Guns of Brixton, Haringey and Tottenham: routine armed patrols

[likesfish]

but I feel that this should fall under the jurisdiction of the armed forces, perhaps the military police could work in conjuction to the regular police to carry out any armed operations

military police are more like psco's than real coppers plus there weapon handaling drills are far from awsome .

armed bloke in house police response negotiate negoatiate only use force as last response.

infantry response one section give covering fire
two section left flanking grenades then storm house bayonents fixed
not exactly a nuanced response

 

[tarannau]

Grenades on domestic patrols? You're a military fantasist knobber; make no mistake

 

[likesfish]

So i was over egging the point but a military response is not an armed police response and the whole ethos objective is totally diffrent.

 

[tarannau]

You still remain someone far too likely to wank over the possibility of holding firearms and military paraphernalia for comfort.

Just put down the copy of Soldier of Fortune and Babes with Submachine Guns Vol 4, OK?

 

[likesfish]

vol 4 was 'nt up to standard
bol 5 was back to the standard I've come to expect

 

[Azrael]

They're not directly comprable at all, as you know. A car's designed purpose isn't to efficiently inflict fatal damage to a living creature. In fact, they're fitted with devices to minimise that as a potential outcome of their use. And further have their use mediated through regulation to attempt assuring the same lack of fatalities.

Regulation doesn't prevent around 3,000 road deaths each year.[1] Well over double the annual murder toll. I doubt the dead or their families are too concerned with splitting hairs over a car's intended purpose. If we were serious and rational about saving lives with bans, we'd drastically reduce the availability of cars.

And to preempt any mention of bans on sport shooting. I'm not arguing in defence of that kneejerk post Dumblane ledglislation. I'm saying, In the UK, widespread gun ownership where they could be legally deployed with out unlocking 2 cabinets 20 yards from each other, wouldn't make it a safer place.

It would make it safer for people able to defend themselves. If it didn't make it safer in general, it's highly unlikely to make it more dangerous.

Old George was quite deranged** at times .

ETA : **Maybe not so much after all, just read lang rabbie's post. Well done for selective quoting Azrael, in common with your NRA lunatic mates it seems

All quoting is selective. It's only wrong if the meaning of the quote is deliberately changed. As I pointed out above, not only was my quote honest, the longer version actually helps my case.

I've only ever met a few members of the NRA, and all seemed hale and hearty, in addition to having a mature and respectful attitude to firearms. I'm arguing this from a British perspective. Your ad hominem looks like a bad case of hoplophobia.

 

[detective-boy]

I do not think that armed police officers was an appropriate response to that specific incident. The appropriate response was missed well before Mr De Menezes even arrived at the station, and that response should have been to detain him upon his exit from his building. If he was indeed a suicide bomber he would have had his bomb with him, it would in my opinion be unlikely that he was going to pick it up from another location on the way. Catching someone unawares coming from a tower block, in my lay opinion, would have been much easier to accomplish with much less likelyhood of anyone dying, police, perpertrator or civilians.

You clearly have no idea at all of what happened on that day. The moment of interception was not by choice but because of a sequence of events (some poor planning and preparation, some cock-ups, some inevitable). The actual plan was interception at an earlier stage.

But I still fail to understand how you can argue that a suspected suicide bomber should have been intercepted by unarmed officers. That is quite simply fucking insane.

And your comment that "it would in my opinion be unlikely ..." is foolishness personified. Even suicide bombers don't carry their bombs all the time ... And you can only act on what you know / believe to be the case at the time.

Make no mistake, I do believe that an armed response may be necessary in certain circumstances, but I feel that this should fall under the jurisdiction of the armed forces, perhaps the military police could work in conjuction to the regular police to carry out any armed operations.

That'll be the military who's strict Rules of Engagement prevent any friendly fire incidents happening ... ever ... anywhere ... will it? And again you betray your failure to understand in detail what actually happened on that day: any armed unit, police or otherwise, called in to the interception would have been in exactly the same position in terms of their knowledge and belief as the police one were and the outcome would have been just as likely to be the same.

There was no "gung-ho"-ness about what happened. To claim that there is is to distract from the very real cock-ups that did occur.

 

[Upchuck]

... coming from YOU

I'm no particular David Lammy fan either, but this sounds like a groundless, gossip based, insinuendo-leaning , conspiracy theory type smear .. a derailing smear at that.

Oh fuck off you petty child.

 

[8den]

Regulation doesn't prevent around 3,000 road deaths each year.[1] Well over double the annual murder toll. I doubt the dead or their families are too concerned with splitting hairs over a car's intended purpose. If we were serious and rational about saving lives with bans, we'd drastically reduce the availability of cars.

Thats a fucking idiotic comparison, people don't buy cars with the express intention of killing people with them.


And yes some people own guns without the express intention of killing people. People who like target practice can happily use a '22 or birdshot.

