Author Topic: Lazs - London/New York crime trends - interesting article (Read 2359 times)

beet1e · « **Reply #30 on:** January 11, 2005, 05:26:41 AM »

Well, Toad - I found the book on Amazon. It has not yet had its first review, which is what I had hoped to find.

So I did a bit of Googling to try to find material on Thomas Jones. Fourth on the list in my google search ("thomas jones whitehall") was that Fear and Loathing in Whitehall link that I believe you posted yourself. I had a read through, and noticed it had been written by an American. The telltale signs are the spellings - words like labor - instead of labour, and the PM being referred to as "George" instead of "Lloyd George" (a mistake unlikely to have been made by someone with a UK education) ... and then I looked at the URL to see who had written it. Why it's none other than Clayton Cramer, Vice-President of the NRA Members' Council of Sonoma County in California. No axe to grind at all then.

I thought I'd give it a read anyway, and came across this.

Quote

It appears that while Jones and Hankey believed that the risk of revolution was greatly exaggerated, many Cabinet ministers believed an attempt at armed revolution was imminent. Jones' notes for the February 2, 1920 meeting about industrial unrest report Lloyd George "throughout played the rôle of taking the revolution very seriously...."[79] Jones seemed to think that while George regarded the concern as overblown, he was reluctant to say so to his ministers.

Like I said before - it was all fear and paranoia, but had little basis in fact. There is no empirical data to show that the disgruntled workers were about to mount, nor indeed could have mounted an armed revolution. None.

The "rebellion" ie. General Strike did indeed occur - in 1926, and lasted 9 days. The issues were hours, pay, conditions, lack of food etc.

As I've said before, you have to be very careful about interpreting accounts of events in one country where the source is in another country. I'll never forget reading about the 1981 unemployment riots Croxteth and Toxteth in a California r.. er, newspaper. The caption was something like "Britain sinking into the sea under a siege of worker unrest". Complete bollocks, of course - as was confirmed in a telephone call to my brother.

Toodle Pip.

Leslie · « **Reply #31 on:** January 11, 2005, 07:40:31 AM »

No point in arguing with Beet1e about guns. His mind is made up. We're stupid and don't deserve to defend ourselves. Simple as that.

Just jealous about the outcome of the Revolution, but I say Beet1e, why didn't you guys whip us? You could have you know.

Les

Toad · « **Reply #32 on:** January 11, 2005, 07:52:03 AM »

You're just stroking your ego.

The political history of the world at the time (Google "palmer raids"; we had the same thing going on here) and the comments of your own politicians make it clear the Firearms Act was a response to the "Bolshevik Threat" perceived or otherwise.

lazs2 · « **Reply #33 on:** January 11, 2005, 08:09:17 AM »

laser... California is a very strange right to carry state with each little police chief and politician having power over who has the right and who doesn't... in some areas of Northern California it is very easy to get a permit while in all the large cities (metrosexual areas) it is allmost impossible.

for me... "right to carry" would preclude needing any reason for a citizen to carry... the burden to refuse should be on the state... the state should should grant all requests unless they can provide a good reason why that person should not be allowed to carry.

California has allways played fast and loose with it's citizens rights. It pretends to be free but is no more free in a lot of ways than most socialist countries.

lazs

Mini D · « **Reply #34 on:** January 11, 2005, 08:20:38 AM »

Beetle, maybe you can share with us how this article supports a single view you've stated previously on this BBS. I don't see it.

We say murder is a result of societal problems, you say it's because there's too many guns. Then you quote this article which says murder is a result of societal problems and doesn't mention guns at all as proof that you were right.

You're a fricking moron.

beet1e · « **Reply #35 on:** January 11, 2005, 08:27:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
Beetle, maybe you can share with us how this article supports a single view you've stated previously on this BBS. I don't see it.

Well then get stronger reading glasses. It's right there in my previous post. Look for the word "exaggerated" and read the entire sentence.

Dork.

lazs2 · « **Reply #36 on:** January 11, 2005, 08:27:49 AM »

but then he does mention guns... he says more guns in the hands of police is a good thing. More guns=less crime. He just doesn't trust the riff raff with guns.

lazs

Mini D · « **Reply #37 on:** January 11, 2005, 09:24:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
Well then get stronger reading glasses. It's right there in my previous post. Look for the word "exaggerated" and read the entire sentence.

