Skip to comments.Gun crime: Labour 'losing control'
Posted on 01/29/2007 12:45:40 PM PST by TC Rider
Labour has been accused of losing control of gun crime as new figures show a sharp rise in armed robberies.
Guns were used in 4,120 robberies last year - a 10% jump - including a 9% rise to 1,439 in the number of street robberies where guns were used.
There was also a rapid and unexplained increase in the number of times householders were confronted in their own homes by armed criminals. Residential firearms robberies show a 46% leap, a record 645 cases in England and Wales - up 204 on the previous year and four times the level recorded in 2000-01.
The figures come a day after two men armed with a replica gun robbed a Home Office worker on his way home after sharing a curry with Home Secretary John Reid. The 29-year-old civil servant was making his way home in Beckenham, Kent, shortly before midnight when he was attacked.
A Met Police spokeswoman said the man's wallet and mobile phone were taken and confirmed that two teenage men remain in custody at a south London police station.
The Home Office report shows that handguns are the most commonly used firearm in robberies, reported in 2,888 cases.
Shadow home secretary David Davis said of the figures: "This shows Labour is losing control of gun crime across the board, whether it be on the street or in innocent people's homes.
"Gun crime is mainly fuelled by gang warfare and drug addiction, which is a consequence of Labour's failing drugs policy. It is exacerbated by our porous borders, which allow illegal weapons to flow into the country."
Home Office minister Tony McNulty said: "Firearm offences have fallen significantly, by 14% in the year up to September 2006, which amounts to 1,642 fewer incidents.
"While there is a small rise in residential firearm robberies, these account for a tiny proportion of recorded offences overall, although we recognise any firearm incident is traumatic for victims." He added: "We have some of the toughest firearm legislation in Europe."
Well, criminals aren't at risk from legally armed citizens, anyway...
So, obviously, the answer is MORE GUN CONTROL.
Morons, absolute morons...........
That implies that government had control of it in the first place.
Those crooks in the UK must be getting their guns from VA, NC and Georgia!!!
Paging Mikey Bloomberg!
Fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity . - Sigmund Freud
Quemadmoeum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." (A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands.) - Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD)
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants;
they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.
- Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist 1764.
I can explain it. It's because the crooks know the householders probably aren't armed.
Unfortunately, every member may not always format his posts properly.
It is also a consequence of prosecuting householders for defending themselves from the perpetrators of home invasion robberies. The crooks know the householders are not armed and dare not fight back for fear of being prosecuted themselves. The inmates are running the asylum.
Criminals don't comply with gun laws?? Can't be.
This is what happens when a regime seizes guns from law-abiding citizens. Only the crooks have guns. The law-abiding people can't defend themselves.
Rule #1 of survival, that all animals and humans must obey: protect your own existence. Since the liberal regime is preventing humans from saving their own existence, the liberal regime is violating a fundamental law of animal and human nature.
And I don't expect them to understand what I just said.
Exactly. I've noticed that when liberal laws fail, as they inevitably do, liberals call for more of the same laws that failed.
Here's a fun exercise. How many false statements can you find in this quote?
Don't you know the liberal law makers know this? When the new gun law fails and new law will be written that forces the law abiding deeper into hiding. And the politicians will tell them how fortunate they are.
So how's that banning gun thingy working out ??? Really helped reduce crime didn't it ... you bunch of friggin idiots
"This is what happens when a regime seizes guns from law-abiding citizens. Only the crooks have guns. The law-abiding people can't defend themselves."
Can we get this straight? I'm not defending our gun laws (my handguns were made illegal 10 years ago), but shotguns and rifles are very much legal, albeit tightly controlled.
Just for the record.
This story also goes to show that the UK's Conservative party that some Freepers like to think of as the closest relative to the Republican party is no friend of liberty at all. They're essentially saying 'Labor has failed on the issue of gun control. We can do far better!'. Don't think for a minute that this means the Conservatives are going to repeal gun control legislation or allow law abiding UK citizens to defend themselves. It means that the Conservatives intend to redouble their efforts on gun control.
