New anti-gun laws needed?
Moss Side, Manchester: I am in the city once dubbed Gunchester with the prime minister after watching . Just down the road, as it happens, is the Tory leader, who's also come to talk about guns and kids. Ming Campbell's chosen the same subject for the day but a different city. He's in Bristol.
Still ringing in my ears is the warning of one of those at the summit - the Rev Nims Obunge - that "we might be raising urban child soldiers". The senior police officers there agreed that although gun crime had gone down in the past year, guns were being used by younger and younger people for more and more trivial causes.
What was striking too was that not one of those there - whether police or community leaders - used the summit to demand new laws. Assistant commissoner of the Met Steve House, who is in favour of the legal changes the government is proposing, said nevertheless that listening to the stories of the anti-gun campaigners in the room - who included a mother whose son died after a shooting - "makes you wonder whether new legislation will really have an effect"
The chief constable of Manchester, Mike Todd, told the summit that "we should treat this as a child protection issue" by giving support to those about to be sucked into gang and gun culture.
Funny, then, that the headline story of today is likely to be promises of new laws.
I'm 
Comments
I think guns are already illegal, so if there are people carrying and using them the law isn't working.
What's broken down is respect for the law. Part of the problem is that much of the law is an ass and another is that the government have hindered the enforcement authorities by banning stop-and-search and overwhelming them with paperwork.
It was all predictable. Has Blair found the causes of crime to be tough on yet?
What can Governments do except legislate and set direction for the police?
And as the first poster says, the problem with setting directions for the police is it seems to inevitably lead to more bureacracy and paperwork.
I think the solution is likely to be in schools and in engagement with young people outside of schools (including parenting) but even in these areas all the government can do is pass new laws or give new direction to teachers or school management.
Increasingly we look to Governments to be responsible for everything that happens in society - and then we wonder why the laws they pass cant live up to the job.
Nick, in a recent discussion you quoted both Tony Blair and David Cameron on this issue of gun crime, families, communities and the acceptance of responsibility. You missed one quote out:
"It is time to get back .... to self-discipline and respect for the law, to consideration for others, to accepting responsibility for yourself and your family, and not shuffling it off on the state". Add the words "to basics" where the dots are and you've got the quote from John Major in 1993 - 14 years ago. This was ridiculed at the time, but if anything, crime and the lack of punishment is far worse.
New laws won't change anything. A change in attitudes, an acceptance responsibility and accountability and not only the assertion of rights, is what we need. It all starts at the top. Perhaps we need the government to show itself to be more responsible and accountable. That might just be a good start.
The causes of crime are generally the divide between the people who have money/property and the people who don't have and probably never will have money/property.
The divide has grown since the Labour government started using policies more akin to that of the Conservative government that preceded it.
The Tories destroyed the community and made being selfish an artform. Tragically, this government has yet to do anything to rectify this.
From personal experience, I’ve seen statute, science, and evidence ignored by people in positions of authority in politics, authorities, and the police. What stands out to me is that there are too many instances where people are so full of their own agendas they don’t listen or care. Fundamentally, it’s an attitude problem.
It’s interesting the Menzies Campbell is visiting Bristol because my local politicians, who are Liberal Democrats, have actively defended guilty parties or looked the other way in spite of the fact they’re supposed to represent their constituents. It’s no wonder, then, that my city council is in the bottom five of the league table.
Prime Minister Blair and the Labour government aren’t perfect but the mere change of tone has done more to change things than anything else. I think, a more simple, clear, and effective framework from the constitution downwards would be helpful, but in the short term rewarding better leadership looks more useful.
No party has shown an interest in me but I would campaign on this agenda. Better goals, ways, and outcomes aren’t rocket science. These can all be promoted in troubled areas, and encouraging business to invest, and developing shared community activity will help develop purpose and wealth generation.
For people who won’t get on the Cluetrain, I’d like to see the ringleaders or persistent troublemakers taken out in a heavy duty way. I’m a big fan of heads on poles and exile where the carrot has failed. It’s tough tack but where communities are led by bad example, removing them allows better examples to lead.
I think, a goal of reducing overall crime in the short-term by 30% is possible, and by 90% in the long-term. Too much clutter and mistrust undermines this, but there are examples which help show it is possible. I look to the Feudal Japan of Ieyasu Tokugawa as an inspiration, but there’s plenty of other examples.
Our gun laws are about as effective as our laws on drug crime and there is clearly more than a trivial relationship.
There is little point in talking about respect for the law when large numbers of people from all walks of life, from MP's and judiciary downwards, are clearly ignoring drugs laws to the tune of £15 billion plus in street trading. It is the greed for this kind of "easy money" from trading in drugs that is providing the motivation for a substantial proportion of the gun crime in the inner cities. I am speaking as one of the few of my age who has never tried even one spliff, or anything else except alcohol, but am firmly convinced that until we move to a system for controlled legal sale for the vast majority of drugs and thus remove the financial incentive we will have minimal effect on the kind of gun crime seen recently. Its simple, is it better to be more like the Netherlands or inner city USA?
