if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Kids and Guns
by Lee
A bunch of schoolkids in the UK have demonstrated the total futility of gun control laws.
Schoolchildren have exploited loopholes in Britain’s arms controls by importing torture equipment including thumb and wall cuff restraint devices and a Chinese “sting stick” - a metal bar covered with spikes.
All that teenagers from Lord Williams’s school in Thame, Oxfordshire, needed was a letterhead, a mobile phone, an email address, and a little money. They also set up a separate company in Ireland to avoid British controls on the sale of small arms.
The government says it is opposed to any trade in torture equipment, but bans only those items mentioned on a published list. The wall cuffs from Poland, thumb cuffs from Taiwan, and sting stick from China do not appear on the list.
The pupils set up two companies, Williams Defence and Williams Defence (Eire). Through their Irish company they arranged deals to destinations covered by British and other national trade embargos, including the sale of Pakistani grenade launchers to Syria, Turkish guns to Mali, and South African rifles to Israel.
The Thame children got quotes but did not go ahead with the deals. However, children from a school in Portloaise, near Dublin, succeeded in buying electric shock batons from Korea and leg irons from South Africa.
The ease with which British controls on trade in torture equipment and small arms can be evaded is exposed in a Dispatches programme, After School Arms Club, presented by Mark Thomas, to be broadcast on Channel 4 next Monday. “It should not be legal, and yet we’ve proved that children, who by law are not allowed to drink alcohol, can broker arms from countries along a trade route from Poland to China, Israel to South Africa. And many of these arms are used against - or tragically even by - children,” said Maddy Fry, 16, a pupil at Lord Williams’s school.
Now, admittedly, the children weren’t buying guns, but the principle is the same. No matter how much you ban something, no matter how many laws you pass, it will always be possible to find loopholes. If a bunch of students can order torture equipment, how difficult would it be for an experienced criminal enterprise to get in a shipment of AK-47s?
Comments
"No matter how much you ban something, no matter how many laws you pass, it will always be possible to find loopholes.’
I won’t argue that point with you, Lee...you ar absolutely right. However, I think that means the punishment for trying to squirm through those loopholes should be severe. that’s why i think guncontrol should mean alot more than just using both hands.
I hope these kids get some form of disipline.
"One of the Seattle Times columnists (Nichole Brodeur), a true Seattle socialist if there ever was one, was claiming in a column that we just needed to get rid of all guns because guns are the only thing that allows people to go on killing sprees.”
Wow...she’s a moron. Guns aren’t the only thing. Merely the best tool for the job.
And, notice, not ONE of them were American companies or people.
And, as for the Seatlle Times columnist, Nichole Brodeur--OK, but if we get rid of ALL guns ,that includes the cops and the military. No special exemptions for any groups whatsoever.
And, with Taliban gettin’ closer every day, I suggest we go to Vermont style concealed carry. It’s your property, loaded or not. Put it in your pocket and have it with you. You never know when you’ll need it.
KS legislature over rode the Govenor’s veto of the concealsed carry. Bout fuckin time!
I’m looking for a sexy compact semi auto 40 cal.
Remove the guns and people will use knives, baseball bats, & swords. Remove those and people will use the classic lead pipe.
When people want to get violent they will always find a way to obtain or create a tool to allow them to be more effective. It doesn’t take much in the way of creativity to adapt something into a weapon - even our remote ancestors decided to use sharp sticks and thigh bones. In a pinch a good sized rock will do.
"When people want to get violent they will always find a way to obtain or create a tool to allow them to be more effective. It doesn’t take much in the way of creativity to adapt something into a weapon - even our remote ancestors decided to use sharp sticks and thigh bones. In a pinch a good sized rock will do.”
Yeah, that’s true Seattle, but Guns are much more effective at killing than the examples you mention. Bottom Line. I can walk into a mall or High school and kill 5 people much more quickly if I have a firearm than if I have a lead pipe or sharp stick.
AND BTW...the Taliban isn’t coming here in our lifetimes. Sorry to dissappoint.
So if it it is quicker it is owrse than if they killed them with something else? There were wars and massacres and murders for millenia before guns were invented. The instrument of the murder isn’t the problem, the murderer is.
I can walk into a mall or High school and kill 5 people much more quickly if I have a firearm than if I have a lead pipe or sharp stick.