It would make it safer for people able to defend themselves. If it didn't make it safer in general, it's highly unlikely to make it more dangerous.

Yes because a drunken argument between two blokes is going to end up with a happier ending if they both have concealed firearms.

 

[8den]

military police are more like psco's than real coppers plus there weapon handaling drills are far from awsome .

if anything what NI should have told you that using the military in a police action leads to dead bodies and zero accountability. Jean Charles De Mendez? How about Bloody Sunday?

 

[Azrael]

Thats a fucking idiotic comparison, people don't buy cars with the express intention of killing people with them.

As I said above, I doubt relatives or friends are hung up on intent. Especially with regard to those accidents caused by selfish drunks who disregard the risk to innocent life.

A gun is morally neutral. If used to kill in self-defence against a robber or a rapist, it's a tool for good. If used by a criminal, it's a tool for evil. Just like a car in the hands of a drunk driver, someone in the grips of "road rage", or a lout driving at pedestrians for kicks.

And yes some people own guns without the express intention of killing people. People who like target practice can happily use a '22 or birdshot.

Indeed they do, and many have had their guns seized by the state in case they start murdering school children. Actually, if you oppose the use of guns for self-defence, this makes sense. Sacrificing target shooting is a small price to pay to safeguard innocent life. To be consistent, people who want to shoot for sport must oppose the arguments that underpin widespread gun control.

Yes because a drunken argument between two blokes is going to end up with a happier ending if they both have concealed firearms.

How about fighting self-stupefaction instead of something a drunk can misuse? If Mr Drunk wants to kill Mr Drunk, he already has means at his disposal, from knives to a beer glass. Or a boot. Oddly, Vermont isn't over-run with drunks gunning each other down.

Perhaps if drunks knew their bravardo could prove fatal, they'd check it. Your argument is indicative of the infantilisation that banning firearms represents. Most gun control advocates fail to note the authoritarianism that underpins their argument. Liberty rests on trust and self-restraint. If we can't be trusted to carry guns, we can't be trusted to be free. Creatures so feeble require ID cards, endless searches and the like.

Personally, I think its high time we grew up again.

 

[Azrael]

Hmmmm, obvious point I missed. If we must all be restricted in case we get tanked and murder one another, we should ban alcohol itself.

 

[lambethshout]

Lambeth Community-Police Consultative Group public meeting tonight
at 6pm at Karibu Centre, 7 Gresham Rd, SW9 7PH
(round the corner from Brixton Police Station, a few doors down from Brixton Mosque).

CO19 & CO5 will be there to debate some of the issues on this thread. Public meeting, all welcome.
The engagement project is still running (how Lambeth people have their say on crime, policing, keeping safe) so I'll be there, too.

Has anyone here expressed their views on this elsewhere? Public meetings (and online boards) aren't everyone's cup of tea - where do Lambeth people go to have their say on this kind of thing - and to get a reply from the people responsible? Let me know (here or by private message).

 

[William of Walworth]

Oh fuck off you petty child.

Put up or shut up about David Lammy then, exactly what were you implying?

Without substantiating your earlier point you're just smearing, that was my point.

As I said, I'm no particular fan of DL's, but I don't like groundless conspiracy-smears either, and your track record here on those doesn't hold any water worth shit.

 

[William of Walworth]

Old George was quite deranged** at times .

ETA : **Maybe not so much after all, just read lang rabbie's post. Well done for selective quoting Azrael, in common with your NRA lunatic mates it seems

Regulation doesn't prevent around 3,000 road deaths each year.[1] Well over double the annual murder toll. I doubt the dead or their families are too concerned with splitting hairs over a car's intended purpose. If we were serious and rational about saving lives with bans, we'd drastically reduce the availability of cars.

It would make it safer for people able to defend themselves. If it didn't make it safer in general, it's highly unlikely to make it more dangerous.
All quoting is selective. It's only wrong if the meaning of the quote is deliberately changed. As I pointed out above, not only was my quote honest, the longer version actually helps my case.

I've only ever met a few members of the NRA, and all seemed hale and hearty, in addition to having a mature and respectful attitude to firearms. I'm arguing this from a British perspective. Your ad hominem looks like a bad case of hoplophobia.

Hoplophobia, had to google that, but it's just a smear really isn't it? And not just of me but of the vast majority of UK based people, who in ALL credible polls, show no desire at all to see guns issued to the citizenry -- are you accusing them of irrational fear of inanimate objects? Or more accurately, a very rational fear of having the UK 'homicide' rate increase (hugely!!!) to that of the gun-plentiful US?

You're in an extemely small political minority on this (not just on Urban either) if you want to make the UK more like the US on guns, and you know it. And you'll never get anywhere with approving references to the NRA, see below.

So drop the hoplophobia idea, I could just as accurately accuse you of being a gun fetishist ...

