Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

As far as I know there are still arm patrols in parts of the UK due to arms gangs do you have any information that this is not still happening?

Second standing/routine patrols are not the same as responsing to calls arm.

Second some US cops have fully auto weapons lock in their trunks but off hand I know of no standing patrols in the US where the cops are arm with submachine guns unlike in England.

Did izyy really say that there is no crime in the UK?

That's certainly wrong.

You really are a ******* moron. Nobody from over here has ever suggested that there is no gun crime over here. All you can show is something from the Torygraph which is very old and looks at the roughest parts of London.

We have the occasional instance of gun crime. You have gun killings every day. I don't care, I don't live in America, my children are safe. As far as I'm concerned you all can kill each other.

Unfortunately there are lots of very nice Americans who don't deserve to share the same space as pathetic, semi-literate cretins like you and Oralboy who think that other people's children should die just so you can feel big by walking around with a gun. You really are a sad little loser. If a swat team ever raided your home you'd be sobbing and shitting yourself, and begging for mercy like the pathetic coward you are. You just like having a gun so you can intimidate the unarmed.

And let's not be under any illusion, if James Holmes had been stopped en route to the murders, you'd be defending his constitutional rights to walk round tooled up. He'd be another one of your heroes, just like Zimmerman.

I am well aware of who you are however you quote the gentleman and I have him on ignore so replying to the quote of his contained in your message was the fastest method and I used his name two times to indicate who I was replying to.

From where do YOU get your knowledge? I get my information from newssites and blogs, and I have never heard that there are or were "armed patrolsin parts of th UK due to arms gangs", neither in previous years nor today.

Honestly, you should be a bit more specific and not making such stupid general statements which can't be backed.

1.8 legally own and how many would you guess are illegally own?

He did state and or imply that I was wrong about arm police patrols in the UK.

The man does not know what is happening in his own country.

No idea - how could one guess such or how would you guess that?

I already posted my source of info and link to it a major newspaper in the UK.

I had no idea but in the US governments come up with such numbers and I will do some research to see if the UK government had done any studies.

I was neither asking, if did state something about that you were wrong about arm (?) police patrols in the UK nor if or that he did imply that...

YOU wrote that he said that there was no crime in the UK. And THAT still is what I question resp.questioned.

And it seems, you didn't read what you posted ... 18 armed policemen in parts of three areas of London in 2009 on patrol ...

still

So starting in 2009 there are arm patrols in certain areas of the UK with submachine guns in hand.

What the problem there as 2009 arm patrols and as far as we know still are arm patrols as the story did not indicate this was for a given time period.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Do you think that the arm drug gangs are no longer there for some reason?

Try writing in coherent sentences, the rest of us don't communicate in grunts.

I am sure all the trade in illegally firearms written about in 2008 had been ended by now just like the arm patrols had ended that started in 2009.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1

News
UK news
Crime
Gun crimeFirearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near youFrom drug dealing to settling playground squabbles, firearms offences are rising
Share 41
Email Duncan Campbell

The Guardian, Friday 29 August 2008 The gun shown here, a Webley, is up for sale in London for £150, one of hundreds of such weapons that are easily and cheaply available on the streets of the UK's big cities, a Guardian investigation can reveal.

The variety of weapons on offer in Britain is extensive and includes machine guns and shotguns, as well as pistols and converted replicas. A source close to the trade in illegal weapons contacted by the Guardian listed a menu of firearms that are available on the streets of the capital.

"You can get a clean [unused] 9mm automatic for £1,500, a Glock for a couple of grand and you can even make an order for a couple of MAC-10s," he said. "Or you can get a little sawn-off for £150. They're easy enough to get hold of. You'll find one in any poverty area, every estate in London, and it's even easier in Manchester, where there are areas where the police don't go.

"People who use shotguns tend to be lower down the pecking order. There is less use of sawn-off or full length shotguns, and if a criminal wants street cred, he wants a self-loading pistol, a MAC-10 or an Uzi submachine gun."