I think the point of what pro-gunners are trying to say is that it’s the person who should be punished not the tool. By the fact that I am a good sized man I can kill 5 people faster than my wife who is a very small woman. Should I be banned? Or should my intentions and actions be punished? I don’t think that guns should be banned because responsible owners can take care of their guns. However, irresponsible owners should be punished and forbidden to have guns. For example, people with kids should have gun lockers that the kids can’t get into. If they don’t, they should have their guns taken away. I hate to sound like some weenie politician, but that would be for the good of the children if the adult can’t be smart enough to figure that out on his/her own.
On the flip side, I think that people who want to carry a gun all the time are probably too paranoid to own one.
AND BTW...the Taliban isn’t coming here in our lifetimes.
I disagree. I’m convinced they are already here.
By that logic, nobody should engage in any martial arts training of any kind. I mean, after over 20 years of studying Japanese MA I know lots and lots of ways to kill people with my bare hands with almost no effort. And I know dozens more that are even better at it than I am.
Strange, none of us have ever been sent to jail for harming anybody......
"If guns kills people, then my pencil is responsible for all of my misspelled words.”
-- Larry The Cable Guy
I’m sorry SO, your wife, significant other or parents should turn you in at the next Black Belts for dollars rally. Then you can be incinerated properly because you are a killing machine. We will get to work right away on banning people like you. In fact, we should just ban Japan.
You’d have to get past my ninja skills first. Doncha’ know, we can all fly and turn invisible and shit?
Seriously though, my preferred method of self defense in my Ruger. Why mix it up with someone and risk getting my ass handed to me when I can sit back across the room and blow large holes in you?
Why mix it up with someone and risk getting my ass handed to me when I can sit back across the room and blow large holes in you?
Zactly!
First off, at NO point did I say guns should be banned. I completly dissagree with that idea.
“So if it it is quicker it is worse than if they killed them with something else?”
Yes, it is. Some people brought up the issue of martial arts. When was the last time you heard of someone going on a pseudo-ninja rampage through a public area and killing six people? I can’t recall a story like that. I can recall numerous storries of people using a firearm to do the same thing...and it’s alot harder to restrain someone who is shooting at you than someone who is trying to attack you with a martial arts move.
“I think the point of what pro-gunners are trying to say is that it’s the person who should be punished not the tool.”
I agree with that. My issue is that a firearm is one of the few tools designed by man (the bow and arrow and the sword are other examples) designed specifically to kill people. I think anything with that kind of power needs a little regulation.
“By that logic, nobody should engage in any martial arts training of any kind. I mean, after over 20 years of studying Japanese MA I know lots and lots of ways to kill people with my bare hands with almost no effort. And I know dozens more that are even better at it than I am.
Strange, none of us have ever been sent to jail for harming anybody”
Seattle, do you think a well trained martial artist could go on a killing spree in todays society and kill more people than a moderatly trained shooter with a weapon?
I may be wrong on this, but some of you have adopted a “slippery slope” argument when it comes to gun control. You seem to believe that since some think guns are dangerous, those people should feel that ALL weapons or tools (cars have been used as an example on this site) are dangerous and should be regulated or banned. I can’t speak for everyone in the anti-gun movement, but I don’t feel that way.
Remove the guns and people will use knives, baseball bats, & swords. Remove those and people will use the classic lead pipe.
Few people, even from the UK, argue that someone whose aim is to go out and kill someone that they need a gun to do it. It’s clearly a lot easier with a gun - mainly because it’s a lot easier to get away with it. Go and bash someone on the head with a baseball bat and you are far more likely to get caught through all the evidence that you leave behind. But still, killing someone is hardly that difficult.
However, there are lots of deaths caused by guns that if guns where not present would not happen. Drunk people who might punch each other instead shoot each other. Road rage leads to someone shooting someone instead of just screaming at them. Burgulary ends in murder instead of the burglar running from the house.
I have said it here a few times, it’s a lost cause trying to ban guns in the US - there are so many of them. This simply istn’t the case in the UK. If we are unable to prevent massive shipments of guns into the UK we may have to rethink the law but right now it seems to work well.
Padders,
Banning guns in the US is a lost cause because our constitution prevents it. Which is a good thing. Banning guns won’t solve anything. What we need is the abilty to allow people to have firearms to protect themselves while not allowing them to buy any kind of weapon they want (and as many of them as they can get their hands on) and then re-sell them.
