Should the bobby's pack heaters?

[Shabadu 0]

2. What?! NO! no violence, peace and love!

3. Police should have something but not guns

I didn't vote because these two answers disgust me. There should have been a simple Yes, No, Not sure.

And NO they shouldn't have guns. They wouldn't need them if the MET tried to actually cut crime, rather than removing the police from public life and separating them from the community. We should see a return to bobbies on the beat, increase wages( I mean MET budget = NYPD budget, pay is lower in MET, half the number of W/PCs WTF is that about?) and those that are driving about should be aware, or at least awake.

[morbid 0]

I'm sure some of you have heard about the case of the farmer here in the uk who was jailed for 5 years for shooting 2 burglars who had repeatedly robbed his farm. He encountered them one dark night and shot them both - likely out of fear, I certainly would have been scared of two intruders, in my property at night.

I've also heard of (but can't confirm) that an older man (~60?) was charged with possesing an offensive weapon. The man happened to be carrying an ornamental sword when he was attacked. As far as I know he ran his attacker through with it.

I'm pretty sure he did not take the sword outside with the intention of using it, it was likely he was merely transporting it.

In the UK you are not allowed to defend yourself. I'm not a strong person.

If I am (and I have been) attacked my only defense is to run

but I can no longer run due to an arthritic condition in my foot.

Therefore I can no longer defend myself (unless there happens to be a useful implement nearby, or the attacker is particularly feeble).

You people in the US are lucky in that you are allowed to defend yourself with nessecary force (gun - if nessecary)

In the uk I can't even carry a pocket knife for self defense, I don't know if CS spray is legal and I certainly cannot carry a gun.

note - I don't actually fear walking on the streets (well not every street, there are some that I will not walk at night), crime rate isn't isn't bad but should a person become a victim of crime they have but one defense - their fists, or speed (ie run) because the police won't be there to defend you - they are there to pick up the pieces and investigate AFTER the crime.

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (morbid @ Jan. 06 2003,16:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm sure some of you have heard about the case of the farmer here in the uk who was jailed for 5 years for shooting 2 burglars who had repeatedly robbed his farm. He encountered them one dark night and shot them both - likely out of fear, I certainly would have been scared of two intruders, in my property at night.

I've also heard of (but can't confirm) that an older man (~60?) was charged with possesing an offensive weapon. The man happened to be carrying an ornamental sword when he was attacked. As far as I know he ran his attacker through with it.

I'm pretty sure he did not take the sword outside with the intention of using it, it was likely he was merely transporting it.

In the UK you are not allowed to defend yourself. I'm not a strong person.

If I am (and I have been) attacked my only defense is to run

but I can no longer run due to an arthritic condition in my foot.

Therefore I can no longer defend myself (unless there happens to be a useful implement nearby, or the attacker is particularly feeble).

You people in the US are lucky in that you are allowed to defend yourself with nessecary force (gun - if nessecary)

In the uk I can't even carry a pocket knife for self defense, I don't know if CS spray is legal and I certainly cannot carry a gun.

note - I don't actually fear walking on the streets (well not every street, there are some that I will not walk at night), crime rate isn't isn't bad but should a person become a victim of crime they have but one defense - their fists, or speed (ie run) because the police won't be there to defend you - they are there to pick up the pieces and investigate AFTER the crime.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not proud of the fact, if I weren't so lazy I'd have filled my suitably sized frame with muscles but as it is I'm not very strong.

Even so I don't regret not carrying any weapons, lets face it, if you carry it you have to be prepared to use it!

I haven't been approached since I was 16 and no-one has ever succesfully robbed me. And at the end of the day it isn't that hard to break a guy's arm, or at least get one good shot at his temple. That in anyone's book is neccesary force, driving a knife through them of shooting someone most certainly isn't( unless you've just nabbed said weapon from them).

[Itchy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (morbid @ Jan. 06 2003,15:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm sure some of you have heard about the case of the farmer here in the uk who was jailed for 5 years for shooting 2 burglars who had repeatedly robbed his farm. He encountered them one dark night and shot them both - likely out of fear, I certainly would have been scared of two intruders, in my property at night.<span id='postcolor'>

The old man was paranoid, and slept with his shotgun. He fired on the intruders while they were climbing out of his window, and therefore not threatening him. Remember how illegal pump-action shotguns are in the UK. On top of that, he had been official warned about threatening behaviour, and had stated he wanted someone to break in so he could shoot them. Don't forget he killed one of them either.

