Does the UK want a "Tony Martin" law?

[Jason Menard]

Registering ammo is pointless imho. For one thing, people quite often collect spent cartridges and load their own. What would we do, ban the act of reloading (the term used for making your own rounds from spent cartridges)? Would you make it so people could only legally reload spent cartridges which they have themselves purchased?
Next, there aren't generally serial numbers on individual rounds, only lot-numbers. The reason I happen to know this is quite unfortunate. When I was in Bosnia, someone in our section temporarily misplaced a 9mm handgun and some ammo (it had been loaned to someone else). The little despot in charge of our section, an Army Captain (I was USAF btw), had us account for every single round in our section, and her intention was that we record the serial numbers on each round. There were about 10 of us I guess, and iirc we each had 3x30 round clips of 5.56 and 3x15 round clips of 9mm, not to mention some spare ammo we kept around. We quickly realized that ammo was one of the few things that the military doesn't stamp with an individual serial number, and only lot numbers were available. Of course she still had us count out how many of each lot number. And it was then that I really learned to hate join-service assignments, or at least ones not run by USAF personnel. :roll:
[ January 12, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
I'd rather let England pioneer handgun ammo registration to see whether it's effective in keeping bullets from drug lords. If not, then there's no reason for America to add all that bureacracy - People filling in forms can't shoot each other...
-- which would dry up vital funds which could have been used for helping the poor. (You _do_ care about the poor, don't you? ) - I hate the poor, they should be shot
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Registering ammo is pointless imho. For one thing, people quite often collect spent cartridges and load their own. What would we do, ban the act of reloading (the term used for making your own rounds from spent cartridges)? Would you make it so people could only legally reload spent cartridges which they have themselves purchased? - I suppose so, I don't really know. Registered ammo is registered ammo, there couldn't be any half measures or there'd be no point. Besides remaking your own ammo is hardly good for the gun industry is it? I'm surprised gun corporations haven't lobbied against it!

Counting and labelling ammo - sounds like a lowly enough job for all those soon-to-be newly legalised immigrants

[Tony Collins]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Registering ammo is pointless imho. For one thing, people quite often collect spent cartridges and load their own. What would we do, ban the act of reloading (the term used for making your own rounds from spent cartridges)? Would you make it so people could only legally reload spent cartridges which they have themselves purchased?
Next, there aren't generally serial numbers on individual rounds, only lot-numbers. The reason I happen to know this is quite unfortunate. When I was in Bosnia, someone in our section temporarily misplaced a 9mm handgun and some ammo (it had been loaned to someone else). The little despot in charge of our section, an Army Captain (I was USAF btw), had us account for every single round in our section, and her intention was that we record the serial numbers on each round. There were about 10 of us I guess, and iirc we each had 3x30 round clips of 5.56 and 3x15 round clips of 9mm, not to mention some spare ammo we kept around. We quickly realized that ammo was one of the few things that the military doesn't stamp with an individual serial number, and only lot numbers were available. Of course she still had us count out how many of each lot number. And it was then that I really learned to hate join-service assignments, or at least ones not run by USAF personnel. :roll:
[ January 12, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

Jason, you remind me of a character from 'The office'.
Tony

[Frank Silbermann]

Richard Hawkes: "Besides remaking your own ammo is hardly good for the gun industry is it? I'm surprised gun corporations haven't lobbied against it!"

The gun industry in America really isn't very political. They tend to stay out of the gun control debates.

[Steve Wink]

I know you guys are worried about us not having guns to protect ourselves in our homes, but come on!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-964319,00.html

[Bela Bardak]

Charging a Sudanese under the Terrorism Act for having 5 rounds of live ammo in his luggage?!!!
Just a little bit of overreaction here, Steve? The guy wasn't packing a bomb or even a gun. Just 5 bullets and the authorities are going to jail him?
What concievable threat could this poor joker pose to anyone?

[Steve Wink]

Originally posted by Bela Bardak:
Charging a Sudanese under the Terrorism Act for having 5 rounds of live ammo in his luggage?!!!
Just a little bit of overreaction here, Steve? The guy wasn't packing a bomb or even a gun. Just 5 bullets and the authorities are going to jail him?
What concievable threat could this poor joker pose to anyone?

