Showing posts with label Bear Arms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bear Arms. Show all posts

Monday, January 7, 2013

Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you

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


Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you

From drug dealing to settling playground squabbles, firearms offences are rising

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 fuck.
"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 all think they're playing Grand Theft Auto. It's madness out there."

THIS HOUSE WOULD LIMIT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS



THIS HOUSE WOULD LIMIT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
Gun laws vary widely from country to country, so this topic focuses upon arguments for tightening gun laws in principle. Particular debates might centre upon different categories of guns (for example automatic weapons, handguns or shotguns), licensing requirements for ownership, the right to carry concealed weapons, or requirements that manufacturers increase the safety features on their weapons.
Because the USA is exceptional in protecting the right to own firearms in the Second Amendment to its Constitution, and gun control has been a major issue in American politics over the last few years, partly due to a series of tragic massacres involving children, it is likely to be the focus of this sort of motion.
By contrast, in the UK gun ownership is extremely low, as is the gun homicide rate.[1]  After a couple of high profile incidents (including the Dunblane Massacre), private gun ownership was almost completely banned[2], to the point where the UK Olympic shooting team have to train in Switzerland.  A couple of high profile shooting sprees in recent years by Derrick Bird[3] and Raul Moat[4] have again raised the issue of whether the UK’s gun laws need further tightening, or are already so harsh that they restrict legitimate usage while doing nothing to prevent criminality.  The best way to run this debate in the UK would be to reverse the premise.
Point For
Point Against
The only function of a gun is to kill

Gun ownership is an integral aspect of the right to self defence
The legal ownership of guns by ordinary citizens inevitably leads to many accidental deaths
Gun ownership increases national security within democratic states
Sports shooting desensitizes people to the lethal nature of firearms
Sports shooting is a safe activity
Gun ownership increases the risk of suicide
Effective gun control is not achievable in democratic states with a tradition of civilian gun ownership
[1] Home Office Statistical Bulletin, ‘Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2009/10’,http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs11/hosb0111.pdf
[2] Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/5/contents
[3] The Guardian, ‘Twelve killed in Cumbria shooting spree’ 2nd June 2010http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/02/gunman-sought-person-shot-dead-whitehaven

Point For

(1)   The only function of a gun is to kill
Point
Counterpoint
The only function of a gun is to kill. The more instruments of death and injury can be removed from our society, the safer it will be. In the U.S.A. death by gunshot has become the leading cause of death among some social groups; in particular for African-American males aged from 12 to 19 years old.[1] Quite simply, guns are lethal and the fewer people have them the better.
[1‘Study: Homicide leading cause of death among young black males, Jacksonville.com, 5 May 2010,http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2010-05-05/story/study-homicide-leading-cause-death-among-young-black-males

Prohibition is not the answer, especially not in countries such as the USA where gun ownership is such an entrenched aspect of society. Banning guns would not make them disappear or make them any less dangerous. It is a legitimate right of citizens to own weapons with which they can protect themselves, their family, and their property (see point 4). Many people also need guns for other reasons. For example, farmers need guns in order to protect their stock and crops from pests, e.g. rabbits, birds, deer, foxes, stray dogs attacking sheep, etc.
(2)   The legal ownership of guns by ordinary citizens inevitably leads to many accidental deaths
Point
Counterpoint
The legal ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens inevitably leads to many unnecessary and tragic deaths. Legally held guns are stolen and end up in the hands of criminals, who would have greater difficulty in obtaining such weapons if firearms were less prevalent in society. Guns also end up in the hands of children, leading to tragic accidents and terrible disasters such as the Columbine High School massacre in the U.S.A. Sometimes even normal-seeming registered gun owners appear to go mad and kill, as tragically happened at Hungerford and Dunblaine in the U.K.
Guns don’t kill people – people kill people. Restricting gun ownership will do nothing to make society safer as it is the intent of the criminal we should fear, and that will remain the same whatever the gun laws. In the vast majority of crimes involving firearms, the gun used is not legally held or registered. Many of illegal weapons are imported secretly from abroad, or converted from replica firearms rather than being stolen from registered owners.

(3)   Sports shooting desensitizes people to the lethal nature of firearms
Point
Counterpoint
Shooting as a sport desensitises people to the lethal nature of all firearms, creating a gun culture that glamorises and legitimises unnecessary gun ownership. It remains the interest of a minority, who should not be allowed to block the interests of society as a whole in gun control. Compensation can be given to individual gun owners, gun clubs and the retail firearms trade, in recognition of their economic loss if a ban is implemented.
Shooting is a major sport enjoyed by many law-abiding people, both in gun clubs with purpose-built ranges and as a field sport. These people have the right to continue with their chosen leisure pursuit, on which they have spent large amounts of money – an investment the government would effectively be confiscating if their guns were confiscated. In addition, field sports bring money into poor rural economies and provide a motivation for landowners to value environmental protection. While compensation could be given the cost would be huge; in the UK shootings value to the economy was £1.6billion in 2004.[1]
[1] ‘£1,600,000,000 – the value of shooting’,Shooting Times, 27 September 2006,http://www.shootingtimes.co.uk/news/96001/pound1600000000__the_value_of_...