Road rage leads to someone shooting someone instead of just screaming at them. Burgulary ends in murder instead of the burglar running from the house.
So does drunk driving, which do you want to ban alcohol or cars?
Didn’t some Islamist kill 5 people in the US a few weeks ago with a car? You could steal a car and run many people down then ditch it and not get caught. And if you want to tell me that the police would chase and catch you, you’d probably have a better chance of getting away in a car then running with a gun. Just like you could steal a gun (a bought one would be traceable) and shoot people leaving just as much evidence behind. Don’t you think that police check around the crime scene? They are pretty good at figuring out where the shots were fired. The only way they couldn’t figure it out and do a forensic search is if you were so far away that they wouldn’t think to look there.
Seattle, do you think a well trained martial artist could go on a killing spree in todays society and kill more people than a moderatly trained shooter with a weapon?
Yes - it wouldn’t be difficult to go around and kill a large number of people without a gun. Before firearms were common swords, knives, and clubs did a wonderful job of arming criminals. These items take almost no training to use effectively and are readily available. Of you can just beat people to death, with is far easier than most people are aware of.
As we have already seen in the UK, when you deprive people of guns they merely switch to what is available. Or haven’t you noticed the large number of sword crimes being committed in the UK? Believe me, arm one person with a good sword and turn them loose in an office building and there will very shortly be more blood and dead bodies laying around than you know what to do with. Or are you planning on taking it away from him?
A person could kill more people with some gasoline,a little soap for thicking,some bottles, and some cloth and you can kill alot more than with a gun. Take away the guns and people will just become more inventive in their choices for slaughter.
Seattle, do you think a well trained martial artist could go on a killing spree in todays society and kill more people than a moderatly trained shooter with a weapon?
hell it dont even need to be a martial artist, just a person modivated with a sharp knife.
Persoanly i prefer a M1911 45ACP.
Banning guns in the US is a lost cause because our constitution prevents it. Which is a good thing. Banning guns won’t solve anything. What we need is the abilty to allow people to have firearms to protect themselves while not allowing them to buy any kind of weapon they want (and as many of them as they can get their hands on) and then re-sell them.
Mike, I agree. I didn’t used to but after discussing it here I agree with you (and I am not just talking about the constitutionality of it either). Banning guns in the US really wouldn’t help given the current situation and your porous borders.
So does drunk driving, which do you want to ban alcohol or cars?
Didn’t some Islamist kill 5 people in the US a few weeks ago with a car? You could steal a car and run many people down then ditch it and not get caught. And if you want to tell me that the police would chase and catch you, you’d probably have a better chance of getting away in a car then running with a gun. Just like you could steal a gun (a bought one would be traceable) and shoot people leaving just as much evidence behind. Don’t you think that police check around the crime scene? They are pretty good at figuring out where the shots were fired. The only way they couldn’t figure it out and do a forensic search is if you were so far away that they wouldn’t think to look there.
Jabba, banning one dangerous thing does not require the banning of everything that is dangerous. In the US I believe you can not go and buy a rocket launcher or a mobile nuclear device but you can buy a gun. Banning rocket launchers does not require the banning of guns. There is clearly a slope but somewhere we draw the line. You guys don’t draw the lines at guns, in the UK we do - to almost completly agreement by the population here.
As for forensics. You can shoot someone from a distance away with out leaving any evidence at all. If you want to batter them with a club or even stab them you have to get close to them. They are likely to scratch you and you are likely to get their blood on you. Killing someone in this fashion is very messy and you are much more likely to be caught. All I am saying is that a gun does make a pre-meditated murder easier, but this istn’t my real argument against guns - at the end of the day stopping a pre-meditated murder is almost impossible; it’s incredibly easy to kill someone if you want to and of course a gun istn’t necessary.
As we have already seen in the UK, when you deprive people of guns they merely switch to what is available. Or haven’t you noticed the large number of sword crimes being committed in the UK? Believe me, arm one person with a good sword and turn them loose in an office building and there will very shortly be more blood and dead bodies laying around than you know what to do with. Or are you planning on taking it away from him?
I think it is fair enough to question someone walking around town with a sword, same with walking into an office building. I also disagree that it is easy to kill lots of people in an office building with a sword. There is a reason people use guns to do these things, when was the last time you heard of a mass sword attack?
A person could kill more people with some gasoline,a little soap for thicking,some bottles, and some cloth and you can kill alot more than with a gun. Take away the guns and people will just become more inventive in their choices for slaughter.
