As we all know, Sheffield has been in the news quite a lot alately due to the vast increase in the amount of Gun Crimes being commited!

So..............

Do you think South Yorkshire Police need to act fast, and launch a major operation in Sheffield to try and catch the offenders before it all spirals out of control?????

Matt

How would they go about doing this? This must assume that they know who has guns, in which case I would assume they would do this anyway.

Well that's where the police do their job is it not KenH?

They need to actually provide the resources to Set-Up a major operation, focussing on Gun-Crime alone, other forces accross the U.K have specialist teams devoted to Gun-Crime only, (e.g Nottingham after the bad stats down there a couple of years ago), and apparently they have report a huge success!

The whole term Operation, would mean to Devote a specialist team just to Gun-Crime, by increasing the amount of resources available, and thoroughly investigate all potential sources, not only that, but to have more specialist police units visible on the streets to help combat this also!

Matt

Matt, are you a journalist for a tabloid paper or a researcher on a local radio phone-in? I'm asking because the way you have started this thread makes me think that you are. There has not been a vast increase in gun crime in Sheffield: the level of gun crime is actually falling. What has happened recently is that after a long period in which there were few gun crimes there were a few gun crimes within a short period. Furthermore, in the wake of that spate of gun crimes the police doubled the number of armed response officers assigned to Sheffield.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/4464156.stm

All this talk of "fast action", "major operations" and the possibility that gun crime "spirals out of control" is alarmist and sensationalist. Yes, gun crime is a problem but so is public hysteria.

No im not a Journalist or what-ever else you called me, but im flattered that you pointed this out / or am i?

I don't think i'm over-reacting at all, I think this is something that needs to be address in full now?

Sooner before more deaths and casualties?

Matt

I don't see how a more visible police prescence would help. Of the 3 shootings that spring to mind, the latest being in the countryside, one a shot to head in a parked car in Walkley and the other a shooting behind Netto in Walkley, what are the chances that a police 'presence' would have been in the vicinity?

As with all the cries for more patrols surely it's more effective to have police in a central place ready to respond to actual crime than being called from half way across the city from patrols in the leafy suburbs?

Perhaps, rather than looking at putting more police on the streets we should be demanding more responsible journalism. Or at the end of each scare story printing a warning such as 'This story was given prominence in order to sell more newspapers, do not let it disturb your lives'.

Matt,

The issue is deeper than the gun crime, supply of illegal weapons is the problem and has other implications aswell. I agree with the above post on here and would say that your sensationalist postings recently would be worthy of the Sun newspaper.

Get real facts then ask about thoughts rather than state, what is usually less than half the story.

Illegal gun ownership is usually the very tip of the ice berg - ask where the guns come from, who imports them, how did they get them, how did the get into Sheffield and who is selling / using them. People that commit gun crime don't get given a gun when they apply for the job. If it was as easy as you suggest don't you think the government and local authorites would have cleaned all crime up by now?

It's been here and closer than we know for too long.
I once was sat in a coffee shop in the Transport interchange with a friend when a chap aged about 45 - 50 came in, ordered a coffee and sat down. While bending over to put his bags down his jacket tail lifted to reveal a gun stuck in a holster round the back of his waistband.
I told the security on site as soon as I could get to them without being noticed. It took forever for them to get their act together or to try to watch him on camera, I think they thought it was a prank. Anyway, the police came and took us on a quick whizz round the area in the car to find him but sadly he had vanished.
This was maybe 5 years ago, all in all it's a sad state of affairs Sheffield is now in.

If you really want to get an idea of how difficult the problem of reducing violent crime of any sort, and not just gun crime, is go to the BBC News website, do a search for stories containing the word "murder" and then read some of the stories that you find. If you do you will find that many murders are committed by sadistic people who gain some kind of perverted pleasure out of violence, by people who are under the influence of drink or drugs or during petty rows.

How do the police go about stopping people who decide to try to settle minor disputes using their fists, a knife or a gun? What major operation will stop people being stupid, short-tempered and prone to drink heavily? What intelligence can police gather that will give them advance warning that someone will attack someone else for no apparent reason?

when they banned handguns i thought this was going to stop all gun crime theres been more since the ban and it will carry on
unfortunately

I do see your points lads, i've read my original post and it does seem very newspaper like, seems to be putting words into peoples minds, etc.

But I genuinely think that this needs to be tackled!

