Posted on 06/30/2004 10:04:22 PM PDT by Nonesuch
UK police today launched a crackdown on the sale of illegal weapons over the Internet. Raids began in London, with searches of 18 addresses.
More than 20 illegal weapons have been seized in Operation Bembridge already, including 17 guns, a tear gas canister and four air rifles. In addition, officers collected nine guns designed to fire blanks, but capable of being converted to fire live ammunition. So far, 11 men have been arrested.
More raids are planned throughout the UK as the police target over 200 people suspected of buying the prohibited weapons from sources on the Net.
Alan Green, deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester Police, said: "People must learn that it is still an offence to possess stun guns and CS gas in this country even though they have been acquired abroad.
"The message from the operation is that if you have bought prohibited weapons over the Internet you risk being arrested, charged and if convicted receiving a criminal record." He said the operation had depended on close co-operation between HM Customs and Excise and the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
UK gun controls were tightened following the massacre by a lone gunman of 16 children in Dunblane, a small Scottish town, in 1996. All handguns are banned and illegal possession of a firearm now carries a mandatory five-year sentence.
The UK saved the world!
Yes! Fear Our Might!
School-related deaths this year (2003)
• Aug. 14, Columbus, Ga.: A 14-year-old girl visiting former teachers is accidentally shot and killed by a 14-year-old boy.
• Aug. 19, Meraux, La.: A man holding his 2-year-old is shot to death near a crowded school bus stop.
• Aug. 29, Georgetown, S.C.: A 22-year-old man is shot to death after an argument after a football game.
• Sept. 4, Brighton, Colo.: A 15-year-old boy is shot and killed near a high school.
• Sept. 5, San Diego: A 14-year-old boy jogging with his high school cross-country team is shot and killed in an ambush by his father, who later kills himself.
• Sept. 5, Tucson: A 16-year-old boy with a heart condition dies after a high-school fistfight.
• Sept. 10, Chicago: A 16-year-old boy is fatally shot in the chest after school; another 16-year-old is charged.
• Sept. 10, North Crowley, Texas: A 16-year-old boy is accused of shooting a classmate to death, then wheeling his body in a recycling cart to a nearby construction site.
• Sept. 10, Vicksburg, Miss.: A 20-year-old high-school junior fatally shoots another 20-year-old man near the football field while school is in session. Police cite an ongoing dispute.
• Sept. 11, Tucson: A 17-year-old student is shot and killed off campus near an underpass.
• Sept. 12, Green Cove Springs, Fla.: A 15-year-old boy lapses into a coma after being hit by a single punch from a 17-year-old. He dies Sept. 20.
• Sept. 16, Hopkinsville, Ky.: A 16-year-old girl fatally shoots another teen, then kills herself in a car parked across from school.
• Sept. 24, Cold Spring, Minn.: A 15-year-old boy allegedly brings a gun to school and fatally shoots two other students.
• Sept. 30, Sacramento: Dozens of students witness the shooting death of a high-school junior after school. The 15-year-old boy was killed after arguing with another boy, who had exchanged insults with his best friend's girlfriend
• Oct. 1, Arlington, Texas: One teen dies and five others are injured after seven teens fight in a vacant lot near a high school.
Full article here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2003-10-20-deaths-cover_x.htm
You see? If the UK had banned airguns a while ago, this wouldnt have happened.
What are you trying to say here anyways? How is alot of these deaths "school related"?
near a crowded school bus stop.
student is shot and killed off campus near an underpass
in a car parked across from school.
after school
USA Today is clearly stretching things a bit.
"A 16-year-old boy with a heart condition dies after a high-school fistfight. "
Yeah! Gun control now! That's the ticket!
The majority are gun related.
There are many things I admire about America and Americans, but your lunatic gun laws are not one of them.
Our two countries (USA and UK) went to war with Iraq ostensibly over the issue of weapons of mass destruction. We all agree that these kinds of weapons should not be freely available to irresponsible and dangerous regimes, yet you live in a society where guns and ammunition are freely available to anyone. It doesn't make sense to me.
We have twenty thousand of them, and I hate them too. Getting rid of some of them has caused the crime and murder rate to decrease dramatically. You are now more likely to become a crime victim in London than in New York City.
