Slashdot Mirror
British Police Foil Alleged Mall Massacre Copycat Plot
An anonymous reader writes "The Washington Post reports, "British law enforcement agencies averted a plot to orchestrate a large-scale terror attack similar to the assault on Kenya's Westgate mall, an official said Monday. Police were questioning four men in their 20s on suspicion of terrorism after they were detained Sunday in pre-planned, intelligence-led raids. A British security official said the men were planning a shooting spree akin to the Westgate attack in Nairobi, in which at least 67 people died. ... in a series of statements, the force said the men were all British nationals between the ages of 25 and 29, with roots in Turkey, Pakistan, Algeria and Azerbaijan. ... the London police firearms unit took part in the arrests. British police rarely carry weapons and their involvement suggested concern that men might have been armed." — The Sydney Morning Herald has video. Prime Minister Cameron recently expressed concern regarding such a possibility."
Fake.
Just like the "terrorists" the FBI keeps "catching".
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Really, it is.
Because of course they uncovered this by spying on citizens, so they really should be able to keep spying on everyone.
Just think of the malls.
This was a somewhat more exciting series of arrests than usual.
Police shoot at car in suspected terror raids
Armed police shot at the tyres of a car to stop two suspected terrorists during a dramatic series of raids to foil an alleged plot to attack the UK.
Officers fired special Hatton rounds – large shotgun ammunition designed to burst tyres or breach doors – to force the vehicle over in east London on Sunday evening. Witnesses also reported seeing police ram the back of the car before it was finally brought to a halt while a helicopter hovered overhead. In simultaneous arrests, armed officers swooped on a man in the street in west London while a fourth man was arrested at a flat south east of the city. A large number of armed officers were used because it was feared the men had access to weapons and were planning a suspected Islamist terror attack, the Daily Telegraph understands.
The head of MI5 is concerned about the diminishing margin of advantage they have to detect such things in the face of a continuing threat.
Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute in London, Mr Parker pointed out the statistics of the threat from terrorism faced by the UK. The “plain facts”, he said, were that “from 11 September 2001 to the end of March this year, 330 people were convicted of terrorism related- offences in Britain In the first few months of this year, there were four major trials related to terrorist plots. Since 2000, we have seen serious major acts of terrorism in this country typically once or twice a year.”
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I suspect they would have a lot less problem with terrorists and ne'er-do-wells.
Nope, there'd simply be a lot more people getting shot.
Summation 2
Between Cameron's insistence upon an approach that sounds an awful lot like a police state and the fact that this attack was "not imminent," you'll have to pardon me for speculating that this is a new episode of the hit sitcom "Security Theatre." After the pilot episode "TSA at the Airport," they've moved through a few seasons of bland, uninspired episodes, followed by their made-for-TV movie "PRISM" and now what appears to have been an action-packed feature film, "These Guys Might Have Roots in the Middle East: Save the Mall!"
I think I'll watch a new series. This one jumped the shark long ago.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Except that the British police wanted some "anti-terror" "success" so badly the asked their spy agencies for some easy scapegoats.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
There is no UK law preventing an individual from wearing bear arms.
One thing I'm actually rather impressed with. Rather than running around with guns all the time, apparently the BP have a special unit to deal with cases where they're warranted. Certainly it's a different culture than N. America in that regard.
This story keeps on growing. In the British press this morning it was claimed that the men fought in Syria and that they have access to weapons in the UK. That was it.
Now the international press reports that the men were planning an atrocity.
However, the police have found no guns or, in fact, any evidence of any crime. They would certainly be crowing about it if they had.
This is such a non-story the BBC aren't bothering to report it.
Yeah. Guns solve all problems! Well known fact.
No, the reason these chaps get caught so easily in the UK is because it's pretty much impossible to get your hands on a gun, let alone an assault rifle and enough ammo to carry out something like this.
If anyone wanted to do this in the US, their steps would involve "getting a gun" and "shooting people". Neither of which is a particularly challenging task and, in case you've not been watching the news recently, is something so simple that children can do it, and they frequently do.
"Humm, guns keep killing people and every time we add more guns nothing changes. Hey how about more guns? Awesome lets try that"
Notice how the moron capitalizes the "Right to Bear Arms" which isn't even a real thing.
Yep. The ones that deserve it. Save 'em a ton of money on incarceration costs.