I disagree completely that the full Orwell quote substantiates your original point when you selected what you thought was the most convenient bit of it. Lang rabbie, in supplying the full monty, IMO made a pretty good job of demolishing you there so take it up with him maybe.

I also disagree that NRA are anything other than extremists in terms of group ideology. From a UK based perspective, for most people here, the American NRA are correctly seen as absolutely barking, and even if their British fellow travellers happen to be more moderate publicly, I suspect that's only because of basic political pragmatism -- argue for full US-NRA approved 'gun freedom' for all citizens and they'd quite rightly be thought of by most here as lunatics, so I guess any UK NRA types would have to tone down their real views, tone down the real NRA ideology, to get any kind of hearing here at all.

If you've encountered NRA types who you see as individually sane and civilised, that surely says as much about you as anything else. Maybe they are as people generally. But their politics on guns, if they identify at all with the NRA, are mad.

Anyway though, I've disobeyed my own instructions to myself. I never wanted to get into a 'gun freedom' debate.

And in any case this thread was never originally meant to be about 'the peoples' right to bear arms' at all -- those parts of this thread including this post are essentially derails IMO. Deliberate derails by some?

 

[likesfish]

we did have the right to own arms for self defence and these rights were stolen from us in 1920 because of a fear of revoultion

 

[William of Walworth]

we did have the right to own arms for self defence and these rights were stolen from us in 1920 because of a fear of revoultion

Highly objective description

 

[ericjarvis]

It would make it safer for people able to defend themselves. If it didn't make it safer in general, it's highly unlikely to make it more dangerous.

For Dog's sake don't you even vaguely understand the basics of how gun control works?

The idea isn't that strict regulation prevents criminals from obtaining guns. That's an insane idea that only works if you accept the right wing fantasy that it's easy to instantly identify criminals on sight, and that the population can be permanently and clearly divided into criminals and the law abiding. What gun control legislation does is make it easy to identify anyone with a gun as being a criminal. It means the police don't have to routinely deal with gun owners on the basis that they may or may not be a criminal. A huge risk for the police, and something that makes gun use more likely not less likely.

Because of this inability to understand the basic mechanisms of how things work you can completely dismiss pretty much ALL of the cases for wider gun ownership made on the basis of simple assumption and extrapolation.

The facts are these. When gun control legislation is tightened or lessened there is a very clear pattern on what happens. With increased gun control there is consistently a statistically significant decrease in the rates of violent crimes in urban areas, and a marginal increase in the crime rates is most rural areas. When concealed carry laws and such are passed then there's an equally consistent pattern of increasing violent crime in urban areas and a decrease in rural areas.

The most likely mechanism is that in rural areas it's possible to readily identify when somebody is a threat. In urban areas it isn't. So more guns in urban areas inevitably increases the potential for violent incidents, whereas in rural areas there may well be greater personal security.

If you don't start from the basis of real and objective evidence you just end up like John Lott, twisting the facts until they fit your assumptions, and constantly repeating the same discredited bullshit. If you don't attempt to at least engage with the real world you end up like the deranged idiots who think that preventing somebody in rural Scotland from clay pigeon shooting will somehow miraculously prevent teenagers shooting each other in Peckham.

We need a basic rule. Before anyone pontificates on gun control they should first study the subject for at least three months, looking first at the real raw data before looking at any propaganda. If that happened there could be an intelligent debate about the subject. As it stands the vast majority of discussion is pure nonsense.

 

[tendril]

You clearly have no idea at all of what happened on that day. The moment of interception was not by choice but because of a sequence of events (some poor planning and preparation, some cock-ups, some inevitable). The actual plan was interception at an earlier stage.

But I still fail to understand how you can argue that a suspected suicide bomber should have been intercepted by unarmed officers. That is quite simply fucking insane.

Well, the one time that an armed response was used to apprehend a suspected suicide bomber it ended up with a man innocent of any suicide bombing intentions being held down whilst he was SHOT IN THE HEAD SEVEN FUCKING TIMES. So clearly an armed response was not justifiable. No suicide bomber was apprehended by that specific operation.

And your comment that "it would in my opinion be unlikely ..." is foolishness personified. Even suicide bombers don't carry their bombs all the time ... And you can only act on what you know / believe to be the case at the time.

No, they probably don't carry their bombs with them all the time, but the police operation was carried out with the assumption that he was a suicide bomber and was on his way to bomb. Therefore it would be reasonable to assume that he would have his bomb with him. If he did not have his bomb on him then he was no threat.

That'll be the military who's strict Rules of Engagement prevent any friendly fire incidents happening ... ever ... anywhere ... will it? And again you betray your failure to understand in detail what actually happened on that day: any armed unit, police or otherwise, called in to the interception would have been in exactly the same position in terms of their knowledge and belief as the police one were and the outcome would have been just as likely to be the same.

