Female police officer gunned down in UK?

[lazs2]

but... women and small, unfit men should not be police officers and police officers should be armed.

It should also be.... "one riot, one Texas Ranger"  not.... One wino..... 600 swat team members"

lazs

[Dago]

Originally posted by lazs2
oops.. I was wrong...  http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

blacks commit 7 times more homicides than the rest of the population.  

There if we have a rate of even 5 homicides per 100,000 then if you take out the black population (of which england has little 2-3% tops)  you get about 2.5 at most per 100,000...

england is like 1.7   with 1.7 vs 2.5... it's really not worth getting all excited about... and... taking out our blacks still leaves more minortity population than is found in the UK... it does not get rid of the poor either.

if... we took out every police death caused by a black I am sure the police death rate would be very low also.

As Hang points out.... gun control is about control..

It is pathetic to think that there are men out there that think they are better off losing the right to defend themselves... most tho are young and don't see past their own youth... they know they can maybe beat off an attacker in anything like a fair fight...

and... you live on a tiny little island where the bad guy knows he can't get away... it's friggin silly to compare.  

My point is that taking the white population of the U.S.  Guns don't make us any more or less murderous than any other country ..  Blacks here would be just as murderous no matter what also.

every study ever done on gun control in the U.S. points to the fact that no gun control measure has  ever done any good and in allmost every case does much more harm...

1 or 2 more or less killings per 100,000 is meaningless tho to the poor old infirm man in his apartment when the home invasion happens... or the woman who's ex is beating her door down...  it is meaningless in the face of the 1.5-3 million times a year that guns stop a person bent on criminal intent...

1 or 2 killings per 100,000 is meaningless compared to the countless millions of citizens murdered by their governments after they had their guns taken away.

It is meaningless in the light of U.S. citizens sending guns to england so that they wouldn't have to use rakes and shovels to defend against invaders...

It is meaningless in light of the great firearms genious that is spawned here like John Browning.

So, instead of better gun control, we need better black people control?

[lazs2]

well... we need better criminal control.

I do not presume to know the answer to black crime.  I certainly am not in favor of punishing the victims of crime tho by disarming them.  

Guns work well in the U.S. for the intened (constitutional) purpose of giving power over their own lives to the weak.

I have no problem with laws that punish murderers in the most sever way... or even those who would use firearms in a criminal manner.   Anything else is a silly solution fit only for beat down island dwellers on their way to oblivion.

lazs

[mora]

Originally posted by Vulcan
The situations in each country is chalk and cheese. You cannot remove the guns from the US, its simply not practical. However, the US cannot apply its logic to other countries, they simply don't have the same crime/gun issues.

Go make sense somewhere else.

[Dowding]

Lazs - the FBI provides racial profiling for comparative purposes. I know your knowledge of statistics is pretty exhaustive, but, unlike yourself, I don't think your own government's intention is to disown black crime.

Perhaps if you tried to understand the problem your poor people have instead of ignoring it, you might find a solution.

[Maverick]

Dowding,

Your last post implies that the Brits have found a solution to that problem. If that is the case why is there theft, robbery and burglaries there?

[Dowding]

Not at all. But surely recognising and admitting a problem is the first step to a solution? Lazs conditions all his statistics based arguments with the proviso "excluding black crime" - which is inane.

[Maverick]

So that first step has accomplished what for you?

As to Laz and his "preoccupation", I have been avoiding this thread because of it. I didn't feel it was worth getting into.

[Nashwan]

There if we have a rate of even 5 homicides per 100,000 then if you take out the black population (of which england has little 2-3% tops) you get about 2.5 at most per 100,000...

No Lazs. What you are doing there is counting black people towards the overall population, but not towards the murder total.

If 242 million white people commit about 8,000 murders, then the rate is about 3.3, not 2 or 2.5.

There if we have a rate of even 5 homicides per 100,000 then if you take out the black population (of which england has little 2-3% tops) you get about 2.5 at most per 100,000...

What you are doing is taking the murder rate and halving it because half the murders are committed by blacks. You do realise that exactly the same method says that the murder rate by black people is also 2.75 per 100,000, don't you? After all, if the US murder rate is 5.5, and blacks are committing half the murders, then the black murder rate must be 2.75 as well, mustn't it?