Westgate was not a shooting spree. That was only to round up the hostages for death by mutilation:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/09/27/mall-victims-tortured-maimed-in-al-shabab-attacks/2882299/
Really for most of my lifetime the terrorist problem in the United Kingdom was expatiated by the U.S.A. harbouring convicted terrorists and refusing to extradite them back to the U.K. while all the time allowing said terrorist groups to raise money. In that respect 9/11 was a huge boon because all of a sudden the U.S.A. realized that it could no longer support such terrorist activities.
I suspect they would have a lot less problem with terrorists and ne'er-do-wells.
Nope, there'd simply be a lot more people getting shot.
Exactly. NRA aficionados are impervious to facts, in this case, firearm-related death rate.
90,000 Kenyan's what?
I've got exactly what you need! Tinfoil hats are cheap. They are easy, to make too, it takes less than two minutes. Don't believe the MIT study that debunks the time honored tinfoil hat, it's a government conspiracy you know!
Don't worry, there are support groups for conspiracy theorists! Now I know like any number of other conspiracy theories those pesky facts might get in the way. However, learn from Joseph Goebbels and don't ever let logic, facts or reality get in your way. I know you look like a raving lunatic to any rational person, but not to worry, there is someone even crazier will soon show up to defend you, so cheer up!
"In that respect 9/11 was a huge boon because all of a sudden the U.S.A. realized that it could no longer support such terrorist activities."
Haha, good one. Mossad dances at such suggestions, news at 11.
Mmm. Like brains in America.
Nope, there'd simply be a lot more people getting shot.
That is very, very true. In US and Canada there is a perception that if police has guns, they only use it as a last resort. In many cases that is not that case.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/another-fatal-shooting-on-an-empty-toronto-bus-16-years-earlier/article13494159/
I think you'd find that the ones who deserve it are mostly the ones with the guns. Everyone else is too busy thinking about getting on with their life to consider violent crime.
which is totally what she said
"Alsatian dogs were used to terrify prisoners and then ‘maul’ them. There are other similarities with Abu Ghraib: various indignities were devised using human faeces; men were forced to sodomise one another. They also had sand, pepper and water stuffed in their anuses. One apparently had his testicles cut off, and was then made to eat them. ‘Things got a little out of hand,’ one (macho European) witness told Elkins, referring to another incident. ‘By the time we cut his balls off he had no ears, and his eyeball, the right one, I think, was hanging out of its socket. Too bad, he died before we got much out of him.’ Women were gang-raped, had their nipples squeezed with pliers, and vermin and hot eggs thrust into their vaginas. Children were butchered and their body parts paraded around on spears."
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n05/bernard-porter/how-did-they-get-away-with-it
The Kenyan Human Rights Commission (KHRC) estimates that 90,000 Kenyan’s were executed, tortured or maimed during the colonial government’s crackdown, while 160,000 were detained in appalling conditions
http://thinkafricapress.com/kenya/britain%E2%80%99s-faces-colonial-past-kenya
You found a way to blame whitey.
Good for you. You get your Progressive Star for today!
BRITAIN DID TO KENYA ... terrify prisoners ... ‘maul’ them... Abu Ghraib ... various indignities .... sodomise one another ...
What relevance does any of that have to either this incident? What relevance does it have to the terrorist attack at Westgate mall last month that these suspects apparently hoped to recreate?
That axe of yours must be getting might sharp with all the grinding.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
No, no. When an Islamic person shows up to work and starts shooing people to the strains of "Allah Akbar!!!!", it's "workplace violence".
"Violence"?!?! How could that be? Islam is a "religion of peace", is it not?
No, firearms are not illegal in the UK - that's a common misconception.. Some specific types of firearms are illegal (e.g. handguns), the rest require the owner to hold a firearms licence.
the lazarus corporation
Of diversity! It's a strength!
Lets get something straight. The NRA doesn't give a damn about you. They are not an organization that represents gun owners. They represent gun manufacturers and sellers. 75% of NRA members are in favor of common sense gun restrictions, like background checks to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and unstable. The NRA fought against it because it would hurt the bottom line of the only people they care about supporting.
If you support the NRA, you are a dupe and you are being used by people who don't care if you live or die as long as they make a profit, pure and simple.
I have no problem with guns as long as they are used responsibly, and I support people's right to defend themselves against crime, but take a close look at where your loyalties are.
Technoli
Really for most of my lifetime the terrorist problem in the United Kingdom was expatiated by the U.S.A. harbouring convicted terrorists and refusing to extradite them back to the U.K. while all the time allowing said terrorist groups to raise money.