Self-defense laws in the UK are pretty tight, it is true. If you are attacked, you are allowed to defend yourself with anything you have to hand. However, you cannot run away, get a weapon, and return. That isn't self-defense. But I prefer things that way. You will get extreme cases like you mentioned (give me some evedence on the sword thing and I'll consider it), but I could use all sorts of tales about the US that go the opposite way.

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Itchy @ Jan. 06 2003,17:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (morbid @ Jan. 06 2003,15:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm sure some of you have heard about the case of the farmer here in the uk who was jailed for 5 years for shooting 2 burglars who had repeatedly robbed his farm. He encountered them one dark night and shot them both - likely out of fear, I certainly would have been scared of two intruders, in my property at night.<span id='postcolor'>

The old man was paranoid, and slept with his shotgun. He fired on the intruders while they were climbing out of his window, and therefore not threatening him. Remember how illegal pump-action shotguns are in the UK. On top of that, he had been official warned about threatening behaviour, and had stated he wanted someone to break in so he could shoot them. Don't forget he killed one of them either.

Self-defense laws in the UK are pretty tight, it is true. If you are attacked, you are allowed to defend yourself with anything you have to hand. However, you cannot run away, get a weapon, and return. That isn't self-defense. But I prefer things that way. You will get extreme cases like you mentioned (give me some evedence on the sword thing and I'll consider it), but I could use all sorts of tales about the US that go the opposite way.<span id='postcolor'>

Shotguns aren't illegal. You can have one on a farm due to the fact they're almost neccesary for putting down a horse humanely when you have to.

On the subject of coppers packing heaters, yes they should in winter, I mean it's f**king freezing at the moment.

On second thought no they don't need to, since they're not on the beat. Don't those Pandas have air-con?

[red oct 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (morbid @ Jan. 06 2003,16:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm sure some of you have heard about the case of the farmer here in the uk who was jailed for 5 years for shooting 2 burglars who had repeatedly robbed his farm. He encountered them one dark night and shot them both - likely out of fear, I certainly would have been scared of two intruders, in my property at night.

I've also heard of (but can't confirm) that an older man (~60?) was charged with possesing an offensive weapon. The man happened to be carrying an ornamental sword when he was attacked. As far as I know he ran his attacker through with it.

I'm pretty sure he did not take the sword outside with the intention of using it, it was likely he was merely transporting it.

In the UK you are not allowed to defend yourself. I'm not a strong person.

If I am (and I have been) attacked my only defense is to run

but I can no longer run due to an arthritic condition in my foot.

Therefore I can no longer defend myself (unless there happens to be a useful implement nearby, or the attacker is particularly feeble).

You people in the US are lucky in that you are allowed to defend yourself with nessecary force (gun - if nessecary)

In the uk I can't even carry a pocket knife for self defense, I don't know if CS spray is legal and I certainly cannot carry a gun.

note - I don't actually fear walking on the streets (well not every street, there are some that I will not walk at night), crime rate isn't isn't bad but should a person become a victim of crime they have but one defense - their fists, or speed (ie run) because the police won't be there to defend you - they are there to pick up the pieces and investigate AFTER the crime.<span id='postcolor'>

thats not totally true to be able to shoot burglers in the U.S. killing somebody for robbery isn't justified. unless they are gona attemp to harm you or somebody than for defense you could. but in some states after 100 pm if somebody tresspasses on your property you could shoot at them i think.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In the UK you are not allowed to defend yourself.<span id='postcolor'>

Same here in Canada, well technically yes, but if you happen to kill someone while defending yourself you will be going to court.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">crime rate isn't isn't bad but should a person become a victim of crime they have but one defense - their fists, or speed (ie run) because the police won't be there to defend you - they are there to pick up the pieces and investigate AFTER the crime.<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly. Over here there is no requirment for police to risk thier lives to save you, and that's even if they get there in time which they rarely do.