(4)   Gun ownership increases the risk of suicide
Point
Counterpoint
There is a correlation between the laxity of a country’s gun laws and its suicide rate – not because gun owners are more depressive, but because the means of quick and effective suicide is easily to hand. As many unsuccessful suicides are later glad that they failed in their attempt, the state should discourage and restrict the ownership of something that wastes so many human lives.
There are substantial exceptions to that correlation, for example Japan has the world’s 5th highest suicide rate but very low gun ownership.[1]
As the proposition concedes, the availability of firearms is not a direct cause of suicide and thus the restriction of availability of firearms can only have a marginal effect on the suicide rate.


Point Against

(1)   Gun ownership is an integral aspect of the right to self defence
Point
Counterpoint
Law-abiding citizens deserve the right to protect their families in their own homes, especially if the police are judged incapable of dealing with the threat of attack. Would-be rapists and armed burglars will think twice before attempting to break into any house where the owners may keep firearms for self-defence. (This can also be applied to the right to carry concealed weapons, deterring potential rapists, muggers, etc.)
Burglary should not be punished by vigilante killings. No amount of property is worth a human life. Perversely, the danger of attack by homeowners may make it more likely that criminals will carry their own weapons. If a right to self-defence is granted in this way, many accidental deaths are bound to result.
Moreover the value of guns for self-defence is overrated.  A firearm kept in the home for self-defence is six times more likely to be used in a deliberate or accidental homicide than against an unlawful intruder.[1]
[1] Drinan, Robert F. ‘Gun Control: The Good Outweighs the Evil’.  The Civil Liberties Review. August/September 1976 http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Drinan1.html


(2)   Gun ownership increases national security within democratic states
Point
Counterpoint
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary top the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” – 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1]  Any country is much more able to defend itself from aggression if many of its citizens are able to use guns, keeping them for leisure and sporting use. Some countries actively require adult citizens to maintain weapons in their house, and periodically to train in their use.   The high levels of firearm availability in Iraq and Afghanistan have been significant contributory factors in allowing for a viable insurrection to form which has the potential to generate the political pressure necessary to cause the withdrawal of foreign occupiers.
Of course, such widespread ownership of weapons is also a safeguard against domestic tyranny.
[1] See also DIstricxt of Columbia v Heller,554 U.S. 570  (2008)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was written in the age of horse and musket, where a private citizen could gain access to the same (or even better) weaponry that the state did.
Unless the opposition want to remove all barriers on gun ownership completely, no armed citizenry can seriously compete with a modern military armed with tanks, drones and precision weaponry.  Popular resistance movements rely upon creating an unaffordable political cost to maintaining the occupation (e.g. The US was eventually forced from Vietnam, despite winning virtually every major battle of the war), but this assumes that the occupying power is vulnerable to that kind of pressure.  An undemocratic invader or a domestic tyranny will happily slaughter dissidents with impunity (see the pre-intervention stages of the Libyan civil-war and the 2011 Syrian uprising).


(3)   Sports shooting is a safe activity
Point
Counterpoint
Shooting is sport enjoyed by many law-abiding people, both in gun clubs with purpose-built ranges and as a field sport. These people have the right to continue with their chosen leisure pursuit, on which they have spent large amounts of money – an investment the government would effectively be confiscating if their guns were confiscated.
Shooting as a sport has the potential to desensitize people to the lethal nature of all firearms, creating a gun culture that glamorizes and legitimizes unnecessary gun ownership.

(4)   Effective gun control is not achievable in democratic states with a tradition of civilian gun ownership
Point
Counterpoint
Much like the failure of the prohibition era to stop alcohol consumption, trying to restrict the use of guns that are already widely owned and prevalent in a society is an impossible task.[1]
The people who intend to use guns for illegitimate purposes are obviously unconcerned with the fact that it is illegal to acquire the guns in the first place in countries where this is already the case such as in the UK .[2][3]
[1] Kates, Don B. ‘Why a Civil Libertarian Opposes Gun Control’. The Civil Liberties Review. June/July 1976http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Kates1.html
[2] The Independent. ‘Up to 4m guns in UK and police are losing the battle’. 4thSeptember 2005.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/up-to-4m-guns-in-uk-and-police-are-losing-the-battle-505487.html
[3] The Guardian. ‘Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you’ 30th August 2008.http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1


Limited restrictions on ownership and use are different in nature to absolute prohibition and are more easily enforced. 
Statistical analysis shows that that gun control laws do have a deterrent effect on firearm deaths and that the magnitude of the effect is dependent on how well the rules are enforced.[1]  The ineffectiveness of badly drafted or enforced gun control regulations is not an indicator of the ineffectiveness of well drafted and enforced regulations. 
[1] Kwon et al. ‘The effectiveness of gun control laws: multivariate statistical analysis’, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology. Jan 1997.



FURTHER READING

Roleff, Tamara. ‘Gun Control (Opposing Viewpoints).  Greenhaven. 2007
Bruce, John. ‘The Changing Politics of Gun Control’. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 1998.
Cook, Philip J. ‘Gun Violence: The Real Costs (Studies in Crime and Public Policy)’. Oxford University Press. 2002
Cornell, Saul. ‘A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America’. Oxford Universitry Press. 2008.


This House would limit the right to bear arms-Discussion

source: http://idebate.org/print/32345


This House would limit the right to bear arms