No (more) guns please - we're British

[beet1e]

Just got back from a walking trip with my brother in North Yorks. We stayed near Whitby. It was lovely! An area untouched by some of the negative aspects of "progress".

We headed back south on Saturday, picking up my brother's daughter from her uni lodgings in Nottingham before continuing to Winchester. My brother was just parking the Jaguar outside the house when a tatty car with two equally tatty male teenage occupants, clearly annoyed by the two seconds delay they had suffered as we were parking, drove past. The driver was wearing some gang type outfit, and made a rude hand gesture. Great. Welcome back to urban Britain, along with all the city crap that goes with it.

I was happy to see my niece, especially as she had recently walked home alone from the "Goose Fair" in Nottingham - a fun fair. Recently, a 14 year old girl was shot and killed walking home from the very same fair.

So on Sunday, I opened the paper to see this:



The source of the article is here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/17/ngun17.xml

The text is here, with certain passages that caught my eye highlighted.

As stories of innocents caught in crossfire fill the news, it's clear that gun crime has reached areas where recently it seemed unthinkable. Alasdair Palmer and Marco Nardini report

Croydon, Reading, the market town of Hoddesdon in Hertfordshire - these are not places one associates with gangs, drugs and murder. But they have all experienced drive-by killings in recent months.
    
News of such shootings has become depressingly familiar from places such as Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool, and London boroughs such as Hackney - which duly had the show of another drive-by shooting last week: this time, a car with two children in the back was sprayed with bullets. One of the children escaped injury. The other, an 18-month-old baby, was hit in the leg.

But drive-by shootings in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire? Unfortunately, yes - they now happen even there. A 15-year-old schoolboy was shot in the head outside his home in High Wycombe. The tentacles of gun and gang culture have, it seems, started to envelop places that might once have been thought immune.

There were more than 25,000 shootings and gun-related offences last year in England and Wales - which works out at more than 50 incidents a day. Last year's total was double that for 2002-2003. Surprisingly, the number of fatalities only increased from 81 to 97. The reason for that seems mostly to be luck: many of the guns in circulation are old weapons that have been re-conditioned and are extremely inaccurate. They are also fired by people who often don't know how or don't bother to aim properly. That is why victims are often not the intended target, but the men, women and children who happened to in the vicinity when the guns went off.

Provincial police forces are now discovering they have to deal with assassinations, and with the casualties caused when people get caught in the cross-fire. Danielle Beccan, 14, was one of those innocent bystanders. She was shot and killed in Nottingham last week walking home from a fun fair. A gunman in a passing car started spraying bullets from an automatic pistol. It isn't clear whom he was trying to kill, but he hit Danielle. She died in her mother's arms. A man appeared in court charged with the murder yesterday.

Since February 2002, Nottingham, which used to be a relatively quiet, provincial town, has seen nine adults shot dead. Two teenagers have been gunned down and an 11-year-old child was among the five youngsters wounded by gunfire. More than 50 people have suffered gunshot wounds, including a mother holding her 13-month-old baby.

Initially, the police force, which had no specialist firearms unit, and almost no experience of shootings, did not know how to respond. It did not help that Nottingham's force also had a reputation for incompetence: Nottinghamshire's police have been consistently rated as among the worst in the country by government inspectors. John Heppell, MP for Nottingham East, says the police "didn't solve things. They just tried to find someone to blame for them".

Nottinghamshire police now have a dedicated firearms unit. Steve Green, the chief constable, says that his force is the first outside London to mount armed foot patrols and that his officers have arrested more 340 people involved in drugs and guns.

Still, only one of the perpetrators of Nottingham's 11 gun killings has been arrested and convicted. Gun-related offences in the city are still rising. The town's police are attempting to learn from the experience of London's clampdown on gun crime, which has met with considerable success: last year, gun crime in the capital was down by 15 per cent. It was probably the only city in Britain to see a fall in the number of shootings.

How has it been achieved? "By tackling aggressively the seriously violent gangsters," explains Deputy Assistant Commissioner Alan Brown, who has responsibility for the Met's policy on gun crime. "This had a ripple effect. It has been appreciated within the black community, who were preyed upon by these men. It means our actions have gained a legitimacy in the eyes of people in the black community - so they are more willing to come to us with information. And that means it has been easier for us to find guns, and arrest those who use them."

He adds: "London has the advantage of having a significant armed response capability. We've got guns, and we are not afraid to use them. That sends a message to the gangsters: we won't be intimidated. They know we'll shoot if we have to. They have started to be afraid of us - which is the way it should be."

In many provincial towns now experiencing a wave of gun-related crime, it is the other way round: the police, unarmed and unused to dealing with ruthless and violent killers, are frightened of the gangsters.