As a totally different argument to gun control ( I think we've done this to death ), do you think carrying explosive materials or ammunition for a gun on an aircraft in the current climate is OK? The US authorities tried to ban passengers from congregating near toilets ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-955511,00.html ) in case they were were planning a take over ( I believe this was in response to reports that terrorists may try to smuggle on board parts of bombs/weapons that in themselves would not raise too many suspicions but could be put together to be lethal ).
As an aside, I reckon that arresting him under terrorism charges is simply to allow the police to question him for longer. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was all an accident.

[Phil Chuang]

Originally posted by Bela Bardak:
Charging a Sudanese under the Terrorism Act for having 5 rounds of live ammo in his luggage?!!!
Just a little bit of overreaction here, Steve? The guy wasn't packing a bomb or even a gun. Just 5 bullets and the authorities are going to jail him?
What concievable threat could this poor joker pose to anyone?

I dunno, he still could have discharged the bullet if he had hit it in the right place.
Granted, it's difficult, and unlikely, but I can see how it could pose a threat, especially in the confines of a crowded airplane.
Given all that, I still think it was a bit of an overreaction
Remember, if you're going to ship anything potentially harmful, it's best to send it below - so put that plastic spork you got from White Castle into your luggage!

[Bela Bardak]

I read the piece, which says the ammo was in his coat pocket, not his luggage. A bit different.
I'm surprised the yanks missed that because the scanners I've encountered pick up change, house keys, even the foil packs that pills come in. Surely a bullet would show. Perhaps it's non-ferrous.
From what I remember of White Castle it's not the spork which is lethal; It's the burgers....
[ January 15, 2004: Message edited by: Bela Bardak ]

[Joe King]

It is funny that after all of the fuss that american made about security for people coming into the country, someone coming out is a totally different matter....
Maybe its all a sinister plan to export all the terrorists to europe - a bit like when france tried to export all the illegal immigrants they had to the UK by giving them leaflets describing how much they'd like to live in the UK, and them putting them all in a camp next door to the channel tunnel.....

[Bela Bardak]

Originally posted by Joe King:

Maybe its all a sinister plan to export all the terrorists to europe - a bit like when france tried to export all the illegal immigrants they had to the UK by giving them leaflets describing how much they'd like to live in the UK, and them putting them all in a camp next door to the channel tunnel.....

Or return the terrorists to Europe.
Most the the 9-11 bombers went to school or lived in Europe. Mohammed Atta had a graduate degree from the University of Hamburg...

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Joe King:
Maybe its all a sinister plan to export all the terrorists to europe

"Export"? Probably more like "send back".

[Marcus Green]

Was Timmy McVeigh from Europe?

[Tony Collins]

The funny thing is all this 'war on terror' malarky is going to give socialism a chance in Britain. Gordon Brown will soon be our new PM.
I think a tory goverment is impossible we are only going towards europe.
tony
[ January 16, 2004: Message edited by: Tony Collins ]

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Tony Collins:
The funny thing is all this 'war on terror' malarky is going to give socialism a chance in Britain. Gordon Brown will soon be our new PM.
Do you think Tony's doomed? The odds were 20-1 for a new PM by 31 January last time I checked. Guess we'll all find out soon enough! I'd like to to stay.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Marcus Green:
Was Timmy McVeigh from Europe?

No, but neither did he go outside our borders to conduct his attacks. He was purely domestic, and didn't for example, board a plane from the US to go and commit murder in Europe. He was an isolated incident, not part of a far greater problem. It's really not a good analogy. Does anyone seriously doubt there is a problem with Islamic extremism in Europe? Many of the European governments recognize the problem though, and are generally attempting to tackle the issue in one way or the other. England seems to be the most on the ball regarding this. I would give kudos to Germany as well if a German judge had't just let a major player walk free who the police state they have plenty of evidence to prosecute.
Of course many don't choose to recognize the problem and feel the war on terror is an overstatement (I believe one poster above used the term "mularkey"). So a bunch of people whine because a few flights in England or France are cancelled or delayed. Who cares. These same people would whine if the intelligence wasn't acted on and then something happened. I really don't care if they were inconvenienced, as long as nobody is dead and the proper precautions are taken. Some people take the terrorist threat for the serious threat it is, some people write it off as "mularkey". I'm sure it may seem like mularkey sometimes from the comfort of a London flat, but others may have a different, and dare I say more valid, perspective.
[ January 18, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Tony Collins:
we are only going towards europe.

