Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: ra on January 03, 2003, 01:14:27 PM
-
according to this article, anyway.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-530727,00.html
-
""Police fear a descent into American-style violence ""
i'm a little slow , what is "American-style violence" and how is it different from other "styles" of violence?
44MAG
-
It involves loud "bangs" with small lead projectiles flying all about.
-
ra - I've been away for 24 hours, and was expecting a thread to have been created about the two girls killed, but none was there! I had to wait for this.
I don't agree with your logic that "UK gun laws a failure". That's like saying that "Speed limits are a failure" because people still get pulled over for speeding despite the speed limits.
This (http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;$sessionid$A32MNS24XOI5FQFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/opinion/2003/01/03/dl0302.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/01/03/ixopinion.html) editorial in today's Telegraph was quite interesting. I never knew that Vermont was the state with the most relaxed gun laws. But whereas Lazs might say that's the reason why it has some of the lowest levels of crime, I would disagree, and point out that Vermont does not have any large cities, and is virtually devoid of race related issues and relatively free of drug problems and other ghetto related issues.
-
beet1e: I would disagree, and point out that Vermont does not have any large cities, and is virtually devoid of race related issues and relatively free of drug problems and other ghetto related issues.
So it's not a large number of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens that is the problem but the presence of criminals that causes gun violence.
So the gun laws restricting legal gun ownership are a failure becasue they do not adress the real problem but distract law-enforcement and infringe on liberties.
It's not differences in gun ownership that caused historically lower crime rates in GB but different ethnical/cultural landscape. As GB is converging with US in some respects, it will experience the same problems.
miko
-
I've been away for 24 hours, and was expecting a thread to have been created about the two girls killed, but none was there! I had to wait for this.
beetle, I created one, you missed it. :)
"I don't agree with your logic that "UK gun laws a failure". That's like saying that "Speed limits are a failure" because people still get pulled over for speeding despite the speed limits. "
Speed limits are a failure if they don't reduce traffic accidents as advertised.
"But whereas Lazs might say that's the reason why it has some of the lowest levels of crime, I would disagree, and point out that Vermont does not have any large cities, and is virtually devoid of race related issues and relatively free of drug problems and other ghetto related issues."
Yes, murder is a social problem that gun laws cannot prevent, whether in NYC, DC, or London.
ra
-
Hmmm... beetle making my arguement for me... Not only does he agree that gun problems in the U.S. are not any worse than in limeyland (if you factor out race) but... he seems to feel that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens makes crime drop. Rural has nothing to do with crime as some of the rural areas of the states have very high crime rates. It would appear that U.S. citizens are not only capable of being responsible gun owners but.. that they are an asset.
Too bad that limey's can't be trusted with firearms... gonna be a squeak to live there when the immigaration and drugs catch up to here. Like I said... they are allways ten or twenty years behind us.
lazs
-
"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. "
Let's see here.... we can either arm more law abiding citizens while at the same time increasing the penalties for gun crime or.... we can do like england and take all the guns away from the law abiding making sure that only criminals have guns...
The article also said that the cops were urging "stricter" gunm control laws? How much stricter do you get than an outright ban?
lazs
-
lazs2: The article also said that the cops were urging "stricter" gunm control laws? How much stricter do you get than an outright ban?
Ban toy guns like they are trying to do in many US cities?
Suspend schoolchildren making a gun with their fingers?
Suspend school children drawing a gun on a piece of paper?
Confiscating guns from 12-inch tall toy soldiers?
Suggesting counseling for a student extressing interest to enroll in military?
Outlawing the gun-shaped tools?
Outlawing the word "gun"?
There is quite a lot of activity politicians can legislate or outlaw that GB has not tried yet. Since it's all directed towards law-abiding citizens and greatly inconveniences them, they notice it and believe "something is being done".
If you really go after criminals and, say, reduce crime rate by half, how many people would notice that? You get the same number of articles in newspapers dedicated to crime, opposing politicians would still claim not enough is being done, etc.
miko
-
But whereas Lazs might say that's the reason why it has some of the lowest levels of crime, I would disagree, and point out that Vermont does not have any large cities, and is virtually devoid of race related issues and relatively free of drug problems and other ghetto related issues.
Yup, that sounds pretty much like Lazs's point to me.
-
we can either arm more law abiding citizens
Lazs - wouldn't have made any difference here. It was a feud between two rival drug gangs.