"The recent spate of gun-related incidents in some of England's cities is attributable to the spread there of a very unpleasant gun culture," says Mr Brown. "It has come in with the cocaine dealers from Jamaica and the US. Rap music and the macho attitude play a significant part: you get boys as young as 13 who ape the older gangsters and think that any sign of 'disrespect' has to be avenged by shooting."

The procedure for shooting, especially among younger gangsters, is one most likely to hit innocent bystanders: it's a case of "ready, fire, aim".

Once one gang starts to carry guns, an arms race quickly develops: members of rival gangs feel that they won't be safe or "respected" unless they carry guns too. "A lot of the young boys seem to have this attitude of 'live fast, die young'," says Mr Brown. "And that's part of the problem. We need to give them a reason to think it will be worth their while to do something that means they have a good chance of staying alive well into old age."

The life expectancy of boys involved with guns and gangs is estimated by officers with the Greater Manchester Police to be as low as 24.

Nottinghamshire Police say their investigations have been hampered by the intimidation of witnesses. Derek Senior, a Nottingham Rastafarian who gave evidence that helped to convict four men who had attacked him, suffered an immediate reprisal: he was shot four times in his front drive (he survived). Jamaican-born Omar Watson was less fortunate: he was shot and killed while having a haircut before he was due to give evidence at the trial of two men accused of trying to shoot him in an earlier incident.

This problem is very widespread. Dozens of people saw teenagers Letisha Shakespeare and Charlene Ellis shot dead in Birmingham on January 2 2003 after they were caught in a gun battle between rival gans. Most refused to provide statements because they feared retribution from the killers. Marcia Shakespeare, Letisha's mother, found that when she put up posters appealing for witnesses to her daughter's murder, they were taken down. "The police can't do their job if they are faced with a brick wall," she says. "If no one is willing to stand up and be counted, the gangsters are going to do a lot worse. If it's my child today, it will be yours tomorrow."

(Article truncated for space)

So there it is. The more guns we have, the more crime we'll see. It really is that simple. As you can see from the figures at the top of the picture, we came very close to reaching 100 gun homicides in one twelve month period spanning 2003/04.

I'm hoping the police can act in time to prevent our annual gun related homicide tally from reaching a three digit value, but it might not be possible. Maybe it's time for an armed police force. I don't have any problem with that - all the other Euro police forces are armed. But one thing is clear to me: I don't want to see a guns free for all - a gun shop on every street corner and a five digit homicide rate - as can be seen in other parts of the world where a "guns-4-all" policy exists. In Britain, that is NOT the answer. If we did that, stories like the one above  would be filling the local papers. The story above is bad enough at national level.

[Nilsen]

The norwegian police is not armed beetle, but they are debating it.

What kind of jag does your brother own?

[GRUNHERZ]

Thanks for the great article beetle. You have convinced me, make the guns illegal and I'm sure the crimilnals will stop using them to kill people.

BTW didnt the UK just ban most sorts of handguns not too long ago?

[Nilsen]

cc GS but i think beetle ment that the police carry weapons.

[bigsky]

Maybe it's time for an armed police force. I don't have any problem with that.





maybe its time for the death penalty for lesser crimes like murder.

[Gixer]

Whitby is great, spent quite a bit of time there off and on, friend of mine lives there. Great pub down by the wharf, beer & fish n chips



...-Gixer

[Dowding]

Whitby is a great place. Unlike Scarborough etc it hasn't been ruined by commercialism.

Beer, fish, chips and curry sauce. Can't beat it on a cold but sunny autumn day. Thinking of going up their in November for a cheap break. Little cottage, pub, girlfriend... you get the picture...

Check out their kippers and other smoked fish - traditionally done in this one shop for hundreds of years. Best in Britain apparently.

BTW, Beetle - I am hoping to pick up a new Seat Ibiza FR TDi next month. Do you still drive your diesel?

[SC-Sp00k]

I ve been a Police Officer for 15 years in Australia. 99% of that as an operational street copper.  Now I train Police in operational safety including firearms, firearms retention, etc etc.

My hat is off to any Police Officer who will do this job without a firearm. I know for a fact I wouldnt.  The Brits are to be respected in this regard. Their people are good.  But negotiation will only get you so far and these days, its a short rope of tolerance out there on the street.

My personal opinion on the Bobby getting a gat on his belt, is do it now before you find its too late. Its been long overdue.

[deSelys]

Ahem, Beet1e, this kind of article is really supporting Lazs's theory: with a strong gun control, the only armed guys are the bad ones (who don't follow the law anyway)... The article even points out that the only city to show a drop in gun crimes is London where more policemen are armed, know how to use their weapon and are not afraid to use them.

I've come to think that a concealed carry permit for citizens is a good thing IF the examination you need to pass to obtain this permit is thorough and not forgiving: no criminal past, theoretical handgun knowledge test, safe handling test, shooting test, basic tactics test, law knowledge test.