Not only that but a vast amount of "petty crime", often with significant violence or the threat of it, is driven by the need to get substantial amounts of cash to buy drugs. Its those who suffer from this kind of crime who are the real victims of drug taking, not those who choose to take the drugs. By licencing drugs we have the prospect of a substantial decrease in this type of crime too.
Its not increasing the penalties that will reduce crimes of all sorts related to this, it is removing the motivation.
The root cause is the system and society, how are guns obtained? how have they been allowed in the country? It all boils down to customs.
Upbringing, education and getting jobs are all major factors. The only time you see police on the streets is after a crime and never before.. giving people the opportunity to commit crime.
Jail em the ministers say... but which jail should we send em'? The answer is simple... very simple.
Apart from life sentences etc, anyone with 5 years or so imprisonment should either be sent to 'boot camp' or made to do National Service or made to clean the streets with pink uniforms.
The debate today at #10 is a total sham... they had one before remember and what has been learned from that one..nothing.!
Call me Whiter than white... which soap powder was that whatever happened to the soap suds..?
David Smith
Nr Manchester. UK
We have no control of our borders and we cannot stop the illegal importation of drugs and guns that end up in the hands of more than a hundred gangs operating in the UK. Firstly and foremost we need to reinforce the existing policing infrastructure to stop illegal trafficking of drugs and guns. We also need prison sentences that fit the crime and life must mean life and we need to face the fact that people who live in ghettos end up developing a ghetto mentality that leads to the formation of gangs. I strongly believe that if the youngsters involved in gangs had grown up in a decent environment they would not have got involved with gangs. Gangs are basically the consequence of social, economic and social deprivation. I took part on the Census 2001 and had the opportunity to visit several deprived areas of London. Most of the housing stock is deplorable with people living practically on top of each other. All I could see were signs like 'no ball games' and a complete absence of sport facilities and cultural infrastructures. We need to get rid of the housing estate mentality and build quality housing for better communities. The motto should be 'give people a chance'. Building quality housing stock will be more expensive, but it would be worthy if we can rid of ghettos.
New legislation, which would no doubt incorporate tougher sentencing, will not on its own have any great effect. The attitude of those carrying guns seems to be one of perceived invincibility - 'it doesn't matter how high the potential sentence is because I'll never get caught so the sentence will never be imposed.'
An increase in visible police resources - which would have to made up predominantly of armed officers in order to deal with armed criminals - is needed to inspire fear in criminals that there is a genuine risk of being caught. The short sighted affirmative knee jerk response of John Reid to the tabloid cries for higher sentencing is not the answer.
There can be no-excuse for killing someone whether by gun or otherwise.
After Dunblane the issue of gun crime grabbed the whole nation. In recent weeks the horrific deaths of young teenage boys - from predominantly black communties - resonated with many. But it's hard for someone like me - a black, male, married family-man - to understand why the reaction to the latter has focussed so much on the absence of black fathers - which is certainly a problem - and not the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots. I can hear critics hammering the idea of jealousy and a lack of ambition or application driving-up gun and drug crime in black/under class areas. But until you live on next-to-nothing, with little hope of getting a 'real' job with 'real' income and 'real' prospects - while you can see and hear others 'blinging' - can lead to a down-ward spiral in ambition. And, a call to walk on the dark-side of the law. So good luck Mr. Reid and Mr. Blair with your new legislation but it's the failure to tackle the causes of crime which will render your tough new legal powers pointless - particularly when its potentially under 17 year olds killing other kids. How sad that these 15 year old won't have the excuse of a 'private past', as they won't be living long enough to get a second chance.
how can the new laws work. as since blair as come to power law and order as got alot worse now he is trying to make a name for himself . he lost respect along time ago. and the courts are a farce these days money wasted with out of touch court personel. if you break the law punish them in any way possible not a cushy prison with luxury.
Politicians only get "interested" in an issue when it becomes a danger to them in terms of votes, or if they get affected personally(eg Ruth Kelly and special needs education).
We need a zero tolerance approach, but politicians seem scared to take that step. Why? Are they afraid of being popular?
Harsh sentencing, especially for those who provide the weapons.
The old laws don't work and new ones wouldn't either. Nice to see that what some of us have been pointing out for years - that laws which victimise shooting sports don't affect inner city gangsters - is finally beginning to penetrate even the chattering classes.
Now can we have the 1997 legislation repealed and once again be able to pursue the Olympic sport that was banned? Or is trusting ordinary citizens - something which every other EU country does - still too scary?
Surely the possession of any firearm without a licence is against the law, so why are the police not arresting anyone found with one? My Uncle and my Step-father had to have a visit once a year from the police, in order that they could ensure the circumstances regarding the licence had not changed in any way. What happened to the sus laws of the early eighties? Have they been repealed? If gun possession is rising, bring back something similar to the sus laws. No-one will be able to claim that the police are not being PC, because gun crime now appears to be across the board, regardless of age, colour or sex.
