h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6363713.stm

I think you know how I feel about young people being killed in senseless violence and id applaud *anything* reasonable to change what is happening but routinely armed police patrolling?

How will this improve things?

Well.. armed police on teh streets I doubt will improve 'things' any... Probably quite the reverse... Any criminal thereby now knowing they'l be 'up against' forces who're likely to be carrieing guns, will naturally have* to arm themselves, true of course a lot* do already carry guns, but a lot of the criminal element don't, they don't need to so don't, but having armed police as standard will mean they're got more of an incentive to need* to carry weaponry themselves

Can't say I care much. Gun-toting thugs killing each other. Just the Darwinian process in action.

I think it is an utterly ridiculous over reaction. I live in an inner city area, and in 15 years of living here I have never once been involved with or come across a violent crime. It's due to the same old thing that happens more and more with our media. Certain events get sensationalised. Like most people where I live we are far more concerned about the number of drivers speeding and the danger that regularly presents particularly to youngsters and old and disabled people.

There should be sensible and calm analysis looking at the causes of all sorts of danger to people, and then things should be done to respond **intelligently** and **appropriately**.

ing tabloid mentality is infecting everything!

By name & by nature

Thing is the two young women gunned down outside a New Years Eve party and the young man killed in a mistaken identity shooting were'nt gun totting thugs. Nor was the student who was killed trying to foil a bank raid.

If it were just thugs killing each other I'd be happy to chip in for the bullets, but its not.

Putting armed police on the streets just means at some point the police are going to shoot someone. Of course the victim will be a totally innocent little angel who was destined to be the next Einstein/Schweitzer/Mother Theresa. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth and somebody will walk off with a nice fat compensation cheque.

For all those that think legalising drugs will end drug culture, think again. I've read that drugs have fallen drastically in price in South London and that's what's fuelling the rise in violence. The little thugs are either trying to expand their territories or going for more violent robberies etc along with eliminating the one man operators like yesterday's "victim".

>>Putting armed police on the streets just means at some point the police are going to shoot someone. Of course the victim will be a totally innocent little angel who was destined to be the next Einstein/Schweitzer/Mother Theresa. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth and somebody will walk off with a nice fat compensation cheque.<<

I doubt there'll be much wailing and gnashing of teeth at the Daily Hate though, as they see their circulation figures rise.....

There will always be violence in society, there always has been, I don't think routinely arming the police is the answer.

A rapid response unit of armed police is difficult to maintain in London though, because of the difficulty of getting anywhere fast.

I'd say invest in schools and after hours clubs, provide more leaders for kids to respect, much ahrsher sentances for people caught carrying any quantity of drugs, including children, and a death penalty for anyone found guilty of trafficking in people or drugs.

"For all those that think legalising drugs will end drug culture, think again. I've read that drugs have fallen drastically in price in South London and that's what's fuelling the rise in violence. The little thugs are either trying to expand their territories or going for more violent robberies etc along with eliminating the one man operators like yesterday's "victim"."

Has anyone said legalising drugs will end "drug culture"? People *have* said legalising drugs will move the market from a black market run by gangsters to a legal market run by regulated businesses. The drug laws a re based around the assumption that the state can stop the trade in drugs. It plainly can't and not only can it not stop the damage drugs do to society (the stated point of the current laws) but the illegality directly helps gangsters to profit and directly leads to gang war for control of the market.

If you accept the need for current drugs laws then you *must* accept the downside of the resultant gangsterism that moves in on the profits because legal business can't. Unquestionably, the state can restrict the amount of illegal drugs available through busts etc but it can't actually stop it and the debate should be, I feel, about whether it continues to be acceptable to limit one social problem if it undeniably leads to the escalation of another.

"I think it is an utterly ridiculous over reaction. I live in an inner city area, and in 15 years of living here I have never once been involved with or come across a violent crime."

I live in one of the most violent cities in Britain but I've rarely seen violence. I have, however, spoken to many people who've seen some terrible stuff. Violence is often limited to certain areas so many people don't see it first hand. The problem of violence and gang-violence is not an invention of the media, I can assure you. For many communities (often ones with enough problems as it is) it's a very real, very close-to-home problem.

"It's due to the same old thing that happens more and more with our media."

"The Media" didn't invent several teenagers being shot. That was an event the media reacted to. Your emphasis should be on the events themselves, not the media.

"Certain events get sensationalised."

"Certain events" being some kids killing each other, I assume.

"Like most people where I live we are far more concerned about the number of drivers speeding and the danger that regularly presents particularly to youngsters and old and disabled people."