No, there were cases that showed the same problem handing the IRA then as handling al Qaida today. The administration wanted to hand them over, but a court blocked it in much the same way as the courts have intervened in various aspects of the fight against al Qaida.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Quite.
It's a big mistake to think that the British police are unarmed. They're not.
They just don't bother with piddling little pistols.
If you're going to have a gun, have a BIG GUN.
Other than for plain-clothed detectives working undercover, pistols are pretty much laughed at by the British police. Compare the stopping power of a weeny little Colt or a Glock to that of an MP5 sub-machine gun, G36 assault rifle or (God help you if you see one of these - strongly suggest you change your plans for that day) an SA-80 or AR-15 assault rifle.
Although British police don't routinely carry sidearms, in high crime urban areas they will carry SMGs or assault rifles in a locked gun cabinet in the boot (trunk) of their car. In extremely difficult or vulnerable areas such as airports or tourist hotspots, they will carry MP5s around, mixing in with the crowd. The bobbies carrying MP5s are very nice blokes, feel free to strike up a conversation with them. Just back off the ones carrying SA-80s and AR-15s, there's a good chap.
Our largest island is only 700 miles long. Where on earth are you going to run to, that a radioed-ahead armed response unit can't get to first?
I can fully understand why lots of larger countries have routinely armed police - calling for backup could take hours. But it's extremely difficult to outrun the police radio on an island only 700 miles long with a heavily-armed SMG & assault rifle unit every 25 miles or so, and CCTV at every trunk road junction (interstate intersection).
(The police at Birmingham Airport used to have those truly lovely-looking P90 bullpup rifles for manoeuvrability in corridors & aeroplanes; from my recent visit it looks like they've swapped over to MP5s - a shame as the bullpups just looked like a wonderfully practical bit of design. I once saw West Midlands Police using one of those wacky Steyr Augs - again, lovely design - but seem to have standardised now on SA-80s and AR-15s. There seems to be a lot more standardisation across the various regional firearms units these days. Probably very practical from a co-ordinated response point of view, but a lot less showy from a nerd point of view.)
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
Good call. We have hundreds of millions of guns here in the US and we have the lowest incarceration costs in the world... oh wait.
Well at least we never have armed gunmen attack public forums... crap, that's not quite it either.
USAian approach to fighting terrorism: Let's have a trillion dollar war on some random country. That'll show em. Nobody will mess with us afterwards. Oh, and let's spend a fortune in tax dollars on an elaborate security theatre in all airports so that we turn air travel into an ordeal. Let's also hire goons to intimidate anyone who wants to enter the country as a tourist, especially if their skin is dark or if there's any stamps in their passports that show they've been to muslim countries. And let's spend more than then next half dozen countries combined on super-duper high tech weapons even if our own armed forces are telling us they don't want them.
British approach to fighting terrorism: Keep plugging away behind the scenes. Use the intelligence agencies to infiltrate terror groups and arrest them before they can strike. Keep it discreet, keep it quiet, and don't announce anything publicly until there's been an arrest. Meanwhile, let life go on as normal, keep going to work, keep on flying, keep shopping in busy streets, keep commuting on crowded trains and buses, and on no account do we change our way of life in search of an impossible-to-obtain standard of security because to do so would be to let the terrorists win.
I wonder which one is more effective.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
what about walking around in bear feet?
When everyone is dead then it's quite peaceful.
Today, there are just some that use "peace" as camouflage, but all religion can safely be assumed to be dangerous if the sufferer is deeply infected ("fundamentalist" or "fanatic").
Your use of the "fundamentalist" label makes your post intellectually lazy drivel filled with the same intolerance you pretend to be against. The word "fundamentalist" generally means a religion has a set of unalterable principles which are not subject to deviation or debate and which serve as a foundation for the practice of that faith and the conduct of adherents. By that measure, the vast majority of Christians, Budhists, Hindus, or "fundamentalist" Atheists for that matter, are not going around killing non-believers as a matter of policy.
The eschatologies of these major religions are similar, with some sort of Messianic figure resolving the conflict of mankind, but only in the Muslim eschatology are the adherents charged with being directly responsible for causing the chaotic conditions that will usher the Messiah (12th Imam) to bring the resolution of the age and man's ultimate fate.
