GUN CRIME SOARS AS PROHIBITION FAILS!
phil
>>>>
Gun crime soars as thugs seek 'respect'
By Stewart Tendler, Crime Correspondent
GUN-TOTING drug dealers and young criminals carrying firearms to earn
respect on the streets and in clubs have fuelled a 37 per cent rise in gun
crime over five years.
Figures to be issued next week by the Home Office are expected to show fresh
increases last year. Police fear a descent into American-style violence and
the use of guns as a fashion accessory among teenagers in inner cities.
The two teenage girls shot dead in the backstreets of Birmingham yesterday
are the latest victims of a gun culture that is also evident in London,
Manchester, Merseyside, Bristol, Nottingham and the cities of South Wales.
The latest available Home Office figures already show that gun offences in
England and Wales rose from 12,410 in 1997 to 17,589 during 2000-01. The
number of murders went up from 59 to 73 and handgun offences rose from 2,648
to 4,019.
As a result chief constables, led by Sir John Stevens, the Commissioner of
the Metropolitan Police, have been urging ministers to adopt tougher gun
controls, which they say successfully took guns off the streets of New York.
In Britain 20 years ago few criminals risked carrying or keeping guns and
often hired weapons from the underworld for operations such as armed
robberies. The weapon of choice was a sawn-off shotgun.
But by the Nineties many criminals were moving into the lucrative drug
trade, where a weapon was a necessity to protect trade or fight turf wars.
Young criminals also had few scruples about tackling a soft target such as a
post office or betting shop with a gun, or using one in a mugging.
In 1990 shotguns were used in 1,193 crimes in England and Wales while
handguns were used in 2,537. By 2000-01 there were 607 crimes involving
shotguns and 4,019 involving handguns.
The ban on handweapons above .22 calibre, which was introduced in 1997 after
the Dunblane primary school shootings, forced many legitimate owners to
surrender their guns but did nothing to stop underworld supplies.
Police have seized Israeli-made Uzi sub-machineguns and American Ingram
micro- machineguns as well as AK45 assault rifles and a vast range of
pistols. The present favourite is said to be the Walther PPK automatic, as
used by James Bond.
There has also been a brisk trade in the underworld in reactivating guns
that have been deactivated for collectors, or the alteration of high-powered
air weapons such as the Brocock. The Brocock ME38 Magnum air pistol can be
bought legally for about £120 and illegally converted for just £70. Real
guns can be bought for little more than £100, depending on their condition.
The rise of crack cocaine sold by Jamaican-based Yardie gangsters who
routinely carry guns added to the rise in gun use and what police now call
"black on black killings".
The gun, police say, has become an essential possession for young black men
emulating Yardies. A spat on a dance floor can quickly lead to a killing by
a gunman who feels that he has been denied "respect".
The shootings have reached such an extent that one man was shot for stepping
on another man's foot in a bar. Another was shot after he laughed at someone
's haircut and a woman was wounded by a stray bullet when two gunmen
confronted each other outside a food shop.
A month ago Sir Keith Povey, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, warned
David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, that the biggest menace facing police
was the spread of gun crime often linked with the drug trade and in
particular crack cocaine.
After studying reports from chief constables around the country, Sir Keith
said: "The issue of gun crime and its connections with the drugs trade,
particularly crack cocaine, is beginning to overshadow other efforts being
made to reduce crime and the fear of crime."
He added: "The increasing number of drug-related firearms incidents, the
rise in the use of crack cocaine and the turf wars being fought between drug
dealers all combine to strike fear in the heart of the worst-affected
communities."
It was a message that Paul Scott-Lee, the new Chief Constable of the West
Midlands, knew by heart. Gun crime in his region rose between 2000-01 and
2001-02 from 1,512 to 2,262 offences.
In one incident in August police were involved in a gun fight with a gang of
men chased from Staffordshire by officers investigating an attempted armed
robbery. An exchange of gunfire took place in front of a row of houses on a
busy road in Erdington at about 4.30pm as the evening rush hour was
beginning.
In another incident 15 shots were fired during a gun battle in the car park
of a pub. The West Midlands has become one of the biggest hotspots for gun
crime outside London.
In October Mr Scott-Lee began a new drive against gun crime codenamed
Operation Ventara. It focused on gun crime hotspots in the West Midlands -
Handsworth, Winson Green, Ladywood, Highgate, Smethwick, Wolverhampton and
Aston itself, where the two teenage girls died.
The latest national figures show that 29 of the 43 forces in England and
Wales are investigating black-on-black shootings and London, which is the
epicentre of gun crime, has been running a special investigation code-named
Operation Trident for more than four years.
Last year there were 22 black-on-black murders in London under investigation
and more than 170 people were wounded. Scotland Yard seizes 144 guns a month
and weapons were fired 200 times between April and December, compared with
171 for the same months of last year.
Two weeks ago Scotland Yard announced that it would beef up its 24-hour
armed patrols across London by recruiting another 50 officers.
Norman Brennan, of Protect the Protectors, which campaigns for frontline
police officers, said: "Gun carrying is taken for granted in many of our
cities and offenders now carry a firearm like they would a fashion
accessory.
"Without tougher penalties against such offenders and heightened information
from the public and others, the many people who carry guns will increase,
each of them a walking assassin."
Sherilyn
> From The Times:
>
> >>>>
> Gun crime soars as thugs seek 'respect'
> By Stewart Tendler, Crime Correspondent
>
>
> The ban on handweapons above .22 calibre, which was introduced in 1997 after
> the Dunblane primary school shootings, forced many legitimate owners to
> surrender their guns but did nothing to stop underworld supplies.
Indeed the law banning handguns wasn't intended to control general gun
crime, but to curb a worrying inability of then-existing law to ensure
that legitimate gun users did not occasionally run amock with their
legally held supplies of guns and ammunition, as in the case of Ryan
at Hungerford and Hamilton at Dunblane. We don't know yet whether it
has worked. I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop. UK
homicide and gun homicide rates seem to remain satisfyingly low,
for what it's worth.
--
Sherilyn
Anon Poster
>Gun crime soars as thugs seek 'respect'
>By Stewart Tendler, Crime Correspondent
[snip]
>Another was shot after he laughed at someone's haircut
The recipient of a prison haircut would understand. One has to draw
the line somewhere, Mr Tendler.
Bill Smith
wrote:
You cite two examples, over how many years? There is a difference
between a trend and an aberration, just so you know. What will you ban
the next time some nut case decides to kill a bunch of people with a
hand gun? The ban, quite obviously, has done nothing about eliminating
them.
Bill Smith
Sherilyn
> On 03 Jan 2003 01:33:35 +0000, Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org>
> wrote:
>
> >"phil" <ph...@no.com> writes:
> >
> >> From The Times:
> >>
> >> >>>>
> >> Gun crime soars as thugs seek 'respect'
> >> By Stewart Tendler, Crime Correspondent
> >>
> >>
> >> The ban on handweapons above .22 calibre, which was introduced in 1997 after
> >> the Dunblane primary school shootings, forced many legitimate owners to
> >> surrender their guns but did nothing to stop underworld supplies.
> >
> >Indeed the law banning handguns wasn't intended to control general gun
> >crime, but to curb a worrying inability of then-existing law to ensure
> >that legitimate gun users did not occasionally run amock with their
> >legally held supplies of guns and ammunition, as in the case of Ryan
> >at Hungerford and Hamilton at Dunblane. We don't know yet whether it
> >has worked. I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop. UK
> >homicide and gun homicide rates seem to remain satisfyingly low,
> >for what it's worth.
>
> You cite two examples, over how many years? There is a difference
> between a trend and an aberration, just so you know.
The two examples I cited are, as far as I'm aware, the only examples
of that kind of killing in recent times in the UK, and they took place
within a decade of one another ('87, '96). Since that kind of mass
killing depends upon unbalanced individuals getting hold of firearms
and ammunition legally, firearm ownership in the general UK is
otherwise very low, and this kind of crime doesn't appear to be
premeditated but to arise out of undiagnosed personality defects, the
remedy is arguably well targetted within the scope of the manpower
available to implement a more effective gun licensing system (ie:
none) though it was also unfair on the vast population of legal
firearm owners.
> What will you ban the next time some nut case decides to kill a
> bunch of people with a hand gun? The ban, quite obviously, has done
> nothing about eliminating them.
Their access to firearms has been severely limited in the UK context.
Neither of us knows yet whether the ban has been effective in
eliminating this rare but horrific kind of mass murder in the UK--give
it another decade or so.
--
Sherilyn
Terence
of society who use them. A large number of these gun totting "tough guys"
seem to be black so maybe a better solution to this would be the to get rid
of the blacks! And before any liberal or left wing "good doers" out there
start shouting RACIST - is it really racism to want to defend ones society
from the bad effects of what is basically an alien influence? Enoch Powell
was totally right when he made his "rivers of blood" speech all those years
ago, god bless him.
"Anon Poster" <nob...@ybodon.not> wrote in message
news:3e14ec36...@news.btinternet.com...
Harry the Horse
news:87isx7u...@happy.sherilyn.org.uk...
> "phil" <ph...@no.com> writes:
>
> > From The Times:
> >
> > >>>>
> > Gun crime soars as thugs seek 'respect'
> > By Stewart Tendler, Crime Correspondent
> >
> >
> > The ban on handweapons above .22 calibre, which was introduced in 1997
after
> > the Dunblane primary school shootings, forced many legitimate owners to
> > surrender their guns but did nothing to stop underworld supplies.
>
> Indeed the law banning handguns wasn't intended to control general gun
> crime,
>
> but to curb a worrying inability of then-existing law to ensure
> that legitimate gun users did not occasionally run amock with their
> legally held supplies of guns and ammunition,
>
Any licensed owner of any firearm *could* run amok, just as any other human
being potentially could. If that truly is the intention of legislators then
the only logical conclusion is that *all* legal firearms ownership is
prohibited. Of course that will not stop illegal owners of firearms running
amok but as you claim yourself it was never the intention of legislators to
deal with that problem.
> as in the case of Ryan
> at Hungerford and Hamilton at Dunblane.
>
Hard cases make bad law. There is ample evidence that had the firearms law
*current* *at* *the* *time* been enforced, Ryan & Hamilton could have been
disarmed.
> We don't know yet whether it
> has worked.
>
It can never work in the terms you phrased the objective. No law can stop
the odd abberant individual from doing something horrific. We accept this
as obvious most other areas of law; why is it with firearms law that the
blinkers of paranoia come down?