That's why I would like the right to actually carry a gun, not like I ever would because the area in which I live is relativily crime free. But I'd rather have something and not need it, than to need it and have nothing.

Tyler

[PHY_Hawkeye 0]

I live in N. Ireland, and the P.S.N.I. are the only police force in the U.K. who carry a firearm as standard issue, for obvious reasons. Each officer carries a revolver when they go on patrol, not sure what kind though. And it's not at all unusual to see some more substantial firepower. Just a few weeks ago I was walking up the road and a few police officers were walking past me, one carrying an MP5.

I'd rather they didn't have too, but unfortunatly it is nessessary. If I were a cop here, I'd be very nervious going on patrol without a firearm. Thats my opinion anyway.

[red oct 2]

i thought things in Ireland settled down.

[Itchy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shabadu @ Jan. 06 2003,16:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Shotguns aren't illegal. You can have one on a farm due to the fact they're almost neccesary for putting down a horse humanely when you have to.<span id='postcolor'>

Pump-actions are. Its double-barrel or nothing.

Edit : And for putting down a horse, you do not use a shotgun. A vet has a special device, which uses a charge to propel a spike, which doesn't fully leave the device as much as go far enough and stop.

[red oct 2]

those shotguns that break you can get at a garage sale for 20 dollars. is black powder weapons leagal?

[PHY_Hawkeye 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Red Oct @ Jan. 06 2003,17:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i thought things in Ireland settled down.<span id='postcolor'>

For the most part yes. But there are still some hard-core fanatics, you just don't hear about them. Also, many individuals and small groups who were members of paramilitary groups are moving into the drug trade and other areas of criminal activity. As a result there are allot of firearms out there for the police to contend with.

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Itchy @ Jan. 06 2003,18:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shabadu @ Jan. 06 2003,16:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Shotguns aren't illegal. You can have one on a farm due to the fact they're almost neccesary for putting down a horse humanely when you have to.<span id='postcolor'>

Pump-actions are. Its double-barrel or nothing.

Edit : And for putting down a horse, you do not use a shotgun. A vet has a special device, which uses a charge to propel a spike, which doesn't fully leave the device as much as go far enough and stop.<span id='postcolor'>

So there many vets way out in the middle of nowhere when a horse needs to be put down immediately, not inside of a couple of days?

[bn880 5]

I voted for the guns... isn't that so un-pacifist? keep the guns, there must be a deterrant, guns in "bobby's" hands are very safe (most of the time). If they got rid of them, it could take a few weeks for some serious armed criminal problems to occur. Imagine: just when you need that gun to take out a car tire, or a guys leg... you're out of luck. The weapon does not have to be deadly all the time.

[dayglow 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Jan. 06 2003,09:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In the UK you are not allowed to defend yourself.<span id='postcolor'>

Same here in Canada, well technically yes, but if you happen to kill someone while defending yourself you will be going to court.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">crime rate isn't isn't bad but should a person become a victim of crime they have but one defense - their fists, or speed (ie run) because the police won't be there to defend you - they are there to pick up the pieces and investigate AFTER the crime.<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly. Over here there is no requirment for police to risk thier lives to save you, and that's even if they get there in time which they rarely do.

That's why I would like the right to actually carry a gun, not like I ever would because the area in which I live is relativily crime free. But I'd rather have something and not need it, than to need it and have nothing.

Tyler<span id='postcolor'>

Well Assualt, that's why I believe in the saying, "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six"

Here in Canada you are to respond only with enough force to stop a threat. I see that as hit the guy until he doesn't move. I've seen too many people knived because they controlled someone instead of dropping them. If I'm cornered and fear for my safety I will amount an attack that is savage and quick enough to stop the threat, ie they are unconcious and not moving. I may go to court and charged with assualt because I didn't just hit the guy and wait and see if they counter, but I'd be alive, which is the point.

Same with police. I'm almost done the selection process and hopefully will make it onto the Calgary police force soon. I volunteer with the force right now and there was a situation a few months ago where a desterbed man running around with a knife. Before the TAC team made it to the area the uniformed officers had the man contained. He charged one of the officers and stopped short at 20 feet. The man is lucky to be alive because if he crossed the 20 foot mark he would have been shot. Why 20 feet? Because that's the distance it takes a person to travel in 1 second. The officer would have 1 second to decide to shoot or not. I don't think an officer should risk injury trying to struggle with someone with a knife.