Our two countries (USA and UK) went to war with Iraq ostensibly over the issue of weapons of mass destruction. We all agree that these kinds of weapons should not be freely available to irresponsible and dangerous regimes, yet you live in a society where guns and ammunition are freely available to anyone. It doesn't make sense to me.
You're comparing firearms to chemical weapons?
See it this way: Saddam was a felon put on probation after the first gulf war. In this country felons on probation are also not allowed to own firearms (they're not even allowed to vote in many states). If they do, they go back to jail immediately. Saddam chose to violate the terms of his probation.
Guns and ammunition in the hands of the average citizen protects people from the likes of Saddam.
Saddam, with a disarmed citizenry, murdered more people than did criminals in America with firearms.
There's a trade off one must make for freedom. You give people the right to own guns as they see fit, and sometimes they kill others accidentally or on purpose. But you take guns out of their hands....those murders by the gun still goes on. Moreso. Criminals have the upper hand.
Someone needs an education.
By punishing en mass the entire British population for the acts of some felonious miscreants, what your leaders have done, in effect, is allow the criminal element to determine what rights are allowed the law-abiding. Where is the honor in that? To understand firearms in America, you must first understand the principles of God-given freedom, which is the way we view things here in the States. In our view, rights are not granted by government, but rather pre-exist any societal forms, and it is government's role to simply stand aside. Of course, as lowbridge has already pointed out, this principle has been already abrogated thousands of times. Amazing at how much erosion a couple of hundred years will produce.
The right to self-defense is the first right of nature. I myself have successfully defended my own life against criminals not once, but twice, using a firearm. Both times, I did not have to fire a shot, the criminal just ran off, and nothing was ever reported -- a statistical non-event. But the truth remains that, in either case had I been unarmed, I would not be here typing this now.
Firearms equal freedom. And freedom is not risk-free; in fact, the demands it places on the individual can be very frightening. Many people run from it begging for their shackles. But that doesn't make individual liberty any less worthy a goal.
From what we hear from across the pond, crime is growing ever greater in Britain, while it is decreasing here in the states. Criminals will not obey laws, big or small, by definition, and disarming the law-abiding simply posts a "unarmed victim here" sign on every door and window, courtesy of the the government. Again, there's no honor or sense in that.
Another bit: When I was eighteen, my government handed me a belt-fed, .30 caliber machine gun and said "go get 'em, boy!" Now, twice as old and ten times wiser, I'm no longer viable because I simply don't have a government-issued halo over my head? Doesn't make sense. Think about it.
I've flagged a number of other members of this board who are interested in firearms. I'm sure they can add to the picture. Start at post 5 and work your way down, folks.
Stay well,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/711949/posts
Do Guns Save Lives?
-Empty-Barrel Gun Policies-A legacy of nonsense from Clinton, Blair, and the Left--
-A Problem With Guns (Long... but SOOOO good)--
Shooting More Holes in Gun Control
HCI Aussie Style (read it and weep-or laugh)
The Great Australian Gun Law CON!
Canadian Gun Control Has Little Impact on Crime (Home Gun Confiscation/Resisters)
Through the Looking Glass and Back Again - From Anti-gunner to Firearms Instructor in Four Months
I'm desperately trying to see the relevance of this list.
Only God gives me rights. States and people infringe on these rights (sometimes justly, sometimes not).
Burly, the nature of Government in Britain is different from the one used here in the States, which has an effect on the way the resepective citizenry views gun ownership.
Without engaging the debate as to whether an 'enlightened monarchy' is a better system than a republic, suffice it to say that the monarchs were responsible for the well-being of their kingdom. Often this included the monarch's personal presence on the battlefield, which lent credibility to the monarch's claim of bona fides.
The monarchical system, even as abridged as it is now in England, implies a social contract which is includes personal protection of the subjects.
In contrast, the US has had a suspicion of Government which dates literally to its founding Declaration. The unstated thesis of the Declaration was that the Government can and may act against the best interests of its citizens.
Thus, the 2nd Amendment, which had a number of purposes, among them: to facilitate the defense of the individual Colonies/States against common enemies (you guys, at the outset) and to ensure that each State/Colony was prepared to defend itself against other Colonies (or the Federal Government.)
While at bottom the 2A recognizes self-defense as a God-given right, the overlay of 'defense of the State and nation' is significant, too.
This is a distinction which is quite important and I would argue that the sheer length of time each system has been in place has affected the 'conditioning' of the respective subjects/citizens with regard personal defense.