There was no "gung-ho"-ness about what happened. To claim that there is is to distract from the very real cock-ups that did occur.

I don't for a moment believe that the military make no mistakes.. but at least they are trained in the use of weapons from day one. Armed police don't get a gun on their first day in the force... they must pas the criteria for prosecution of the law before they can go for weapons training.

 

[Pickman's model]

You clearly have no idea at all of what happened on that day. The moment of interception was not by choice but because of a sequence of events (some poor planning and preparation, some cock-ups, some inevitable). The actual plan was interception at an earlier stage.

But I still fail to understand how you can argue that a suspected suicide bomber should have been intercepted by unarmed officers. That is quite simply fucking insane.

And your comment that "it would in my opinion be unlikely ..." is foolishness personified. Even suicide bombers don't carry their bombs all the time ... And you can only act on what you know / believe to be the case at the time.


That'll be the military who's strict Rules of Engagement prevent any friendly fire incidents happening ... ever ... anywhere ... will it? And again you betray your failure to understand in detail what actually happened on that day: any armed unit, police or otherwise, called in to the interception would have been in exactly the same position in terms of their knowledge and belief as the police one were and the outcome would have been just as likely to be the same.

There was no "gung-ho"-ness about what happened. To claim that there is is to distract from the very real cock-ups that did occur.

and how would you explain the killing of diarmuid o'neill, when he was following police instructions and trying to surrender?

 

[Azrael]

Hoplophobia, had to google that, but it's just a smear really isn't it?

You mean like "deranged fucking lunatic" and "NRA lunatic"? Like that, Mr Pot?

As for the polls, they also want terrorist suspects interrogated for weeks without a lawyer. (Watch BBC4's Spiral to see where that lands us.) You reliance on populism is selective, and proves nothing. The polls say what they do about the right to armed self-defence because the argument is almost never made in the public sphere.

You're in an extemely small political minority on this (not just on Urban either) if you want to make the UK more like the US on guns, and you know it. And you'll never get anywhere with approving references to the NRA, see below.

Actually, I want British policy on guns to be like, erm, the previous British policy on guns. Where do you think America got the right to bear arms from? I don't attack or defend people (not an organisation) based on the advantage it'd bring me. Awfully cynical attitude, no?

So drop the hoplophobia idea, I could just as accurately accuse you of being a gun fetishist ...

If I salivated over Janes while polishing my gun, while holed up in my bunker surrounded by guns and ammunition, you could. If I don't own a single gun, a gun license, or any pictures of guns, you, erm, couldn't.

I disagree completely that the full Orwell quote substantiates your original point when you selected what you thought was the most convenient bit of it. Lang rabbie, in supplying the full monty, IMO made a pretty good job of demolishing you there so take it up with him maybe.

I said allowing private gun ownership is a mark of trust in citizens. Orwell said the exact same thing. How does the reference to the Home Guard change this?

From a UK based perspective, for most people here, the American NRA are correctly seen as absolutely barking ...

Perhaps that says something about the British mindset. (Not that I'm interested in defending the NRA, but there are far more "extreme" firearms organisations out there.) It helps convince me I'm on the right side of the issue when the opposition scream hysterically about "madness", and in short, object to me even holding the opinion I hold.

Deliberate derails by some?

I started on a more subtle issue about parity between the police and the citizen. If the subsequent focus on the NRA gun-politcs says anything, it isn't about me.

The idea [of gun control] isn't that strict regulation prevents criminals from obtaining guns.

Tell that to the politicians who rave about "getting guns off the street" and "out of the hands of criminals".

What gun control legislation does is make it easy to identify anyone with a gun as being a criminal. It means the police don't have to routinely deal with gun owners on the basis that they may or may not be a criminal. A huge risk for the police, and something that makes gun use more likely not less likely.

This is how it was in Britain before 1920, was it?

Your off-the-peg argument makes no sense.

The current law does nothing to protect the police from criminal gun-owners. A concealed carry law can stipulate that all people stopped on suspicion of a crime reveal and hand over their weapon.

With increased gun control there is consistently a statistically significant decrease in the rates of violent crimes in urban areas, and a marginal increase in the crime rates is most rural areas. When concealed carry laws and such are passed then there's an equally consistent pattern of increasing violent crime in urban areas and a decrease in rural areas.

Stats, please.

And what do you mean by "gun control"? I'm all for gun control in the proper sense of the word, where the government regulates ownership and carry, forbidding criminals and unqualified people from owning or carrying guns. What you support is actually gun prohibition.

 

[ericjarvis]

The idea isn't that strict regulation prevents criminals from obtaining guns.

Tell that to the politicians who rave about "getting guns off the street" and "out of the hands of criminals".

Just because people talk complete bollocks in favour of one side of an argument doesn't mean that utter garbage works as an argument against them.

