Firearms, knives, police and fellons

[fetishdj]

Knife crime: The laws in the UK banning juveniles from carrying knives are ridiculous and impotent because a) it prevents law abiding teenagers (i.e apprentice butchers or simply someone who needs to use a knife for cooking as some teenagers need to do) from acquiring necessary equipment and b) most criminals, including most kids who own knives for kicks, pay no attention to the law and carry them anyway (in fact, most carry them *because* it is illegal) and c) it is already illegal to attack someone with a deadly weapon and the possession law is more or less unenforced because the police do not have the manpower or resources to trawl every school yard and back ally for knife toting teenagers.

I think the same argument can apply to guns - possession laws are actually difficult to enforce and criminals always ignore the law, that is why they are criminals. The main reason why guns are rarer here is that it is more difficult to get them over a marine border (and as stated, the Channel Tunnel may make that easier now...). Not convinced that legalisation and regulation work either - read a report this morning about a young kid in Georgia who was shot by a stray round from an AK47 fired in the air 'up to 3km away' by someone using it to celebrate the new year. This was a legal firearm fired in what the owner clearly thought was a safe way (despite the fact that you can have the same effect with a perfectly safe blank firer that fires no pellet). Some of the regulations I have heard about in some states of America, for example, either invite the owner to break the law or be unable to use the gun for the purpose it was purchased (i.e. if you have to keep the firearm in a locked case with the ammunition in a seperate case such a weapon is no use for home defence so you have to break the law and keep it loaded in an unlocked case).

As for the police... It used to be the case in this country that the first time you saw a gun of any form was when you travelled abroad to somewhere like Spain where the police are armed as a matter of course - I remember being astounded at the age of 10 by Spainish police carrying pistols. The last time I went on holiday, I saw several police officers in the UK airport carrying machine guns (not sure what sort but they were similar to the ones carried by infantry) as well as pistols. This was not an unusual thing, either - it was not after a major terrorist attack (we travelled not long after the twin towers thing and there were a lot more armed police then) and as far as we knew there had been no alert - they were just normal police officers walking a beat inside an airport.

[IAN 2411]

As for the police... It used to be the case in this country that the first time you saw a gun of any form was when you travelled abroad to somewhere like Spain where the police are armed as a matter of course - I remember being astounded at the age of 10 by Spainish police carrying pistols. The last time I went on holiday, I saw several police officers in the UK airport carrying machine guns (not sure what sort but they were similar to the ones carried by infantry) as well as pistols. This was not an unusual thing, either - it was not after a major terrorist attack (we travelled not long after the twin towers thing and there were a lot more armed police then) and as far as we knew there had been no alert - they were just normal police officers walking a beat inside an airport.

One other point I would like to make about the British police carrying firearms; and it is that in the short time they have done so they have carried out far too many mistakes. There have been several times that more than one officer has fired at a supposed gunman, and when it has been one firearms expert there has been more than one shot fired, proving yet again overkill, and trigger happy police.

I was out in Belfast with the Special Forces; we were carrying at the time Belgian 7.62 FNs. They were more powerful than most assault rifles that the armies of the world have now. If you could see and aim that far with the naked eye, this weapon had the killing range of 5 miles. Put 6 people 6feet apart and with one shot you would kill them all, it would go through a half inch of steel at 100 yards and 6 feet of packed sand. I like others in my section and battalion kept my rifle loaded but ready at a seconds notice. We had no need to ask for permission to shoot, it was written in black on a yellow card for us to read, and it was in our pockets at all times. I cannot remember a time when we abused the card and fired the weapon without being fired at first, and the reason was, that weapon was part of us, we trained with it and we slept with it, and we respected the firepower we held in our hands.

The police however don’t have this luxury, and are a very unstable to be using a firearm, unless you have a certain mentality in the army, you will not get to hold a position of responsibility with a firearm.

Regards ian2411

[fetishdj]

One other point I would like to make about the British police carrying firearms; and it is that in the short time they have done so they have carried out far too many mistakes. There have been several times that more than one officer has fired at a supposed gunman, and when it has been one firearms expert there has been more than one shot fired, proving yet again overkill, and trigger happy police.

I was out in Belfast with the Special Forces; we were carrying at the time Belgian 7.62 FNs. They were more powerful than most assault rifles that the armies of the world have now. If you could see and aim that far with the naked eye, this weapon had the killing range of 5 miles. Put 6 people 6feet apart and with one shot you would kill them all, it would go through a half inch of steel at 100 yards and 6 feet of packed sand. I like others in my section and battalion kept my rifle loaded but ready at a seconds notice. We had no need to ask for permission to shoot, it was written in black on a yellow card for us to read, and it was in our pockets at all times. I cannot remember a time when we abused the card and fired the weapon without being fired at first, and the reason was, that weapon was part of us, we trained with it and we slept with it, and we respected the firepower we held in our hands.