"This world will not come to an end until one person from my progeny does not rule over the Arabs, and his name will be the same as my name." [http://www.islam.tc/prophecies/imam.html]
"Founded in 1953 and used by the Shah of Iran to try to eradicate followers of the Bahai faith, the Hojjatieh Society is governed by the conviction that the 12th Imam's return will be hastened by the creation of chaos on earth." -- http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_10945.shtml
The other religions see these conditions happen as humanity degenerates by its own nature. "The difference goes to the heart of Islam, its holy texts in which the obligation of eschatological war is intimately bound up with the Truth of Islam and its need to dominate the world. The victory of Dawa (Islam ruling the world) will precede the eschatological end-times which will finally put an end to the misery of history by consigning all non-Muslims to Hell and realizing eternal Paradise pleromatically. And the process of Dawa becoming victorious cannot be divorced from the necessity to fight all those who will resist that Dawa: hence the necessary corollary of military Jihad."
"Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
" pre-planned, intelligence-led raids..."
We citizens would be glad if _all_ raids were pre-planned, intelligence-led raids.
Unplanned, dumb raids at the wrong address are just not funny.
Brains aren't illegal in the US. We simply find them unnecessary for day to day life, and often find they they are unnecessary for anything else.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
" Keep plugging away behind the scenes. Use the intelligence agencies to infiltrate terror groups and arrest them before they can strike. Keep it discreet, keep it quiet, and don't announce anything publicly until there's been an arrest."
Oh, and you were doing so well right up to this point. Despite all the saber rattling the US does, the underpinning of the entire country's response is, infact, intelligence. Up until Snowden, we did keep it all quiet and discreet. Thing is, nobody actually seems to be in favor of that anymore either.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The thing about the right to bear arms is that non-criminals exercising it encourages criminals to acquire firearms too.
In the US, criminals arm themselves in order to protect themselves. If you know the owner of the house you're breaking into may well have a firearm, then you are far more likely to carry one yourself. If not, why burden yourself with one? Particularly if - as in the UK - it will result in a more severe sentence if you are caught.
A gun is not much use for most crimes - even robbery can be effectively carried out with a knife - and so despite the fact that they are available on the black market, most criminals in the UK do not routinely carry them. The main exceptions to this rule are gangsters who frequently deal with other gun-toting criminals. Even then, it's pretty rare, I live in a poor part of central London and I have never seen a handgun.
Tomorrow, I may eat another house plant
to death in the street.
But honestly, your guns and your prison pollination have little to do with eachother. Your prisons are full because you have a very successful and profitable prison industry, and they are filled with people who were caught with a few grams of marijuana on them, not robbers, and killers.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I live in Arizona and every redneck there is packing and just itching to have the opportunity to use it.
It is perhaps best to describe American and the US Govt as "confused" on the matter of the IRA. Yes, parts of the USG tried to extradite IRA members to the UK and generally failed. But Rep Peter King, who was chairman of the homeland security committee was and still is an outspoken supporter of the IRA, who he believed were freedom fighters. This is a guy who held hearings on the radicalisation of Muslims. It's literally impossible to be more hypocritical than this guy.
Sadly there's a reason that a clear supporter of the IRA is able to also be a Congressman - many Americans were flat out supporters of Irish Republican terrorism and raised large sums of money for them. IRA bumper stickers were apparently not an uncommon site on Boston roads back then.
The fact that only 10 years before 9/11 Americans were openly supporting a group that attempted to assassinate the British prime minister, and nearly succeeded, is not a fact that everyone has forgotten. Obama routinely kidnaps or drone strikes people he thinks are supporters of terrorism without so much as a trial. So when is he going to go in and clear out the people who supported NORAID in Boston and Washington?
captcha: puzzlers
While very long, I can only give this rant a rating of 1.5 Troll-Bridges.
Positive Trolling factors:
Mentions Zionism in any context.
Equates all Muslims with all Terrorists.
Contains claims easily disprovable by widely available information.
Mentions Nazis in any context.
Attempts to twist current events into a conspiracy.
Negative Trolling factors:
Too convoluted- way too complex for those actually susceptible to trolls.
Insufficient random capitalization- nicely done where used though.
Lack of focus- rails wildly against Slashdot, "zionists", Britain, Saudi Arabia, Al Jazeera, U.S.A., and most news outlets. This was the biggest negative factor. Please limit your ranting to one or two targets, you lose focus and the diatribe really suffers.
Better luck on your next attempt at trolling.
prison pollination
Is this another new euphemism?
Interestingly, there are some guns that are legal to own in the UK, that are illegal in the US. The chances of getting a license for them is very low, though.
Also, it's not that difficult to get a gun in the UK... you've just got to know the right people.