Originally posted by pk014b7161
when they banned handguns i thought this was going to stop all gun crime

Did you really think that? Its a bit like banning stripey shirts and bags with "swag" written on them and then expecting all burglary to stop. The more that firearms are restricted the less we will get of certain types of gun incidents such as people shooting family members. The gangsters and drug dealers who have guns from illegal sources aren't really affected by bans other than it making it slightly harder to obtain supplies.

Originally posted by pk014b7161
when they banned handguns i thought this was going to stop all gun crime theres been more since the ban and it will carry on
unfortunately

They banned legaly owned handguns!!!

They also recently tried banning airguns that used CO2 cylinders but afterwards realised that as they are not already registered this would be impossible... Hmmm!!! a bit like taking all legal handguns of the streets then, absolutely pointless as the criminals don't usually apply for a firearms licence before they murder / rob or threaten.

Originally posted by Fingers
There has not been a vast increase in gun crime in Sheffield: the level of gun crime is actually falling.

Don't tell him that! You can't let facts get in the way of a good tabloid scare story!

What you're proposing is a system where news is reported rationally and without excessive bias. Such a concept would have tabloid editors reaching in horror for their double brandies.

Originally posted by RazorSHarp
They banned legaly owned handguns!!!

They also recently tried banning airguns that used CO2 cylinders but afterwards realised that as they are not already registered this would be impossible... Hmmm!!! a bit like taking all legal handguns of the streets then, absolutely pointless as the criminals don't usually apply for a firearms licence before they murder / rob or threaten.
no i didnt think that but that was implied i was forced to hand my guns over to make the country safer

Originally posted by RazorSHarp
They banned legaly owned handguns!!!

... absolutely pointless as the criminals don't usually apply for a firearms licence before they murder / rob or threaten.

Not entirely pointless, just pointless against a certain type of nutcase. The nutter that murdered 16 children and a teacher at Dunblane had 6 legal firearms. Although clearly bonkers, he wasn't the sort of person who was likely to know who to buy illegal firearms from but did know how to fill in a form and get one legally.

My view is that handguns shouldn't be banned, but rather the potential owner should be subject to a difficult process before being allowed to have one. The applicant should be allowed to apply for a handgun and then should get turned down "for wanting a handgun" as he cannot be a fit person. The logic being that anyone who wants to own a device which has only one function, to kill people at close range, cannot be a fit person to own one. If, on the other hand, they don't want a handgun as they find them abhorent then they are a fit person but can't have one because they haven't applied. My system would mean that guns aren't banned but nobody can have one so both camps are satisfied.

razor sharp i meant to reply to ken h

When banning licensed ownership of handguns was proposed, the slogan heard was... "When having a gun is criminal, only criminals will have guns"... Prophetic, eh?

As an F.A.C. holder who had to dispose of three of these items, I find it ironic that there's now a "Gun-Culture" mentality predominant amongst certain of the less law-abiding sectors of society.

The only way to fight it is to make the penalty for carrying a firearm extremely harsh and the penalty for using it, horrendous!

I quite enjoyed a Daily Mail peice on gun crime a few years ago, on the front page was two news items.

The first one was an article saying that Tony Martin should not be in jail. Tony Martin had shot the burgular with an illegaly owned shotgun, though it was not mentioned in the mail that the shotgun was illegally owned, it was stated in another newspapers .

The other front page headline was sounding out recent gun crime and was trying to start a movement for "locking up for life, and life must mean life" all those found guilty of carrying an illegally owned gun.

I remember thinking at the time, how does that work?

Originally posted by JFKvsNixon
I quite enjoyed a Daily Mail peice on gun crime a few years ago, on the front page was two news items.

The first one was an article saying that Tony Martin should not be in jail. Tony Martin had shot the burgular with an illegaly owned shotgun, though it was not mentioned in the mail that the shotgun was illegally owned, it was stated in another newspapers .

The other front page headline was sounding out recent gun crime and was trying to start a movement for "locking up for life, and life must mean life" all those found guilty of carrying an illegally owned gun.

I remember thinking at the time, how does that work?

It works because the people who should be locked up for life and life meaning life are common people who carry illegally owned guns. It wouldn't apply to decent law-abiding people carrying illegal guns.

Originally posted by KenH
How would they go about doing this? This must assume that they know who has guns, in which case I would assume they would do this anyway. stop and search any one under 50 :D