-
Hmmm... beetle making my arguement for me... Not only does he agree that gun problems in the U.S. are not any worse than in limeyland (if you factor out race) but
According to the FBI, approx 5200 murders were committed by whites, which equates to a rate of 2.3 per 100,000, well above Britain's.
However, around a third of US murders are carried out by unkown criminals, so a proportion of them will also be white. White's committ approx half of known murders, so to be generous assume only one third of unkowns are whites. That gives around 7000 whites murders per year, a rate of 3 and bit per 100,000, which is two and half times Britain's.
The British murder rate is overstated because it includes negligent homicide, which the US doesn't.
Overall, just the whites in the US still have around 3 times the murder rate of everyone in Britain. If you were to take out the urban poor from the British figures, which is what you are doing with the US figures by excluding blacks, the difference would be even larger.
Too bad that limey's can't be trusted with firearms... gonna be a squeak to live there when the immigaration and drugs catch up to here.
According to the Home Office, there are approx 600,000 regular users of cocaine, crack and heroin in the UK. According to the White House, there are approx 3,000,000 regular users of crack, cocaine and heroin in the US.
That puts the percentage as similar between the 2 countries.
As to immigration, it is a major problem in Britain. In fact, the 2001 murder stats went up by about 8% because one group of 58 illegal immigrants suffocated to death in the back of a lorry as they were smuggled through customs.
-
wouldn't have made any difference here. It was a feud between two rival drug gangs.
The point is that tight gun laws made no difference here.
-
ra
The point is that tight gun laws made no difference here.
That isn't a point at all. To reuse the motoring analogy, that's like pulling a guy over for running a red light, and then saying that because speed was not a factor in that particular incident, that the speed limit along that stretch of road is ineffective and should be abolished.
-
analogys are always wrong, if you gona talk guns, talk guns , you wanna talk cars , talk cars
-
To reuse the motoring analogy, that's like pulling a guy over for running a red light, and then saying that because speed was not a factor in that particular incident, that the speed limit along that stretch of road is ineffective and should be abolished.
There's no need to reuse the motoring analogy, it was unconvincing the first time, too.
To say that gun crime would have increased at an even faster rate if gun laws had not be tightened is utter speculation, the kind of fallback position a politician would take. One could just as easily say that handing a .44 to every citizen would reduce the gun crime rate to zero.
But to say that tighter gun laws did not prevent an increase in gun crime is fact.
We see the same thing here in the US over and over, where states and municipalities tweek their gun laws from time to time. There has never been any evidence that loosening gun laws leads to an increase in gun crime, or that tightening gun laws leads to a reduction. It's the crime, not the gun, and unfortunately easy answers don't work, something no politician will ever admit.
ra
-
It's an undeniable fact that Britain has had very strict gun laws for years, and has a very low rate of gun crime. It also has a very low murder rate.
That's despite the fact Britain has a very high crime rate overall.
-
ra/john9001 - well sorry you didn't like my analogy. But once again, I note that there is a sense of proportion lacking from yonder side of pond.
America sees many thousands of gun deaths every year - many more than in England or in any other unarmed society, and more than 300,000 in the past 25 years. This tally is dismissed by the gun nuts of the US as "a small price worth paying for the continued right to bear arms", or a "pittance", to quote you know who. In Britain we've never had more than 100 gun murders in any year. But then when we have a tragedy like the hair salon case, in which two, yes TWO people were killed, those same people are jumping up and down saying that our gun control "doesn't work". :confused:
I never said it was perfect, and in my view we need more police/enforcement - that was the conclusion reached in that Telegraph editorial whose link I provided above. But say what you like about gun control law. If I had been sleeping with a loaded .44 Magnum under my pillow, it would not have prevented the hair salon tragedy.
You started two new threads about our gun control laws being a failure, as a result of TWO deaths. With thousands of murders in the US each year, are you, by the same logic, saying that the US laws against murder have been a total failure? Should those laws be repealed?
-
I have a quicke question to Americans. Please be honest in answering it.
Even emotionally unstable morons have a right to own a gun. Assume you have one of these as a neighbor, and there's a dispute. Would you not be worried that this guy would be so upset he'd get his gun and a shootout would result? Had he not had a gun, he'd punched you on the face and that would be it.
This is what I fear about releasing guns wide open - that emotionally charged situations that leave someone with a black eye today would end up with someone with a bullet to the head tomorrow. It's clear from statistics that a good deal of gun related deaths is caused by emotional distress rather than pure cold calculation.