The war on drugs is only part of it. Mandatory sentencing extends beyond drug charges. Many gun violations have mandatory sentencing as well, which is in part because of the war on drugs and in part because of the proliferation of guns. Very few people are in jail due to a few grams of marijuana, that wouldn't be enough for intent to distribute. But yes, our prison industry has done very well for itself, that much is true regardless.
First, the term "terrorist" and "terrorism" have become labels for anything a Government does not like. If you believe in the 2nd amendment, display Libertarian bumper stickers or T-Shirts, are not registered Democrat or Republican, stock more than a week worth of food, or display anti-government literature (Think 15 year old's posting on Facebook as much as the rare member of a Jihad), you are a potential terrorist..
These are US definitions, but the UK is not very different. Look at the recent detention under anti-terrorism of a journalist's partner for example.
Next, in the UK did they uncover a stash of weapons and explosives? At least in the US they could claim "he was gonna buy a gun", but in the UK they can't.
The article points you link don't mention anything but how bad ass the cops were in bushing these wanna-be terrorists. Seems more like MI5/MI6 and GCHQ are trying to justify all their illegal activities just like the NSA is busy trying to justify theirs.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Also, shotgun licenses are pretty easy to get, if you live in a rural area. I'd guess I'd be able to get one, despite my criminal record. Lots of farmers have them.
Tell it to Bashar Al Asad... lmao.
Captcha: unhappy, no kidding here haha
Erm no. It was American money that really stopped the ira. When it stopped so did the ira. I don't remember osma being protected by a judge.
Firearms and incarceration intersect in less than half of all cases. Most incarcerations are for non-violent crimes.
The police know the right people too
As are victim-disarmament aficionados, who refuse to acknowledge the defensive uses of firearms, including those where the mere presence of an armed non-criminal ended what might otherwise be a violent conclusion.
Of course, it's easy to dismiss them because nothing actually happened. It's always "you can't say for certain it was beneficial," which might work for isolated cases but when accounting for all cases combined can't possibly be relegated to "none of those turned out better due to the presence of a defensive firearm."
In short, there's stupid on both sides.
Yup. I know a guy in my town who is outspokenly proud of having gone to Ireland after Vietnam and materially helping the terrorist IRA. While they may have been freedom fighters in the beginning, they rapidly turned into a criminal, terrorist organization.
If I were a criminal in the US entering a home where the occupant could likely have a gun. I think I might be predisposed to shoot said occupant on sight and save myself some trouble.
Preventing the mentally ill from purchasing firearms wouldn't make even so much as a dent in the sale of firearms.
That said, the JPFO is a far better pro-firearms group to join.
No, criminals acquire guns because they cannot dial law enforcement when someone commits what would be a crime against the law abiding section of society against them, so a black market version of law enforcement is needed within their world to fill the void.
Handguns by their nature are concealable, so it is highly unlikely that you will see them unless you or someone near you is in immediate danger. Hiking in the Rockies I haven't seen a mountain lion or a Grizzly, but I don't delude myself by thinking they must not be there.
The issue is much more complex than availability of guns to legal owners. The US has a border on the north and south with major illicit drug exporters (Canada - synthetics and pot, and Mexico). They have a huge demand partially driven by socioeconomic factors. The government treats illicit drugs like a war (rather than treating addiction as a disease/symptom), so the opposition gears up for one. The cops roll around in tanks and paramilitary gear, so the other side tries to do the same. There is no safety net. Drug addicts don't get health care access like they do in single payer systems, and better addiction therapy is only for paying clients.
Dubious; there are 3 possibilities, 1 it was almost entirely sponsored and encouraged by the security service and the losers who were arrested were just that losers. 2 that they are real attackers who might have pulled something nasty off. or 3 that this is a huge disproportionate response to what, in reality, were just some angry guys drunk talking.
A simple example would be that I know 2 guys who have long been planning the perfect kidnapping. Not that they ever would kidnap anyone it is just a thought experiment in that doing the exchange would be fantastically difficult. But if you were to have a wiretap of any of their conversations you would think that they were two sociopathic nasties just days away from the snatching someone. Seeing that they have been having the same discussion for over 20 years it might be the slowest conspiracy in history. Seeing that the context of the conversation was set 20 years ago then any conversation since does not need to begin with "hypothetically" if anything their conversations would be something more along the lines of the exacting details of the use of helicopters, spaceships, submarines or whatever has recently popped into either of their heads. The worst is that if someone from a security service were to join into their debate(with the goal of an arrest) they would probably even accept the use of say a helicopter or whatever to stage some scenario that they were debating. But again neither of these two would ever even think about actually doing a crime so horrible. But a series of recordings played to the jury would be pretty damning.