Well istn’t making bombs a bit of a no no as well? The argument about banning guns istn’t that is will prevent people killing people; just that it will prevent a lot of deaths that wouldn’t happen another way - because the murder was not pre-meditated. As I have said earlier, this really only works when the place istn’t already overloaded with guns - like for example the UK istn’t.
Persoanly i prefer a M1911 45ACP.
Yep. Me too. Plus a couple of spare mags.
There is a reason people use guns to do these things, when was the last time you heard of a mass sword attack?
Rawanda?
Well istn’t making bombs a bit of a no no as well? The argument about banning guns istn’t that is will prevent people killing people; just that it will prevent a lot of deaths that wouldn’t happen another way - because the murder was not pre-meditated.
You are still missing the point. You are taking a Band-Aid solution to a very big problem. The problem isn’t guns because responsible users of guns, like cars, gasoline and soap can get through life without harming anyone. It’s the actions of the person that need to be changed. Yes, of course it won’t go away 100% in the foreseeable future, but you can work to reduce it. BTW I’m Canadian and from what I understand we have a similar gun density as the US. However Canadians don’t kill each other as much as the US (however that’s changing). From what I understand, almost everyone in Switzerland has a gun, but there is a low crime rate and gun violence. I like the US and most Americans that I come across, however there are a lot of you Yanks out there that are totally fucked. Banning guns doesn’t solve the problem of murder or violence; it only makes people more vulnerable to crime. You can’t claim that banning guns will reduce violent deaths till you study both sides of the issue. If you consider how many people are killed accidentally with guns then compare that to how many people are killed in violent crimes when they didn’t have a gun to defend themselves, then you can say which is better. Until a study like that is done, (or someone tells me about it) I respect someone else’s desire to be cautious and own a gun, if they can be responsible. And a last note, I’ve never fired a gun in my life.
And a last note, I’ve never fired a gun in my life.
What a shame… come down south we’ll set ya up.
You are still missing the point. You are taking a Band-Aid solution to a very big problem. The problem isn’t guns because responsible users of guns, like cars, gasoline and soap can get through life without harming anyone.
No disagreement, but it seems that people with guns do kill people which they may not have had they not had guns.
It’s the actions of the person that need to be changed.
I completly agree, but at the same time these people might not have comitted the action if they don’t have guns in the first place. Preventing people from comitting pre-meditated murder it a whole other question.
Banning guns doesn’t solve the problem of murder or violence; it only makes people more vulnerable to crime.
In the US, I agree - but not in the UK. There are still lots of guns in the UK (including the one I have at home) but it’s a shotgun, not a handgun. I guess I could use it for self defense if it was really necessary but it’s locked in a cabinet.
you consider how many people are killed accidentally with guns then compare that to how many people are killed in violent crimes when they didn’t have a gun to defend themselves, then you can say which is better.
Having access to a gun is never going to stop someone killing you who has pre-meditated it. You have the element of surprise and can easily shoot them before they can do anything about it. If someone wants to shoot you, having a gun is not going to make the slightest bit of difference. A gun is useful in self defense when your attacker dosen’t want to kill, you but instead wants to perhaps rape you or steal from you. Personally I prefere the situation in the UK where burgulars don’t carry guns and try and steal when no one is home instead of confrontations that can end with someone dead - but that’s just me.
At the end of the day, get a Brit and your average American in a room and you are never going to see eye to eye on this. Most Brits think Americans are absolutly crazy for wanting to have the “gun culture” at they would call it, and I know I have had to explain this to a few of my friends. Most Americans won’t understand how almost no one in Britain thinks people should be allowed to carry around guns, and basically would think you a little bit crazy for even suggesting it. It’s just one of those differences in cultures I guess.
And a last note, I’ve never fired a gun in my life.
You should try, it is quite a lot of fun :)
I’m not sure what you’re saying here Lee - that that it should be legal for the kids to buy torture equipment becasue of the loopholes?
I’m with Padders here - if a UK citizen desires a gun there is a pretty good chance he wants it to do something ilegal with it. This is not the case in the US.
I’m with Padders here - if a UK citizen desires a gun there is a pretty good chance he wants it to do something ilegal with it. This is not the case in the US.
Are you saying a Subject of teh UK is more prone to violance?
