they also complain that if they were sent back to their country of origin their lives would be in danger. Its OK for us to be left to the tender mercies of criminal thugs but not for the thugs to recieve a taste of their own medicine from slightly less libertarian governments in Africa, South America and the Middle and Far East.

The chattering classes in London who feel they know better than any one else how the country should be run have had their chance with softly softly bleeding heart liberal policies on crime and punishment. It is obvious to those people in the real world who suffer from the effects of criminal behaviour on a daily basis that the liberal approach is wrong and strong action needs to be taken before the country decends into chaos. Locking a career criminal up for life does work, he can't commit anymore offenses, if you let him out after a couple of months rest in prison he is not rehabilitated, he will continue to commit more crime. Hanging for murder and the worst of the violent and sexual offences and life imprisonment for habitual offenders on a three strikes policy, this is the sort of criminal law most people want and deserve. The majority obey the law of the land, the least the government can do is honour their side of the bargin and protect them.