That's an insane idea that only works if you accept the right wing fantasy that it's easy to instantly identify criminals on sight, and that the population can be permanently and clearly divided into criminals and the law abiding. What gun control legislation does is make it easy to identify anyone with a gun as being a criminal. It means the police don't have to routinely deal with gun owners on the basis that they may or may not be a criminal. A huge risk for the police, and something that makes gun use more likely not less likely.

This is how it was in Britain before 1920, was it?

Your off-the-peg argument makes no sense.

Why 1920? There has been legislation controlling guns in the UK since the early 19th century. The 1920 Firearms Act was introduced partly to deal with police officers being shot, mostly in Ireland. Incidentally the homicide rate in the UK fell after 1920, and didn't return to the same level until 1970. Between 1920 and 1930 the homicide rate in the USA increased from 0.68 per million to 0.88pm, whilst it fell in the UK from 0.83pm to 0.75pm.

I'm not claiming the 1920 Firearms Act was responsible for a decrease in the number of murders, just that there are a fuck of a lot of people publishing lies on this subject, usually assuming that anything that assumes crime inevitably increases will be believed by most people regardless of how untrue the statement is. Check facts. Don't build your argument on propaganda, because some of us bother to look up the real data.

The current law does nothing to protect the police from criminal gun-owners. A concealed carry law can stipulate that all people stopped on suspicion of a crime reveal and hand over their weapon.

You still don't seem to get the point. As it stands most of the illegally owned guns in the UK are hidden away, not being carried around. That means that mostly the police already know that a criminal is armed with a gun before they arrive on the scene. They don't have to treat every suspect as potentially armed with a gun, and whenever they encounter somebody who has been seen with a handgun they can be certain they are dealing with a criminal and not somebody who lawfully owns the gun.

The only way a concealed carry law would help matters is if it were possible to immediately identify a criminal by their appearance. Otherwise it simply means that criminals can carry guns around all the time rather than hiding them away until they know they want to use them, and it means that in the crucial first few seconds when the police discover that somebody is armed they have no idea whether or not they are dealing with a criminal.

With increased gun control there is consistently a statistically significant decrease in the rates of violent crimes in urban areas, and a marginal increase in the crime rates is most rural areas. When concealed carry laws and such are passed then there's an equally consistent pattern of increasing violent crime in urban areas and a decrease in rural areas.

Stats, please.

And what do you mean by "gun control"? I'm all for gun control in the proper sense of the word, where the government regulates ownership and carry, forbidding criminals and unqualified people from owning or carrying guns. What you support is actually gun prohibition.

The stats are readily available by comparing the BCJ stats from the USA on a state by state basis with the various changes in gun legislation. I'm sick and tired of constantly digging them up an analysing them every time this subject comes up simply because everyone else is too fucking lazy and simply takes on trust the propaganda from their own side. Go do it yourselves. When somebody makes a claim go and check the facts.

A simple example is to compare the violent crime statistics for Vermont, California, Washington DC, Missisippi, New York, Florida and Alabama, with the various changes in gun laws there over the last 50 years. The great advantage of that is that there's good data available, plenty of legislative changes in each direction, and it's pretty easy to work out which stats are for predominantly urban or rural areas.

I do not support gun prohibition. Or even the current ridiculous level of gun paranoia in the UK. I support debate that is based on objective evidence and not simply on bullshit based on assumptions and other people's propaganda. Incidentally you give yourself away on that one by using the 1920 date. It's a favourite of the NRA that has been taken up by Hitchens and a few other right wing nuts in the UK. I've never seen the idea of some sort of bucolic crime free pre 1920 Britain in any context other than pro gun propaganda.

 

[likesfish]

I
The army don't let you on the range day one rather more cleaning, marching up and down in straight lines and polishing boots
most of the army are not steely eyed dealers of death and even those that are the basic mode is threat mallet it with whatever to hand not a threat don't kill it.
The weapon handaling skills and marksmanship training may be appilcable to armed police but the mindset and tactics are not.

An ex squaddie like a hunter or civillian target shooter should be comfatable and confident with handaling a fire arm certain police forces won't allow ex military to go forward for firearms training or allow firearm cetificate holders either because they may be "gun nuts"
same police force allows its shooters less than a 1000 rounds a year to practice with
that sounds a lot but isn't really somebody expected to shoot in highly stressful situations should be putting that amount of ammo down range once a month as a minimum
back in the 90s a TA unit had several sussex armed plod join just so they could get range time

 

[Azrael]

Why 1920? There has been legislation controlling guns in the UK since the early 19th century.

The 1920 Act is hugely significant because it handed control of firearms to the police and the Home Office, which could change the conditions for granting a gun license at will, without recourse to parliament.