I have no idea what it is like in the UK, but in Canada knives are the main weapon of choice by most people. Handguns aren't that numberous, but in the urban areas it is picking up. An interesting side note, I was reading the police magazine while I was volunteering and in Canada long rifles acount for 60% of officers deaths from firearms in Canada, vs the 80% or so from handguns in the States. Canadian police actually need better body armour because their most likely firearm threat is of a rifle calibure vs, handguns in the States. A company in Calgary here has pinoeered a strap on ceramic reciever that is light weight that an officer can quickly put on if they think the threat from a rifle is near (domestic disturbance in a rural area)

COLINMAN

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DayGlow @ Jan. 06 2003,13:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">snip snip

I don't think an officer should risk injury trying to struggle with someone with a knife.

snip snip snip<span id='postcolor'>

I agree, the risk is too great in a knife fight. You need to be very well trained and practice regularly to have control over a knife fight... not good, too much stress on the cops. The baton serves as a good defense, but still.

[Itchy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shabadu @ Jan. 06 2003,17:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So there many vets way out in the middle of nowhere when a horse needs to be put down immediately, not inside of a couple of days?<span id='postcolor'>

*drops it before it becomes a bit of a flame fight*

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Itchy @ Jan. 06 2003,20:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shabadu @ Jan. 06 2003,17:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So there many vets way out in the middle of nowhere when a horse needs to be put down immediately, not inside of a couple of days?<span id='postcolor'>

*drops it before it becomes a bit of a flame fight*<span id='postcolor'>

lol sorry mate, it's a habit I picked up after being attacked by a pack of rabid wolves on every second forum I've ever been on.

[Itchy 0]

Heh, its cool.

To go back to your point (which is a teeny bit off-topic), most rural areas with horses have a vet nearby. I'm assuming you don't live in the UK, its just a tiny little island. If you do, well, I was a country boy once upon a time, so I think I can get away with this.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Itchy @ Jan. 06 2003,22:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Heh, its cool.

To go back to your point (which is a teeny bit off-topic), most rural areas with horses have a vet nearby. I'm assuming you don't live in the UK, its just a tiny little island. If you do, well, I was a country boy once upon a time, so I think I can get away with this. <span id='postcolor'>

'ello all!

When we put down horses, well cattle at least we used a slug in a 12 bore.

About the guns, St. Anne's in Nottingham has a massive gun crime problem and the police routinely carry glocks and mp5s.

I think therefore the solution is flexibility, some forces give some police weapons as needed.

[madmedic 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 07 2003,00:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When we put down horses, well cattle at least we used a slug in a 12 bore.

About the guns, St. Anne's in Nottingham has a massive gun crime problem and the police routinely carry glocks and mp5s.

I think therefore the solution is flexibility, some forces give some police weapons as needed.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, from everything I have read...the gun bans in the UK have resulted in an increase of "underground" illegal firearms activity, AND an increase in contact crimes (home invasion robbery, mugging, strong arm robbery ect.)

I think the Bobbies should be trained with, and issued sidearms.

And the law abiding citizens of the UK should have their right to own firearms restored.

(I know that if I were a criminal...I would be MUCH more comfortable robbing people, and breaking into houses if I knew there was a 90% or better chance that the victim cant shoot me.)

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmedic @ Jan. 07 2003,00:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 07 2003,00:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When we put down horses, well cattle at least we used a slug in a 12 bore.

About the guns, St. Anne's in Nottingham has a massive gun crime problem and the police routinely carry glocks and mp5s.

I think therefore the solution is flexibility, some forces give some police weapons as needed.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, from everything I have read...the gun bans in the UK have resulted in an increase of "underground" illegal firearms activity, AND an increase in contact crimes (home invasion robbery, mugging, strong arm robbery ect.)

I think the Bobbies should be trained with, and issued sidearms.

And the law abiding citizens of the UK should have their right to own firearms restored.

