England and crime

[Nashwan]

Anyone can play the what if game. What would you go when surrounded by 3 big guys with knives who demand your belongings and say you have a pretty mouth and butt?

A no win situation is a no win situation. Now what did either one of these scenarios prove?

Nothing, that's why I didn't bring it up. I was responding to lazs, who did.

I screwed up the quoting, so it's my fault for not being clear. fixed it now.

[lazs2]

nashwan... I will admit that there are a few situations where even gawd couldn't get you out of... that doesn't mean that for the other 99% of the time you should just throw up your hands and say "what's the use?".

It is funny to me that even tho a seatbelt will probly never be used by any of you to effectively escape an injury that not having one would have caused and.....  that in some cases... even having a seatbelt will not save your life in a wreck...

you are willing to not only wear them but.... make it illegal not to?

does my pointing out that there are situations where a seatbelt would do you no good make wearing seatbelts a foolish thing to do?

lazs

[Nashwan]

In some accidents, having a seatbelt makes no difference. In a tiny number, you're better off without a seatbelt. On average, you are far safer with a seatbelt than without.

The problem with your position, lazs, is you think that freely available guns make you safer. The evidence is, they put you more at risk. More robberies are committed (per capita) in England and Wales than in the US. Yet far more people are killed during robberies (per capita) in the US. Guns aren't saving the robbery victims.

American police officers are armed. Yet far more are killed (per capita) than British police officers. Again, having firearms isn't protecting them, because the criminals also have firearms.

On average, you stand more chance of being killed or seriously injured if you encounter an armed criminal than if you encounter an unarmed criminal. Armed criminals are common in the US because guns are cheap and freely available. Armed criminals are rare in the UK because guns are expensive and very hard to get.

[john9001]

i carry a gun and i have never been robbed, what does that do to your statistics, i think my numbers show me to be 100% victim free.

[AlGorithm]

Chairboy previously wrote:
England's ramp-up to authoritarianism seems to have taken place over a shorter time period, making it more noticable (boiling a frog and whatnot) to my uneducated eye.

England is boiling frogs now? Boy is Chirac gonna be pissed when he finds that out! I'll bet they close the chunnel.

[lazs2]

there you go again nashwan...  since you banned guns.... how much safer are you?   You never did have a significant homicide rate no matter what...  your laws have not made you safer... they just haven't (arguably) made things much worse..  If your population makeup changes (as it appears to be on the verge of)  then you may be in an entirely different situation.

now.... lets continue along the appples to apples comparisson....  in the U.S.  those areas that allow concealed carry have shown a reduction in crime.   So... you are far safer in the U.S. in a state that has strong gun rights than in one that did not and.... if you are in a state with no gun rights.... giving those people gun rights will drop the crime rate.

That is how it works.  

Safer with a seatbelt?  if you never get in a wreck it makes no difference at all..  or... never get in one that you would die in no matter what or... worse... one that you would be better off without one.

Most people feel that wearing one is simple enough tho and worth the effort.

To say that more police here are killed because they are armed is ludicrous...  They would be in far more danger if they were not.   They use their guns far more to stop agression than to cause it or have it happen to them... again...different countries with different people.

When I say that blacks commit over half our homicides and rapes... it sounds biggoted to some but...  that is just a fact.   It is not a gun causing the homicide or rape but a type of people in a type of country in a type of situation...  I do not pretend to understand why but it is not firearms that are the problem....

As for robbery "victims" you are lumping the robbers in with the victims and.... you are asking us to blindly submit to robbery and hope for the best..  that is not our nature and I for one would far rather take the added chance that gunplay may not come out as I like if it means that I was not helpless.

If robbery is easier.... no one gets killed... then maybe... just maybe... that makes robbery more acceptable and explains your higher rate... your robers have nothing to fear.   Not a situation that I envy...

"oh sure you are a lot more likely to get robbed but less likely to get shot."  

not what I want to hear.

lazs

[Sparks]

Lazs - I see your arguement but disagree with some of your reasoning. I have actually seen the riots and marches - I am in So Cal at the moment on business so I've been watching and reading the papers with interest for the last weeks.  I don't agree with the assertion that  they haven't clamped on the illegals for fear of agitating the gun holding populace. In fact I would expect the reverse to be true - conservative independant Americans - the ones who hold arms and promote self responsibility - are precisely the ones who would welcome a leader of courage using the power given to him to protect the values he was elected to protect.  What the government IS afraid of is pushing 12 million voters into the arms of the Democrats.

Tell me... do you really believe that governments try to dissarm their people in order to make the people more safe or in order to make themselves more safe?

I agree with you - to make themselves more safe - but I DON'T believe it is because of the fear of armed uprising.  It is because if you have no means to protect yourself from external forces - you become dependant on them for that protection and that gives them power. This is Blairs UK.  If you allowed citizens to be armed in the UK and removed 95% of the taxes then the people would become independant and the governments effect on there lives minimal. At this point they lose their power - not through fear of marches on Downing street but through no dependance.

Your picture of civil unrest - gun owners nationally carrying out acts of opposition I don't see as realistic.  People individually aren't that brave and when faced with the enemy being the trained army and National Guard I think the take-up would be minimal. I could however see the rise of State militia - Independance for South Dakota ??

When that balance is broken.... historicaly.... governments slaughter their people..

agreed - China.

England - the country that I call home - is going to hell in a hand basket and there isn't a leader or group of any quality to get behind to change it. Gun control isn't the cause - it's a symptom. The lunatics are in charge of the assylum. The borders are open and the PC police are in charge.

Funny - sounds like California ............

[lazs2]

very much like kalifornia.  