The police however don’t have this luxury, and are a very unstable to be using a firearm, unless you have a certain mentality in the army, you will not get to hold a position of responsibility with a firearm.

Regards ian2411

[This is relevant.... just bear with me...] One of my essays subjects was on the inclusion of IT in schools and one journal article I read referred to the Labour government's IT education policy which was, in effect, to get computers and interactive whiteboards and all that sort of stuff in to every school. The article was looking at the effect of that policy 10 years after it was implemented and made the claim that while it had been successful in getting physical hardware into the schools a lot of it was lying about unused or not used to its full potential because there had not been a conconimant training budget to go with the hardware budget. Teachers were therefore either unwilling to use the computers or did not understand them enough to use them effectively. Can you see why this may be relevant?

I reckon that what may have happened is that the police have been given a massive budget for ballistic hardware - and the way these things tend to work, this money would have been specifically earmarked for that purpose only. So, every police force in the country has a surfeit of firearms. However, I wonder if there has been an adequete training budget to go with that?

[DuncanONeil]

This is foolish! I had occasion, recently, to discuss with an officer the length of time a magazine can remain loaded before the spring begins to lose its effectiveness. His response was that it was not an issue. He was required to go through firearms training three to four times each year.
But then again in WWII it took 15,000 rounds to kill one enemy soldier, in Vietnam, 50,000. And now the estimate is 250,000. One could claim that the military is getting worse at its job!

[This is relevant.... just bear with me...] One of my essays subjects was on the inclusion of IT in schools and one journal article I read referred to the Labour government's IT education policy which was, in effect, to get computers and interactive whiteboards and all that sort of stuff in to every school. The article was looking at the effect of that policy 10 years after it was implemented and made the claim that while it had been successful in getting physical hardware into the schools a lot of it was lying about unused or not used to its full potential because there had not been a conconimant training budget to go with the hardware budget. Teachers were therefore either unwilling to use the computers or did not understand them enough to use them effectively. Can you see why this may be relevant?

I reckon that what may have happened is that the police have been given a massive budget for ballistic hardware - and the way these things tend to work, this money would have been specifically earmarked for that purpose only. So, every police force in the country has a surfeit of firearms. However, I wonder if there has been an adequete training budget to go with that?

[DuncanONeil]

It is unfair to make the comparisons that your are making. There is a quantum difference in the "rules" of use between the military and police. There are specific rules for the military and when those rules are in place action can be taken. And that action is shoot to kill.
It is not the same with police. Also all of the stories about "police error" never have all the information. We never hear about how long this situation went on and what the police did prior to shooting nor what the victim did or did not do. If the deceased had followed the instructions of the police there would have been no shooting. Police firing their weapon is in the same category of the country putting its military in harms way, last resort.

One other point I would like to make about the British police carrying firearms; and it is that in the short time they have done so they have carried out far too many mistakes. There have been several times that more than one officer has fired at a supposed gunman, and when it has been one firearms expert there has been more than one shot fired, proving yet again overkill, and trigger happy police.

I was out in Belfast with the Special Forces; we were carrying at the time Belgian 7.62 FNs. They were more powerful than most assault rifles that the armies of the world have now. If you could see and aim that far with the naked eye, this weapon had the killing range of 5 miles. Put 6 people 6feet apart and with one shot you would kill them all, it would go through a half inch of steel at 100 yards and 6 feet of packed sand. I like others in my section and battalion kept my rifle loaded but ready at a seconds notice. We had no need to ask for permission to shoot, it was written in black on a yellow card for us to read, and it was in our pockets at all times. I cannot remember a time when we abused the card and fired the weapon without being fired at first, and the reason was, that weapon was part of us, we trained with it and we slept with it, and we respected the firepower we held in our hands.

The police however don’t have this luxury, and are a very unstable to be using a firearm, unless you have a certain mentality in the army, you will not get to hold a position of responsibility with a firearm.

Regards ian2411

[IAN 2411]

It is unfair to make the comparisons that your are making. There is a quantum difference in the "rules" of use between the military and police. There are specific rules for the military and when those rules are in place action can be taken. And that action is shoot to kill.
It is not the same with police. Also all of the stories about "police error" never have all the information. We never hear about how long this situation went on and what the police did prior to shooting nor what the victim did or did not do. If the deceased had followed the instructions of the police there would have been no shooting. Police firing their weapon is in the same category of the country putting its military in harms way, last resort.

I would like to point out that two times that were talked about afterwards the supposed terrorist shot three times on the train in London, by the Met Police. They gave him no chance, and all because the idiots hadn't seen him leave the flat, they had not done their homework. The people in the train spoke against the police saying that there was no warning. Please for god sake dont come back and say well he could have been, it was safer to be sure than sorry. It is like hanging someone for murder, and then finding out the man had the right name but it was a different man with that name that carried out the crime.