This danger was born out in 1937, when the Home Secretary said, "As a general rule, applications to possess firearms for house or personal protection should be discourage on the grounds that firearms cannot be regarded as a subitable means of protection and may be a source of danger." Compare to the 1920 guidelines, which said, "[there is] a good reason for having a revolver if a person lives in a solitary house, where protection against thieves and burglars is essential, or has been exposed to definite threats to life on account of his performance of some public duty." The 1937 rule was enforced after the Second World War. (Joyce Lee Malcolm, Guns and Violence: the English Experience, pp. 155-6.)

The drop in homicide is only relevant if those crimes were caused by legally held weapons.

Don't build your argument on propaganda, because some of us bother to look up the real data.

I have looked at the data, thanks. It's why I changed my mind on the issue. I'm suspicious of arguments that rest on the assumption of superior knowledge. It tends to blow up in their face.

You still don't seem to get the point. As it stands most of the illegally owned guns in the UK are hidden away, not being carried around.

How on earth do you know this? They are, by their nature, hidden and unrecorded! Are you claiming omniscience?

The only way a concealed carry law would help matters is if it were possible to immediately identify a criminal by their appearance. Otherwise it simply means that criminals can carry guns around all the time rather than hiding them away until they know they want to use them, and it means that in the crucial first few seconds when the police discover that somebody is armed they have no idea whether or not they are dealing with a criminal.

Concealed carry laws ban convicted criminals from carrying weapons. It would be no more legal for them then than it is now.

When somebody makes a claim go and check the facts.

Not how it works. You make a claim; you provide the facts to back yourself up, as I did earlier in the thread.

To say nothing of the bad manners in asking your opponent to do your own work for you, unless you specify which data you're working from, we end up singing from different hymn sheets.

I've never seen the idea of some sort of bucolic crime free pre 1920 Britain in any context other than pro gun propaganda.

Inventing straw men like "bucolic, crime-free, pre-1920 Britain" is another sign of a weak argument. Perhaps the 1920 date is picked because it's significant?

 

[ericjarvis]

The 1920 Act is hugely significant because it handed control of firearms to the police and the Home Office, which could change the conditions for granting a gun license at will, without recourse to parliament.

This danger was born out in 1937, when the Home Secretary said, "As a general rule, applications to possess firearms for house or personal protection should be discourage on the grounds that firearms cannot be regarded as a subitable means of protection and may be a source of danger." Compare to the 1920 guidelines, which said, "[there is] a good reason for having a revolver if a person lives in a solitary house, where protection against thieves and burglars is essential, or has been exposed to definite threats to life on account of his performance of some public duty." The 1937 rule was enforced after the Second World War. (Joyce Lee Malcolm, Guns and Violence: the English Experience, pp. 155-6.)

The drop in homicide is only relevant if those crimes were caused by legally held weapons.

I have looked at the data, thanks. It's why I changed my mind on the issue. I'm suspicious of arguments that rest on the assumption of superior knowledge. It tends to blow up in their face.

How on earth do you know this? They are, by their nature, hidden and unrecorded! Are you claiming omniscience?

Concealed carry laws ban convicted criminals from carrying weapons. It would be no more legal for them then than it is now.

Not how it works. You make a claim; you provide the facts to back yourself up, as I did earlier in the thread.

To say nothing of the bad manners in asking your opponent to do your own work for you, unless you specify which data you're working from, we end up singing from different hymn sheets.

Inventing straw men like "bucolic, crime-free, pre-1920 Britain" is another sign of a weak argument. Perhaps the 1920 date is picked because it's significant?

You were the one asking how things were in Britain before 1920. That legislation was enacted partly as a result of shootings of police officers.

As for only homicides due to legally owned weapons being relevant, that's utter toss, and a moment's thought should show you that it is. If possessing a gun offers some protection then it does so against legal or illegal weapons. If wider gun ownership in some way reduces danger then there should be a rise in violent crime and homicide rates when gun control legislation is enacted. If gun control legislation is followed by a drop in the rate of homicide and/or violent crime then the facts do not fit your theory.

Ask any active police officer how gangs use guns and knives. They'll tell you that the guns are stashed away, either in hiding places, or often looked after by children who are unlikely to be suspected of having a weapon. Most of those actively involved in gun crime don't routinely carry a gun. That's because simply carrying the weapon is a crime in itself. If it becomes legal to carry a hand gun for protection then the situation changes. Maybe you know better than the police. I'm taking their word for it in this case since nobody else is in a position to know much about it other than the owners of illegal guns who probably aren't keen to explain things.

Again you seem to believe there is some sort of clear and permanent divide between "criminals" who mustn't be allowed guns, and other people who can be allowed them. The trouble with that is that it doesn't reflect the real threats at all. Criminals don't walk around with a large badge on so that they can instantly be identified. Criminals are not born criminal and others born incapable of crime. Making it illegal for only convicted criminals to carry guns doesn't make the world a safer place unless you can pretty much instantly identify who is and isn't a criminal, and if you can ensure that anyone that might later use a gun for crime is already convicted before that happens.