Interesting points, but I disagree: Criminals can and do call the police when crimes are committed against them. I accept they might not if they have a personal distaste for all law enforcement, or if it might lead to them being suspected of a crime, but I don't know how common either of these cases are. I admit that not having seen a handgun around where I live is poor evidence. A better indication would be how often people charged with crimes are found in possession of a firearm - which would inevitably lead to an easily provable additional charge. In my, (quite extensive), experience of criminal cases, I've only seen a handful of such charges.
As to the geopolitics and war on drugs, the UK is much more similar to the US in terms of the severity with which it pursues and prosecutes drugs offences than the rest of Europe. Its maritime borders are hard to police and drugs flow in from North Africa, the Middle East and more recently MDMA labs in India. However, you do rarely see the police in paramilitary gear (they use that for policing protests...) and I doubt they have access to tanks. This reinforces my point: when the legal side has regular access to weaponry, the other side acquires it too. When the legal side is not regularly armed, the need for criminals to arm themselves similarly diminishes.
Tomorrow, I may eat another house plant
The US is still harboring and aiding Cuban terrorists in Miami, and refuses to extradite known war criminals with large bank accounts to Central America, Africa and Asia.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
The background checks you are talking about would apply to private sales and have little effect on manufacturers and retail sellers who already have to perform background checks.
Disclaimer: I do not know for a fact that this is their line of thinking, but I would not put it past them.
If there are more insane maniacs out there with guns, people will feel less safe, and more inclined to buy a gun of their own.
Technoli
Agreed - it was highly ironic that the Boston bombings took place in a city known for it's Irish sympathisers and Noraid collections.
Also, shotgun licenses are pretty easy to get, if you live in a rural area. I'd guess I'd be able to get one, despite my criminal record. Lots of farmers have them.
Compared to a Firearms Certificate, they are ridiculously easy to get. One licence for as many shotguns as you like (unless they hold 4+ shells, then you need an FAC) and the police cant deny you the licence unless they provide "a compelling reason" to not issue it.
75% of NRA members are in favor of common sense gun restrictions, like background checks to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and unstable. The NRA fought against it because it would hurt the bottom line of the only people they care about supporting.
There already are background checks that keep the guns out of the hands of mentally ill and unstable, when said guns are purchased at the store. The infamous "gun show loophole" pertains only to private, person-to-person gun sales, which necessarily involve second hand guns. Even if you completely banned it, it woldn't hurt the bottom line of gun manufacturers, since the guns that change hands have already been sold by them.
As an ex-NRA member and a liberal, I can tell you that most of "NRA is a gun manufacturer lobby" that's peddled in the liberal media is complete bullshit. Most of the organization's funding comes from the members, and they do pander to their members. The problem there is that, much like in politics in general, most of the moderate membership is not really particularly involved, while on the other hand people espousing more extreme positions tend to be both very vocal, and very active when it comes to donating, participating on organization politics etc. So this latter group, while a minority, gets an undue amount of attention from the leadership, which is why you (and we) have to suffer Wayne LaPierre and his ilk.
This actually mirrors gun politics in US in general. The anti-gun majority is definitely there, but it's passive - a politician's position on guns is not their single issue when it comes to voting, and typically isn't even major; most won't even bother writing to their representatives, and very few would donate to lobbying organizations. OTOH, the vocal pro-gun minority tends to consider gun control a deal breaker for voting, will actively participate in any write-you-representative campaign that NRA will organize, and will donate, donate and donate more money to support their cause. It's no surprise that politicians cowtow to it.
"Also, it's not that difficult to get a gun in the UK... you've just got to know the right people."
You mean like the local police chief? Because that's who signs off on firearms permits in the UK, in fact, apparently about 8% of the population of the UK own hunting rifles or shotguns. It's not hard to get one legally, unless you're mentally ill and have killed people in the pass you'll likely be granted a permit.
But that's not what you meant is it? You were talking about obtaining illegal firearms such as handguns, in which case you're talking crap.
Even in gangs in places like London and Birmingham where shootings actually happen and guns actually are it's often the same gun getting passed around because there's so few in circulation such that even most the people who do know the right people can't get one.
Getting an illegal gun in the UK is extremely difficult, even if you know the right people. Getting a legal gun is extremely easy.
Theoretically CITES prohibits most cases of that.