The party of Margaret Thatcher is long gone.
Still, the point is: "The law-abiding people can't defend themselves."
For the record, I'm an Anglophile.
All firearms should be tightly controlled, anything else could cause personal injury and make it hard to hit your target./s
Any infringement on the right of citizens to keep the means of self defense will tend to be expanded for the protection of the ruling elite. At a cost that citizens of England and Australia and other places are finding out.
That's how I see it.
Unexplained only to left wing idiots, conservatives know why there was an increase in home invasions in the UK since they effectively made it against the law for home owners to defend themselves.
They may be legal, and very tightly controlled, but it is not legal for you to use them inself defense otherwise why would a farmer be sitting in jail for defending himself. Why did they have to change the law to allow citizens to use bats and other weapons to defend themselves? Are all these stories bogus? Are you allowed to kill a criminal invading your house?
Also explain what you mean by shotguns and long arms being "tightly controlled". What does a person have to do in the UK to own a firearm ? Once you have a shotgun or long arm where can you store it, at home? Are you actually allowed to shoot someone who breaks into your house? I know you aren't allowed, I just want to see what you say.
The Reps are fair weather friends of liberty, but the best friends that liberty has. The Dems are sworn enemies of liberty.
The term GUN CRIME is an Orwellian abomination. The news papers would never use the term BLACK CRIME though it would be just as accurate. Sign of a weak press that they can not use language better.
No surprise there.
How about all of them?
Maybe they can make private gun ownership extra special illegal.
They're already putting the real criminals on 'double secret probation'.
"The party of Margaret Thatcher is long gone."
The party of MT banned semi-automatic rifles (except for 22 rimfire) after the Hungerford shootings of 1987.
The party of John Major (her Conservative successor) banned most handguns (including mine) ten years ago after the Dunblaine school shootings. I can't seem to be able to post links but you can find out about most of this on wikipedia (UK gun politics).
"Tightly controlled" means being thoroughly vetted before being granted a license to own and the arms (type, calibre & s/nos) are recorded on the license and police records. You can keep them at home provided you have some sort of steel cabinet to put them in (similar to New York I believe according to the NRA website).
If they are for hunting, you will have to prove to the police that you have a place to hunt. For sport you will have to prove club membership (you get this after a 6 month probationary period) before you can apply.
The guns must have criminal minds in England.
You haven't got a friend in the world over there. Good luck and best wishes to you. It would make me insane if I had to live there. The natural beauty must be what compels you to stay.
Further,(my email crashes if my replies go over a certain length!) regarding self defence, "reasonable force" under the circumstances may be used - i.e matched to the threat - you can use anything really, as long as you can justify it to a jury. The farmer (you are referring to Tony Martin, right?) I believe was pissed off with being burgled, advertised his valuable possessions and set up an ambush - looking for trouble - shot the burglar running away. From what I've read (Massad Ayoob "In the gravest extreme/other articles), his treatment would be mirrored in your country.
Cheers! I hope you fiercely defend your firearm rights over there!
I do what I can. We're losing ground here as well.
"The figures come a day after two men armed with a replica gun robbed a Home Office worker on his way home after sharing a curry with Home Secretary John Reid. The 29-year-old civil servant was making his way home in Beckenham, Kent, shortly before midnight when he was attacked. "
in other news...
"And the fact that you've got "Replica" written down the side of your guns, and the fact that I've got "Desert Eagle point five O" written on the side of mine..."
"Any infringement on the right of citizens to keep the means of self defense will tend to be expanded for the protection of the ruling elite."
Right. Give 'em an inch and they take a mile. Guard your rights with care - DON'T get complacent; speaking from experience. Ironically however, the ruling elite might actually keep gun ownership alive in my country - some of those double barrelled rifles cost the same as a new Ferrari!
First off, gun control does not apply to the elite themselves. One of the most rabid anti-gunners in this country has armed guards.
Secondly, that Ferrari-like price tag may in itself be an infringement. How much of the cost is in taxes and other government costs? Pricing the means of self defense out of the range of anyone is itself an infringement.