Posted on 04/08/2009 1:58:35 AM PDT by Stoat
Caged ... gang boss Colin Joyce and Lee Amos
Arsenal ... gang's gun haul
Cavendish Press
Double killer Colin Joyce, 29, headed a violent drug mob who executed rival hoods and tortured street dealers who dared to cross them.
But he smirked as Mr Justice Brian Langstaff told him: “You were involved in gang-related activity which is all too reminiscent of Al Capone and Chicago in the era of Prohibition.”
Joyce, the “general” of Manchester’s Gooch Gang, got applause from his mob as he claimed his trial was a “circus” and no sentence could destroy his inner “freedom and innocence”.
Relatives of his victims Ucal Chin, 24, and Tyrone Gilbert, 23, looked on in disgust.
Manchester Police reported an incredible 92 PER CENT drop in gang shootings after Joyce’s capture.
Nicknamed Piggy, he made up to £700,000 a year.
His gang, based in Manchester’s Moss Side, had an arsenal including machineguns and Magnum-style revolvers.
They used them “at the drop of a hat” to take on rival mobs and recover drug debts, Liverpool Crown Court was told.
Joyce and 11 gangsters were convicted of 27 charges.
Right-hand man Lee Amos, 32, got a minimum 35-year sentence for murder.
They probably have a few of these as well :-)
"snicker"
I think I am coming round to this viewpoint too.
OTOH I can think of no valid reason for any law-abiding citizen to carry an SMG around.
“Yep, and the revolver above it is a break-top Webley, early 20th century British military issue.”
And therefore almost certainly stolen.
What's a little robbery for this crowd? The .38/200 was sold in the civilian and police markets as well(until the draconian British laws took away the subjects ability to defend themselves). Imagine some of these in the hands of law abiding citizens defending their lives and property. Boneheads like these wouldn't have a chance to become such monsters(IMO)
CC
You can just feel your I.Q. dropping just looking at those guys. I’ll bet there isn’t a fully grown brain between the lot of them.
That’s not what I am referring to. The point is that most firearms used in crime in the UK have been acquired as a result of a burglary. The webley was mostly a military issue weapon. In all likelihood it belonged to some ex-soldier who kept it as a souveneir or a keepsake. Then his house got broken into, it was stolen, and the next thing you know, its being used to perpetrate a hold-up. The problem with being a gun-owning society is that everyone has guns, saints and sinners alike.
In the pic you can just see part of a set of stocks that are S&W 70’s or 80’s vintage that came on K and N frame revolvers in .357 and .44 mag.
Or a 9mm MAC-11. Definitely not a 1903 or 1908 Colt, no safety. Probably the Tok call is correct.
These are not Englishmen. These are foreigners and Muslims. England had laid itself open to the scum of the earth and we aren’t too much different.
If you are criminally inclined scum the welcome mat is out
Commies have always romanticized criminals
i believe you are right as more likely a 9mm, as on second look the barrel looks to small for a .45
as to this one, it looks like a -A1 with the barrel cut off cause it doesn't seem to have the operating lever pushing the receiver up off the table 
Agreed. These guy’s didn’t collect the good stuff, did they?
roger that. and even at that, think of the price the sheen guns prolly went for. gun control at it's finest...
Yes, but now Great Britain has solved that problem. Now that guns are illegal, only the bad guys have guns...
Oh, yeah, and some of the cops, some of the time, if they get there in time. My point was that it's a free citizens right to defend themselves, and to that end the government has no reason to infringe on the citizens rights.Due to Texas'gun laws the bad guys are aware that their intended victims run a better than average chance of being armed. Now this doesn't mean all crime is lower, but knowing that your victim is armed can even give a criminal reason to be circumspect. Thus crime is lower. In Cheltenham, the criminal knows his victim is unarmed, as it is illegal to carry a firearm (and sometimes even knives!). The criminal, heedless of such niceties as "the law" is free to excersize his predatory urges with reckless abandon. The fact is that since the laws were enacted in the late 1990's in England crime is through the roof. I don't disagree that living in a gun culture can be a two edged sword. But given all that , i'd rather live in a society where the "sinners" are aware the "saints" occasionally shoot back.
Freegards,
CC
“Yes, but now Great Britain has solved that problem. Now that guns are illegal, only the bad guys have guns...”
Makes crime easier to solve though. The person with the gun is the bad guy!
I dont know where you get that these laws were enacted in the late 1990’s. There has always been a strong aversion to firearms in the UK, for as long as I can remember. Yes violent crime is unfortunatly on the increase, but that increase is largely limited to certain areas and it is almost all of it drug related. (In fact, according to serving police officers I know, 90%+ or all crime is drug related, assuming alcohol is a drug)
The gun lobby is fond of pointing out that “guns dont commit crimes, people do”. That is 100% true, but the argument cuts both ways. Surely, as that is true, then the incidence of gun crime in any society is dependent not on the availability of firearms but on the willingness of people to pull triggers. In other words, the increase in violent crime in the UK is not based on the imposition of draconian gun control, but on the fact that we have stupidly imported a slew of very violent people into the country and inculcated a selfish immoral society that no longer sees the sanctity of Human life as a block to individual gain.
I can't disagree with you. Your point is concise and perceptive. It is, however My belief that all the above being true, it is even MORE imperative that lawful citizens be given the right and the means to defend themselves. I think the difference between our perceptions is the difference between the way Americans and the British view human rights.In Britain, the prevailing view is that rights are given to the citizen by the government. In America, We believe that our rights are inherent to ourselves as human beings, and are conferred upon ourselves by God. We, in turn "loan" these rights to the government as a form of trust. Thus, it is implicit that if We as Americans feel the government has violated that trust We can take action to make sure that that violation is rectified. This is where the 2nd amendment comes in. The constitutional framers well knew (by experience)of the possibility that government would become unresponsive to peoples inalienable rights up to and including tyranny. Thus the 2nd amendment is our recognition that we have a right to defend ourselves against an individuals, (or a government's)attempt to restrict our rights. But, with rights come responsibilities. And that's where I am thinking the problem lies with gun ownership. both of our selfish cultures are fond of claiming rights, but not so fond of dealing with the responsibilities that come with those rights.
CC
It’s a belt-fed, fully semi-automatic, revolving, assault, pocket pistol.
To paraphrase a canadian rock band "if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice" Too many people in both our countries have abdicated their rights. It's too time consuming, or too messy or boring, etc. But someday I fear a lot of people will wake up to find out they are enslaved, and their choices and decisions about their lives won't matter anymore. Or, in the words of Thomas Paine "those who would trade their liberty for safety or security deserve neither". I hope it's not too late.
CC
Maybe, but I think I’d like to have that Webley!
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.