> I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop. UK
> homicide and gun homicide rates seem to remain satisfyingly low,
> for what it's worth.
>
Yes, but that has little to do with our firearms laws. Before 1920 we had
no gun control, other than a pistol licensing system more akin to the TV
Licence, in that it was a revenue measure not a way of denying access to
handguns. We were not more lawless then.
Wotan
Lady Liberty <LadyL...@UPAlliance.orgXXY> wrote in message
news:3e14e...@omega.dimensional.com...
> "phil" <ph...@no.com> said, and I quote:
>
> > From The Times:
> >
> >>>>>
> > Gun crime soars as thugs seek 'respect'
> > By Stewart Tendler, Crime Correspondent
> >
> > GUN-TOTING drug dealers and young criminals carrying firearms to earn
> > respect on the streets and in clubs have fuelled a 37 per cent rise in
> > gun crime over five years.
>
> Oh heavens. Well they'll just have to blame it on all those "violent"
> "uncivilized" cultures who haven't been disarmed ( enslaved ) yet.
>
The British constitution, like the American constitution, confirms
the rights of citizens to bear arms.
Marxist criminals engaged in attempts to foist a police state on
its people attempt to deny the existance of that right and impose
(illegal) laws to prohibit that right.
Always on the basis of some "perfectly good reason" - and usually
following some disaster constructed for the purpose.
"Dunblane" was not only allowed to happen - it was encouraged
to happen.
All very convenient. But it is not going to save the necks of these
criminal Marxist subversives when they are standing trial for
treason and attempting to explain themselves.
Wotan
> Indeed the law banning handguns wasn't intended to control general gun
> crime, but to curb a worrying inability of then-existing law to ensure
> that legitimate gun users did not occasionally run amock with their
> legally held supplies of guns and ammunition, as in the case of Ryan
> at Hungerford and Hamilton at Dunblane. We don't know yet whether it
> has worked. I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop. UK
> homicide and gun homicide rates seem to remain satisfyingly low,
> for what it's worth.
> --
> Sherilyn
No they don't. As the article clearly states.
When I was 12 I had my first gun - and so did everybody else.
Gun accidents were very rare - and murders using guns were so
rare that they were cause for national news. And this just after a
war !
"EU" Marxist quislings wanted gun ownership reduced so that
there could be no armed oppostion to "EU" gestapo invaders
attempting to enforce their police state in England.
Those responsible for this naked and illegal subversion of our
constitutional right to bear arms face a life time in the slammer
on treason charges.
Wotan
> The two examples I cited are, as far as I'm aware, the only examples
> of that kind of killing in recent times in the UK, and they took place
> within a decade of one another ('87, '96). Since that kind of mass
> killing depends upon unbalanced individuals getting hold of firearms
> and ammunition legally,
You mean like Blair ?
So far he has mounted two murderous wars for personal political
reasons - resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians
- and is hell bent on another one.
He has also armed our police to the teeth - and would not
hestitate to let them shoot unarmed British civilians if we opposed
his Marxist "EU" crime syndicates attempts at political repression
and suppression of our democracy and free speech.
An armed population capable of shooting back would give him
and his Marxist cronies a problem.
Wotan
Anon Poster <nob...@ybodon.not> wrote in message
news:3e14ec36...@news.btinternet.com...
Across Blair's throat ?
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Wotan" <wo...@valhalla.net> wrote in message
news:3e155c62$0$29918$fa0f...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk...
Esp if a million Moslems took up the offer.
Dirk
MrCheerful
> From The Times:
>
>>>>>
> Gun crime soars as thugs seek 'respect'
> By Stewart Tendler, Crime Correspondent
>
If the current trend continues long enough then there will be few
blacks left to kill each other.
(that has cheered me up)
MrCheerful
Sherilyn
> "Sherilyn" <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
> news:87isx7u...@happy.sherilyn.org.uk...
> > "phil" <ph...@no.com> writes:
> >
> > > From The Times:
> > >
> > > >>>>
> > > Gun crime soars as thugs seek 'respect'
> > > By Stewart Tendler, Crime Correspondent
> > >
> > >
> > > The ban on handweapons above .22 calibre, which was introduced
> > > in 1997 after the Dunblane primary school shootings, forced many
> > > legitimate owners to surrender their guns but did nothing to
> > > stop underworld supplies.
> >
> > Indeed the law banning handguns wasn't intended to control general gun
> > crime, but to curb a worrying inability of then-existing law to ensure
> > that legitimate gun users did not occasionally run amock with their
> > legally held supplies of guns and ammunition,
> >
> That was not what was said at the time.
It was. For example, here is the opening of Jack Straw's speech on
the second reading of the Labour legislation banning firearms above
.22 caliber, from Hansard, 11 June, 1997:
"None of us will ever forget the appalling events that took place on 13
March 1996 in Dunblane, when 16 innocent children and their teacher
were gunned down by Thomas Hamilton, armed with a lawfully licensed
handgun. In response to that tragedy, the previous Parliament passed
the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which banned all higher-calibre
handguns. We supported it, but, in our view, it did not go far
enough. In our manifesto, we said this about gun control:
"'In the wake of Dunblane and Hungerford, it is clear that
only the strictest firearms laws can provide maximum
safety. There will be legislation to allow individual Members
of Parliament a free vote for a complete ban on handguns.'
"That is why, only five weeks after taking office, we have proposed
this Bill to give effect to that manifesto commitment."
>
> > but to curb a worrying inability of then-existing law to ensure
> > that legitimate gun users did not occasionally run amock with their
> > legally held supplies of guns and ammunition,
> >
> Any licensed owner of any firearm *could* run amok, just as any other human
> being potentially could. If that truly is the intention of legislators then
> the only logical conclusion is that *all* legal firearms ownership is
> prohibited. Of course that will not stop illegal owners of firearms running
> amok
Those who have run amok were the legal owners of licensed handgun and
ammunition. Unlicensed owners of handguns tend to be engaged in crime
and, historically, have not run amok; moreover unlicensed ownership of
firearms was already a criminal offence
> but as you claim yourself it was never the intention of legislators to
> deal with that problem.
Correct, in the sense that the legislation we're talking about was
aimed at licensed, legal handgun owners.
>
> > as in the case of Ryan
> > at Hungerford and Hamilton at Dunblane.
> >
> Hard cases make bad law. There is ample evidence that had the firearms law
> *current* *at* *the* *time* been enforced, Ryan & Hamilton could have been
> disarmed.
There is actually some small evidence in Hamilton's case that had the
police retained full intelligence in an organised manner Hamilton
might have had his licence revoked. As far as I'm aware there's no
suggestion that the Ryan case could have been prevented.
>
> > We don't know yet whether it has worked.
> >
> It can never work in the terms you phrased the objective.
This remains to be seen.
> No law can stop the odd abberant individual from doing something
> horrific.
We can stop short of arming him. It was a rather draconian move, but
one that sent a message to gun owners: two massacres performed by
licensed gun owners in less than a decade is enough, thanks.
> We accept this as obvious most other areas of law; why is it with
> firearms law that the blinkers of paranoia come down?
>
> > I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop. UK homicide and gun
> > homicide rates seem to remain satisfyingly low, for what it's
> > worth.
> >
> Yes, but that has little to do with our firearms laws. Before 1920 we had
> no gun control, other than a pistol licensing system more akin to the TV
> Licence, in that it was a revenue measure not a way of denying access to
> handguns. We were not more lawless then.
>
I agree that there's little relationship between licensed gun
ownership and general gun crime. My statement could have been
clearer. What I mean is that the 1997 legislation was intended to
eliminate massacres of the Hungerford and Dunblane type by previously
law-abiding licensed gun owners, whilst general gun homicide, which is
not related to licensed gun use and could not be controlled in this
manner, whilst always worrying, is quite low.
--
Sherilyn
JHBennett
Well, since the intent was very narrow in focus, why wouldn't it have been
adequate to simply ban the specific make and model of gun used in each case?
Don't bother. You were going to say something about the availability of
other pistols. Have you ever considered that you were very fortunate the
nut cases decided to use a pistol? The fallacy of your position is that
since there have been no repeats of these unfortunate incidents, the pistol
ban worked. It has prevented someone with a legally held pistol from going
bonkers and killing several people in a psychotic spree. In reality, your
measure of the success is self fulfilling, isn't it? In fact, spree
killings of any nature are rare occurrences regardless of the means
employed. Accordingly, the next time there is a spree killing in the UK, by
other means, will you advocate lifting the ban of pistols since it didn't
work? Fair is fair, you know.
Prior to Timothy McVeigh murdering 168 people, in Oklahoma City, with a
truck bomb--a calculated plot involving others--the record for mass murder
in the US was 80 dead, at the Happy Land Lounge, Bronx, NY. The weapon used
was a gallon of gasoline and it qualifies as a spree/spur of the moment act,
in every respect. In 1966, Charles Whitmann went to the top of a tower in
Austin, Texas, and killed 14 people with a deer rifle, at ranges to 500
yards. Not that many months ago, a janitor in the gun free utopia of Japan
ran amok in school, stabbing 8 children, as I recall, to death and wounding
many others. In our tragedy at Columbine High School, Colorado, Eric Harris
and Dylan Klebold murdered most of their 13 slain classmates with shotguns.
The basic but popular theme is to blame the means for the crime, as you
have. So far you have been lucky but, the next time there is another spree
killing, your position would logically require that you *forgive* pistols
and lift the ban. But you have no intention of advocating that, when the
unfortunate incident happens, do you? So, what will be your course of
action? Will you next ban nitrate fertilizer, gasoling, knives, rifles,
shotguns, perhps lamp cords? Or, is it only guns which can be targeted, to
satisfy the desire to do SOMETHING to *prevent* such a tragedy from ever
happening again? And isn't it another fallacy to believe you can prevent
such an incident through any means, any law?
Regards,
Jack B *USA*
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Sherilyn
>
> "EU" Marxist quislings wanted gun ownership reduced so that
> there could be no armed oppostion to "EU" gestapo invaders
> attempting to enforce their police state in England.
Ah, okay. Whatever! :)
--
Sherilyn "tiptoes away quietly"
Andrew Thomas
> From The Times:
>
> >>>>
> Gun crime soars as thugs seek 'respect'
> By Stewart Tendler, Crime Correspondent
>
> GUN-TOTING drug dealers and young criminals carrying firearms to earn
> respect on the streets and in clubs have fuelled a 37 per cent rise in gun
> crime over five years.