Dork.

Umm... you say this article has been saying what YOU'VE been saying all along... yet it doesn't mention guns once (which is the absolute cornerstone of your argument).

Maybe you want to take a minute to read what everyone that you've been arguing with has been saying, because this article supports everyone but you.

Of course, that won't stop you from thinking it makes you more right. Just so long as you realize that it has nothing to do with what you quoted and everything to do with your love for yourself.

Mini D · « **Reply #38 on:** January 11, 2005, 09:36:51 AM »

P.S.:

Lazs "guns make you safer" argument is not a factor in this article simply because there was not a reduction in the number of weapons to correlate with the reduction in crime.

Your "guns are responsible for murder" argument is in question because of this article which shows a 75% reduction in NYC's total murder count (even larger % reduction in rate) without any corresponding reduction in the number of firearms.

This article not mentioning guns supports everyone that has been saying that it isn't the presence of guns that causes the murder rate to be high, it's the sociological climate. Gun numbers haven't gone down, crime has. All because of different aproaches towards handling crime and citizens.

Toad · « **Reply #39 on:** January 11, 2005, 10:33:42 AM »

As you know Mini, this isn't about any sort of rational debate based on facts.

It's all about the "I have never been wrong except for the one time I thought I was wrong but it turned out I was right" mentality of this particular ego.

beet1e · « **Reply #40 on:** January 11, 2005, 11:51:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
Umm... you say this article has been saying what YOU'VE been saying all along... yet it doesn't mention guns once (which is the absolute cornerstone of your argument).

Umm... maybe you should look at the right article - in the butter knife thread, in which I quote the Blackwell Report. THAT supports what I've said all along re justification for the 1920 legislation. THIS article (in my original post) supports what I said that there is far more to reducing crime than simply saturating your society with guns.

Quote

Maybe you want to take a minute to read what everyone that you've been arguing with has been saying, because this article supports everyone but you.

If you're talking about the Clayton Cramer article, of course it does. It was written by an NRA gun lobbyist - a vice president no less. He's got no interest in Britain - he's just fishing for material to use in his gun lobbying for the NRA. What did you expect? Doesn't mean it's right - even if it fools you and Toad.

Quote

Your "guns are responsible for murder" argument is in question because of this article which shows a 75% reduction in NYC's total murder count (even larger % reduction in rate) without any corresponding reduction in the number of firearms.

- and you'll still have about 100 times as many gun homicides as we will this year. Oh wait - it's not the guns' fault. Never mind....

Still, I realise that does not concern people like you, who cite recreational shooting as of far greater importance than doing something about the scores of young children who die by the bullet in your country every year.

Mini D · « **Reply #41 on:** January 11, 2005, 12:02:12 PM »

Wow... you're complete ignorance of articles that you, yourself, are posting is simply astounding beetle.

What does this article have to do with the 1920 legislation? There is absolutely zero connection with it. Zero.

And, I'm missing where you said there was more to it than weapons. I actually remember you arguing with anyone that made that point and sticking to the increadibly stupid argument "if there weren't any guns, there wouldn't be any shootings."

You ultimately dismiss everything you quote and end up returing to "oh yeah, then why is your murder rate 10 times higher than ours." If you read a single thing that you, once again "yourself", has posted, you'd realize that it has nothing to do with the number of guns. It simply does not correlate.

This is the third straight time you've excercised this kind of blind ignorance in some half assed attempt to pat your own rump. It's getting pretty pathetic beet. This isn't an epic battle of you vs gun lovers. This is you being stupid and people making fun of you for it.

NUKE · « **Reply #42 on:** January 11, 2005, 12:10:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e

Still, I realise that does not concern people like you, who cite recreational shooting as of far greater importance than doing something about the scores of young children who die by the bullet in your country every year.

What about the people who site recreational consumption of alcohol as of far greater importance than doing something about the thousands who die or are injured in the UK each year as a result of alcohol consumption?

Creamo · « **Reply #43 on:** January 11, 2005, 12:14:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
This isn't an epic battle of you vs gun lovers. This is you being stupid and people making fun of you for it.

Beetle the pinata, and it's like noone even has a blind fold on.

Steve · « **Reply #44 on:** January 11, 2005, 12:16:47 PM »

Traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for young adults in the U.S. Of these fatalities, 40% are achohol related. We simply MUST ban automobiles AND alchohol.