(I know that if I were a criminal...I would be MUCH more comfortable robbing people, and breaking into houses if I knew there was a 90% or better chance that the victim cant shoot me.)<span id='postcolor'>

The matter of police having guns does not affect house breaking surely?

Most police don't need guns but they should have access to them where necessary, as you point out violent crime is on the rise and the police need to be able to respond to that.

[madmedic 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 07 2003,01:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The matter of police having guns does not affect house breaking surely?<span id='postcolor'>

No,...you mis-understand what I was saying. I was talking about the rights of the law abiding citizens to keep a gun in their home in that part of my post. (slightly off-topic)

If a criminal knows the occupants of a house are un-armed...he will certainly be less apprehensive about commiting a home invasion, or a burglary.

On the other hand...If he knows there is the possibility of being shot,...he will be less bold about it.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

For those of you who feel like a read, I will provide this:

It is an article from the Sunday Telegraph about British crime and some of the reasons surrounding it.

The Sunday Telegraph

This is what happens when governments try to ban guns

By Mark Steyn

(05/01/2003)

You would think if "gun control" was going to work anywhere it would be on a small island. Particularly a small island at whose ports of entry the zealots of HM Customs like nothing better than performing intimate cavity searches on the off-chance you've got an extra bottle of duty-free Beaujolais tucked away up there. Surely, if you also had a Walther PPK

parked out of sight, these exhaustive inspectors would be the first to notice.

But apparently not. Since the Government's "total ban" five years ago, there are more and more guns being used by more and more criminals in more and more crimes. Now, in the wake of Birmingham's New Year bloodbath, there are calls for the total ban to be made even more total: if the gangs refuse to obey the existing laws, we'll just pass more laws for them not to obey. According to a UN survey from last month, England and Wales now have the highest crime rate of the world's 20 leading nations. One can query the methodology of the survey while still recognising the peculiar genius by which British crime policy has wound up with every indicator going haywire - draconian gun control plus vastly increased gun violence plus stratospheric property crime.

What happened at that party in Aston? I don't mean "what happened?" in the sense of the piercing analysis of Chief Superintendent Dave Shaw, who concluded: "There has clearly been some sort of dispute which has resulted in people coming to the premises with guns, discharging their weapons and causing this incident." You can't put anything over on these coppers, can you? But my question is directed at the broader meaning of the event. Chief Supt Shaw went on: "We have never had to deal with anything like this. In terms of the nature of the incident, it's almost unprecedented in Birmingham." He didn't quite say Birmingham is one of those bucolic tightly-knit communities where everyone in the village knows everyone else and no one locks their doors, but you get the drift: this is some sort of bizarre aberration.

I think not. When those young men decided to open fire in Birchfield Road, they were making an entirely rational decision. One reason why Chief Supt Shaw has "never had to deal with anything like this" is because Aston was long ago ceded to the gangs. And, if you can deal drugs with impunity and

burgle with impunity and assault with impunity and use guns with impunity, who's to say you can't murder with impunity? The West Midlands Police have offered a reward of Å1,000 for information leading to the arrest of those involved. Think about that: would you name a known gang member for a thousand quid? Once the funerals have been held and the media's moved on, the constabulary will go back to forgetting about Aston. But you'll still have to live there.

When Dunblane occurred, all of us - even, if they're honest with themselves, the shrieking hysterics baying for pointless legislation - understood it was a freak event: a nut went nuts. It happens, and, when it does, the event has no broader implications. But what happened in Birchfield Road is of wider relevance: it's a glimpse of the day after tomorrow - not just in Aston, but in Edgbaston and Solihull and Leamington Spa.

After Dunblane, the police and politicians lapsed into their default position: it's your fault. We couldn't do anything about him, so we'll do something about you. You had your mobile nicked? You must be mad taking it out. Why not just keep it inside nice and safe on the telephone table? Had your car radio pinched? You shouldn't have left it in the car. House burgled? You should have had laser alarms and window bars installed. You did have laser alarms and window bars but they waited till you were home, kicked the door in and beat you up? You should have an armour-plated door and digital retinal-scan technology. It's your fault, always. The monumentally useless British police, with greater manpower per capita on higher rates of pay and with far more lavish resources than the Americans, haven't had an original idea in decades, so they cling ever more fiercely to their core ideology: the best way to deal with criminals is to impose ever greater restrictions and inconveniences on the law-abiding.

