It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

80 handguns smuggled into Britain

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

80 handguns smuggled into Britain


www.heraldsun.com.au

BRITISH and US authorities held crisis talks after 80 guns were smuggled into the UK on US passenger flights.

Serious flaws in transatlantic aviation security were exposed by the arrest of private security consultant Steven Greenoe, who is accused of trafficking more than 80 guns in his hold luggage.

The 37-year-old American was stopped by security staff on at least one occasion when screening detected "multiple firearms" in his suitcases – but was able to talk his way on to a flight from Atlanta to Manchester.

US court papers show he is accused of delivering the weapons to crimin
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.dailymail.co.uk




posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
First of all I wouldn't call them "Handguns". Judging by the picture they are obviously sub machine guns... which is actually worse..

Even though the subject is not gun control I think we can all agree that even in a country with guns all but banned... if a criminal wants a gun.. a really bad one... he can still get it.

Thoughts?

www.heraldsun.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

Correction:

A number of 9mm semi-automatic pistols believed to have been bought by Mr Greenoe for $500 each in a North Carolina gunshop were offered for sale at up to £5,000 a piece in Britain a week later, according to the Times.


They were in fact handguns

edit on 25-1-2011 by DaMod because: They were handguns I was mistaken.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
50 quid down any dockside pub.

200 if you want the deed done for you.

Any more than that and you are being bumped.

-m0r



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
There where just walked through customs at the airport as'well



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


I think the picture is just a generic gun photo, not the weapons this arsewipe was polluting our streets with.

It says the North West too, which could mean anywhere from Manchester // Liverpool way, right up to where I live.

Hope this guy gets the full punishment law can serve.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


Yeah thanks for the correction.. I'm American so I obviously have a different opinion when it comes to firearms..

There is one thing we can agree with though.. The problem with banning guns is that the only people that end up having them are the ones they where banned to prevent having them in the first place..

Which this guy made apparent (although I do not know how he got them through customs....)

I'm sure he will serve time, but for every one that is caught I'm sure that several succeed.
edit on 25-1-2011 by DaMod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by m0r1arty
50 quid down any dockside pub.

200 if you want the deed done for you.

Any more than that and you are being bumped.

-m0r


Well, last time I paid more like


No those handguns are worth a lot more than that, the newer they are the pricier. As they change hands and change jobs the price may vary wildly... They get rented out moved around and when they are on their last legs, Jonny £200 walks up behind the wrong person, *click and that fellas mother will be the only one that cares.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


From the BBC they quoted the weapons as handguns

US prosecutors say Mr Greenoe purchased in the US and illegally transported to the UK an arsenal of weapons: dozens of Glock 9mm pistols, dozens of Ruger pistols and pistols of other makes.
www.bbc.co.uk...


It seems a little too co-incidental for my liking... but then again I do wear this really cool tinfoil hat


As for guns in general, well, there is generally always someone/group out target shooting/hunting around here, pretty normal really.. and lots of people I know have weapons and know farmers who allow them to play on their land..

anyway back on topic

One of the weapons allegedly bought by Mr Greenoe has been linked to a drive-by shooting in Wythenshawe, Manchester, last October, in which a man was hit in the leg.


Pretty clear what his intentions where... and kinda dragging the US through the mud at the same time.
as I say, pretty co-incidental for my liking..

edit on 25/1/11 by thoughtsfull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


It's the ones who are licensed to have them you have to watch out for round here mate, last year a crazy taxi driver shot and killed 12 people round my home area (West Cumbria), two of whom were friends of mine. I used to use him for taxi's when I lived up Mirehouse estate.

He was fully licensed for both the shotgun and the rifle.

I know you view it differently in America, but I think that all guns should be banned outside of the military, well, except maybe air rifles.

EDIT: Sorry, I should have added, I know regardless of the Law people are still gonna get them if they want them, extra measures should be put into place to stop them coming into the country in the first place.
edit on 25/1/11 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


I'm from the uk but I feel exactly the same way as you about guns unfortunately we lost that battle a long time ago now its only criminals and police who have guns. I want the right to bare arms!!!



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by DaMod
 


It's the ones who are licensed to have them you have to watch out for round here mate, last year a crazy taxi driver shot and killed 12 people round my home area (West Cumbria), two of whom were friends of mine. I used to use him for taxi's when I lived up Mirehouse estate.


That's not exactly right. Sure the guy went nuts and killed 12 people. And ten and twenty years before that there was Hungerford and Dunblane.

The problem with focusing on that one lawful owner who killed 12 is you're ignoring the 40+ killed with guns in the hands of illegal owners.

So is the once a decade nutter killing a dozen really more of a problem than the 40+ annually killed by criminals?



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by JDofENGLAND
I want the right to bare arms!!!


That's bear arms. And ask Zangief how he feels about bear arms.

-m0r



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


No, its a problem either way, my point was that he was licensed, had he not been, there is the possibility he would not have had guns and those 12 people would have still been here.