And that's about the only think I got against an utterly free gun owernship policy. IMHO, it shouldn't be impossible to get a gun, but one should have to go through a certification process - like with cars. You get a drivers license before you get to drive, so you don't needlessly endanger other people. if the same applied for guns people would be able to get one and in the process some education on how to handle, store etc it.
-
The point is, if the emotionally unstable neighbor wants you dead, the lack of a gun isn't going to stop it from happening. There's as much a chance you'll wake up in the middle of the night with the neighbor standing over your bed with an axe.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I never knew that Vermont was the state with the most relaxed gun laws. But whereas Lazs might say that's the reason why it has some of the lowest levels of crime, I would disagree, and point out that Vermont does not have any large cities, and is virtually devoid of race related issues and relatively free of drug problems and other ghetto related issues.
Check out Vermont's crime rate per capita.
Also note that Vermont borders a state(N.Y.)with one of the highest crime rates.
-
You started two new threads about our gun control laws being a failure, as a result of TWO deaths.
I call it a failure because it has not prevented the murder rate from climbing. UK citizens agreed to have some liberty taken away from them, and they have nothing to show for it. Certainly if murder rates had declined you'd be calling the gun laws a success.
With thousands of murders in the US each year, are you, by the same logic, saying that the US laws against murder have been a total failure? Should those laws be repealed?
This analogy is convoluted to the point of sounding like quantum physics. If there was no law against murder, the murder rate would be zero by definition. We are talking about gun laws, and their effectiveness in controlling crime. A law against owning guns is sold to the public as a way to reduce murder, and it fails every time. Some of the areas in the US with the highest gun murder rates have gun laws which are stricter than those in the UK. Also, a generation ago all crime in the UK was lower than in the US, now only murder rate rernains lower, and it is climbing despite strict new gun laws.
Even emotionally unstable morons have a right to own a gun. Assume you have one of these as a neighbor, and there's a dispute. Would you not be worried that this guy would be so upset he'd get his gun and a shootout would result? Had he not had a gun, he'd punched you on the face and that would be it.
Short answer, I'm not worried about it, and I don't know anyone who is. Granted, we are used to high rates of murder (mostly from the big cities), so maybe when we read in the news about some nut using a gun to kill his office mates, we don't panic. I assume many if not most people in my town own firearms, and I assume some of them are 'unstable'. I do not fear gun crime at all, and on those rare occassions where there is a gun crime in this area it is usually by a criminal with an illegally owned weapon, not by a law-abiding citizen who flips out. If you can't trust your fellow citizens, no law can help you.
ra
-
Originally posted by StSanta
I have a quicke question to Americans. Please be honest in answering it.
Even emotionally unstable morons have a right to own a gun. Assume you have one of these as a neighbor, and there's a dispute. Would you not be worried that this guy would be so upset he'd get his gun and a shootout would result?
Maybe.But I guarantee that I will never be worried about anyone threatening me at my own front door with a knife.
-
nash... I believe that if you take out the black on black murder in the U.S. that the overall murder rate is about the same, per capita, in the U.S. as in limeyland.. It matters not what tool is used except.... when firearms are legal and easy to come by.. and... there are no special penalties for using them in a criminal manner then... they become the tool of choice for murder. But... since they are out there they also prevent a huge amount of crime so...
while the U.S. (excepting black on black) has about the same per capita murder rate as limeyland they have lower rates of other crimes because their citizens are much more free to defend themselves and others with firearm. There are anywhere from 1-3 million crimes prevented by firearms in the U.S. every year. Crimes that are quite common in england, like "hot" burglaries, hardly exist here.
Soo... the best of both worlds would be very liberal right to carry laws and.... tougher penalties for actual crime with firearms. The law abiding would be armed and the criminal wouldn't be. Being deprived of the tools needed to defend yourself from violent criminals is not freedom.
lazs
lazs
-
stsanta. I would be very cautious confronting anyone... especially at their home. But to answer your question... No. I am not the least bit worried. What you are talking about is every bit as rare as if the guy tried to run you down or beat you to death or chopped you up with an axe. There is no law against being insane in the U.S. but there are laws against owning a gun if you are. Certainly they don't allways work but that has nothing to do with the gun itself.