Personally I prefere the situation in the UK where burgulars don’t carry guns and try and steal when no one is home instead of confrontations that can end with someone dead - but that’s just me.
I have seen evidance that the reverse is becomming more and more common in the UK.
If some breaks into your home and you wnat to run away from the criminal, then the is your right, to be a continual victim.
Armed breakins do happen, but if you check some of the stats, RUAL homes thoes that have high probilty of gun ownership, have a VERY low rate of armed breakins.
to paraphrase Jeff Fopxworthy,to a burgler, A house with a overgrown yard 2 dead cars and a engien block swing ina tree, is a clear indiaction that a gun lives there.
At the end of the day, get a Brit and your average American in a room and you are never going to see eye to eye on this. Most Brits think Americans are absolutly crazy for wanting to have the “gun culture” at they would call it, and I know I have had to explain this to a few of my friends. Most Americans won’t understand how almost no one in Britain thinks people should be allowed to carry around guns, and basically would think you a little bit crazy for even suggesting it. It’s just one of those differences in cultures I guess.
Well, maybe its just me, but what i get from it is the “British culture”, has a problem with letting the general public have personal responability.
I’m with Padders here - if a UK citizen desires a gun there is a pretty good chance he wants it to do something ilegal with it. This is not the case in the US.
Are you saying a Subject of teh UK is more prone to violance?
You miss my point - other than wanting a gun for a nefarous reason, there si no other - we don’t tend to shoot for sport, there are no wildlife issues, and we don’t have that ‘protect my property’ mentality.
Put it this way. I don’t know anyone who owns a (hand)gun in the UK, and I don’t know anyone who would want one.
I have seen evidance that the reverse is becomming more and more common in the UK.
If some breaks into your home and you wnat to run away from the criminal, then the is your right, to be a continual victim.
I guess it is. I’d rather rely on home security and vigilance than the result of a gun battle. I’d also rather have my TV stolen and claim a new one on the insurance than have a gun battle. Although I’d say in the vast majority of cases, simply realizing someone is in is enough to deter the burglar.
Armed breakins do happen, but if you check some of the stats, RUAL homes thoes that have high probilty of gun ownership, have a VERY low rate of armed breakins.
I don’t think the lower crime stats in rural areas are related to the higher probability of gun ownership - I think it’s more about inner cities being more crowded, more deprived, physically closer together etc etc. (in the UK)
to paraphrase Jeff Fopxworthy,to a burgler, A house with a overgrown yard 2 dead cars and a engien block swing ina tree, is a clear indiaction that a gun lives there.
Or it indicates that there very little point breaking in cos they’re poor.
experienced criminal enterprise
You mean terrorist organizations? Other than those sorts, the average criminal doesn’t care what type of weapon is used as long as they get their money. Sure a gun would be best, it strikes fear into anybody, more so than a knife, but if a knife will separate you from you money, then it’s all good.
SOME OF YOU PEOPLE ARE MISSING THE POINT. Seattle, Cracker...I’m not talking about “taking guns away from people” I never said that.
“Seattle, do you think a well trained martial artist could go on a killing spree in todays society and kill more people than a moderatly trained shooter with a weapon?”
“Yes - it wouldn’t be difficult to go around and kill a large number of people without a gun.”
That has got to be one of the stupidest things I’ve read on this website yet. You take sword from “Crouching Tiger, hidden dragon” and I’ll take my friends AR-15 with a couple of extra clips and we’ll see who has the highest body count.
“Believe me, arm one person with a good sword and turn them loose in an office building and there will very shortly be more blood and dead bodies laying around than you know what to do with. Or are you planning on taking it away from him?”
Three brave souls can charge one man with a sword and take him down before all three of them are killed. Can three people charge one man with an ar-15 and get within 15 feet of him before they are peforated? No. Look at 9/11...if those terrorists had guns instead of boxcutters, do you think flight 93 would have crashed in Shanksville, or in DC?
Next entry: Swiss Mrs.
Previous entry: Losing My Religion
Here in Seattle I’ve been hearing the loony-left gun control twits since Saturday. Too bad the local chief of police is a card-carrying member of the gun-grab crowd.
One of the Seattle Times columnists (Nichole Brodeur), a true Seattle socialist if there ever was one, was claiming in a column that we just needed to get rid of all guns because guns are the only thing that allows people to go on killing sprees.
She’s said lots of stupid crap over the years, but I think that one ranks near the top.