>
> Figures to be issued next week by the Home Office are expected to show fresh
> increases last year. Police fear a descent into American-style violence and
> the use of guns as a fashion accessory among teenagers in inner cities.
>
> The two teenage girls shot dead in the backstreets of Birmingham yesterday
> are the latest victims of a gun culture that is also evident in London,
> Manchester, Merseyside, Bristol, Nottingham and the cities of South Wales.
I would have thought the morons in the New Labour government would be
quite happy with this news. After all, instead of promoting an
environment which encourages lawful behaviour, it spent taxpayer's
money ripping the piss out of Maidenhead. "Screw the law", it said.
"we don't want affluent older people thinking they actually live in a
free world! Prosperity, peace and sociable behaviour are ruining
Maidenhead". Not a good day to bury bad news, evidently - the spin
doctors must be losing their touch. I can imagine Our Tone hitting
the spin-cycle rev limiter on TV, now:
"Y'know, you've got to remember, frankly, that if you get shot up by a
smacked-up ne'er-do-well in Birmingham, then, really, you're actually
being shot by the *simper* bullets of the peopwl. Under the
Conservatuvs, those crackhead ganstger wannabees would simply not have
been given the oppertunutty to pump other peopwl full of lead. And
that's what this guvvament is all about. Oppertunutty."
Sherilyn
> "Sherilyn" <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
> news:87r8buz...@happy.sherilyn.org.uk...
> > Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com> writes:
> >
[...]
> > >
> > > You cite two examples, over how many years? There is a difference
> > > between a trend and an aberration, just so you know.
> >
> > The two examples I cited are, as far as I'm aware, the only examples
> > of that kind of killing in recent times in the UK, and they took place
> > within a decade of one another ('87, '96). Since that kind of mass
> > killing depends upon unbalanced individuals getting hold of firearms
> > and ammunition legally, firearm ownership in the general UK is
> > otherwise very low, and this kind of crime doesn't appear to be
> > premeditated but to arise out of undiagnosed personality defects, the
> > remedy is arguably well targetted within the scope of the manpower
> > available to implement a more effective gun licensing system (ie:
> > none) though it was also unfair on the vast population of legal
> > firearm owners.
> >
> > > What will you ban the next time some nut case decides to kill a
> > > bunch of people with a hand gun? The ban, quite obviously, has done
> > > nothing about eliminating them.
> >
> > Their access to firearms has been severely limited in the UK context.
> > Neither of us knows yet whether the ban has been effective in
> > eliminating this rare but horrific kind of mass murder in the UK--give
> > it another decade or so.
>
> Well, since the intent was very narrow in focus, why wouldn't it have been
> adequate to simply ban the specific make and model of gun used in each case?
> Don't bother. You were going to say something about the availability of
> other pistols.
Quite. And rifles, too.
> Have you ever considered that you were very fortunate the nut cases
> decided to use a pistol?
Not really. In fact Ryan killed outdoors and used an AK-47, an M1 and
a Beretta pistol. Hamilton was indoors and killed the children and
the teacher at close range, in which I would suggest that a pistol was
the most effective and convenient weapon for the purpose.
> The fallacy of your position is that since there have been no
> repeats of these unfortunate incidents, the pistol ban worked.
Please reread my postings. I do not know whether the ban has worked.
If there are no more massacres like that at Dunblane and Hungerford in
the next ten years or so, I will tend to the provisional conclusion
that the law change was successful in achieving the intended effect.
And the ban was not only a ban on pistols. _All_ firearms over .22
caliber are banned.
--
Sherilyn
Andy R
No they're not, you can still have single shot full bore rifles, semi-auto
.22 rifles and full bore muzzle loading revolvers.
Rgds
Andy R
Sherilyn
> "Sherilyn" <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
> news:8765t6c...@happy.sherilyn.org.uk...
[...]
> >
> > And the ban was not only a ban on pistols. _All_ firearms over .22
> > caliber are banned.
> >
>
> No they're not, you can still have single shot full bore rifles, semi-auto
> .22 rifles and full bore muzzle loading revolvers.
>
Thank you. I apologise for my inaccurate statement.
--
Sherilyn
Jonathan Bratt
<wo...@valhalla.net> writes
>The British constitution, like the American constitution, confirms
>the rights of citizens to bear arms.
Where?
--
Jonathan Bratt
Sherilyn
I think he means the Common Law where not limited by statute allows
British citizens to use arms for self defence. True as far as it
goes, but statute takes precedence in the UK.
--
Sherilyn
Jon°
by devious governments for their own purposes.
Harry the Horse
> > >
> > That was not what was said at the time.
>
> It was. For example, here is the opening of Jack Straw's speech on
> the second reading of the Labour legislation banning firearms above
> .22 caliber, from Hansard, 11 June, 1997:
>
justified in terms of diminishing general gun crime. Political statements
don't just occur in the House of Commons.
<snip Straw speech>
> > >
> > Any licensed owner of any firearm *could* run amok, just as any other
human
> > being potentially could. If that truly is the intention of legislators
then
> > the only logical conclusion is that *all* legal firearms ownership is
> > prohibited. Of course that will not stop illegal owners of firearms
running
> > amok
>
> Those who have run amok were the legal owners of licensed handgun and
> ammunition. Unlicensed owners of handguns tend to be engaged in crime
> and, historically, have not run amok; moreover unlicensed ownership of
> firearms was already a criminal offence
>
I think that is rather a disingenuous distinction. Whether or not you term
a firefight between criminals 'running amok' is scarcely the point. The
bullets still maim and kill.
> > but as you claim yourself it was never the intention of legislators to
> > deal with that problem.
>
> Correct, in the sense that the legislation we're talking about was
> aimed at licensed, legal handgun owners.
>
> >
> > > as in the case of Ryan
> > > at Hungerford and Hamilton at Dunblane.
> > >
> > Hard cases make bad law. There is ample evidence that had the firearms
law
> > *current* *at* *the* *time* been enforced, Ryan & Hamilton could have
been
> > disarmed.
>
> There is actually some small evidence in Hamilton's case that had the
> police retained full intelligence in an organised manner Hamilton
> might have had his licence revoked.
>
The accounts I have read suggest that it was more than small evidence.
> As far as I'm aware there's no
> suggestion that the Ryan case could have been prevented.
>
> >
> > > We don't know yet whether it has worked.
> > >
> > It can never work in the terms you phrased the objective.
>
> This remains to be seen.
>
It can only work in the sense of abolishing all legal ownership of firearms
so that there are no legal firearms owners to do anything illegal with their
guns. That is the logic of your position: complete prohibition. Of course
it won't stop illegal use of firearms but the Government seems indifferent
to that anyway. So that's all right then.
> > No law can stop the odd abberant individual from doing something
> > horrific.
>
> We can stop short of arming him.
>
No we can't. Or rather we can only in the sense of disarming *everybody*.
Which I guess is the logic of your position.
> It was a rather draconian move, but
> one that sent a message to gun owners: two massacres performed by
> licensed gun owners in less than a decade is enough, thanks.
>
So you accept the principle of punishing the innocent for the actions of the
guilty.
phil
> Correct, in the sense that the legislation we're talking about was
> aimed at licensed, legal handgun owners.
>
Why should they be licensed in the first place ?
Wotan, who is considered an authority on these matters due to his
involvement with the Magna Carta Society, has already told you we have an
inalienable right to bear arms so any licensing, banning or restriction of
handguns - indeed any guns - is clearly illegal
> >
> > > as in the case of Ryan
> > > at Hungerford and Hamilton at Dunblane.
> > >
> > Hard cases make bad law. There is ample evidence that had the firearms
law
> > *current* *at* *the* *time* been enforced, Ryan & Hamilton could have
been
> > disarmed.
>
> There is actually some small evidence in Hamilton's case that had the
> police retained full intelligence in an organised manner Hamilton
> might have had his licence revoked. As far as I'm aware there's no
> suggestion that the Ryan case could have been prevented.
>
Yes, two terrible, horrific crimes and they should be punished accordingly.
However, banning all handguns on the back of these incidents is an
unacceptable restriction on rights.
>
> >
> > > We don't know yet whether it has worked.
> > >
> > It can never work in the terms you phrased the objective.
>
> This remains to be seen.
>
> > No law can stop the odd abberant individual from doing something
> > horrific.
>
> We can stop short of arming him.
He armed himself and if someone was so criminally determined to go out and
commit a massacre they could arm themselves and do it .
>It was a rather draconian move, but
> one that sent a message to gun owners: two massacres performed by
> licensed gun owners in less than a decade is enough, thanks.
>
Yes, it is enough but why in reaction to these incidents should handguns
have been banned? What possible purpose has it served apart from making
those dastardly 'illegal' handguns particularly attractive to youths,
encouraging a black market and giving criminals a new revenue stream.
> > We accept this as obvious most other areas of law; why is it with
> > firearms law that the blinkers of paranoia come down?
> >
> > > I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop. UK homicide and gun
> > > homicide rates seem to remain satisfyingly low, for what it's
> > > worth.
> > >
> > Yes, but that has little to do with our firearms laws. Before 1920 we
had
> > no gun control, other than a pistol licensing system more akin to the TV
> > Licence, in that it was a revenue measure not a way of denying access to
> > handguns. We were not more lawless then.
> >
> I agree that there's little relationship between licensed gun
> ownership and general gun crime. My statement could have been
> clearer. What I mean is that the 1997 legislation was intended to
> eliminate massacres of the Hungerford and Dunblane
If you think legislation can 'eliminate' anything you have a lot to learn.
You don't think such massacres will not happen again ? You're very bloody
nieve.
If anything the legislation has been responsible for increased gun
ownership, thus greatly increasing the chances of gun crime, reflected in
the figures
>type by previously
> law-abiding licensed gun owners,
>whilst general gun homicide, which is
> not related to licensed gun use and could not be controlled in this
> manner, whilst always worrying, is quite low.
You seem to be distinguishing between previously 'licensed' and non-licensed
gun crime, isn't it all the same ?
OK, in one case the person has been able to obtain a license from the State
and then committed the crime, but why in response to that should the
'licensing system' and thus the legality of handguns, be abolished ?
> --
> Sherilyn
Harry the Horse
news:av3p4b$boe1f$1...@ID-121899.news.dfncis.de...
E.g., Colt 1911 chambered for 455, Colt 1903, Webley service revolvers of
the First World War, etc, etc.
Tartan
>
>
> Why should they be licensed in the first place ?
