London gunmen shoot to injure not to kill?....

[spin]

Surge in London gun crime under scrutiny
05 Nov 2009

The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) will today (Thursday) discuss an almost doubling of incidents of firearm use in London in the last six months, bucking the trend in other UK hotspots and raising concerns among politicians that gun crime may be out of control.
In the last six months there has been a increase in Trident shootings (up 92 per cent from 123 to 236) although fatalities are down from six to four, indicating a greater propensity to use firearms to injure rather than kill, a developing tactic among younger gang members.
The figures contrast with those nationally, where firearms offences have fallen by five per cent. Hotspots such as Merseyside has seen a reduction of 27 per cent.

***snip***

Joanne McCartney, Labour spokeswoman on policing on the London Assembly, said: “It is extremely concerning and what I’d like to see is some more information on the age of the young people involved. We need to ask whether there has to be a shift in resources and whether the focus which was on knife crime has now to be moved to gun crime.”

***snip***

Also noteworthy has been an increase in the use of shotguns and converted handguns. It is believed that this is due to better availability of the ammunition for such weapons.
Ms Dick explains: “The number and proportion of non-fatal gunshot wounds to the leg has increased; it may be that gunmen are deliberately seeking to avoid a 30-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for homicide with a firearm by shooting victims in the leg.” emphasis added
http://www.policeprofessional.com/news.aspx?id=9484

[JonQ]

1. Interesting

I've heard the argument that strict penalties for murderers don't make any difference because the type of person to commit murder would not think in advance of what the punishment was going to be.

[spin]

2. There has been a lot of knife crime in Great Britian...

many younger people illegally carry knives for self defense. The bad part about a knife fight is that if you get in one you can expect to get cut.

Perhaps some of the knife fighters have learned this lesson and want to put a little distance between themselves and the opponent. They might not want to kill their opponent, just injure him without risking their own injury.

If so, you can expect to see the amount of non fatal shooting increase.

[oneshooter]

3. Or maybe they are just damn poor shots! N/T

[spin]

4. There are probably no ranges to practice on. (n/t)

[Euromutt]

6. Actually, that probably does play a part

An article in The Economist last year (http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_TTSDSGPG) pointed out that, even while the UK homicide rate declined, the number of GSWs almost tripled from 2000 to 2008. The number of non-fatal stabbing victims increased as well, even though knife killings remained stable. The article subsequently states:

So murder is not the problem. But it might suggest what is. Take London, where murder is at a nine-year low. A recent study by King’s College London shows that the over-35s are being murdered less frequently but those under 17 are being murdered more often. From 2000 to 2006, between 15 and 19 teenagers were killed in the capital each year. Last year the figure hit 26; this year, only half-complete, 19 have died.

This changing profile might explain why, overall, injuries are up and murder is down: serious violence is becoming an amateur pursuit.

Emphasis mine.

[Euromutt]

5. I still think there's some truth to that

I acknowledge that idea was unfashionable among criminologists for a while, but it seems to be making a comeback, namely that what really deters crime is the belief on the part of the would-be perpetrator that there is a serious risk that he will be captured and convicted, to which the actual severity of the sentence is secondary. In hypothetical terms, a 75% risk of a three-month sentence is a better deterrent than a 10% risk of a three-year sentence.

It's possible that the guys who shoot to wound do so knowing that limits on police resources mean than an aggravated assault (which is what it would be in the U.S., the UK might call it "grievous bodily harm") will not be as vigorously investigated as a homicide, meaning there's a much better chance of getting away with it.

[JonQ]

8. So that would argue for more cops on the streets

and a more aggressive approach to tracking down criminals.

[Euromutt]

9. Exactly, yes

The methods in policing promoted by the likes of William Bratton, of analyzing where trouble sports are, i.e. physical locations were a disproportionately large number of crimes occur, and assigning higher priority to those areas on the patrol schedule, would help too. It's not just having more cops, it's also using them intelligently.

[JonQ]

10. Unfortunately we seem to be doing the exact opposite

if places get too out of control cops are no longer sent there out of fear for their safety.

Which is probably also why the vast majority of all violent crimes in this country is committed by a relatively tiny population, in a handful of distinct areas.

[SteveM]

7. In the peculiar reward system of violent criminals, heavy sentences/execution may be a turn-on