Quote:

Police identify 169 London gangs
A police report on London's gang culture has identified 169 separate groups, with more than a quarter said to have been involved in murders.

Gangs are responsible for more than a fifth of youth crime in London, according to the Metropolitan Police report seen by BBC London.

The unpublished report found that nearly half of London gangs had been involved in serious assault.

Three teenagers have died in shootings in south London in two weeks.

The largest number of gangs are said to be in Hackney, east London (22 gangs); Enfield in north London (13); Lambeth and Merton in south London (12 gangs each); Waltham Forest in north east London (11) and Brent in north west London (11).

Gangs were found to have around 20 to 30 members, and to commit crimes in smaller groups of three to six.

It's definitely a war out there
Former gang leader

African-Caribbean gangs were described as the largest group, followed by south Asian and white gangs.

Religion was also found to be a defining factor, with some gangs comprising solely Muslim or Catholic members, for example.

The report distinguished between 19 gangs considered responsible for a high level of harm and 29 regarded as using a medium level.

A former gang leader said some young people became gang members in order to feel protected.

"They feel safe within a gang because you have got older people in the gang who are always going to look after you," he said.

"You are always moving as a pack. It's as you fight in a war.

"If you are fighting in a war you are not going to send just one soldier out. It's definitely a war out there."

Impact 'enormous'

Criminologist Dr John Pitts, from the University of Bedfordshire, said: "There are probably no more than 1,500 to 2,000 young people in gangs in all of London, but their impact is enormous."

Dr Pitts said the influence of gangs could determine which schools and colleges young people felt able to go to.

"There are quite a number of youth workers in London boroughs who are finding it impossible to run a service," he added.

Fifteen-year-old Billy Cox is the latest victim of violence blamed on gangs.

There does seem to be evidence of a rise in the number of gangs
Metropolitan Police Commander Paul Minton

He was shot in the chest at the family home in Clapham, south London.

Metropolitan Police Commander Paul Minton said: "There does seem to be evidence of a rise in the number of gangs and there seems to be an increase in the number of young people involved."

However, he said the south London community had been "reaping the effects" of increased police activity and armed patrols in the area in the wake of the recent shootings.

"The series of incidents that have occurred in south London have been unprecedented in our experience," he said.

"As a consequence we are doing a great deal to ensure we are tackling the criminality that is occurring there."

---

mr_kite said:

Sorry what? A knife is not a weapon you can massacre 30 members of the public with in one go, unless they are very pathetic people. A gun is such a weapon.

---

I don't have time right now to read any more of this thread beyond this quote, but I simply must reply to this statement here.

If the victims are as placid with the fact that someone was using a gun to fire at everyone, then if guns were prohibited and virtually nonexistant, they would be just as placid with a knife. I think that the victims fear of the fact that someone was using a gun prevented them from initiating action that could have saved themselves or at least others.

This wasn't some mass-murderer: it was simply some angry, confused, isolated kid trying to be tough, and he killed so many people because they were simply fish in a bucket.

Do you think that if some of those students carried concealed weapons, through abiding by regulations of the federal government, subject to stringent skill tests and behavior requirements (infractions resulting in the revoking of the right), they would fear the punk kid with his guns? No, because they would be trained to protect society.

I think people are willing to assume the responsibility to be responsible for themselves and the others around them. Its the reason we have firefighters and police and emergency health technicians. The notion that guns should be prohibited is ignorant of reality.

mr_kite said:

fireworks_god said:

Quote:

Also, isnt it morally repulsive that your country legally provides these murderers with their weapons? Your government allowed this man to purchase and use a firearm to do this deed.
No, it isn't. His actions were his own. In America, we don't appreciate it when our rights as Americans are taken away because of the actions of a few. England is used to having a monarchy that controls their lives and makes their decisions for them - well, guess what, America said fuck that.

---

Im Scottish, not English. The monarchy has no power at all! The Queen has no influcence on our lives or our decision, that all stopped a very long time ago. Id say your goverment is slightly more fucked up than ours. We win "In America, we don't appreciate it when our rights as Americans are taken away because of the actions of a few." Thats what I said in my post. You are unwilling to make personal sacrifices for the greater good.

---

---

Quote:

There are 169 known gangs in London alone:

---