This week a man who ran a "factory" for converting replica weapons into working guns was jailed for life. Police believe the products of Grant Wilkinson's workshops were used in more than 50 shootings, including eight murders. His speciality was turning legally purchased MAC-10s into weapons that could fire live rounds, an increasingly common practice.

According to David Dyson, a leading firearms consultant, it is possible to learn through the internet how to make a firearm, given a degree of skill, and converted deactivated weapons also feature in shootings.

But it is the arrival of eastern European weapons that, alongside a homegrown industry in converting them, has contributed to the firearms glut. "There has been an influx from eastern Europe and particularly from Poland, and there are also a lot coming in from people who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq," said the source. "In Liverpool docks, you can put in an order for 10 guns and some grenades and they'll say OK and two weeks later, they will be there - and they are straight goers."

According to Dyson, the latest "weapon of choice" is a Russian 8mm Baikal self-defence pistol, originally used for firing CS gas. "They are legally sold in Germany and won't fire a bullet but they can be converted by removing the partially blocked barrel, and replacing it with a rifled barrel," he said. "After other small alterations, it can then fire 9mm bulleted ammunition. The replacement barrel is longer than the original, and is threaded so that it will accept a silencer, which is commonly sold as part of the package.

"There are hundreds of these floating around and hundreds have been seized," he said. "They look the part as they are based on the Russian military Makarov pistol. If you are a 20-year-old drug dealer and you want a gun, that is what you will get and it will cost about £1,000 to £1,500."

"The trends in firearms are driven by the suppliers," said Dyson. "About two years ago, a supplier brought back hundreds of German-made revolvers, blank-firing pistols which can be bought legally in Germany. They were then converted and new cylinders made. They could then be sold for £700 to £800 when the supplier would have bought them for €60 and spent about £30 on converting them."

Home Office data shows that gun crime is up since last year, despite the recent doubling of sentences for possessing or supplying firearms. There were 9,803 firearms offences in England and Wales in the year to March 2008 with most in London, Manchester and the West Midlands.

Most buyers are involved with drug dealing, the source said. Some are used to rob other dealers in crimes that go unreported, others are used as protection while a deal is under way. "Someone will have a tool and there is always one guy in a posse willing to use it. They will have one guy who doesn't give a ****.

"Everyone wants to be a gangster now, mainly the kids. You have five or six in a little crew and one of them will be carrying. They want handguns - shotguns are too big and bulky. The sawn-off doesn't look so good but use a machine gun and you get known as a heavy guy. They have them just to be a chap on the street, to pose. Some of them walk around all day with a .38. It's 16-year-olds at it and it's getting like America, silly as it sounds."

In terms of nationalities, the influx of eastern European criminals has changed the balance of power. "Who's using the guns? The [Jamaican] Yardies' value for life was so minimal that they thought nothing of killing people," said the source. "We don't like them, they have no moral code. But it's the Russians and the Polish and Albanians around now. They are bullies. They want to take over the flesh business. The Russians are cold-hearted fuckers. What they have been doing is following the card boys [who put cards advertising prostitutes in phone booths in central London] and then taking the girls hostage, armed if need be."

Detective Chief Inspector Colin Sutton, who has investigated some of London's most high profile shooting murders, said he believed the age of offenders was getting younger, and sometimes guns seemed to be used for the slightest reason.

"Playground squabbles are now being settled with guns," he said. "And drug dealers are taking a policy decision to get youngsters to carry guns."

He said guns could be purchased for a few hundred pounds in many parts of London. "You can hire a gun for a period and, if the gun has already been used for a murder, the going rate comes down."

While the conviction of Wilkinson was seen as a breakthrough, it is accepted that with the increased traffic between Britain and eastern Europe, stemming the flow of weapons remains an almost impossible task.

"Guns are always available," said Dyson. "You can go to the former Soviet Union, or countries with less stringent regulations than ours, and although British Customs have their successes, many guns appear to be smuggled into the UK."