>
To try and stop nutters getting them with no security check whatsoever. That
may not be ideal legally in your eyes, but it certainly makes sense to sane
individuals.
> Wotan, who is considered an authority on these matters
Wotan is a nutcase and an authority on nothing.
>
> Yes, it is enough but why in reaction to these incidents should handguns
> have been banned? What possible purpose has it served
What possible purpose is there for owning a handgun?
> If anything the legislation has been responsible for increased gun
> ownership,
Give me the figures and I will believe that one - on the face of it it seems
like a statement full of bullshit.
g.
Harry the Horse
news:A4dR9.12541$Hf4.87...@news-text.cableinet.net...
encode a history of your racist remarks on usenet. You can then enjoy the
privilege of being at the head of the interview queue whenever there's a
racially motivated attack in your area. As you yourself are fond of saying
... the innocent have nothing to fear.
> MrCheerful
>
>
Tartan
"Harry the Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:104159282...@demeter.uk.clara.net...
> >
> Just think: when you are forced to carry your compulsory ID card, it can
> encode a history of your racist remarks on usenet. You can then enjoy the
> privilege of being at the head of the interview queue whenever there's a
> racially motivated attack in your area.
Like when a gang of blacks beat up a white kid?
oops sorry, that wouldn't be a racist attack would it...
g.
"Steve"
> >the rights of citizens to bear arms.
>
> Where?
> --
> Jonathan Bratt
British gun control
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and
> this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the
> case in the British government. -- This may be considered as the true
> palladium of liberty... The right of self-defence is the first law of
> nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine
> this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies
> are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under
> any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already
> annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. - St. George Tucker,
> Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803)
"Steve"
when that guy in ulster filled one with petrol and sprayed those kids, he
said when arrested that he used the extinguisher cos he couldnt get a gun,
so much for banning something to prevent crime.
"Steve"
violence, so the gun ban could never have prevented the rise in gun related
crime.
Sherilyn
> "Sherilyn" <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
> news:87fzsad...@happy.sherilyn.org.uk...
> > > >
> > > That was not what was said at the time.
> >
> > It was. For example, here is the opening of Jack Straw's speech on
> > the second reading of the Labour legislation banning firearms above
> > .22 caliber, from Hansard, 11 June, 1997:
> >
> So what? I happen to remember the debate at the time at it certainly was
> justified in terms of diminishing general gun crime. Political statements
> don't just occur in the House of Commons.
If you seriously wish to contend that the rash of firearms legislation
in 1997 was not a direct response to Dunblane, then you should cite
your source, as I cite mine.
>
> <snip Straw speech>
>
> > > Any licensed owner of any firearm *could* run amok, just as any
> > > other human being potentially could. If that truly is the
> > > intention of legislators then the only logical conclusion is
> > > that *all* legal firearms ownership is prohibited. Of course
> > > that will not stop illegal owners of firearms running amok
> >
> > Those who have run amok were the legal owners of licensed handgun and
> > ammunition. Unlicensed owners of handguns tend to be engaged in crime
> > and, historically, have not run amok; moreover unlicensed ownership of
> > firearms was already a criminal offence
> >
> I think that is rather a disingenuous distinction. Whether or not you term
> a firefight between criminals 'running amok' is scarcely the point. The
> bullets still maim and kill.
If you wish to compare the activities of licensed gun owners like Ryan
and Hamilton to those of other criminals, then I don't see that it
affects the position of Parliament.
[...]
> >
> > There is actually some small evidence in Hamilton's case that had the
> > police retained full intelligence in an organised manner Hamilton
> > might have had his licence revoked. As far as I'm aware there's
> > no suggestion that the Ryan case could have been prevented.
> >
> The accounts I have read suggest that it was more than small
> evidence.
Well it's in the Cullen report, make of it what you will.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > We don't know yet whether it has worked.
> > > >
> > > It can never work in the terms you phrased the objective.
> >
> > This remains to be seen.
> >
> It can only work in the sense of abolishing all legal ownership of firearms
> so that there are no legal firearms owners to do anything illegal with their
> guns. That is the logic of your position: complete prohibition. Of course
> it won't stop illegal use of firearms but the Government seems indifferent
> to that anyway. So that's all right then.
To bring you back to the subject, the specific problem here was that
twice within a single decade a seemingly law-abiding person
legitimately holding a gun licence went off the rails and engaged in a
killing spree. In the context of the UK, it is an extremely rare
and horrifying event for normal citizens to encounter death at the
hands of gun-wielding individuals in such numbers. Complete
prohibition is a defensible, if unfair, way of dealing with such
horrifying massacres. It may work, it may not work--it is possible
that people denied legal access to guns and ammunition will obtain
them illegally, that such activities will go undetected, and that some
of those people will run amok and kill significant numbers of people,
just as Ryan and Hamilton before them.
If that happens within the next decade or so, I'd unhesitatingly say
that the 1997 legislation has failed in its primary purpose.
>
> > > No law can stop the odd abberant individual from doing something
> > > horrific.
> >
> > We can stop short of arming him.
> >
> No we can't. Or rather we can only in the sense of disarming *everybody*.
> Which I guess is the logic of your position.
Committing resources instead to tighten the vetting procedure might
have worked. Though I am skeptical about this, I think it could have
been sold as an alternative to the prohibition.
>
> > It was a rather draconian move, but one that sent a message to gun
> > owners: two massacres performed by licensed gun owners in less
> > than a decade is enough, thanks.
> >
> So you accept the principle of punishing the innocent for the actions of the
> guilty.
What you really mean is that public policy was changed to take away
rights that had previously existed and been enjoyed lawfully by the
vast majority of licensed gun owners. It must certainly have felt
like punishment, and I agree that it was unfair to the licensed gun
owners.
But I have no problem with that principle--in some cases it can be right.
There are quite a few materials and technological devices that it
would be illegal for me to possess, even though I might have no
intention of doing anything wrong with them, even though I might look
after them to ensure that no other person could misuse them. The
consequences of just one person misusing what he held legally would be
too great in some cases. Dunblane and Hungerford arguably proved that
firearms fall into that category.
[...]
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
Indeed. The ban was simply intended to reduce the possibility of a
reoccurrence of Hungerford and Dunblane.
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
That sounds like an interesting case (do you have a reference?)
Another instance might be cases where an individual uses or attempts
to use a motor vehicle in multiple homicide. Of course the
convenience and utility of a fire extinguisher and a car far outweigh
the small risk that they might be misused in homicide. Guns also have
peaceful uses such as shooting for a hobby, but it's harder to justify
allowing private citizens to hold them.
--
Sherilyn
MrCheerful
But surely my remark is a statement, not a racist remark.
However, yes I am xenophobic and proud of it.
It is a trait of all human and many animal species to defend
themselves, family and their own species.
Deny that and you deny your true nature.
MrCheerful
phil
"Tartan" <por...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:av3ri2$bmbk3$1...@ID-164853.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "phil" <ph...@no.com> wrote in message
> news:paeR9.12630$FN4.88...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> >
> >
> > Why should they be licensed in the first place ?
> >
>
> To try and stop nutters getting them with no security check whatsoever.
That
> may not be ideal legally in your eyes, but it certainly makes sense to
sane
> individuals.
>
So anyone who believes in freedom you now label "insane", sounds par for the
course for marxists.
>
> > Wotan, who is considered an authority on these matters
>
> Wotan is a nutcase and an authority on nothing.
>
He speaks more sense than you on these matters, thats for sure!
> >
> > Yes, it is enough but why in reaction to these incidents should handguns
> > have been banned? What possible purpose has it served
>
> What possible purpose is there for owning a handgun?
>
In order to defend oneself or perhaps participate in a sport?
>
> > If anything the legislation has been responsible for increased gun
> > ownership,
>
> Give me the figures and I will believe that one - on the face of it it
seems
> like a statement full of bullshit.
>
>>
The latest available Home Office figures already show that gun offences in
England and Wales rose from 12,410 in 1997 to 17,589 during 2000-01. The
number of murders went up from 59 to 73 and handgun offences rose from 2,648
to 4,019.
>>>
When will you learn that prohibition has lead to cheap and readily available
guns for criminals, not to mention another revenue stream for criminals and
the kudos amongst youth associated with owning an 'illegal' handgun. All of
it ensures higher ownership of guns and higher gun crime.
This country will soon be swimming in cheap guns, all thanks to prohibition.
you can bet on it.
>
> g.
>
>
phil
But *I* do. so why dont you fuck off and restrict someone elses rights.
> [...]
> --
> Sherilyn
Sherilyn
> "Sherilyn" <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
> news:878yy2e...@happy.sherilyn.org.uk...
> > "Harry the Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> > What you really mean is that public policy was changed to take away
> > rights that had previously existed and been enjoyed lawfully by the
> > vast majority of licensed gun owners. It must certainly have felt
> > like punishment, and I agree that it was unfair to the licensed gun
> > owners.
> >
> > But I have no problem with that principle
>
> But *I* do.
Fine. Let's remove the planning departments and let everybody build
as and when he wants. Let's remove the speed limits and restrictions
on off-road driving. Your neighbor wants to buy cluster bombs? Let
him.
> so why dont you fuck off and restrict someone elses rights.
I have not done so. The UK government did this with a free vote in
Parliament.
--
Sherilyn
phil
Jonathan Bratt
<sher...@suespammers.org> writes
As is clear in the Bill of Rights.
--
Jonathan Bratt
Jonathan Bratt
<ph...@no.com> writes
>Wotan, who is considered an authority on these matters due to his
>involvement with the Magna Carta Society, has already told you we have an
>inalienable right to bear arms so any licensing, banning or restriction of
>handguns - indeed any guns - is clearly illegal
I don't think you find much support for the 'bob says so therefore it
must be true' school of thought.
--
Jonathan Bratt
Jonathan Bratt
<st...@day1956.fsnet.co.uk> writes
- AFAIK - part of the British Constitution.
--
Jonathan Bratt
phil
> "phil" <ph...@no.com> writes:
>
> > "Sherilyn" <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
> > news:878yy2e...@happy.sherilyn.org.uk...
> > > "Harry the Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > >
> > > What you really mean is that public policy was changed to take away
> > > rights that had previously existed and been enjoyed lawfully by the
> > > vast majority of licensed gun owners. It must certainly have felt
> > > like punishment, and I agree that it was unfair to the licensed gun
> > > owners.
> > >
> > > But I have no problem with that principle
> >
> > But *I* do.