The man on the station with the wrapped up table leg, the police shouted out, [now listen carefully] put the rifel on the floor and step away, second warning if you dont put the rifel doown i will open fire, Bang, one man dead carrying a wrapped up table leg. Now the reason for this is, if you are not carrying a rifle then there is not a lot of chance that you know what trigger happy plod is talking about. The police were only there because a member of the public said they thought he had a rifle.

The army over in Northern Ireland were on security roll and that of policing the province, at no time were the army on a war footing with them, we were nothing more than armed police.

Regards ian2411

[DuncanONeil]

I would like to point out that two times that were talked about afterwards the supposed terrorist shot three times on the train in London, by the Met Police. They gave him no chance, and all because the idiots hadn't seen him leave the flat, they had not done their homework. The people in the train spoke against the police saying that there was no warning. Please for god sake dont come back and say well he could have been, it was safer to be sure than sorry. It is like hanging someone for murder, and then finding out the man had the right name but it was a different man with that name that carried out the crime.

Entirely possible. Never said mistakes do not happen. But at the same time you can not extrapolate on the basis of the exception. And the previous message was posulating generalities based on a very small sample.

The man on the station with the wrapped up table leg, the police shouted out, [now listen carefully] put the rifel on the floor and step away, second warning if you dont put the rifel doown i will open fire, Bang, one man dead carrying a wrapped up table leg. Now the reason for this is, if you are not carrying a rifle then there is not a lot of chance that you know what trigger happy plod is talking about. The police were only there because a member of the public said they thought he had a rifle.

Regardless of what the inquest said I will fault the citizen in this case. If he was so obtuse as to believe that his package could not be perceived as something other than what it was. If, perchance, the citizen thought the reference was to someone else to just stand there was also foolish. Either responding to the officer, or getting out of the line of fire of the "rifleman" by going prone would have altered the outcome.

The army over in Northern Ireland were on security roll and that of policing the province, at no time were the army on a war footing with them, we were nothing more than armed police.

Regards ian2411

Security role or not they still have rules of engagement. Military does not go live ammo with out a briefing on what they can do when. Even snipers in Iraq are not on free fire. They must call up chain for permission.

[DuncanONeil]

Not intended to be anything other than information. The attempt to make guns "safe" in the US are kepp the firearm in a locked container, WITH TRIGGERLOCK INSTALLED. Ammo in a separate locked container. Yeah foolish. There are only two states in the US that prohibit citizens from carrying a handgun on their person in public, in a concealed fashion. In my state I can not carry a handgun concealed, but it is not illegal to carry it in an open holster. Although, I would not reccomend trying such!

Knife crime: The laws in the UK banning juveniles from carrying knives are ridiculous and impotent because a) it prevents law abiding teenagers (i.e apprentice butchers or simply someone who needs to use a knife for cooking as some teenagers need to do) from acquiring necessary equipment and b) most criminals, including most kids who own knives for kicks, pay no attention to the law and carry them anyway (in fact, most carry them *because* it is illegal) and c) it is already illegal to attack someone with a deadly weapon and the possession law is more or less unenforced because the police do not have the manpower or resources to trawl every school yard and back ally for knife toting teenagers.

I think the same argument can apply to guns - possession laws are actually difficult to enforce and criminals always ignore the law, that is why they are criminals. The main reason why guns are rarer here is that it is more difficult to get them over a marine border (and as stated, the Channel Tunnel may make that easier now...). Not convinced that legalisation and regulation work either - read a report this morning about a young kid in Georgia who was shot by a stray round from an AK47 fired in the air 'up to 3km away' by someone using it to celebrate the new year. This was a legal firearm fired in what the owner clearly thought was a safe way (despite the fact that you can have the same effect with a perfectly safe blank firer that fires no pellet). Some of the regulations I have heard about in some states of America, for example, either invite the owner to break the law or be unable to use the gun for the purpose it was purchased (i.e. if you have to keep the firearm in a locked case with the ammunition in a seperate case such a weapon is no use for home defence so you have to break the law and keep it loaded in an unlocked case).

As for the police... It used to be the case in this country that the first time you saw a gun of any form was when you travelled abroad to somewhere like Spain where the police are armed as a matter of course - I remember being astounded at the age of 10 by Spainish police carrying pistols. The last time I went on holiday, I saw several police officers in the UK airport carrying machine guns (not sure what sort but they were similar to the ones carried by infantry) as well as pistols. This was not an unusual thing, either - it was not after a major terrorist attack (we travelled not long after the twin towers thing and there were a lot more armed police then) and as far as we knew there had been no alert - they were just normal police officers walking a beat inside an airport.