Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.british,uk.politics,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: [J M Spencer] at [newcastle.ac.uk] (J. Spencer)
Subject: Re: Part 1 of 3: The Case Against Gun Control
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 14:46:08 GMT

[csi 017] at [cch.coventry.ac.uk] (Paul Ashton) writes:

>The reason there are low death rates in "England" is because gun
>availability is very limited.

Oh yeah? _Anyone_ can obtain an ilegal gun in under 24hrs - it's been
demonstrated many times in the last 12 months. The Metropolitan police
say there are 20 'dealers' in the East End alone. Strathclyde police
recovered over 500 illegal arms from criminals in less than 5 months -
100/month, more than 3 guns per day. And that is just those that they
_recovered_, how many more are out there?

>Traditionally Mr or Mrs average criminal would be blocked by law in
>most cases or more likely find it difficult or expensive to buy a 
>weapon illegally due to the limited supply and the resulting high cost.

The law doesn't _stop_ anyone obtaining a gun: it stops some people from
_lawfully_ owning a gun. Right now, I'm listening to a program on Radio
4 talking about the use of guns in Merseyside by the crack dealers.
Clearly _they_ got hold of guns. An article in a recent _Spectator_
demonstrated how easy it is to obtain arms, and at about 1/2 the cost of
a gun from a shop. Am I getting through to you?

>Only pro's like bank robbers had shot guns etc. The fist/knife/base
>ball bat were the usual weapon of the common thug.

That may have been so during the 50s, it doesn't hold true today.

>if the flow of guns isn't stopped we will soon be following the States and
>wont need to go to Florida to get shot.

kHow are you going to stop "the flow" given that the existing laws
already prohibit possession and have demonstrably failed to control who
shall possess arms? Passing more laws won't work.

--Jonathan