>
> Fine. Let's remove the planning departments and let everybody build
> as and when he wants.
I would support easing up on planning laws , but what has this go to do with
the ban on handguns ?
> Let's remove the speed limits and restrictions
> on off-road driving.
Only if you do the same to driving on road
>Your neighbor wants to buy cluster bombs? Let
> him.
If that's what my neighbour wants then so be it. But he must be aware should
he cause harm to anyone with his cluster bombs, he will be held accountable.
I'm a libertarian, you ought to look it up!
> > so why dont you fuck off and restrict someone elses rights.
>
> I have not done so. The UK government did this with a free vote in
> Parliament.
And they will held accountable for the consequences of prohibition as you
will be, which are and will continue to be, increased gun crime & ownership
> --
> Sherilyn
Tartan
>
> This country will soon be swimming in cheap guns, all thanks to
prohibition.
> you can bet on it.
>
>
Interesting thought
maybe this might have an impact?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2624187.stm
g.
Andy R
Not free from the influence of the tabloids though.
Rgds
Andy R
Archibald
> When will you learn that prohibition has lead to cheap and readily available
> guns for criminals, not to mention another revenue stream for criminals and
> the kudos amongst youth associated with owning an 'illegal' handgun. All of
> it ensures higher ownership of guns and higher gun crime.
>
> This country will soon be swimming in cheap guns, all thanks to prohibition.
> you can bet on it.
It seems to me that the root problem here is the silly prohibition of
certain drugs along with the prohibition of guns on top of that
foolishness.
All this is and was entirely predictable from the experiences of the US
prohibition of alcohol in the 1930's
Archie
Sherilyn
> "Sherilyn" <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
> news:87fzsad...@happy.sherilyn.org.uk...
> > Correct, in the sense that the legislation we're talking about was
> > aimed at licensed, legal handgun owners.
> >
>
> Why should they be licensed in the first place ?
>
> Wotan, who is considered an authority on these matters due to his
> involvement with the Magna Carta Society,
This appears to be the name of now-defunct shortlived fringe group.
> has already told you we have an inalienable right to bear arms so
> any licensing, banning or restriction of handguns - indeed any guns
> - is clearly illegal
This is simply incorrect, although it's a common misconception.
For a more authoritative statement on the rights of UK citizens, you
probably want to look at the Bill of Rights of 1689, which states:
That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their
defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.
That 'protestants' clause is a little quaint, but I think you can see
why gun advocates in the UK are not fond of the Bill of Rights--it
explicitly states that the right of citizens to use arms for defence
is subject to the law.
[...]
>
> If you think legislation can 'eliminate' anything you have a lot to learn.
> You don't think such massacres will not happen again ? You're very bloody
> nieve.
>
I am broadly optimistic on this, despite my natural skepticism. The
kind of loner who conducted these two massacres may well have less easy
access to firearms and ammunition than formerly, has less opportunity
to learn how to shoot and maintain them, and cannot easily carry them
in public. I am suspending my judgement on the effectiveness of the
legislation--if we reach, say, 2010 without another Hungerford or
Dunblane-style massacre, I will provisionally pronounce it a success.
[....]
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
I'm not.
>
> > > so why dont you fuck off and restrict someone elses rights.
> >
> > I have not done so. The UK government did this with a free vote in
> > Parliament.
>
> And they will held accountable for the consequences of prohibition as you
> will be, which are and will continue to be, increased gun crime & ownership
>
This doesn't seem to have happened yet.
--
Sherilyn
Tartan
>
> So anyone who believes in freedom you now label "insane", sounds par for
the
> course for marxists.
>
You just confirmed your insane status. Freedom to do anything anyone pleases
has another name - anarchy - and anyone who desires such a state of affairs
is one bullet short of a full clip.
> >
> >
> > What possible purpose is there for owning a handgun?
> >
>
> In order to defend oneself or perhaps participate in a sport?
>
neither a particularly good reason I'm afraid.
> >
> > > If anything the legislation has been responsible for increased gun
> > > ownership,
> >
> > Give me the figures and I will believe that one - on the face of it it
> seems
> > like a statement full of bullshit.
> >
>
> The latest available Home Office figures already show that gun offences in
> England and Wales rose from 12,410 in 1997 to 17,589 during 2000-01. The
> number of murders went up from 59 to 73 and handgun offences rose from
2,648
> to 4,019.
I asked for the figures for gun ownership, not gun crime.
g.
Archibald
You *are* joking! Yet more bullshit. How many *crackdowns* have we seen
before?
Even before the Blair Liars were elected they claimed to be "tough on
crime and tough on the causes of crime"
My arse!
And even if they jailed them for 5 years the jails are full!
Archie (in the real world)
phil
>
> "phil" <ph...@no.com> wrote in message
> news:_wfR9.12734$pv5.89...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> >
> > So anyone who believes in freedom you now label "insane", sounds par for
> the
> > course for marxists.
> >
>
> You just confirmed your insane status. Freedom to do anything anyone
pleases
> has another name - anarchy - and anyone who desires such a state of
affairs
> is one bullet short of a full clip.
Freedom do anything as long as you dont cause harm to others, that's when
the law kicks in.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > What possible purpose is there for owning a handgun?
> > >
> >
> > In order to defend oneself or perhaps participate in a sport?
> >
>
> neither a particularly good reason I'm afraid.
>
They're very good reasons.
> > >
> > > > If anything the legislation has been responsible for increased gun
> > > > ownership,
> > >
> > > Give me the figures and I will believe that one - on the face of it it
> > seems
> > > like a statement full of bullshit.
> > >
> >
> > The latest available Home Office figures already show that gun offences
in
> > England and Wales rose from 12,410 in 1997 to 17,589 during 2000-01. The
> > number of murders went up from 59 to 73 and handgun offences rose from
> 2,648
> > to 4,019.
>
>
> I asked for the figures for gun ownership, not gun crime.
>
As you know, since the licensing system was abolished there are no figures
on gun ownership per se, but the figures on gun crime (which have risen 37%
since prohibition) is a reasonable good measure to suggest that gun
ownership is climbing. I am sure we will see unofficial surveys giving us
the figures in good time.
The point is though abolishing the licensing system has done nothing to stop
those who wish to get guns being able to get them, in fact it has made it
easier and cheaper
> g.
>
>
phil
It will make absolutely no difference whatsoever except you will find the
criminals will eliminate witnesses etc.
It is counter productive
>
>
> g.
>
>
phil
> "phil" <ph...@no.com> writes:
<snip>
> > I'm a libertarian, you ought to look it up!
>
> I'm not.
>
I know that. you're a dangerous marxist who thinks human behaviour can be
legislated.
> >
> > > > so why dont you fuck off and restrict someone elses rights.
> > >
> > > I have not done so. The UK government did this with a free vote in
> > > Parliament.
> >
> > And they will held accountable for the consequences of prohibition as
you
> > will be, which are and will continue to be, increased gun crime &
ownership
> >
> This doesn't seem to have happened yet.
It has. Gun crime has increased 37% since prohibition.
> --
> Sherilyn
Wotan
Jonathan Bratt <Jona...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:sCjYsjMN...@aol.com...> <wo...@valhalla.net> writes
> >The British constitution, like the American constitution, confirms
> >the rights of citizens to bear arms.
>
> Where?
> --
> Jonathan Bratt
You know perfectly well where.
Wotan
> Jonathan Bratt <Jona...@aol.com> writes:
>
> > In article <3e155955$0$29912$fa0f...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>, Wotan
> > <wo...@valhalla.net> writes
> > >The British constitution, like the American constitution, confirms
> > >the rights of citizens to bear arms.
> >
> > Where?
>
> British citizens to use arms for self defence. True as far as it
> goes, but statute takes precedence in the UK.
> Sherilyn
No it does not. Despite the fact that a series of rotten little "EU"
quisling politicians and their attendant red pigs in wigs have tried to
pretend that it does.
Wotan
Jon° <jon_j...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:CXdR9.12612$iy4.88...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> Another reason for us to have a written constitution that cannot be
changed
> by devious governments for their own purposes.
The Magna Carta, Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement are
our written constitution.
Politicians cannot be trusted to incorporate these into one of
their own.
phil
> "phil" <ph...@no.com> writes:
>
> I am broadly optimistic on this, despite my natural skepticism. The
> kind of loner who conducted these two massacres may well have less easy
> access to firearms and ammunition than formerly, has less opportunity
> to learn how to shoot and maintain them, and cannot easily carry them
> in public. I am suspending my judgement on the effectiveness of the
> legislation--if we reach, say, 2010 without another Hungerford or
> Dunblane-style massacre, I will provisionally pronounce it a success.
>
It seems you're jumping the gun then, so to speak!
First of all, as someone has pointed out in this thread we've had licensing
since the 20's and these massacres came along 60-70 years later, so perhaps
you should give it a little longer to see if your little policy of
abolishing the licensing system and indulging in prohibition is going to
prevent such massacres. But in the mean time, the consequences of
prohibition, the fact that guns are now readily and cheapily available to
any 'connected' criminal out there and with the soaring rate of gun crime
thereof, will mean during that time period many more gun crimes will be
committed and many more murders will be committed with them than between
1920-1980.
Then perhaps you can explain to those victims relatives the virtues of
prohibition, but I doubt you will.
> [....]
> --
> Sherilyn
Wotan
A standard excuse for subversion trotted out by every "EU"
subversive and apologist over the last 30 years.
It will not save them when the come to explain themselves in front
of a real British judge and jury.
Wotan
Dirk Bruere at Neopax <di...@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:av3mba$aq5va$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > An armed population capable of shooting back would give him
> > and his Marxist cronies a problem.
>
> Esp if a million Moslems took up the offer.
>
> Dirk
>
The right to bear arms could be limited to what Mrs. T
described as British patrols ( I think ). By which she
ment those who could demonstrate at least 3 generations
of citizenship.
I see no problem with that.
phil
Sorry, that should read 1920 (?) - 1997
I would be most interested if anyone has the exact date of licensing.
Wotan
MrCheerful <nbk...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o7fR9.12704$Ti5.88...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> But surely my remark is a statement, not a racist remark.
>
> However, yes I am xenophobic and proud of it.
> It is a trait of all human and many animal species to defend
> themselves, family and their own species.
> Deny that and you deny your true nature.
>
> MrCheerful
>
You make whatever bloody remark you like.
Those slyly attempting to circumscribe our free speech should
have a glance at the pent up mass of fury and hatred boiling
behind the flood gates before they continue with any insolent
attempt to tell us what we can or cannot say or think.