Many think that we Americans have an unhealthy obsession with firearms. This is not the case. Many of us here, having learned the lessons of history, are unwilling to become unarmed victims of an out-of-control-genocidal government. To those who say it cannot happen here, I say "what prevents it from happening?"
The great lesson of the 20th century is that governments can go renegade, and begin to murder entire populations. In every single instance of this occurring in the last century, the victim populations were first disarmed, after having had thier weapons registered. This is why many of us here in this country have made made the decision that we will not, under any circumstances, allow ourselves to be disarmed.
There is a further issue, one of freedom. The best I can tell (and as others before me have noted) the line between a citizen and a subject is one of wether or not allowed to keep and bear arms. The free man has arms, the subject does not. How do I know I am still free? I look over to my rifle, leaning in the corner, loaded, and ready. As long as it is there, I am a free man. Where is yours?
"[Y]ou live in a society where guns and ammunition are freely available to anyone. It doesn't make sense to me."
Not only that, but we live in a society where over 110 million men also have access to such deadly weapons as their fists, and feet!
We should post haste outlaw ALL means of doing bad things to people! We need to start registering and confiscating any fists over 35 centimeters wide and any feet with a Rockwell density reading of 3.0 and over.
We also need to begin the immediate destruction of any object bearing a sharp edge or hard surface.
Chefs and carpenters, after their knives and hammers are seized, shall have to make do with popsicle sticks and unripened plantains to cut their food or hammer their nails.
That should make The Children safe!
Ed
Thank you for your thoughts. I respect and value your opinions but I guess we will have to agree to differ.
I agree that historical and cultural differences between our countries probably make like for like comparisons on this subject impossible. What works for America may be totally unfeasible in Britain, and vice versa.
I will however, take issue with a couple of points:
"Saddam, with a disarmed citizenry, murdered more people than did criminals in America with firearms. "
I believe there is a long tradition of private ownership of firearms in Iraq, even under the reign of Saddam Hussein, where nearly every family owns at least one AK47.
"Firearms equal freedom"
If you feel obliged to carry a firearm to protect yourself, because everyone else has that right, that seems to me to be a form of tyranny.
"we live in a society where over 110 million men also have access to such deadly weapons as their fists, and feet! "
Amen to that! My fists and feet are all I will ever want or need. Admittedly we have some pretty stupid laws in Britain, which are biased in favour of the criminals. If I were to give some scumbag a damn good kicking for intruding on my property, guess who would go to jail … But that is another issue.
Overall, I am happy that in Britain firearm ownership is a privilege given to those who can show themselves to be responsible or who are charged with protecting our country and society. I would not want this to be any other way as much as you cherish your constitutional right to bear arms.
Regards
burlywood
Acutally, you couldn't be more wrong. It is the criminal element that will always find a way to arm itself. Against this, and the threat historicly presented by threat of government gone awry, do we prefer to keep ourselves armed. Consider it preventitive medicine instead of the root cause itself.
Disarming has certainly not worked anywhere else it has been tried as evidenced by the increasing crime rates in your country and others like Australia.
Also please note, that self defense is no longer a viable defense in Britain. Numerous news articles have been posted on the BBC's website about victims being prosecuted for beating up criminals.
burlywood:
I agree that we have lunatic gun laws in America. Over 2,300 of them (federal, state, and local) that seek to limit/control/keep guns from law-abiding, allegedly free citizens, and thus mandating that we be dependent on the government to protect us from having our God-given rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness denied by criminals.
Gun-control is flawed in it's premise - in that it attempts to bring a logistical/environmental solution to a behavioral/moral problem. Fails every time.
The right to keep and bear arms is in our constitution for a reason. It was written at a time when the memory and consequences of tyranny were very fresh in the minds of America's Founding Fathers. They knew then that throwing off future tyranny would be impossible without the 2nd Amendment.
228 years ago, 56 great men signed a Declaration that led a loose collection of fledgling colonies in telling a tyrant that our ties were forevermore - "Absolved" and "Dissolved". It would dishonor their incredible sacrifices and bravery should we ever allow the surrender or collection of our only guarantee against tyranny's inevitable return.
From the Gaff of the Alfred to my front porch 229 years later, on this Independence Day Weekend, the law-abiding, gun-loving free people of these United States remind would-be tyrants and oppressors of liberty everywhere:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.