Oh well, it's your own funeral.

[Marcus Green]

As a teenager I was a couple of miles away from explosions conducted by people who received funding and support from North America, there are people walking around the UK to this day with limbs missing from those explosions. It is mere chance I am not one of them. War may be conducted against individuals and nations not against nouns. Terrorism is a noun.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Marcus Green:
As a teenager I was a couple of miles away from explosions conducted by people who received funding and support from North America

I'm not sure if I see the connection. Is this an ongoing issue or has a stop been put to it? The answer is that a stop has been put to it. So let's move on to the next problem.

War may be conducted against individuals and nations not against nouns. Terrorism is a noun.

While certainly poetic, this is also a bit too simplistic. Call it whatever flashy name suits you, it is a war against the people who commit, plan to commit, and support international terrorism. I know the popular stances among some in the world is to appease these "people", or hope that maybe if they don't bother them maybe they'll go away and commit their noun against somebody else, but such stances don't reflect reality, imho.
[ January 18, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

I'm sure it may seem like mularkey sometimes from the comfort of a London flat, but others may have a different, and dare I say more valid, perspective.
[ January 18, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

Dont for a moment thing that we don't think/worry/care about terrorism in London - we had to suffer the IRA for too long. Even now, when there hasnt been terrorist activity in London for a long time, there are many roads blocked off with concrete barriers, armed police gaurding public builings and airports, train stations with no bins because people may leave bombs in them. Even now its habit for people to get on the tube and look under the seat for a bomb to be stashed under there. I'm not sure where the other guy is coming from, but for the most part we agree that terrorism is a big problem.
[ January 19, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]
[ January 19, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]

[Marcus Green]

Baader Meinhof, Red Army Faction, IRA, ETA, what would Europeans know about dealing with terrorism?

[Bela Bardak]

Originally posted by Marcus Green:
Baader Meinhof, Red Army Faction, IRA, ETA, what would Europeans know about dealing with terrorism?

Well as I recall, Marcus, the first two were dealt with rather summarily in the end. As I recall the leadership of Baader-Meinhof committed suicide in jail the day after the Kenyan hijacking plot failed. If you believe that story I have a bridge I'd like to sell you....
The Italian security forces adopted a policy of shoot first and ask questions later in the aftermath of the kidnap/murder of Aldo Moro.
So I'd say they definately know how to deal with terrorists - or once did. Their current policy is more do as I say - not as I did. Isn't it?

[Tim Baker]

I don't think anyone in europe or north america has anything much to worry about when it comes to terrorism. So a loophole in american airport security was found and exploited, there is no real outstanding threat of terrorism to public life. The only places that really have to worry are those in the middle east and asia, in their broadest terms.

[Bela Bardak]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:
I don't think anyone in europe or north america has anything much to worry about when it comes to terrorism. So a loophole in american airport security was found and exploited, there is no real outstanding threat of terrorism to public life. The only places that really have to worry are those in the middle east and asia, in their broadest terms.

So what was September 11th, Tim? Nothing to worry about?

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Marcus Green:
Baader Meinhof, Red Army Faction, IRA, ETA, what would Europeans know about dealing with terrorism?

Well a great deal actually. There's hardly any country in Europe that hasn't suffered at the hands of terrorists at somepoint over the last 50 years. Thats why it kind of gets annoying when some people in the states talk as if they are the only country to have terrorist problems.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Joe King:
Thats why it kind of gets annoying when some people in the states talk as if they are the only country to have terrorist problems.

And equally annoying is when some people from across the pond talk as if they are the only ones who know how to deal with terrorists because somebody bombed a disco in Berlin once. Equally annoying is the fact that many of these same people don't even recognize the difference in scope, and have no problem drawing a parallel between the Harrod's bombing, for example, and 9/11. Now while many across the pond seek to do this apparently to try to minimize the events that happened on that day, I am in no way trying to minimize the events that have happened over there primarily in the 70's and 80's.
Europe is not the only place on the planet that has had domestic terrorists. The states have had them too, going back at least to the 60's. Further, we've been the target of Middle Eastern terrorism going back to at least the early 80's, although we've born the brunt of this overseas. But this has nothing to do with anything, other than to diffuse the silly notion from some in the world that they are the only ones who know what they're talking about. What we're dealing with now, as evidenced by Khobar Towers, the Cole, the African Embassy bombings, the attack on the family living compound in Saudi, the attack on the church in Pakistan, the attempted bombing by Richard Reid, the plot that was uncovered for the sarin gas attack on the London subways, the first World Trade Center bombing, Bali, and 9/11, is of a comlpetely different nature and scope than the earlier events in Europe that you refer to and the earlier events in the states that I have referred to. The level at which these events are planned, funded, and coordinated cannot even be remotely compared.
My point? Who cares about what happened in the 60's-80's, it's not all that relevant to what is happening today all over the world. Looking at the list I provided of related events, I'm not sure how anyone would even attempt to minimize what is going on. Maybe it's the whole, "as long as it's not in my back yard" syndrome. The problem though is, it is in your back yard, and even if it's not directly affecting you, it is affecting others.