For US crime statistics I have usually used This. Unfortunately there isn't a similarly authoritative site covering the dates, location and nature of gun control legislations, so they pretty much have to be looked up one at a time.

Looking up some of the previous posts I've made elsenet over the years.

Responding to a claim (taken from NRA publicity) that a concealed carry law passed in Florida in 1987 had reduced crime.

"violent crime rate Florida 1986 - 1,036.5 - USA 1986 - 617.7
violent crime rate Florida 1988 - 1,117.7 - USA 1986 - 637.2
violent crime rate Florida 1990 - 1,244.3 - USA 1986 - 731.8

only from 1991 the violent crime rate in Florida begins to drop, though
not as fast as the national rate"

I've been doing this for a decade and I'm sick and tired of trawling through it all to debunk the constant barrage of balderdash that the NRA and fellow travellers spew out. All I ask is that when people read these daft claims (from either side of the debate) they actually go and check the accuracy of them before repeating the garbage ad inifinitum.

 

[detective-boy]

Well, the one time that an armed response was used to apprehend a suspected suicide bomber it ended up with a man innocent of any suicide bombing intentions being held down whilst he was SHOT IN THE HEAD SEVEN FUCKING TIMES.

I cannot believe that you are so fucking stupid as to believe that that was the one and only operation involving armed officers ever used to apprehend a suspected suicide bomber ... There have been fucking dozens of such operations (including several related the the very same investigation ...).

So clearly an armed response was not justifiable. No suicide bomber was apprehended by that specific operation.

There was a bad outcome ... so it was clearly never justified in the first place. Jesus fucking wept, have you been reading the fuckwittery book?

If he did not have his bomb on him then he was no threat.

'Course not dear. They'd never think of carrying a gun or anything like that. Never. Be against their moral code and all that ...

 

[Azrael]

You were the one asking how things were in Britain before 1920. That legislation was enacted partly as a result of shootings of police officers.

Are you referring to the Siege of Sidney Street and the Tottenham Outrage? How did the 1920 Act protect the police from illegal weapons? In the Tottenham Outrage, the police borrowed weapons from passers-by to defend themselves!

If wider gun ownership in some way reduces danger then there should be a rise in violent crime and homicide rates when gun control legislation is enacted.

You mean like the 40% rise in gun crime since 1997?[1]

Your assertion that "more guns should equal less crime" is simplistic, and doesn't tackle the moral issue of a subject having the right to carry sidearms for self-defence. Why should the police have a legal monopoly on weapons? From where does the state get the right to disarm everyone but its creatures?

Concealed carry isn't a fix-all. It needs to be allied to the routine use of capital punishment for murder, and a fear of getting caught. But nothing is a substitute for the exercise for conscience. My preferred situation is where people are free to carry arms but don't feel the need.

That's because simply carrying the weapon is a crime in itself. If it becomes legal to carry a hand gun for protection then the situation changes.

No it doesn't, because it would be illegal for convicted criminals to carry weapons. You seem to be having trouble with this point.

I note your statistics fail to prove your specific claim about concealed carry endangering police officers. This officer doesn't share your view.

You've failed to show that concealed carry endangers victims more than being compelled to put themselves at the mercy of a merciless attacker, or say why the state should have the power to make the choice for them.

 

[ericjarvis]

Are you referring to the Siege of Sidney Street and the Tottenham Outrage? How did the 1920 Act protect the police from illegal weapons? In the Tottenham Outrage, the police borrowed weapons from passers-by to defend themselves!

I am referring to a number of murders of police officers in the years leading up to the 1920 act. Not to large scale violent incidents, which is something else entirely.

You mean like the 40% rise in gun crime since 1997?[1]

That old garbaged again. One would have thought that intelligent adults would be able to appreciate that the term "gun crime" includes all the new offences created when new legislation is passed. That is why you can't compare figures for the rate of gun crime from before and after gun control legislation is passed. It's apples and oranges, surely even a complete idiot should be able to see that, or am I expecting too much in hoping that people might actually bother to think about these things rather than simply grabbing at anything being put out as propaganda completely uncritically. The relevant figures are for violent crime or homicide. After all nobody is claiming that less gun control will lead to fewer guns. However you are claiming that looser gun regulation would lead to people being better able to protect themselves from, and better deter others from, violent crime and murder. I'm just pointing out that there is absolutely no evidence that what you claim is reflected at all in what actually happens on Planet Earth.

Your assertion that "more guns should equal less crime" is simplistic, and doesn't tackle the moral issue of a subject having the right to carry sidearms for self-defence. Why should the police have a legal monopoly on weapons? From where does the state get the right to disarm everyone but its creatures?