It will be a small incident that sparks it off - but then there will
be wholesale bloody slaughter as decades of illegal and arrogant
repression is wiped out in one huge slash of mayhem.
Richard Ford
> I am broadly optimistic on this, despite my natural skepticism. The
> kind of loner who conducted these two massacres may well have less easy
> access to firearms and ammunition than formerly, has less opportunity
> to learn how to shoot and maintain them, and cannot easily carry them
> in public. I am suspending my judgement on the effectiveness of the
> legislation--if we reach, say, 2010 without another Hungerford or
> Dunblane-style massacre, I will provisionally pronounce it a success.
Oh Sherilyn.. you will never learn.. to think that you can give up essential
liberty for temporary security is a naive thought.. there will always be a
dunbane, there will always be a mad man who kills a few people, if it's not
a gun it's an axe.. it'll happen in Britain, the US and Germany.. and the
fruits these supposed strict gun laws will give will never outweigh the lost
liberty hundreds of millions of people in this country will lose, which I
feel is a far greater loss, no matter how tragic these occasional killings
are.
> --
> Sherilyn
Regards,
R Ford
Wotan
That would be the same gang of crooks who took a free vote to
adopt the utterly illegal Maastrich, Amsterdam and Nice treaties in
blantant, cold defiance of the electorate, would it ?
Acts of brass necked, bare faced treason.
For the punishement of which the public may very well agree to
the reintroduction of the death penalty. And rightly so.
Cynic
>> You just confirmed your insane status. Freedom to do anything anyone
>pleases
>> has another name - anarchy - and anyone who desires such a state of
>affairs
>> is one bullet short of a full clip.
>Freedom do anything as long as you dont cause harm to others, that's when
>the law kicks in.
I would agree with that with a slight modification. We should have
freedom to do anything that does not have a high probability of
causing harm to anyone or anything other than consenting adults or
their property.
--
Cynic
"Steve"
> I am broadly optimistic on this, despite my natural skepticism. The
> kind of loner who conducted these two massacres may well have less easy
> access to firearms and ammunition than formerly, has less opportunity
> to learn how to shoot and maintain them, and cannot easily carry them
> in public. I am suspending my judgement on the effectiveness of the
> legislation--if we reach, say, 2010 without another Hungerford or
> Dunblane-style massacre, I will provisionally pronounce it a success.
> Sherilyn
Ah so its everyone is now guilty and not to be trusted, until proven
innocent now, bout par for the course.
"Steve"
neither freedom nor security
or
Even the jews were left free to shout Heil Hitler
or those who have the weapons make the rules.
"Steve"
The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and
strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a
woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
Thats what sherlyn is advocating
phil
"Cynic" <cy...@none.none> wrote in message
news:55ab1v4h4nv1c5k5j...@4ax.com...
Yes of course, that tightens it up well :-)
>
> --
> Cynic
>
"Steve"
> I would agree with that with a slight modification. We should have
> freedom to do anything that does not have a high probability of
> causing harm to anyone or anything other than consenting adults or
> their property.
>
> --
> Cynic
>
Freedom to live your life without undue hindrance, without offending or
intruding upon any one else , and free to choose how you live your life so
long as you accept responsibility for your actions.
Bert Hyman
@news6.svr.pol.co.uk:
> Freedom to live your life without undue hindrance, without offending or
> intruding upon any one else , and free to choose how you live your life so
> long as you accept responsibility for your actions.
Undue?
Offending?
Intruding?
Glad to see you've supplied such a rigourous defintion.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@visi.com
William Black
"Wotan" <wo...@valhalla.net> wrote in message
news:3e15a5f0$0$29927$fa0f...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk...
>
> Jon° <jon_j...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:CXdR9.12612$iy4.88...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> > Another reason for us to have a written constitution that cannot be
> changed
> > by devious governments for their own purposes.
> > "Sherilyn" <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
> >
>
> The Magna Carta, Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement are
> our written constitution.
So Magna Carta is inviolable is it?
Have you read the stuff about women being forbidden to give evidence?
And of course all that stuff about 'wards' is a bit out of date these days.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
William Black
Interesting that it's much easier to get guns and stuff in most of the rest
of the EU than it is in the UK.
And I mean MUCH easier...
So, which bit of evil EU legislation do you mean?
Mike
<sher...@suespammers.org> writes
>Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com> writes:
>
>> You cite two examples, over how many years? There is a difference
>> between a trend and an aberration, just so you know.
>
>The two examples I cited are, as far as I'm aware, the only examples
>of that kind of killing in recent times in the UK, and they took place
>within a decade of one another ('87, '96). Since that kind of mass
>killing depends upon unbalanced individuals getting hold of firearms
>and ammunition legally,
Why did it depend on them getting hold of firearms legally? I'm sure
illegally obtained firearms would have been just as effective and they
are still available.
>> What will you ban the next time some nut case decides to kill a
>> bunch of people with a hand gun? The ban, quite obviously, has done
>> nothing about eliminating them.
>
>Their access to firearms has been severely limited in the UK context.
Only *legal* access to firearms has been severely limited. *Illegal*
access wasn't limited by the legislation.
--
Mike
"Steve"
rest
> of the EU than it is in the UK.
Thats because many of the european nations kept their word when they created
the much expanded EEC in the 1970s and did not ban hunting and sporting
arms in non military calibres. Something our Europhiles also promised us in
Britain but instantly renagued upon.
"Steve"
Mort
> From The Times:
>
>
> The latest available Home Office figures already show that gun offences in
> England and Wales rose from 12,410 in 1997 to 17,589 during 2000-01. The
> number of murders went up from 59 to 73 and handgun offences rose from
2,648
> to 4,019.
Wow a whopping 73 firearms murders out of a population of ~52 million. I'll
choose those odds over the Unfree States every time.
:-)
--
Mort
'How am I skydiving?'
Dial 1-800-GET-A-LIFE
William Black
It lets Portillo out I suppose.
And can you demonstrate three generations of English ancestors?
Of course you can.
That's where people like you draw the line isn't it.
The English/white/whatever are only pure if they are the same as you.
What do you do when some belted earl says 'Well of course you should be able
to trace back at least ten generations?
William Black
""Steve"" <st...@day1956.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:av4kvd$5i5$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Doesn't help barmy Bob's argument though does it?
Bill Smith
wrote:
>Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com> writes:
>
>> On 03 Jan 2003 01:33:35 +0000, Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"phil" <ph...@no.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> From The Times:
>> >>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> Gun crime soars as thugs seek 'respect'
>> >> By Stewart Tendler, Crime Correspondent
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The ban on handweapons above .22 calibre, which was introduced in 1997 after
>> >> the Dunblane primary school shootings, forced many legitimate owners to
>> >> surrender their guns but did nothing to stop underworld supplies.
>> >
>> >Indeed the law banning handguns wasn't intended to control general gun
>> >crime, but to curb a worrying inability of then-existing law to ensure
>> >that legitimate gun users did not occasionally run amock with their
>> >legally held supplies of guns and ammunition, as in the case of Ryan
>> >at Hungerford and Hamilton at Dunblane. We don't know yet whether it
>> >has worked. I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop. UK
>> >homicide and gun homicide rates seem to remain satisfyingly low,
>> >for what it's worth.
>>
>> You cite two examples, over how many years? There is a difference
>> between a trend and an aberration, just so you know.
>
>The two examples I cited are, as far as I'm aware, the only examples
>of that kind of killing in recent times in the UK, and they took place
>within a decade of one another ('87, '96). Since that kind of mass
>killing depends upon unbalanced individuals getting hold of firearms
>and ammunition legally, firearm ownership in the general UK is
>otherwise very low, and this kind of crime doesn't appear to be
>premeditated but to arise out of undiagnosed personality defects, the
>remedy is arguably well targetted within the scope of the manpower
>available to implement a more effective gun licensing system (ie:
>none) though it was also unfair on the vast population of legal
>firearm owners.
What makes you think that if a person is willing to kill people, they
will somehow be discouraged from acquiring a handgun merely because it
is illegal to do so? Recent statistics have demonstrated that handgun
use is rising in the UK, not declining.
>> What will you ban the next time some nut case decides to kill a
>> bunch of people with a hand gun? The ban, quite obviously, has done
>> nothing about eliminating them.
>
>Their access to firearms has been severely limited in the UK context.
>Neither of us knows yet whether the ban has been effective in
>eliminating this rare but horrific kind of mass murder in the UK--give
>it another decade or so.
It was so rare before the ban, how will you know?
Hot burglaries (residents at home during the commission) are much more
common in the UK than they are in the US. The reason is, as any US
burglar will tell you, is that they don't want to run the risk of
running into an armed home owner.
According to a study done by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University
criminologist, there are about 2.5 million defensive gun uses in the
US in a year. In more than 80% of these cases, the gun isn't fired.
The bad guy sees the gun and runs away. The crime is prevented and no
one is hurt. In only a very small percentage of the cases when the gun
is fired is anyone hit and when an attacker is actually killed, is
smaller still.
Added up, suicides, accidents and crime where a gun is the weapon of
choice (whether fired or not) comes to about 475,000 per year. That
makes the risk/benefit ratio of private gun ownership about 5 to 1 in
favor. 80 million people have guns in the US which makes it about
99.4% of us manage, somehow, to behave ourselves in any given year.
"Targeting Guns" by Gary Kleck
"Why They Kill" by Richard Rhodes
Bill Smith
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
That means most young Moslems would qualify but I would not.
Dirk
Richard Miller
<LadyL...@UPAlliance.orgXXY> writes
>"phil" <ph...@no.com> said, and I quote:
>
>> From The Times:
>>
>>>>>>
>> Gun crime soars as thugs seek 'respect'
>> By Stewart Tendler, Crime Correspondent
>>
>> respect on the streets and in clubs have fuelled a 37 per cent rise in
>> gun crime over five years.
>...
>
>Oh heavens. Well they'll just have to blame it on all those "violent"
>"uncivilized" cultures who haven't been disarmed ( enslaved ) yet.
>
Let's see if I have got this right.
A small section of the community has wide access to guns. The result is
that this armed section of the community kill each other with them a
lot, often over petty disputes that would normally be settled with fists
if guns weren't easily to hand. And this is proof that prohibition has
failed and we ought to have *more* people wielding guns.
Have I correctly understood the argument?
