Submachine gun seized and nine arrested in anti-gang raids

[Boiler 46,022]

Police claim to have dealt a “massive blow” to a violent gang crime after arresting nine people, including a 14-year-old boy, in a series of raids.

They also seized a Škorpion machine pistol, ammunition, cash and suspected class A drugs in an overnight operation in west London that involved 200 officers.

Some of those arrested were believed to be senior figures in a crack-cocaine and heroin-dealing outfit

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/12/machine-gun-seized-as-nine-arrested-in-london-anti-gang-raids

 

Now that is a real assault weapon.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Yes, it is an assault weapon.  Quite a haul for the cops, overall.  And also serves to reinforce the concept that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

[Dashinka 24,767]

42 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Police claim to have dealt a “massive blow” to a violent gang crime after arresting nine people, including a 14-year-old boy, in a series of raids.

They also seized a Škorpion machine pistol, ammunition, cash and suspected class A drugs in an overnight operation in west London that involved 200 officers.

Some of those arrested were believed to be senior figures in a crack-cocaine and heroin-dealing outfit

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/12/machine-gun-seized-as-nine-arrested-in-london-anti-gang-raids

 

Now that is a real assault weapon.

I thought there were no firearms in the UK?

[Boiler 46,022]

5 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I thought there were no firearms in the UK?

They have always been available to criminals.

[Dashinka 24,767]

4 minutes ago, Boiler said:

They have always been available to criminals.

Imagine that.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 minutes ago, Boiler said:

They have always been available to criminals.

And always will be, unfortunately.  Whether allowed, restricted, or banned to “we the people”, the criminals will always own them and use them against the weak.

[bcking 3,157]

2 hours ago, Boiler said:

They have always been available to criminals.

If that is the case then we should be able to assume that criminals would use them at the same rate they would use them where there are no "laws" controlling access to firearms, since the laws don't matter to them. They're criminals afterall.

 

How does England compare to the USA in terms of firearm-related violence and mortality?

 

England/Wales has a firearm-related crime rate of roughly 11 per 100,000 (6,375 events in 2017, with a population of around 56 million for the two countries combined)

London specifically isn't that much different - Around 1500 offenses with a population of around 13.6 million gives you a similar ratio

(http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7654/CBP-7654.pdf for the total events, then I googled for population estimates)

- It's not 100% clear to me from the data in that PDF whether their list of firearm related offenses include homicides. They don't explicitly say it (at least I didn't notice) but they do separate out types of injuries several pages down which makes me think the overall numbers include it but it could be off slightly due to that.

 

USA has a firearm-related crime rate of roughly 23 per 100,000 overall, non-fatal crime. I'm sure much higher in certain places. Add in the deaths by firearms and the rate is around 33 per 100,000.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Violent_crime)

 

So I guess all those firearm wielding criminals in the UK just decide to sit on them and not use them?

Edited April 12, 2018 by bcking

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

45 minutes ago, bcking said:

If that is the case then we should be able to assume that criminals would use them at the same rate they would use them where there are no "laws" controlling access to firearms, since the laws don't matter to them. They're criminals afterall.

 

How does England compare to the USA in terms of firearm-related violence and mortality?

 

England/Wales has a firearm-related crime rate of roughly 11 per 100,000 (6,375 events in 2017, with a population of around 56 million for the two countries combined)

London specifically isn't that much different - Around 1500 offenses with a population of around 13.6 million gives you a similar ratio

(http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7654/CBP-7654.pdf for the total events, then I googled for population estimates)

- It's not 100% clear to me from the data in that PDF whether their list of firearm related offenses include homicides. They don't explicitly say it (at least I didn't notice) but they do separate out types of injuries several pages down which makes me think the overall numbers include it but it could be off slightly due to that.

 

USA has a firearm-related crime rate of roughly 23 per 100,000 overall, non-fatal crime. I'm sure much higher in certain places. Add in the deaths by firearms and the rate is around 33 per 100,000.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Violent_crime)

 

So I guess all those firearm wielding criminals in the UK just decide to sit on them and not use them?

So America is about 3X worse off with having guns, based on the firearms crime rates per capita.  Yet America has 689X more guns.  

 

3X the crime vs. 689X the guns.   Something is going on in the middle that you are not taking into account it seems.

[bcking 3,157]

56 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

So America is about 3X worse off with having guns, based on the firearms crime rates per capita.  Yet America has 689X more guns.  

