Knee Jerk

Again I don't have the greatest amount of time, and am only skimming over the whole issue. But am I the only one who thinks that the government's response to the media furore over gun crime- i.e. reducing age where you recieve a mandatory 5 year sentence to 17- is little better than a knee jerk reaction, designed to please the crowd and completely fails to address the source of the problem?

You see, taking time to examine and address social deprivation, the lack of suitable role models, the lack of suitable diversion activity etc etc would take time and results wouldn't be seen until well after the next election, so no point in that says Mr Politician.

So lets just do something that seems "tough on crime", keeps the Daily Mail happy but in reality is likely to have little to no positive effect? It's not as though possessing a gun isn't already illegal, with a possible 10yr sentence available to judges. Going back to the whole prisons debate, how really is sending a 17 year old down for a minimum of 5 years (meaning likely: further education- nil. Job prospects- nil. Angriness at authority- maximum) going to help in the long term? The only argument in favour of reducing the minumum age for mandatory sentencing is "deterrent". What a pile of politico-turd. If anything, that's only going to increase the kudos of having a gun, and increase the likelihood of using it against police in order to escape.