--
Richard Miller
JHBennett
<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>>>>>
> To bring you back to the subject, the specific problem here was that
> twice within a single decade a seemingly law-abiding person
> legitimately holding a gun licence went off the rails and engaged in a
> killing spree. In the context of the UK, it is an extremely rare
> and horrifying event for normal citizens to encounter death at the
> hands of gun-wielding individuals in such numbers. Complete
> prohibition is a defensible, if unfair, way of dealing with such
> horrifying massacres. It may work, it may not work--it is possible
> that people denied legal access to guns and ammunition will obtain
> them illegally, that such activities will go undetected, and that some
> of those people will run amok and kill significant numbers of people,
> just as Ryan and Hamilton before them.
>
> If that happens within the next decade or so, I'd unhesitatingly say
> that the 1997 legislation has failed in its primary purpose.
>
> Sherilyn
The fallacy of your argument, as well as the legislation which banned
pistols, is blaming the means for the act. Another of your fallacies
expressed earlier, though seemingly tempered now, was the measure for
success of the pistol ban, which, making the legal possession of pistols
impossible, becomes self fulfilling as there is no way anyone can possibly
run amok with a legally held pistol. Ergo, *success* of the legislation is
assured--foolproof, in the eye of the beholder. The other fallacy of your
argument, blaming the means for the act, is what is galling to those who
have been denied, for no good reason. And wait a moment before you bring up
your two unfortunate incidents for justification, while I bring up some
incidents of my own. Let me make the point that you were very fortunate
that your spree killers chose pistols for their carnage instead of some
other, more deadly and readily available means. Timothy Mc Veigh murdered
168 people with a truck bomb, in Oklahoma City. Prior to that mad act, the
record for mass murder, a spree killing in every aspect, was 80 people
killed at the Happy Land Lounge, the Bronx, NY, where the weapon was a
gallon of gasoline. In 1966, Charles Whitmann went to the top of a tower,
in Austin, Texas, and killed 14 people, at ranges to 500 yards, with a deer
rifle. Not that many months ago, a school janitor, in the gun free utopia
of Japan, ran amok with a knife and stabbed 8 children, as I recall, to
death while wounding many others. In our tragedy at Columbine High School,
Colorado, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris murdered most of their classmates
with shotguns. Following these sad incidents, there was no clamor to ban
nitrate fertilizer, gasoline, deer rifles, shotguns, or knives. So, what
was the difference? I would suggest that eliminating pistols from private
possession is and always has been an agenda item for various interest
groups, and, in your case, Humgerford and Dunblane provided the pretext for
the government's action. Among other things, government can now posture
itself as having *done something* to prevent such future acts, but,
realistically, we all know the claim--as the other incidents of spree
killings/mass murders I have cited demonstrate--is only illusionary. But,
as you and the government have *blamed* pistols for the insane acts of two
individuals, are you--and the government--prepared to *forgive* pistols the
next time (God forbid) there is a spree killing/mass murder, regardless of
the means employed? While you might be, my bet is the government will not.
The crux of the situation is that gun owners and pistol shooters know darn
well that the ban of pistols is completely ineffective for the avowed
purpose of preventing spree murders (or crime, for that matter)--even with
pistols (except legally held ones). And, as I have said, you were indeed
fortunate that your insane killers chose pistols for their acts. Have you
considered how many dead and injured you might have had, if they had been
hurling Molitov cocktails? And, what is your proposed legislation to
prevent that?
Regards,
Jack B *USA*
PS--One other thing, I have to ask. You seem to have the elitist attitude
of a lawyer, are you? Of course, you don't have to respond--or tell the
truth, for that matter ;-) --JB
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Lady Liberty" <LadyL...@UPAlliance.orgXXY> wrote in message
news:3e160...@omega.dimensional.com...
> "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <di...@neopax.com> said, and I quote:
The Net has probably reduced that to about 4.
Dirk
Roger Dewhurst
"Harry the Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10415849...@damia.uk.clara.net...> news:87isx7u...@happy.sherilyn.org.uk...
> > "phil" <ph...@no.com> writes:
> >
> > > From The Times:
> > >
> > > >>>>
> > > Gun crime soars as thugs seek 'respect'
> > > By Stewart Tendler, Crime Correspondent
> > >
> > >
introduced in 1997
> after
> > > the Dunblane primary school shootings, forced many
legitimate owners to
> > > surrender their guns but did nothing to stop underworld
supplies.
> >
> > Indeed the law banning handguns wasn't intended to control
general gun
> > crime,
> >
>
> > but to curb a worrying inability of then-existing law to
ensure
> > that legitimate gun users did not occasionally run amock with
their
> > legally held supplies of guns and ammunition,
> >
other human
> being potentially could. If that truly is the intention of
legislators then
> the only logical conclusion is that *all* legal firearms
ownership is
> prohibited. Of course that will not stop illegal owners of
firearms running
> amok but as you claim yourself it was never the intention of
legislators to
> deal with that problem.
>
> > as in the case of Ryan
> > at Hungerford and Hamilton at Dunblane.
> >
firearms law
> *current* *at* *the* *time* been enforced, Ryan & Hamilton
could have been
> disarmed.
>
> > We don't know yet whether it
> > has worked.
> >
law can stop
> the odd abberant individual from doing something horrific. We
accept this
> as obvious most other areas of law; why is it with firearms law
that the
> blinkers of paranoia come down?
>
> > I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop. UK
> > homicide and gun homicide rates seem to remain satisfyingly
low,
> > for what it's worth.
> >
1920 we had
> no gun control, other than a pistol licensing system more akin
to the TV
> Licence, in that it was a revenue measure not a way of denying
access to
> handguns. We were not more lawless then.
Nobody seems to have noticed that the greatest risk of a mass
shooting now comes from the armed police. Increasingly as the
police are forced to trawl through the lower strata of society
for their recruits more and more unsuitable people, on the
streets, will be armed with H&K automatic weapons. How long
before one of these goons goes berserk?
R
>
>
>
Roger Dewhurst
"Richard Miller" <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:xyXkznKj...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> In message <3e14e...@omega.dimensional.com>, Lady Liberty
> <LadyL...@UPAlliance.orgXXY> writes
> >"phil" <ph...@no.com> said, and I quote:
> >
> >> From The Times:
> >>
> >>>>>>
> >> Gun crime soars as thugs seek 'respect'
> >> By Stewart Tendler, Crime Correspondent
> >>
> >> GUN-TOTING drug dealers and young criminals carrying
firearms to earn
> >> respect on the streets and in clubs have fuelled a 37 per
cent rise in
> >> gun crime over five years.
> >...
> >
> >Oh heavens. Well they'll just have to blame it on all those
"violent"
> >"uncivilized" cultures who haven't been disarmed ( enslaved )
yet.
> >
>
> Let's see if I have got this right.
Probably not but then you are a lawyer.
>
> A small section of the community has wide access to guns. The
result is
> that this armed section of the community kill each other with
them a
> lot, often over petty disputes that would normally be settled
with fists
> if guns weren't easily to hand. And this is proof that
prohibition has
> failed and we ought to have *more* people wielding guns.
>
> Have I correctly understood the argument?
As usual, no. But then that is to be expected.
R
Dersu
"Richard Miller" <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> Let's see if I have got this right.
>
> A small section of the community has wide access to guns. The result is
> that this armed section of the community kill each other with them a
> lot, often over petty disputes that would normally be settled with fists
> if guns weren't easily to hand. And this is proof that prohibition has
> failed and we ought to have *more* people wielding guns.
>
> Have I correctly understood the argument?
Keep working at it Richard, you haven't quite got there yet.
Here is another suggestion. Since it is predominantly low life, drug dealing
scumbags of whatever ethnicity who are killing other of the same and
sometimes fairly innocent people who associate with same for whatever reason
why not let the police withdraw from the fray? The resulting free for all
slaughter of fairly useless specimens will ultimately be good for the gene
pool and, will probably result in fewer "civilian" casualties and less
expense to the tax payer than the present situation.
D.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Lady Liberty" <LadyL...@UPAlliance.orgXXY> wrote in message
> >
> > The Net has probably reduced that to about 4.
> >
> > Dirk
>
I may know someone who knows someone who knows him.
I can say for certain that I am 3 degrees away from President Bush. Same
with Tony Blair.
Dirk
Dersu
"JHBennett" <Ben...@mvn.net> wrote in message
news:3e15f...@corp.newsgroups.com...
<snip>
And wait a moment before you bring up
> your two unfortunate incidents for justification, while I bring up some
> incidents of my own. Let me make the point that you were very fortunate
> that your spree killers chose pistols for their carnage instead of some
> other, more deadly and readily available means.
<snip>
Indeed Jack, and let's not forget the licenced and registered Doctor Shipman
and his gruesome tally...250 plus wasn't it and counting.
D.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Lady Liberty" <LadyL...@UPAlliance.orgXXY> wrote in message
> >> >> Just remember about that old "6 degrees of separation".
> >> >
> >> > The Net has probably reduced that to about 4.
> >> >
> >> > Dirk
> >>
> >> You knew my uncle Alex?
> >
> > I may know someone who knows someone who knows him.
> > I can say for certain that I am 3 degrees away from President Bush. Same
> > with Tony Blair.
>
Just somebody who is not what he seems.
Dirk
Harry the Horse
news:av3s1i$6pbk5$1...@ID-164853.news.dfncis.de...> news:104159282...@demeter.uk.clara.net...
> > >
> > Just think: when you are forced to carry your compulsory ID card, it can
> > encode a history of your racist remarks on usenet. You can then enjoy
the
> > privilege of being at the head of the interview queue whenever there's a
> > racially motivated attack in your area.
>
> Like when a gang of blacks beat up a white kid?
>
And what the flying fuck has that got to do with 'Mr Cheerful' taking
satisfaction in the murder of those two (black) teenagers in Birmingham?
Sean
Sherilyn wrote:
> "Harry the Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>"Sherilyn" <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
>>news:87isx7u...@happy.sherilyn.org.uk...
>>
>>>"phil" <ph...@no.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>From The Times:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Gun crime soars as thugs seek 'respect'
>>>>By Stewart Tendler, Crime Correspondent
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The ban on handweapons above .22 calibre, which was introduced
>>>>in 1997 after the Dunblane primary school shootings, forced many
>>>>legitimate owners to surrender their guns but did nothing to
>>>>stop underworld supplies.