What you are doing, of course, is excluding the murders committed by a segment of the population, but including that segment of the population in the population total.

Whites in the US commit about 8,000 murders, for a rate of about 3.3 per 100,000.

england is like 1.7 with 1.7 vs 2.5.

1.7 vs 3.3, if you use real figures, rather than made up ones.

it's really not worth getting all excited about... and... taking out our blacks still leaves more minortity population than is found in the UK... it does not get rid of the poor either.

It gets rid of a large percentage of them.

if... we took out every police death caused by a black I am sure the police death rate would be very low also.

According to the FBI, about half the murders of police officers are by whites. That would mean white people murder police officers in the US about 3.5 times more often than all ethnic groups murder police officers in the UK.

And what if we took out the murders of police officers by black people in the UK?

Going through the list from the last 5 years, of the 9 police officers murdered in the UK, 2 were killed by white people, one by an Arab, 5 by black people and 1 I can't find the race of the murderer.

Murdered by black offenders:
Sharon Beshenivsky
Michael Swindells
Bryan Reginald Moore
Andrew Carl Munn
Malcolm Edward Walker

Murdered by white offenders:
Gerald Walker
Stephen Oake (murdered by an Arab, suspected Al Qaida operative)
Ian Nigel Broadhurst (murdered by an American)

Race of killer unkown:
Alison Armitage

So you can more than halve the rate of murders of police officers in the UK as well by excluding black people, even if you include Al Qaida and Americans, meaning white people in the US murder policemen at 7 times the rate of white people in the UK.

It is pathetic to think that there are men out there that think they are better off losing the right to defend themselves

Who are these people who have lost the right to defend themselves? I haven't. In fact, I don't even have a duty to retreat before defending myself, as applies in large parts of the US.

My point is that taking the white population of the U.S. Guns don't make us any more or less murderous than any other country

Apart from the fact that white people in the US have twice the murder rate of ALL people in the UK, and white people in the US murder police officers at more than 7 times the rate in the UK.

1 or 2 more or less killings per 100,000 is meaningless tho to the poor old infirm man in his apartment when the home invasion happens

Not if he's one of the people getting murdered. Because the US has more people murdered in their own homes during home invasions than the UK does.

Lazs - the FBI provides racial profiling for comparative purposes. I know your knowledge of statistics is pretty exhaustive,

Lazs gets his statistics from pro gun lobby groups and authors, and by making them up. Note his "2 per 100,000 white murder rate", which he gets by claiming the US murder rate is 4 (it's 5.5 according to the FBI) then halving it, without realising (or admitting) that the whole population of the US isn't white (he realises that when looking at the number of murders, but forgets it when looking at the population to get his "per 100,000" figures)

[Badboy58]

Regardless of the stats the Brits need to get hold of the current situation over there. They have a huge problem looming with the muslim population. The hardcore types are planing on bringing down the government by violent means. The recent terrorist attacks in London bear out their intentions.
I say arm all the officers and quit pretending you are a gentler and more sophisticated society. The more cops with guns the better chance you have of getting them before they get you, or at least cause them some concern over your presence if they plan to strike.

[lazs2]

Ok... but you are not counting unsolved murders... it would be prudent to figure that the number of unsolved murders followed the same trend... 52% black.

But... say that the amount of white murders was 2.5 or 3 per 100,000 is that so much different than 1.7?  especially if you consider that the entire minority population of the UK is a tiny percent.

and... for nashwan and dowding... I bring up the racial makeup only because it is significant in explaining our murder rate.   and.. to point out that disarming the victims would not make things any better even in the best case scenario for the majority of the population... this would assume that no more blacks would commit murders if guns were banned.

I defy anyone to tell me how this is racist to point out the facts.   Blacks murder blacks here... I do not want to be disarmed because one segment of the population is killing each other....  How would that make any sense?

our murder rate is falling... our crime rate is falling...yours is going up... we are putting more guns in society and you are putting less...

you have stooped to trying to ban knives.... what is next a poison and high places ban?  take away peoples hands?   Nothing you do toward banning guns makes you any safer...  You want this for us?

maverick... you will have to believe that if the figures showed that mexicans or people of scottish extraction were causing 52% of the homicides I woulda used it but it was blacks so that is what I used... a very small portion of the population is causing a huge anomally in the stats.  

simple as that.