What happened to being 'Tough on Crime and Tough on the Causes of Crime?' That sound byte helped get Labour elected, and ironically, now it might be something that comes back to haunt them. All crimes are on the rise, yet the Government can't fudge the figures on this issue as it stands out like a sore thumb...
Problem is we've got a Government that has taken its eye off of the ball, Blair hasn't really cared about British issues since 2001 - when he decided to go off and fight terrorism with Bush. Since then we've had the G8 stuff, climate change and generally saving the World.
Please can we just have some focus on what is going on in this country for a change? Foreign affairs are important, but they've dominated too much of the political agenda in this country and we are reaping the consequences of it...
more of the same,
the generation that 'hoped it would die before it got old', said 'never trust anyone over 30' now find themselves old and greying- response: they made it illegal to call old people uncool. -
just as legislating to make old people officially 'cool' can never achieve it, (I'm over 40, I know); so ill conceived rafts of legislation will not improve anything.
The responsible society encourages and REWARDS self regulation. The irresponsible society is mismanaged to the point where the aim of everyone in it is to circumvent the latest proclamations of idiocy issued from the mouth of its ever distanced ruling caste.
If the basic laws are not enforced in the first place, then what is the point pray tell of more laws??
Why?
You are right Nick. There are a whole host of laws in place already, as was in fact the case when that headmaster got stabbed.
The easy way to deal with the headlines is to pass some new law making what was already illegal, illegal with knobs on. Pointless. Utterly pointless. What is frequently needed is enforcement of the ones we already have, possibly with more imagination, and changes in executive policy. Unfortunately the press will then go and ask why, if no new legislation was needed, this was not done before?
What's the good of having laws if you don't enforce them? Passing and enforcing draconian laws is the ONLY way for laws to be respected because those contemplating crime know from example that punishment will be certain and severe. People criticize the US for having two million people in jail but nobody can reasonably argue that most of them don't belong there. Instead of Brits lamenting that they have too little prison space and therefore criminals are being let out with shortened or no sentences, they should be demanding that more prison space be built so that more criminals including those who illegally have and use guns can be incarcerated. But in a society which dismisses those who incite riots in crowds endangering the lives of hundreds as just overly boisterous "soccer hooligans" and punish the teams instead of the perpetrators, what more would anyone expect?
To my horror I heard the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú saying that the government is planning to evict whole families to deter gang members. Can this possibly be true? Have we reached such peak levels of irrationality? It would be a massive violation of human rights. We must punish those who are proven guilty. We cannot allow ourselves to go around punishing those who are innocent merely because they are relatives of a gang member. Mandatory sentences that cannot be implemented and Saddam Hussein style reprisals are not the answer.
With reference to the gun culture problem , I think that ANYONE carring a fire arm should be brought to book. Why should ANY innocent person desire a weapon? Age just dosent come into the equasion.
Stronger enforcement of border controls would be a big help, since that would mean taht most of the guns in the country would be registered and marked with ID. If all gun owners had to have a photo card with thier gun(s) registration numbers, and the police could check the details of the gun against a database using thier 'phones or PDAs, then when a stop and searcxh occurred, it would be easy to see if a gun was legal or not. THe same could be applied to all other weapons, such as swords or knives, as well. Naturally, anyone with a significant police record (and by this I mean not minor speeding and the like) would not be allowwed weapons.
Children would obviously need to be supervised by a responsible adult when handling weapons. Possibly a variation of the liscencing would allow people to use a gun they do not own as well, such as shooting club guns.
More police ont eh street (on foot) would almost certainly be helpful, since that would be an impediment to crime, and would increase the feeling of security amonst people, reducing the need for gang protection.
I did quite like the idea of exile for some crimes (smuggling of illegal goods seems appropriate, as does human trafficking and other similar crimes), where the judfe gives the offender the chioce of a long jail sentecne, no rhehab, no parole; or to leave the country within, say, 248 hours after fingerprinting and gatehring of biometric data, and if they are ever found in theo country again they get teh gallows. It would of course be the criminals own problem to find somewhere to go. One idea which has been floating around is that criminals should not only do thier scentence, but also pay compensation to their victims. Thus if someone commits assault, they should pay the full cost off all the treatment, counselling, legal fees, police time, improisonment costs, adn any otehr costs incurred by thier crime, by labouring at a set pay rate until they pay off the costs. This could either be in addition to or concurrent with thier fixed-term scentence.
BTW, better border proptection would also reduce drug imports and illegal immigaration.
There are already quite sufficient firearms laws in Britain. It is their implementation that is at fault. Anti gun campaigners have traditionally attacked firearms licence holders with legally held weapons because they are an easy target (sic). Yet firearms laws only effect the law abiding. The 1997 firearms Amendment Act has has failed to have any positive benefit to public safety, cost over £500,000,000 to administer and removed the rights of over 100,000 sports men and women. Britain is the only country in Europe with no competitive pistol shooting, yet gangs routinely use firearms in our streets.