I don't want to see the average guy carrying a weapon. I may be cynical, but I believe that 75% of the population is stupid, clumsy or emotionally unstable.

[ra]

So there it is. The more guns we have, the more crime we'll see. It really is that simple.

I'd love to see how you came to that conclusion based on the article you posted.   The UK toughened up gun laws for law-abiding citizens and gun crime is now becoming a problem, where it wasn't before.  The same experiment has been tried and failed in dozens of US cities.

ra

[Jackal1]

Gun ban laws only help one part of society, the criminal. They just deny the individual self defense and make it that much easier for the bad guys.
  Criminals don`t abide by the law, so all the laws passed in the world banning/controlling guns means diddly squat to them other than it makes their life much easier.
  Welcome to the real world. Arm yourself or be subject to becoming one of the victim statistics.
  Burying your head in the sand only makes it easier for a predator to consume you.

  BTW, the "Saturday Night Special" depicted in the picture is fantastic way to piss someone off enough to take your head off.

[lazs2]

"He adds: "London has the advantage of having a significant armed response capability. We've got guns, and we are not afraid to use them. That sends a message to the gangsters: we won't be intimidated. They know we'll shoot if we have to. They have started to be afraid of us - which is the way it should be."

Ya know... that is exactly how we feel in most cities in the U.S.  

Well.... thank you beet for proveing just about everything I have said about guns and gun laws.  

Seriously... would it bother you to know I was carrying concealed around you or your neice?   Would you feel safer or less safe?

Criminals don't stay in the ghetto... it spills over to the nightclubs and such where they spend their drug money.

deseleys... you really don't have to worry about 75% of the population that you feel is too stupid to carry guns since it is pretty much established that if you had unlimited concealled carry permit issue that only about 10% of the law abidinng population would carry anyway....

beet... that is a nice PPK in the add... and... At least you will not be one of those who "spray" bullets around.... See.... I taught you a valuable skill.

in conclusion...  it would be better if 100 people got shot... so long as they were the right people that were shot.

oh well.... maybe a "guns for crack" turn in would work?   maybe hiding under the bed?   well... I'm out of ideas...

lazs

[GRUNHERZ]

Note how, at least in that articles pictures most of the victims are black or otherwise dark skinned...  Do the overall statiscics mirror this pattern?

[lazs2]

There is no way that we could run that add as it is here in the states.   You could not show that many colored people and guns together...   It would be "racist"  england is just about 10 or 20 years behind us as usual.

why is it that armed cops are now a good thing?   why is it a good thing if the criminals guns outnumber the good guys guns?   I predict that just like here... cops being armed won't be enough.  

lazs

[Nashwan]

The only problem with the article is, they seem to have made up the numbers.

There were more than 25,000 shootings and gun-related offences last year in England and Wales - which works out at more than 50 incidents a day. Last year's total was double that for 2002-2003.

I suspect they've added the air eapons figures to the firearms figures for this year to get that number.

From the Home Office figures on crime in Britain 2003/2004:

The changes in both homicides and firearm offences were small in 2003/04: there was an
increase of less than one per cent in firearm offences, and a fall of around two per cent in
homicides (after excluding retrospectively recorded Harold Shipman murders from the
2002/03 total).

In 2003/04 there were a provisional 10,340 firearm offences in England and Wales. This was
an increase of less than one per cent since 2002/03 (Figure 5.6). The number of offences has
risen each year since 1997/98, but the 2003/04 rise is the smallest.

The full figures for this year aren't out yet, but the air weapons figures for last year were just under 14,000, so add them to the 10,000 firearms offence figures and it's pretty easy to see where the 25,000 figure comes from.

Surprisingly, the number of fatalities only increased from 81 to 97.

2000-01 19 deaths
2001-02 49 deaths
2002-03 81 deaths
2003-04 97 deaths

I'd really like to know where those figures come from, because they appear to be entirely made up.

I've got the Home Office figures from 2002, and they are:

2000-01 64
2001-02 90

The Home Office figures from 2004 are:

2000-01 63
2001-02 92
2002-03 58

Those figures are from the murder statistics. They count cases where someone was murdered with a firearm.

There is a second set of figures, under the firearms offences section, which counts cases where a firearm was involved in a murder, but not necasarily as the murder weapon (for instance, two men carry out a robbing, one pulls a gun, one pulls a knife, the one with a knife stabs someone who dies, the gun is counted in this table, not in the first one). This table also includes crossbows, and cases where someone is battered to death with a gun, rather than being shot.

2000-01 73
2001-02 97
2002-03 81
2003-04 68


Where the Telegraph's figures come from, I don't know. They vastly understate the early years, and appear to have swapped 2002's figures for this year's.

I can provide the sources (fairly large pdfs) to anyone who wants to check the figures.