Amnesties for people to hand over weapons are greeted with scepticism by criminals. "The gun amnesties are meaningless," the source said. "All you get handed in are guns from boys who wanted to be gangsters and then got a job or someone whose mother found it in their bedroom. If I had a gun, I wouldn't take part because, if I got pulled, what would I say - 'Oh, I'm just on my way to the amnesty.' Also if it gets out that you've given in your tool, people will think you're a wrong 'un."

Few professional criminals would keep guns on their premises. "Only silly people keep it in their homes. Normally, you have a 'keeper' a couple of miles away and some of them have been at it for 20 years. It's best to have an old fellow with no previous or a woman. You keep the ammunition separate because you'll get a much heavier sentence if you have them together."

When guns are moved from place to place, a young woman is often used as the courier because there is less risk of her being stopped and searched.

What is not in dispute is the devastating effect that the casual use of a gun over a minor argument can have on dozens of people. In December 2006, Sean "Stretch" Jenkins, 36, an amiable, 6ft 8in window-cleaner from south London, was shot dead at a party in Carshalton. His killer was a cocaine dealer called Joseph Greenland, a volatile man with a quick temper, who had apparently taken offence at something Jenkins said. The men had earlier been at a boxing night at Caesar's in Streatham, where there had been some fighting outside the ring. Greenland had left the party, driven home in his Range Rover, picked up a gun and returned to kill Jenkins in front of at least five witnesses, who were warned not to talk.

None of the immediate witnesses gave evidence against Greenland, who had a reputation for threatening to "annihilate" anyone who crossed him, but there were traces of his DNA on a cigarette end and a wine glass at the party and his bragging about the shooting was to be his downfall. His recourse to a gun, for no other reason than some perceived slight, left Jenkins's six-year-old son without a father and saddened a wide network of friends and family. Greenland was jailed for life last week and will have to serve 30 years before he can be considered for parole.

"We got what we wanted," said the victim's mother, Maureen Jenkins, of the verdict and sentence last month. "I went to the cemetery and said, 'Well, boy, I can put you to rest'."

The detectives investigating the killing and the prosecution team that secured Greenland's conviction were "marvellous", she said. "I shed tears every day and I probably will till the day I die. Why do these people have to kill for nothing? If they want to kill people, why don't they join the army? You don't ever think a shooting will happen in your life. It's all down to guns, just guns."

The Guardian's source said that guns were becoming a first rather than a last recourse. "A gun used to be used as a mediator; now everything is revolved with a gun. It's brought the heat on everyone. Before you would get a two [years jail sentence], now it's a five. It's getting like the US now, like The Wire. It's like a prediction of what will happen here. I think they

The reason why this was done in 2009, is according to your own source:


I've some problems to read your posts and often don't get what you mean resp. to what your referring at and why you do so.

So I'll stop responding to your posts for now.

This is totally irrelevant. You're focusing on gangs, not legally owned firearms that are used to carry rampages.

And learn to cut and paste properly. It's not difficult, although it would help if you could read.

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/flawed2.htm

The Centre for Defence Studies, King's College, London, recently issued a study titled Illegal Firearms in the UK, examining the effect of gun control measures in the United Kingdom. In the years since the ban was enacted, the criminal use of firearms has increased by 40%. The study found that in "the 20 police areas with the fewest legally-held firearms, half had an above average level of gun crime. Of the 20 police areas with the highest level of legally-held guns, only two had armed crime above the average." Yet U.K. gun banners insist that their "cure" is working: "the last thing we should do is relax our gun laws." Like the doctor who proudly trumpets his cure for a deadly disease — and tells you not to be concerned that more patients died with the cure than without it. Of course the pro gun control American media simply isn't interested, and hopes that you'll never find out about the deadly failure of gun control. Search the propaganda mills that insultingly call themselves the American free press for any mention of this study. Our media wants to keep you ignorant of how dangerous their scheme for total civilian disarmament really is to your safety.