[Bela Bardak]

I think many people (and not only Europeans) fail to understand the difference between the terrorism practiced by Baader-Meinhof & the Red Brigades and what Al Queda has been doing.
Baader-Meinhof and the red Brigades were revolutionaries trying to destroy the government of a particular country (Germany and Italy respectfully. Even the Black Septemberists were trying to destroy Israel and Israel alone.
Al Quaeda effectively set up shop as a government in areas lacking effective government (Sudan and Afghanistan) built an army and declared war on the US. This is a new thing not yet covered by international law, which is why the Guantanamo Bay prison camps are such a thorny problem.
The inmates of Camp X-ray aren't fish or fowl or good red meat. They aren't civilians, they're not soldiers of a nation-state, and they're not exclusively terrorists. What has a French citizen fighting the US in Afghanistan done in violation of French law? Very little he can be prosecuted for, probably nothing from the viewpoint of French law. Yet he is a combatant and cannot be allowed to go free without running large risks that he will try to do harm to the US or anyone else. And France would have the US release him to French custody so that France can let him go and kill again?

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by Bela Bardak:

So what was September 11th, Tim? Nothing to worry about?

At the time it was something to worry about, but noone did. In the present day it is nothing to worry about because it cannot happen again. Even if it was likely to happen again it wouldn't be anything to worry about unless you worked in the empire state building. The death of a few thousand people is nothing in terms of numbers and juding the risk to yourself. Comercial flights have always been a target of terrorism, and I don't see any greater risk to them now than before 9/11.

[Marcus Green]

I suspect the war on terrorism will be won around the same time as the war on drugs. "Terrorism" is not limited to any particular nation, religion or political system. Many people branded terrorists have later become leaders of their nations. Does this make terrorism acceptable? When all the current political leaders, guerilla leaders, terrorists, and general murderers with a flag of convenience are dead and buried, will there be a new generation who believe that their cause makes it acceptable to kill masses of anonymous strangers?

[Joe King]

Dont confuse a lack of agreement over Iraq with a lack of agreement on combatting terrorism. Most people in europe agree with the need to stamp out terrorists - the whole world suffered with the US when the towers went down (just find a list of the number of different nationalities that lost people in the disaster). The disagreement between europe and the US is that the US thinks "Iraq=terrorists" and some of europe doesn't. There wasnt anywhere near the same level of disagreement over the war in Afganistan, which had a far clearer link to terrorism.
(I'm not saying I agree or disagree with either side here, I'm just trying to get both sides of the argument out .....)

[Frank Silbermann]

Joe King: Dont confuse a lack of agreement over Iraq with a lack of agreement on combatting terrorism. Most people in europe agree with the need to stamp out terrorists

Sure, that's why they responded to the 1973 Black September terrorism in Munich by giving Yassar Arafat a place at the U.N.
The French policy has long been to cultivate friendship with the terrorists in the hope that their fury will be directed away from France toward the U.S.A. and Israel.

The disagreement between europe and the US is that the US thinks "Iraq=terrorists" and some of europe doesn't.

The disagreement is not that the U.S. equates Iraq with terrorism; it's that too many Europeans equate terrorism with Al Khaida. Al Khaida is just one of many terrorist organizations; and whether or not Saddam supported Al Khaida, he supported many others.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Europe is not the only place on the planet that has had domestic terrorists. The states have had them too, going back at least to the 60's.

Or September 16, 1920! From my wife's cousin's web site:
http://www.forgotten-ny.com/STREET%20SCENES/morgan/morgan.html