I do feel safer tho knowing that burglers know that there are about half the people in the neighborhood who are armed. The result of that is that we have very few "hot" burglaries in the U.S. Criminals are not brave. Some are crazy... some get shot every year.
lazs
-
Sorry guys I'm not going to go over this yet again. ra, it is quite fatuous to say that if there were no law against murder, the murder rate would be zero. Murder is still murder, whether there's a law against it or not. My question was that - a question, not an analogy. I think you're just in here to troll/argue/bait - or whatever the vogue word is for what you're doing.
So long, guys. This thread is dead, and I'm outta here.
Toodle-pip. :D
-
There's as much a chance you'll wake up in the middle of the night with the neighbor standing over your bed with an axe.
Now there's a bedtime story for the kids!
-
Yes, and with some of the kids I deal with, don't doubt for a second the thought has occurred to me...
-
Look at what the Brits are saying in the talking point section of the BBS
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2624539.stm
A lot of the people seem to realise that gun laws do not effect the ability of criminals to get and use guns.The "Beet1e" types are not in the majority it seems......
A couple of Beet1e types posted, here's one:
Owning a gun implies an intent to commit murder. Make the penalty for ownership fifteen years, and introduce an aggressive stop-and-search campaign in affected areas. I suspect living the "gangsta" lifestyle will become suddenly unfashionable
...... carry on
-
nuke... that guy is addmitting that gun laws are useless... it is the penalty that stops crime not the availability. Make the penalty as the guy describes but... allow law abiding citizens the right to own and carry firearms. If you commit a a crime with one welll.... then the penalty needs to be severe...
lazs
-
In Britain we've never had more than 100 gun murders in any year
Then why ban guns after one nut killed a a few people in a school in 1996?
The Gun ban will not change your murder rate regardless, and it appears that it will not change your gun murder rate either.
-
....oh, and this clueless post from BBC thread
These deaths were apparently caused by rival gangs who thought they had to be armed for their own defence. This illustrates perfectly why ordinary citizens should NOT be armed.
Julie, UK
............. um, yeah...I see her point
-
nash... I believe that if you take out the black on black murder in the U.S. that the overall murder rate is about the same, per capita, in the U.S. as in limeyland..
while the U.S. (excepting black on black) has about the same per capita murder rate as limeyland
The figures say otherwise. White Americans kill each other about 3 times as often as ALL groups in Britain do.
-
Murder is still murder, whether there's a law against it or not.
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, so if there is no law against it, there is no murder.
I don't blame you for bailing out, though.
ra
-
Their bans and prohibitions and licensing and "gun clubbing" and safes and locks and laws haven't affected their criminal element to any significant degree. It shows in their stats now and I'll wager it'll show even more so in their stats 5 years down the road.
What has worked... wherever it's been tried... is more effective punishment of those who use firearms incorrectly/illegally.
KC Star:
Homicides in Kansas City last year dropped to their lowest level since 1972, and officials attributed the decline to police programs that improve community relations and going after violent offenders.
That's just one example.
Cane killed Abel with a rock.
-
Interesting perspectives. One thing I've noted is that whenever we get some sociopath holed up in a police siege he seems to be waving around a blank firer or replica.. wouldn't be too keen on him getting his hands on a real firearm! (Plenty of them still do through illegal channels, of course.)
I'm studying in Nottingham and that I know of the city's seen two gun-related murders within the last three months; as I recall one was drugs-related and the other one involved the killing of a witness in a murder trial, five minutes walk from my flats. None of them were that worrying really, in that the target was predetermined.
(I love airsoft [wargaming with low-powered airguns, similar to paintballing] skirmishing, and own airsoft replicas of the Steyr TMP and Beretta 84 [though I keep and use these back home in Wales, not at Nottingham], but am not especially keen on the idea of real firearms. Pity about the damage to sporting competitions though)
Arming civilians might serve as a deterrant to criminals, but I believe it'd have a negative social effect in the UK - having your neighbours armed doesn't make them more approachable, put it that way. As such I'd treat it as a last resort only, and don't think it's at all likely in any case. I think for a party to even suggest it would be political suicide.
CCTV in city areas and housing is on the rise in the UK, and it'll be interesting to see what effects they have on crime. Personally I wouldn't be opposed to bringing back the death penalty for homicidal crimes due to the precision of current day technology.
-
An armed british populace is not warranted. They are stuck on a island for gods sake! There is no crime on islands, everyone knows that!