I suspect you are using this as some sort of cultural-battle with that tedious bette-noire of the leftwing middle-classes The Daily Mail. "They" worry about gangsters but the REAL enemy is them with their cars! Give it a break. If you want to be taken seriously, deal with the issue in hand with workable answers that don't deny it's happening. Trying to shift the blame somewhere else makes you as bad as the idiots who write for the abovementioned rag.

The reason I brought up the issue of speeding and road deaths is that this is a big problem but it's not sexy for the media to report. It's boring. Every year the local council post on a board outside the town hall, the number of deaths on the road, and the number of serious injuries. It would be interesting to compare statistics with the number of deaths due to violent crime. No I'm not trying to shift blame, I just prefer a calm and intelligent approach to *all* dangers affecting people, and a calm and intelligent response rather than those things which make sexy reading in tabloids.

>>"They" worry about gangsters but the REAL enemy is them with their cars<< I don't this and have not posted anything of the kind.

"The reason I brought up the issue of speeding and road deaths is that this is a big problem but it's not sexy for the media to report. It's boring. Every year the local council post on a board outside the town hall, the number of deaths on the road, and the number of serious injuries. It would be interesting to compare statistics with the number of deaths due to violent crime. No I'm not trying to shift blame, I just prefer a calm and intelligent approach to *all* dangers affecting people, and a calm and intelligent response rather than those things which make sexy reading in tabloids."

The problem is that this thread isn't about "the media", it's about gun crime and how it should be dealt with. Your whole post seemed to be (like SWL's) dedicated to some tiresome arguements with "the other side" instead of dealing with the subject in hand.

"I don't this and have not posted anything of the kind. "

And yet, out of all the things that kill people in the UK today, (illegal drugs, alcohol, tobacco, heart disease, cancer) you just happened to choose that favourite mode of transport of the "poor us" Daily Mail brigade...

I chose road dangers because it's the thing which most threatens kids playing out in the street. It's a very real cause of death and serious injury locally. The local paper regularly reports it, but the national media never bother. Butr the minute some sexy stabbing or gun indeath occurs they are wetting themselves to highlight it. But as you say this thread is about response to gun crime so maybe it would be better to return to the subject in hand. I still think a better response should involve looking at the reasons this is happening and maybe the 'carrot' rather than the 'stick' might be more effective. Give kids a reason to want to be involved in other things. I think increased spending on sport and sports facilities would be great. But look at all the screeching from the right wing about increased community charge due to London 2012, and yet much of that will involve inner city kids getting much better sporting facilities.

not sure if mentioned already (I only scanned the above) but just seen this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6372717.stm

"Tony Blair wants to lower the age to 17 at which young people can receive long prison sentences for possessing a gun."

"But as you say this thread is about response to gun crime so maybe it would be better to return to the subject in hand. I still think a better response should involve looking at the reasons this is happening and maybe the 'carrot' rather than the 'stick' might be more effective."

Why not the carrot *and* the stick? I've always liked the phrase (I think it was an early 20th-century American President who coined it) "Talk softly and carry a big stick". It's a good idea to try and prevent kids getting involved in gangsterism (which is what much of this violence is about) and I agree about investing more in sports facilities as well as local initiatives to encourage kids interesting in music/film and the like. In fact there was someone (I forget who) who wanted to open a recording studio in an inner-city since he'd seen a lot of kids who were interested in music and knew it was an excellent way to keep them off the streets and out of trouble as well as getting them involved in something productive they cared about.

However, you must also deal with those who have slipped through the net already and can prove a role-model for those we're trying to keep them away from and that means enacting laws and policies that demonstratably work. Blairs' intention for more severe sentencing for those caught with guns is a good idea (better than the "gun amnesty" I was expecting - a typical politicians empty-gesture which gives the impression of doing something while allowing those who intend to use their weapons to keep them) but I think workable policies need to be worked-out and enforced. If they work, good. If they domn't then the government will need to try something else, rather than hark back to the failed policies it's implementing as proof that they're doing something.

What might really be good would be to speak to and listen to some kids involved with this stuff. Find out what they have to say honestly on the subject. Unlike the silly attempt to only speak to 'out of touch' Muslim elders with regards to that issue. I do agree with you that toughness 'a big stick' may be neccesary, but only in conjunction with offering something genuinely positive as well for the long term. I know blicky works with youngsters, so it would be good to hear back from him.

I'm glad to see someone mention something other than sports. It works for many kids, but there should be a bit of variety. (If you want to keep me off the streets, open a public library and a woodland to go walking in.)

TRiG.

Morning Fanny,

You might find the conversation in this link interesting,

<< http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6374171.stm >>

Novo