Since 1997 the United Kingdom has been serving as a real-world laboratory for the schemes of gun controllers. Following a shooting at the Dunblane Primary School in March 1996 in which 16 children and a teacher were killed, the British Parliament passed the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. The certification process for the holders of a "Firearm Certificate" under the Firearms Act 1968, the principal Act governing the possession of firearms by private individuals was also tightened. In March, 2000, the Home Affairs Committee of the British Parliament issued a report titled Controls Over Firearms, explaining the current firearms licensing structure in the U.K. Under the Firearms Act 1968, many handguns and automatic weapons fell under "Section 5 controls", which were weapons prohibited for private possession unless held under the express authority of the Secretary of State. "Section 1 controls" covered most other firearm in general use, such as rifles and high-powered air weapons, and certain types of multi-shot shotguns. "Section 2 controls" governed specific types of shotguns (long-barreled shotguns with no magazine or a non-detachable magazine capable of holding no more than two cartridges). The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, following Dunblane, subjected virtually all handguns to "Section 5 controls" — that is, their possession and use is flatly prohibited except by express authority of the Secretary of State. What are considered less dangerous firearms — shotguns and low-powered air weapons — are subject to lesser controls, governed by the Firearm Certificate process.

Granting of a Firearm Certificate requires that the issuing authority determine that the applicant: (a) is fit to be entrusted with a firearm, and is not a person prohibited from possessing a section 1 firearm; (b) has good reason for possessing, purchasing, or acquiring the specific firearm and ammunition for which the application is made; and (c) can be permitted to have the firearm or ammunition in his possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace. The Firearm Certificate can be revoked if the issuing authority has reason to believe either: (a) that the certificate holder "is of intemperate habits or unsound mind or otherwise unfitted to be entrusted with a firearm"; or (b) that the certificate holder can no longer be permitted to hold the firearms or ammunition to which the certificate relates without danger to public safety or the peace; or (c) that the certificate holder is prohibited from possessing a firearm; or (d) that the certificate holder no longer has good reason to possess the firearm or ammunition.

The system, obviously, is highly subjective. And it has been a spectacular — and dangerous — failure. Here are some of the submissions to the Home Affairs Committee for their Controls Over Firearms report:

"It is clear that the bans introduced in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 in respect of handguns have not worked…. Clearly, these handguns could not be lawfully possessed and therefore must have been illegally imported into the country or already be in the unlawful possession of someone. These facts tend to support those shooting organisations who were opposing the ban of handguns at the time the above Act was proposed in that handguns in the lawful possession of those involved in target shooting were rarely used in criminal activity." — Police Superintendents' Association, West Yorkshire Branch.

"The ban on handguns introduced in 1997 has undoubtedly removed a source of legitimately held firearms but it is not possible to state whether this reduced the number of weapons available illegally." — Chief Superintendent, Chairman, Operational Policing Advisory Committee.

"Small and large calibre handguns may have been taken out of circulation but the numbers of pistols/revolvers in circulation have not dropped in proportion." — Police Superintendents' Association, Cleveland Branch.

"The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 has been very successful in significantly reducing legally held handguns from circulation but it has no effect on those illegally held." — Police Superintendents' Association, Humberside Branch

"Whilst the change in the law on handguns has reduced the number, it does not appear to have been difficult for criminals to get hold of them whenever they want." — Police Superintendents' Association, Hampshire Branch.

Imagine that! Law abiding Britons are disarmed, but criminals have no trouble getting weapons "whenever they want". Are we supposed to be surprised by that? Thomas Jefferson would not have been surprised:

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity...will respect the less important and arbitrary ones... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." — Jefferson, quoting Enlightenment philosopher Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764.

"The Council notes that the existing system of control is made up of components often introduced piecemeal in an attempt to assuage public feelings rather than based on an identified need. It has not been subject to rigorous examination to determine its effectiveness and efficiency. Although much of this system has been justified on grounds of public safety, it has failed to address the central issue that public safety is put at risk by illegal arms and not by those of law-abiding sportspersons." — the British Shooting Sports Council.