-
yep... ya gotta be pretty dumb to commit murder (or any crime that get's a lot of attention) on some tiny little island..
nashwan... are you sure? It seems that if between 40% and half of all murders are committed by non whites in America and you count Scotland (probly not for much longer tho) and Whales in the limey homicide figures then ther isn't much difference. And this on a tiny little island with no chance of escape and a population that is cowed by it's government.
lazs
-
Yes Lazs I am sure. The FBI says so.
-
Ok nash... what is the homicide rate for whites in America and the overall homicide rate for all of limeyland including Scotland and Whales? Seems I heard that Scotland was about twice Americas.. How bout Ireland?
lazs
-
Quick internet search: Scotland highest in UK at 28 per million
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/664845.stm
USA lowest in last 30 years at 60 per million (1999)
http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1999/10/18/p20s1.htm
-
yes santa but.... we are factoring out the black on black homicides that is over 40% in the U.S. that makes it about even but.... with The whites in the U.S. free to defend themselves and.... prevent 1-3 millon crimes a year using their firearms. Seems the limeys are getting screwed by the "home office". As the drug wars and immigration for limeyland increase so will the homicide rate. They are allways 10-20 years behind us.
lazs
-
Originally posted by StSanta
I have a quicke question to Americans. Please be honest in answering it.
Even emotionally unstable morons have a right to own a gun. Assume you have one of these as a neighbor, and there's a dispute. Would you not be worried that this guy would be so upset he'd get his gun and a shootout would result? Had he not had a gun, he'd punched you on the face and that would be it.
This is what I fear about releasing guns wide open - that emotionally charged situations that leave someone with a black eye today would end up with someone with a bullet to the head tomorrow. It's clear from statistics that a good deal of gun related deaths is caused by emotional distress rather than pure cold calculation.
And that's about the only think I got against an utterly free gun owernship policy. IMHO, it shouldn't be impossible to get a gun, but one should have to go through a certification process - like with cars. You get a drivers license before you get to drive, so you don't needlessly endanger other people. if the same applied for guns people would be able to get one and in the process some education on how to handle, store etc it.
Santa, this same neighbor could come at you with a 12" kitchen knife and kill you too.
I agree that many people should never own a gun, simply because they have poor self control (over emotional?) but then again, I believe many should not be allowed to drive a car either (Road Rage)
In the US, most states now require that the applicant for a gun license attend a special class to learn about basic gun handling and use.
Admittedly, these classes can be very lacking in content and quality. I recieved my gun license after sitting through a 2 hour class at the police station. However, I never handled a gun during this class. There was a written test at the end of the class, however it was a formality and had no real meaning. After leaving that class, I felt there was nothing of real value that would make me feel comfortable with some of the poeple that attended the class with me.
Personally, I think there should be a far more involved process for obtaining a firearms license, including actual testing with real guns and live ammo.
----
There are more cases that warrant allowing law-abiding people to carry guns.
1. Single women for self protection
2. Street gang violence against individuals
3. Protection from wild animals
Simply taking guns away from everyone will not in itself reduce crime. Rapists will still rape, Gangs will still fight and cause street violence. Some would argue that Rapists and Street gangs would do more crime, knowing that their intended victims have no potential of having a gun to defend themselves.
It all sounds rather hypothetical, but everyone can agree to disagree. In my opinion, an outright ban won't solve anything.
For the record, I own 2 hand guns, 2 rifles and a shot gun. I carry a hand gun with me everywhere it is legal to do so.
-
yes santa but.... we are factoring out the black on black homicides that is over 40% in the U.S. that makes it about even but.
In 2001, the FBI lists 5174 white murder suspects, 5521 black murder suspects, 4520 unkown murder suspects.
Assume less than half the unkown suspects are white, for about 40% of murders comitted by whites.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/xl/01tbl2-6.xls
Total number of murders for that year was 13,752.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/xl/01tbl2-5.xls
Say approx 6000 murders committed by whites.
The US has a population of 280,562,489 (July 2002 estimate) I don't the population change from 2001 to 2002 is that significant
Just over 77% are white
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
Total white population of US: 216,000,000
Murder rate by whites 2.77
Murders England and Wales (1998 figures from Interpol) 752
Murders Scotland (1998 Interpol) 95
Murders Northern Ireland (1996 Interpol. No newer figures available) 35 (Note some of these were terrorist murders)
Total number murders UK 882
Population UK 59,778,000
Murder rate UK 1.47
Even on these figures, which exclude a large proportion of the urban poor for America, (who committ far more crimes in any country, including Britain), the US comes out well ahead.