If blacks commited 100% of the murders would that be enough reason to disarm me?   How bout 10%?  

point is.... you don't punish the victims and you don't let government be the only ones who are armed no matter what the cost.  

Of the 1.5-3 million crimes stopped here with firearms a year... how many would have been homicides?  

lazs

[beet1e]

Give it up, Lazs - before the wall falls down. Nashwan has provided all the facts, and has ripped you to shreds in this and other threads. You keep saying your homicide rate is going down when the number of homicides rose for 5 consecutive years. I quoted the figures myself from the FBI website in an earlier thread. You can go on being wrong, but has Nashwan has pointed out in the past, no matter how often or how loudly you say it, you're still wrong. Claiming that your per capita homicide rate has gone down simply because large numbers of law abiding folks have immigrated across your southern border is just weak.

Besides, this was a thread about an English cop, not the US.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Swoop
No.


My reason is simple but won't be very popular.


In Great Britain the job of the copper is.......well it's crappy.  You spend your entire time dealing with the dregs of society, you get no thanks or praise from the general public and are generally looked down.  The wages are ****.  The hours are long.  And you look like a bleedin idiot in one of those tit helmets.  Oh and the public refer to you as 'The filth'.

Who in their right mind would become a copper?

Answer:  Ex-service meat heads lacking the IQ to do anything else and odd idealistic people......lacking the IQ to realise what they're getting into.

They're also putting lots of time into recruiting 'community police officers' recently, they look like coppers but aren't really.  They're cheaper than regular police officers.  


Should these civilian officers be armed?  Jesus, no way.

Should regular police be armed?  Christ no!  

Put it into perspective.  How many American police officers were shot at while responding to a bank robbery last month?

It happens so infrequently in Britain that it makes international news.


Leave the arms to SO19 and the armed response vehicles, these are highly trained officers who've demonstrated a certain aptitude for the job and some good judgement.  There is such a thing as a good copper.  But there ain't many.

Thanks for your input. I see that our cultures are very different in the training between our officers, and now that you've explained it, I would probably tend to agree that they should not be armed if they're not getting the extensive training their US counterparts get.  Officers get pretty good pay here, however its my opinion that its still not enough considering the fact that they lay their lives on the line day in and day out.

[lazs2]

so you are saying that the difference between 1.7 per 100,000 and 2 or 3 per 100,000 is huge?  that is insane.   and that is using a country (the U.S.) with thousands of miles of borders and a bigger minority population (even excluding blacks) than your tiny little island.

as for resisting... DOJ figures show that resisting with a firearm is the most effective way to resist with the injury rates for those who resist with a firearm are three to 15 times less likely to be injured http://johnrlott.tripod.com/other/NCVS.html

that is from Lotts site but it is simply a chart taken from Gary Klecks book that distills the 115 charts from the DOJ site for latest data.  

so yeah.... In order for the weak to be able to have an effective defense against thugs and in order to prevent 1.5-3 million criminals from getting their way a year.... yeah.... 1 or two extra homicides that may or may not have happened without firearms is insignificant...

I would go so far as to say that even if a tiny fraction of the crimes stopped with firearms here would have ended in homicides otherwis... we probly are reducing our homicide rate by several per 100,000.... Certainly we are reducing crime..

And where do you get that our homicide rate is increasing every year?  DOJ says it has fallen dramaticaly since 1980 and leveled off in the last couple of years.

lazs

[Dowding]

so you are saying that the difference between 1.7 per 100,000 and 2 or 3 per 100,000 is huge? that is insane.

No, it is basic maths that an 8 year old could understand. Mathematically, the difference between 1.7 and 3.3 is nearly a 100% increase.

I think you are onto something though. You should write to MIT or Harvard and tell them you'd like to submit a paper on statistics. Here's a provisional structure:

Title: Lazsmatics and related mathematical anomalies

Abstract: A little ignorance goes a long way, a lot of ignorance really gets your BBS post count up.

References: Just about any gun lobbying media I can get my hands on.