 

3X the crime vs. 689X the guns.   Something is going on in the middle that you are not taking into account it seems.

I've never denied that there are a lot of issues at play. I'm not saying that the number of guns is the only reason why America has more gun-related crime.

 

However the argument that "criminals will always find a way to get guns anyway" in countries where there are strict laws also doesn't really follow through with the data. As you rightly point out, the number of guns per capita (legal or otherwise) are also lower in the UK. Though not as low as you suggest. The per capita number of guns in England and Wales is 6.2, compared to 10.2 in the US (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country). So proportionally 40% less guns, for 300% less gun crime.

 

I personally see little value in owning a firearm so I have no problem supporting laws that restrict their ownership in order to reduce our gun-related crime. However I also recognize that the majority of gun owners are law abiding and likely all have what they perceive to be "valid" reasons for gun ownership. I understand why those people oppose it. I think a system with tougher restrictions would still allow a fairly high number of those people to continue to own firearms, while potentially reducing those who may not be as law-abiding. My wife has friends and family with hunting rifles in the UK, and they continue to support their gun control laws. Similarly we just had a friend visit from Norway who owns a firearm, but also completely supports the gun control laws her country has (and thinks we are crazy). 

 

I think there is room to find somewhere in the middle between easy access and no access at all. I don't think we are at the "sweet spot" between balancing protecting our fellow citizens and protecting our right to firearm ownership. I don't think it should swing to no ownership completely, but I think we could be tougher on the process.

Edited April 12, 2018 by bcking

[bcking 3,157]

Correction (I can't edit anymore) -

 

Gun ownership in the USA is about 102 per 100, now 10.2. I accidentally glanced at the wrong row. So that means the UK has around 95% less gun ownership, for around 300% less gun crime. Still a reasonable payoff, in my opinion.

Edited April 12, 2018 by bcking

[jg121783 3,921]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

So America is about 3X worse off with having guns, based on the firearms crime rates per capita.  Yet America has 689X more guns.  

 

3X the crime vs. 689X the guns.   Something is going on in the middle that you are not taking into account it seems.

Not to mention a vast majority of the gun related crime happens in so called gun free zones. Let's not mention that inconvenient fact though.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Not to mention a vast majority of the gun related crime happens in so called gun free zones. Let's not mention that inconvenient fact though.

A small "gun free zone" in an otherwise vast "gun zone" is bound to fail. 

 

While I think places like schools should still be "gun free" just on principle, I would never expect that to be effective unless you had unrealistically strict enforcement (treat them like an airport) which isn't practical.

 

If I can step 5 feet and go from a "gun zone" to a "gun free zone" without anyone checking me...of course the zone won't work. That like those "smoke free zones" outside Hospitals. I see people smoke all the time. Or if not in the zone, they stand 2 feet away and defeat the purpose. Again I think hospitals should be smoke free also on principle, but I don't think just putting up signs and saying "This is a smoke free zone" on its own does anything. 

Edited April 12, 2018 by bcking

[jg121783 3,921]

Just now, bcking said:

A small "gun free zone" in an otherwise vast "gun zone" is bound to fail

Nice theory but the facts say otherwise. The facts say gun related crime is much lower in areas where people can legally defend themselves. Most criminals go for the easy prey in the victim disarmament zones. It's not too hard to figure out that a criminal is going to break into a house with no guns over one where there is a chance they will be shot.

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Nice theory but the facts say otherwise. The facts say gun related crime is much lower in areas where people can legally defend themselves. Most criminals go for the easy prey in the victim disarmament zones. It's not too hard to figure out that a criminal is going to break into a house with no guns over one where there is a chance they will be shot.

Provide the facts please when you state that they "say otherwise".

 

I said gun free zones don't protect anyone so in part I agree with you. In my mind it's because a "gun free zone" isn't an enforceable thing except in extreme circumstances. In true "gun free zones" (airports), the rates of gun violence are incredibly low. How often do we have someone shooting in an airport? I think we had one big event in 2017 and even that was "pre-security" so not really in the true "gun free area". The "gun free zones" that have signs but no enforcement of course aren't going to protect anyone.

 

If you provide the "facts" we can discuss them more.

Edited April 12, 2018 by bcking

[jg121783 3,921]

 

https://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

 

 

 

 

Seems pretty definitive to me.