I understand more people are killed by gangs annually, it was the fact he took so many out in one day that blew the story up, and maybe I am a little more focussed on that story, it had a personal impact.

Also when you think gun crime in the UK you think more down south and big cities, not quiet towns up here in the far North, all of a sudden there is two incidents within a matter of weeks (Raoul Moat).

It's people like them that make me so opposed to guns in the public hands. I have fired military weapons, and I enjoyed it, I would love to do it again. But the safety of my friends and family come first when it comes to weapons in public, and your always going to get the idiots who go insane.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Exactly my point there. Banned or not people will always have guns. I understand having to license your weapon, background checks and all that. In fact Britain has a unique opportunity to find different methods of prevention as they have such strict gun laws. I personally think the public there should be able to have them.... (rifles and shotguns at least, maybe even 6 shooters). This of course is just my opinion and I can see how it would be biased since I myself am a gun owner.
edit on 25-1-2011 by DaMod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by DaMod
 


It's the ones who are licensed to have them you have to watch out for round here mate, last year a crazy taxi driver shot and killed 12 people round my home area (West Cumbria), two of whom were friends of mine. I used to use him for taxi's when I lived up Mirehouse estate.


That's not exactly right. Sure the guy went nuts and killed 12 people. And ten and twenty years before that there was Hungerford and Dunblane.

The problem with focusing on that one lawful owner who killed 12 is you're ignoring the 40+ killed with guns in the hands of illegal owners.

So is the once a decade nutter killing a dozen really more of a problem than the 40+ annually killed by criminals?


and furthermore, would it have gone differently if at the first or second shot other "lawful" carriers had theirs out too? i believe so, and i believe it still wouldve been spun anti-gun. you have to remember that britain wants the ability (just like the us) to make false promises, and then flipflop on them without the poppulace able to do anything.

like the recent riots.... did it cause the tuition fees to go lower? do you think the legislators would make the same decision to steal even more money (from people who cant get a job with the junk degree anyway) if the poppulace was armed, and able to voice their opinion and defend themselves at the same time? there wouldnt have been riots because its what they wouldve been afraid of. now if they are all unarmed, what are they going to do? nonviolent protest?

the problem is that even the swat teams are worried about guns because it takes away their intimidation, their fear factor, and levels the playing field. when the population is armed, the gov WILL listen to the thoughts of the governed. when the guns are banned, they still get shipped there like this. they caught one guy out of maybe a few dozen with similar shipments, and they will say "to hell with what they think, that doesnt matter, its what we think."

why do you think the us constitution was so adamant about right to bear arms, and keep a well trained and equipped militia? might've had something to do with the militia making this a free country. unfortunately in this world..
money=power
guns=money
they go hand in hand when only one sided is properly armed. u want the gov to serve its people again? the gov has to actually be afraid of its people. how does that work out if the gov owns the money and the guns?



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
I personally think the public there should be able to have them.... (rifles and shotguns at least, maybe even 6 shooters). This of course is just my opinion and I can see how it would be biased since I myself am a gun owner.
edit on 25-1-2011 by DaMod because: (no reason given)


I think we get by just fine with knifes and broken bottles thanks.

Guns means less money (due to bullets) and that means less drink.

No drink = no causal problems which means no violence.

That's not a good way to keep the service industry known as the police intact is it?

-m0r



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by m0r1arty
 


Well I see your point, but even in the states if you go into a pub with a firearm its a felony.. That means no more voting or gun rights. You loose them.. If you carry a concealed weapon without a permit in public it's the same end. We have rules for our firearms.. this isn't the "Old West" anymore.

I just think brits should be able to have a nice hunting rifle and the ability to go out a get a deer for his family.. I dunno, again my opinion is biased lol.

I will add though. When guns were banned there... did you receive a ballot and vote on it? Did the British people really have a choice? From what I understand it was a battle but really did you have the option to say yay or nay?
edit on 25-1-2011 by DaMod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
I will add though. When guns were banned there... did you receive a ballot and vote on it? Did the British people really have a choice? From what I understand it was a battle but really did you have the option to say yay or nay?


Guns have always been banned here (as far as I know) but we didn't receive a personal ballet paper when licensed handguns changed to not being allowed in home or in general transit (after Dunblane).

Like most things in the UK, the government make all the decisions for the time they are in power with no need for consultation with the public beyond their own carefully screened unelected focus groups.

I'm personally against guns - but I am behind you when it comes to how the UK government operates.

-m0r



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
If the USA want to carry arms or have licenses fine...

But why the hell would they let this slip through?

Considering every other bugger is being humiliated left right and centre by airport officials and customs, and being treated like a threat by every agency out there?

Or do different rules apply to different people?

If so.... Why?



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard
But why the hell would they let this slip through?


Push an agenda, namely further demonization of the gun owner. Specifically the American gun owner.

Or, it's just one security slip that got caught. Where there's one you can see there is a dozen you cannot.

They either make specific mistakes to benefit themselves or they make mistakes all the time that go uncaught.




top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join