But wait, there's more!
The UK figures include manslaughter on the grounds of negligence, the US figures don't. I can't find the numbers of negligence manslaughter cases in the UK, but it's easy to find a great many cases in the news.
That will push the UK rate well down, and increase the difference between the US and UK rates.
-
Chase your tails all you like.
So far, the only approach that has significantly reduced homicide percentages per 100,000 population is more effective police operations and stiffer penalties for committing violent crime.
The data is there for those with their eyes open. Project Exile in Richmond, Project Cease Fire in Philadelphia, Chicago and Boston, and the recent decrease in violent crime in Kansas City.
"These firearms in the hands of criminals are what are perpetuating the violence," said Brandt Schenken of the Pittsburgh office of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. "We saw that there was a need to remove firearms from their hands. This is a renewed effort to reduce firearms violence."
Utterly brilliant. Amazing it took them so long to figure it out.
Of course, some places STILL haven't figured it out.
:D
Back to chasing your tails.
-
A story from the UK ... a typical reaction ... ban some more and the numbers still keep rising. Read the story for yourself.
Blair to issue sweeping new ban on 'lethal' replica guns
By Colin Brown and David Bamber
(Filed: 05/01/2003)
The Prime Minister will announce this week that sophisticated airguns which are being adapted to fire live bullets are to be banned as part of a "crackdown" on crime involving firearms.
Tony Blair's announcement, which follows the death of two teenage girls in a gun battle in Aston, Birmingham, last week, comes as new Home Office figures, obtained by The Telegraph, reveal that gun crime has reached record levels. They show that an average of 22 such crimes are committed every day - up from 13 a day when Labour came to power in 1997.
The statistics, to be released this week, will disclose that in the 12 months to April 2002 there were more than 8,200 incidents involving firearms. In the 12 months to April 1998, there were 4,903.
Many of the crimes are being committed with airguns manufactured to resemble real guns and which can be easily and quickly modified to fire live bullets.
Such guns, which are sold legally in their thousands, have been involved in a spate of murders, hold-ups and muggings. Scotland Yard says that 75 per cent of the guns it seizes on the streets are adapted air weapons, and senior commanders have been pressing the Government for action for some time.
Mr Blair will now follow their advice to outlaw such weapons. The Prime Minister, who returned to Downing Street last night from holiday in Egypt, is understood to be appalled at the rise in gun crime and, in particular, at the Birmingham shootings.
The ban will include realistic replica guns and collectors' guns which can be reactivated to fire live bullets. A senior minister said: "We want to stamp out gun crime. The Prime Minister will announce a ban on airguns that can be rebored to fire bullets."
Tomorrow David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, will announce that changes will be made to the Criminal Justice Bill to lay down a minimum sentence of five years' imprisonment for carrying an illegal weapon. He hopes this will stamp out the carrying of pistols as a "fashion accessory", a practice which ministers believe is prevalent among black teenagers.
Tarique Ghaffur, a Metropolitan Police assistant commissioner, said: "Guns are increasingly used just to make others 'respect' the gunholder."
Mr Blunkett is to hold a summit at the Home Office next Friday. Police chiefs, immigration officials, customs officers, Crown Prosecution Service lawyers and community leaders have been invited to discuss ways of tackling the problem and of identifying other gaps in the law that may require further legislation.
"We are going to close all the doors we can to gun crime," said a high-ranking Home Office official.
Mr Blunkett yesterday appealed for co-operation with the police from black families and witnesses of the fatal shooting of Charlene Ellis and Latisha Shakespear at a party in Birmingham.
"The thing that worries me about black-on-black crime is that without co-operation of the communities closest to those carrying and using guns, the police have an impossible task," he told The Telegraph. "I join with those who have appealed to the communities to play their part. This is an issue for us all, not just law enforcement agencies."
Witnesses afraid of intimidation by gangs would, if necessary, be protected with new identities, he said.
Mr Blunkett denied that the new laws were a "knee-jerk" reaction to public outrage at recent killings and shootings.
As an aside, 30 % of gun murders in Canada here are commited by Native Indians who represent 2% of the population. Banning Indians will do more to curb crime than banning guns will, and saying that is ABSURD, so why isn't it absurd to ban guns?