I do not assert "more guns should equal less crime". I point out that when you assert the opposite you do so with no objective evidence to back you up. You are making the simplistic assertions. Furthermore you are basing them solely on assumptions rather than on any objective evidence.

I don't tackle the moral issue because I don't have a strong opinion on it. If you want to assert that people should have a moral right to arm themselves then go ahead and make that case. The sole thing I am concerned with here is that you have been trotting out the usual load of garbage that the NRA and its ilk always come up with, and just about all of it is utter crap. Provided you stick to arguing the moral case then I don't see a problem with it. I don't much care either way. I just don't like the repetition of completely unsubstantiated claims that wider gun ownership would lead to less violent crime. It simply isn't justified by what has actually happened in the real world.

Concealed carry isn't a fix-all. It needs to be allied to the routine use of capital punishment for murder, and a fear of getting caught. But nothing is a substitute for the exercise for conscience. My preferred situation is where people are free to carry arms but don't feel the need.

Oh God, don't tell me we are going to go through this all again as you try to claim capital punishment leads to a lower murder rate, despite there not being any clear evidence from the statistics. I've been arguing that one for well over twenty years. The rest I agree with. The fear of getting caught, and the exercise of conscience are where it's at. They work.

No it doesn't, because it would be illegal for convicted criminals to carry weapons. You seem to be having trouble with this point.

Lets go through this again in even more detail then.

The police are called to the scene of a violent altercation. A person there is seen to have a handgun. So...at present the police can safely assume that the gun holder is a criminal. Obviously, since possessing the gun is a crime in itself. However you are suggesting the police will be safer when they have to first establish whether or not the gun is legally owned, and what the gun owner is doing at the scene, before they can take any action to disarm him/her. How is this safer for the police, or anyone else?

It is not possible to instantly identify who is or isn't a criminal. Criminals don't walk around wearing T-shirts proclaiming "I is a thief, innit?".

I note your statistics fail to prove your specific claim about concealed carry endangering police officers. This officer doesn't share your view.

I'm not making any such claim. I'm simply pointing out that there are serious logical flaws in your argument to the opposite effect. I haven't even looked at how concealed carry laws affect the safety of police officers.

You've failed to show that concealed carry endangers victims more than being compelled to put themselves at the mercy of a merciless attacker, or say why the state should have the power to make the choice for them.

I've not tried to show anything of the sort. I've simply tackled the claim that wider gun ownership and concealed carry laws would reduce crime. That's something that is disproved by the statistics. How that resolves between merciless and merciful attackers, or convicted and unconvicted criminals, etc, I don't much care. Largely because it makes no difference to me, I just want there to be less crime. I'll think about what right the state has to make the choice when somebody tries to make a case for them not doing so, rather than only bringing it up when their initial attempt to claim that more guns means less crime has been shown to be a load of bullshit.

Personally I think the current laws in the UK are completely insane. However they aren't going to change whilst the debate about the issue is 90% balderdash and 10% knee jerk emotional reactions.

 

[Azrael]

The police are called to the scene of a violent altercation. A person there is seen to have a handgun. So...at present the police can safely assume that the gun holder is a criminal. Obviously, since possessing the gun is a crime in itself. However you are suggesting the police will be safer when they have to first establish whether or not the gun is legally owned, and what the gun owner is doing at the scene, before they can take any action to disarm him/her. How is this safer for the police, or anyone else?

No, although since it's a straw man of your own invention, I don't see why you're bothering me with it. I said, "A concealed carry law can stipulate that all people stopped on suspicion of a crime reveal and hand over their weapon," and I think you can reasonably infer the same applies to a violent altercation. A general right to carry a weapon doesn't stop the police disarming a potential suspect while they investigate.

Do you think US law works the way you describe, or that English law operated this way before 1920/37? To spell it out to dispel your confusion, US police tell Mr Violent Altercator to drop his or her weapon. Or shoot him or her. They only give the weapon back if they decide not to arrest him or her, and if his or her bona fides check out.

According to the BBC, the 1997 research was referring to other crimes in which a gun was used, not busts for breaches of the handgun ban.

I'm glad to see you think current gun law is broken (although I wouldn't call them insane, they're logical if their axioms are correct) but you're (apparently) buying many of its underling assumptions, and using the tactics of those who advocate it, such as abstracting the issue to an interminable war over statistics. Stats are useful to a point, but unless they show a correlation between lawful gun ownership and rising crime, they're not the whole picture. You're desperate for me to make categorical statements about legal guns reducing crime. Sorry, can't oblige. I've said they don't automatically make it worse. Modest claim, that, and one you've been unable to disprove. Your summary of my position as "looser gun regulation" is telling. I want tight gun regulation, but directed at criminals, instead of law-abiding people.

 

[likesfish]

america is not full of concealed weapon carrying yahoos losing off rounds at the first chance.
in fact one of there gun control orginisations stretches the age of a child to 25 to make youth deaths look more shocking