>>>>
>>>Indeed the law banning handguns wasn't intended to control general gun
>>>crime, but to curb a worrying inability of then-existing law to ensure
>>>that legitimate gun users did not occasionally run amock with their
>>>legally held supplies of guns and ammunition,
>>>
>>>
>>That was not what was said at the time.
>>
>
> It was. For example, here is the opening of Jack Straw's speech on
> the second reading of the Labour legislation banning firearms above
> .22 caliber, from Hansard, 11 June, 1997:
>
> "None of us will ever forget the appalling events that took place on 13
> March 1996 in Dunblane, when 16 innocent children and their teacher
> were gunned down by Thomas Hamilton, armed with a lawfully licensed
> handgun. In response to that tragedy, the previous Parliament passed
> the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which banned all higher-calibre
> handguns. We supported it, but, in our view, it did not go far
> enough. In our manifesto, we said this about gun control:
>
>
> "'In the wake of Dunblane and Hungerford, it is clear that
> only the strictest firearms laws can provide maximum
> safety. There will be legislation to allow individual Members
> of Parliament a free vote for a complete ban on handguns.'
>
> "That is why, only five weeks after taking office, we have proposed
> this Bill to give effect to that manifesto commitment."
In public it was the assertion that stolen handguns were the major
source of criminals' weapons so that confiscation of the legal weapons
in combination with recovered stolen property (about the same number per
year) would quickly reduce criminal use. The 1997 firearm crime
statistics were quoted repeatedly for the next three years as proof of
the falling crime, although the end-date was prior to the hand-in date
and crime had been falling since 1993; the equivalent stats for 1998 &
1999 release were withheld by the Home Office until 2001, presumably
because the crime was rising again.
<snip>
>>Hard cases make bad law. There is ample evidence that had the firearms law
>>*current* *at* *the* *time* been enforced, Ryan & Hamilton could have been
>>disarmed.
>>
>
> There is actually some small evidence in Hamilton's case that had the
> police retained full intelligence in an organised manner Hamilton
> might have had his licence revoked. As far as I'm aware there's no
> suggestion that the Ryan case could have been prevented.
If you're prepared to wait a century you can find out exactly what the
police knew about Hamilton and why they made the decisions they did.
That's the section of the Cullen report, a public enquiry, that's sealed
away under the Official Secrets Act.
<snip>
> I agree that there's little relationship between licensed gun
> ownership and general gun crime. My statement could have been
> clearer. What I mean is that the 1997 legislation was intended to
> eliminate massacres of the Hungerford and Dunblane type by previously
> law-abiding licensed gun owners, whilst general gun homicide, which is
> not related to licensed gun use and could not be controlled in this
> manner, whilst always worrying, is quite low.
Legally-held handguns were used in 1-2 murders per year; lightning kills
2-3 per year and deaths involving wild animals 20-25. That's how
relatively dangerous they were, enough for such a murder to make it to
the national papers. Hamilton didn't just flip and start shooting;
somebody copying him can work on getting hold of a gun, collecting
ammunition and planning a massacre. I regret to say it's going to take
that to convince many people that the handgun ban doesn't prevent
massacres.
JHBennett
"Dersu" <de...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:4apR9.4798$j94.9...@news02.tsnz.net...
But of course. We have another who has taken the oath of hypocrisy as the
new head of the American Medical Association, who, in his inaugugral address
to the organization announced that their *cause* would be to banish the gun
from society and not the elimination of the estimated 90,000 to 120,000
deaths resulting each year from medical malpractice & neglect. Of course,
he didn't mention the latter figures in his fine speech. Oops, my mistake,
that's the Hippocratic oath those fine doctors take...sorry, it's hard to
tell much of the time.
Cheers,
Jack B *USA*
Sherilyn
> "Sherilyn" <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
> news:873coac...@happy.sherilyn.org.uk...
> > "phil" <ph...@no.com> writes:
> <snip>
> > > I'm a libertarian, you ought to look it up!
> >
> > I'm not.
> >
>
> I know that. you're a dangerous marxist who thinks human behaviour
> can be legislated.
You sling around this word 'Marxist' rather easily. Of course human
behavior can be legislated; there is barely a significant field of
human interaction to which laws are not routinely applied by almost
every existing state.
>
> > >
> > > > > so why dont you fuck off and restrict someone elses rights.
> > > >
> > > > I have not done so. The UK government did this with a free
> > > > vote in Parliament.
> > >
> > > And they will held accountable for the consequences of
> > > prohibition as you will be, which are and will continue to be,
> > > increased gun crime & ownership
> > >
> > This doesn't seem to have happened yet.
>
> It has. Gun crime has increased 37% since prohibition.
>
You stated that the UK government 'will be held accountable for the
consequences of prohibition'. The main premise of your statement is
that the gun ban has resulted in an increase in gun crime and gun
ownership. This is false. Gun use by criminals and the resulting gun
crime has nothing to do with the banning of legal gun
ownership--criminals don't care about the law. Drug smugglers and
street gangs account for the increase in gun use and gun crime. The
people using guns here are not regular citizens using illegally
obtained in domestic disputes or running amok. It would always have
been next to impossible for the people now using guns to obtain them
legally in Britain, where licensing laws were, and are, strict.
Gun crime rates, whilst shocking in the UK context, remain very low.
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
> Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
> news:87vg16b...@happy.sherilyn.org.uk...
> > Jonathan Bratt <Jona...@aol.com> writes:
> >
> > > In article <3e155955$0$29912$fa0f...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>, Wotan
> > > <wo...@valhalla.net> writes
> > > >The British constitution, like the American constitution, confirms
> > > >the rights of citizens to bear arms.
> > >
> > > Where?
> >
> > I think he means the Common Law where not limited by statute allows
> > British citizens to use arms for self defence. True as far as it
> > goes, but statute takes precedence in the UK.
>
> No it does not. Despite the fact that a series of rotten little "EU"
> quisling politicians and their attendant red pigs in wigs have tried to
> pretend that it does.
>
Check the Bill of Rights, 1689.
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
>
> A right that can be regulated can be regulated away. If they are to
> be sacrosanct, they must be above all other laws.
That's right. There is no written constitution in the UK in the sense
that some countries have one. Everything can, eventually, be
legislated away. It isn't a better or worse way of doing things, but
it's different.
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
> "Sherilyn" <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
> news:878yy2c...@happy.sherilyn.org.uk...
> > "phil" <ph...@no.com> writes:
> >
> > I am broadly optimistic on this, despite my natural skepticism. The
> > kind of loner who conducted these two massacres may well have less easy
> > access to firearms and ammunition than formerly, has less opportunity
> > to learn how to shoot and maintain them, and cannot easily carry them
> > in public. I am suspending my judgement on the effectiveness of the
> > legislation--if we reach, say, 2010 without another Hungerford or
> > Dunblane-style massacre, I will provisionally pronounce it a success.
> >
>
> It seems you're jumping the gun then, so to speak!
Only if I concluded that it had worked because we haven't had a
repetition of Hungerford or Dunblane since 1996. I don't.
>
> First of all, as someone has pointed out in this thread we've had licensing
> since the 20's and these massacres came along 60-70 years later, so perhaps
> you should give it a little longer to see if your little policy of
> abolishing the licensing system and indulging in prohibition is going to
> prevent such massacres.
Two in one decade suggests that the attitude towards guns by gun
owners had changed. I agree that seventy years without a Hungerford
or Dunblane massacre would be fairly conclusive evidence that the law
worked, however.
> But in the mean time, the consequences of
> prohibition, the fact that guns are now readily and cheapily available to
> any 'connected' criminal out there and with the soaring rate of gun crime
> thereof, will mean during that time period many more gun crimes will be
> committed and many more murders will be committed with them than between
> 1920-1980.
>
> Then perhaps you can explain to those victims relatives the virtues of
> prohibition, but I doubt you will.
>
Prohibition has not contributed to the availability of guns. This
isn't a case like alcohol in the USA where prohibition actually
created a black market demand that did not previously exist. It was
always next to impossible for criminals to obtain guns legally. Very
few legally held guns have historically been used in gun crimes in the
UK. The low incidence of gun ownership in the UK and the stringent
laws on licensing meant that it was easier for criminals to obtain
smuggled guns (and smuggling them is easy) than to steal legally
obtained ones.
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
> Dirk Bruere at Neopax <di...@neopax.com> wrote in message
> news:av3mba$aq5va$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de...
> >
>
> > > An armed population capable of shooting back would give him
> > > and his Marxist cronies a problem.
> >
> > Esp if a million Moslems took up the offer.
> >
> > Dirk
> >
>
> The right to bear arms could be limited to what Mrs. T
> described as British patrols ( I think ). By which she
> ment those who could demonstrate at least 3 generations
> of citizenship.
>
> I see no problem with that.
>
[giggle]
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
> "Sherilyn" <sher...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
> news:878yy2c...@happy.sherilyn.org.uk...
> > I am broadly optimistic on this, despite my natural skepticism. The
> > kind of loner who conducted these two massacres may well have less easy
> > access to firearms and ammunition than formerly, has less opportunity
> > to learn how to shoot and maintain them, and cannot easily carry them
> > in public. I am suspending my judgement on the effectiveness of the
> > legislation--if we reach, say, 2010 without another Hungerford or
> > Dunblane-style massacre, I will provisionally pronounce it a success.
>
> Oh Sherilyn.. you will never learn.. to think that you can give up essential
> liberty for temporary security is a naive thought.. there will always be a
> dunbane, there will always be a mad man who kills a few people, if it's not
> a gun it's an axe.. it'll happen in Britain, the US and Germany.. and the
> fruits these supposed strict gun laws will give will never outweigh the lost
> liberty hundreds of millions of people in this country will lose, which I
> feel is a far greater loss, no matter how tragic these occasional killings
> are.
>
I happen to disagree with your premise: that ownership of arms is an
essential liberty. It certainly has been ruled not to be the case in
the USA, and it also never was the case in the UK.
I do not fear massacres by people with axes.
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
>
> [Sherilyn]
> > I am broadly optimistic on this, despite my natural skepticism. The
> > kind of loner who conducted these two massacres may well have less easy
> > access to firearms and ammunition than formerly, has less opportunity
> > to learn how to shoot and maintain them, and cannot easily carry them
> > in public. I am suspending my judgement on the effectiveness of the
> > legislation--if we reach, say, 2010 without another Hungerford or
> > Dunblane-style massacre, I will provisionally pronounce it a success.
>
> innocent now, bout par for the course.
>
I have not claimed that anyone is guilty. Ownership of firearms is a
matter for public policy.
--
Sherilyn