The gangs on Birmingham's streets instinctively understand this. They know, even if the Government doesn't, that the Blairite "total" ban, which sounds so butch and macho when you do your soundbite on the telly, is a cop-out: it makes the general population the target, not the criminals. And once that happens it's always easier to hassle the cranky farmer with the unlicensed shotgun than the Yardies with the Uzis. When you disarm the citizenry, when you prosecute them for being so foolish as to believe they have a right to self-defence, when you issue warnings that they should "walk on by" if they happen to see a burglary or rape in progress, the main beneficiaries will obviously be the criminals. Aston is the logical reductio of British policing: rival bad guys with state-of-the-art hardware, a cowed populace, and a remote constabulary tucked up in bed with the answering machine on.

I see I haven't yet mentioned the touchy social factor which even squeamish British Lefties have been forced to confront: Aston is yet more "black-on-black" violence. The reason I haven't mentioned it is because there hardly seems any point. What's new? Canada also had a Dunblane-like massacre, followed by Dunblane-like legislation, and, like Birmingham,

boring, bland Toronto has lately been riven by gun violence from - wait for it - Jamaican gangs. But in neither Britain nor Canada is it politically feasible to suggest that perhaps Jamaicans should be subjected to special immigration scrutiny. As it happens, that Canadian massacre, of Montreal

female students 12 years ago, was committed by the son of an Algerian Muslim wife-beater, but, although we all claim to be interested in the "root causes" of crime, they tend to involve awkward cultural judgments. It's easier, like Mr Blair, just to go "total": blame everyone, ban everything.

This basic approach of addressing any cultural factors apart from the ones that correlate was pioneered by American progressives. The corpulent provocateur Michael Moore, in his film Bowling for Columbine, currently delighting British audiences, spends an entire feature-length documentary

investigating the "culture" of American gun violence without mentioning that blacks, who make up 13 per cent of the population, account for over half the murders (and murder victims, too). Once you factor them out, Americans kill at about the same rate as nancy-boy Canadians.

But, as I said, it's hardly worth mentioning in relation to Britain. In my part of New Hampshire, we're all armed to the hilt and any gangster who fancied holding up a gas station would be quickly ventilated by guys whose pick-ups are better equipped than most EU armies. The right of individual

self-defence deters crime, constrains it, prevents it from spreading out of the drug-infested failed jurisdictions. In post-Dunblane, post-Tony Martin Britain, that constraint doesn't exist: that's why the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea now has a higher crime rate than Harlem.

Meanwhile, America's traditionally high and England and Wales's traditionally low murder rates are remorselessly converging. In 1981, the US rate was nine times higher than the English. By 1995, it was six times. Last year, it was down to 3.5. Given that US statistics, unlike the British ones, include manslaughter and other lesser charges, the real rate is much closer. New York has just recorded the lowest murder rate since the 19th century. I'll bet that in the next two years London's murder rate overtakes it.

I liked it so much, I read it twice.

Tyler

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I really, truly hate my ideological standpoints, because there is no major political party that shares my views. I agree with Republicans that people have the right to be armed and to, if necessary, use said arms to defend themselves, but I agree with Democrats on other issues. So basically, my only choice would be libertarians, who also want to gut the Federal government. Desicions, decisions.

But seriously, Britain needs to take back control of its crime problem. The first step is to arm your cops (bobbies, whatever), and arm them heavily- I took a ride in the back of a New Mexico state trooper's patrol car one time (don't ask), and I noticed that he had within easy reach his Glock 9mm, an AR15, in addition to the assorted Mace, MagLite and nightstick. I'm almost positive there was a shotgun in the trunk, also. If you gave every one of your beat cops access to half that armory, you would start to take back your streets. Yes, it sounds a little too Wild West for European sensibilities, but at some point you have to ask yourselves whether you would rather have crooks with guns, or cops with bigger guns than the criminals.

The next step would be to allow citizens to lawfully own weapons that could be used, if necessary for personal protection. Licensing, permits, training, whatever you want, but allow your citizens the ability to act like individuals without relying on the State with its billyclub-wielding Bobbies to protect them.