"Legally held guns are very rarely used in criminal activities." — the National Farmers' Union.

And recall the International Crime Victims Survey, released by the Dutch Ministry of Justice in February, 2001 (discussed in the May 20 issue of this newsletter), that found the three countries with the most draconian handgun bans recently enacted — the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada — to be among the top five countries in the world with the most frequent incidents of criminal violence (the U.S. ranked ninth). And while violent crime showed a declining trend in America, the trend was found to be increasing in the U.K. and Australia.

Yet the British Gun Control Network, like its American counterparts, is not interested: "All our activities and objectives are predicated on the belief that the interests of public safety demand a reduction in the availability and attractiveness of firearms of all kinds." Belief is fine, but should belief overcome facts? Their response to the Centre for Defence Studies report: "The distinction between legal and illegal weapons is not clear cut. It should not be forgotten that virtually all guns start out as legal weapons, and that victims are unable to discriminate between a bullet fired from a legal or an illegal gun. Policy must be based on the strict control of availability of all weapons."

Arguments are made by gun control groups that there hasn't been any real increase in violent crime in the United Kingdom following the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, because statisticians have changed the way that criminal events are reported and recorded. It is true that the methodology has changed, but the Minister of State of the Home Office addressed that specific issue in a submission to the Parliament during its examination of the 1997 Act: "In order to be able to make some comparisons on recorded crime before and after the change in counting rules, a linking exercise was undertaken. This showed that there was an overall increase of 14 per cent in recorded crime figures due to the change in counting rules." Recall that the Centre for Defence Studies found that the criminal use of firearms has increased by 40%, only 14 percentage points of which are attributable to changes in the reporting methodology.

An organization called Justice for Shooters contends that the United Kingdom, as a consequence of its regulation of firearms, is presently in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights because "…the 1997 Firearms Amendment Acts only succeeded in depriving a significant minority of innocent people of their Human Rights, sport, property and livelihoods." And as the reports from the Centre for Defence Studies and the Home Affairs Committee show, honest people have also been rendered defenseless against criminal depredations. There is no doubt that gun control is a violation of human rights — the age-old human right of self defense. "…a man's house is his Castle, and a person's own house is his ultimate refuge; for where shall a man be safe, if it be not in his house. And in this sense it truly said, and the laws permit the taking up of arms against armed persons." — Sir Edward Coke, "Institutes of the Laws Of England", 1628. "Self defense is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the laws of society." — Sir William Blackstone, "Commentaries on the Laws of England", 1765.

Increasingly around the world, that "primary law of nature" — the inherent human right to defend yourself, your family, and your home against criminal attack — is being subverted by the "laws of society". We in this country argue the finer points of Constitutional interpretation to decide whether individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but in so doing we ignore the larger issue — that when honest people are disarmed, criminals find it easier to ply their trade. This is undeniable. That criminals will always be able to obtain weapons is also not arguable. Simply passing laws will not prevent that, as the billion-dollar annual trade in illegal drugs makes painfully clear. But that criminals will remain armed while honest people are disarmed, while true, is almost beside the point. The fact remains that the most effective means for people to defend themselves against criminal attack (armed or unarmed) are firearms, and those who disarm honest and law-abiding people have the suffering of tens of thousands of needless victims on their hands.

FOR MORE INFORMATION…

Countryside Alliance’s Campaign for Shooting (commissioned the report Illegal Firearms in the UK, and the site contains excerpts):
http://www.countryside-alliance.org/news/latest01/010716gunl.htm

Home Affairs Committee Report: Controls Over Firearms:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/9502.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


2nd Amendment



News Depts Articles Library
Lite Stuff Links Credits Home

If Holmes had yelled "fire" in that movie theater, we would all be agreeing there needs to be some limit on the first amendment to protect other people.

Your source is not credible. It's a gun nuts' website.