I think you are wrong about civil disobediace.... there is an old expression here.... "one riot one ranger (Texas) one wino.... 600 SWAT."

not so much that they fear an organized uprising but simply... armed civil unrest.

We can't control the criminals we have here.  The government couldn't do a thing about katrina say for days.... imagine riots in multiple cities at once and.... the more we see how powerless the government is the more emboldened the "timid" people become.

The more heavy handed the government becomes... the less people who will support it.

I am not talking everyone protesting a 60 mph speed limit here.... this would only happen for something drastic like a unified gun ban or nation wide martial law.

I do not forsee this nor do I want it but it is very much possible.    The odds were much worse in 1776 and you seen how that turned out.

As for hispanics.... most are gun owners.   Most will fight most are as American as I am.  

Most of us are beggining to see how weak the government is... a few thousnad protesters and they fold... a couple hundred rioters and the whole city and new network pretty much shut down...  Plus... there are a lot of people getting darn mad.

look at katrina... the governments first object was to disarm the citizens... why would they do that if they did not fear that some could possibly ressist martial law?  If they were no threat why go door to door trying to dissarm em?

in any case.... when confronted with a tyranical government it is much better to have the means to kill them than to not would you not agree?

I don't think we are that far off but I don't think you understand how much individualism is bred into us as a people nor how weak governements really are.... just watch the news at any disaster and look at all the battered and confused victims all wondering when the "government" is gonna save em.... gonna do "something" somethimes for days or weeks or months..

lazs

[Nashwan]

since you banned guns.... how much safer are you?

Let me know when guns are banned, and I will tell you.

If you mean, did the latest restriction on already tight firearms laws make any difference, then no. But that's because the laws were already adequate.

now.... lets continue along the appples to apples comparisson.... in the U.S. those areas that allow concealed carry have shown a reduction in crime. So... you are far safer in the U.S. in a state that has strong gun rights than in one that did not and

No, lazs, by far the largest drop in crime rate has been in New York, not exactly the home of concealed carry.

In fact, according to the Brady org, states which allowed freer access to concealed carry had a smaller reduction in murder rate than the US average, states which restricted concealed carry had a bigger reduction. Not sure if the Brady org are wrong, but I haven't seen any figures in rebuttal, just a claim that states that allow concealed carry have a lower murder rate than those which don't (which is what you'd expect as more rural aareas tend to allow CC, urban areas tend to ban it, and murder rates are higher in urban areas in the western world)

Safer with a seatbelt? if you never get in a wreck it makes no difference at all.. or... never get in one that you would die in no matter what or... worse... one that you would be better off without one.

I'm talking about on average. On average, you are less likely to die in a car accident if you wear a seatbelt than if you don't.

To say that more police here are killed because they are armed is ludicrous... They would be in far more danger if they were not.

No, the point is more US police are killed because the criminals are armed. Though it's worth noting far more US police officers get shot with their own guns in the US than get shot at all in the UK.

When I say that blacks commit over half our homicides and rapes... it sounds biggoted to some but... that is just a fact.

You mean your underclass commits most crimes? Same here. Our underclass tends to be a mix of races, but it's the same principle.

It is not a gun causing the homicide or rape but a type of people in a type of country in a type of situation.

It's not a gun causing it, but it's a gun being used.

As for robbery "victims" you are lumping the robbers in with the victims and.

Uh, no.

you are asking us to blindly submit to robbery and hope for the best

No, not at all. I can fight back against a robbery just as easily as you can. You will fight with a gun against a gunman, I will fight with my fists against someone with at worst a knife, and probably no weapon at all.

I think I have more chance of surviving, and the statistics bear that out.

that is not our nature and I for one would far rather take the added chance that gunplay may not come out as I like if it means that I was not helpless.

I'm no more helpless than you are, I'm just less likely to die if I try to help myself. That's because your robber is far, far more likely to be armed than mine.

If robbery is easier.... no one gets killed... then maybe... just maybe... that makes robbery more acceptable and explains your higher rate.

Yes, or it could be the fact that prison sentences are so much shorter in the UK, even if a robber is sent to prison at all. And the fact that robbers in the US spend a much larger proportion of their active careers in prison, because of the length of sentences.

"oh sure you are a lot more likely to get robbed but less likely to get shot."

Actually you are a bit more likely to get robbed, far more likely to get shot.

[Nashwan]

I agree with you - to make themselves more safe - but I DON'T believe it is because of the fear of armed uprising. It is because if you have no means to protect yourself from external forces - you become dependant on them for that protection and that gives them power.

Whilst I agree governments want people to be more dependent on them (and the US government also does it by constantly talking up the terrorist threat, whereas ours uses the terrorist threat and the crime threat), there is a much simpler explanation for why labour brought in new gun restrictions. Thomas Hamilton killed a lot of children and the media demanded something be done.

It wasn't to stop people protecting themselves (how many used handguns to protect themselves before 1995?) it was because doing nothing would make the government unpopular, and if there had been another incident, the government would have got the blame.

look at katrina... the governments first object was to disarm the citizens... why would they do that if they did not fear that some could possibly ressist martial law? If they were no threat why go door to door trying to dissarm em?

Because rescue workers were being held up by reports of other rescue workers being shot at?

And lazs, if they came to take the guns in NO, did it bring down the government? Did the right to keep and bear all arms up to and including semi automatics, and nothing more advanced, prevent the guns being seized?

The thing is, if your government ever becomes totalitarian, they won't announce it over the radio. They won't say "we have become evil. and we're coming for your guns". They will announce a really pressing reason why some people have to be disarmed, and the rest, who cheerlead for the government, will back them.

Just as happened at Waco.

And of course, they don't allow you the sort of guns you need to overthrow the government, anyway. You can have semi autos, but try to buy something to take out the government aircraft, or the government tanks. Try to buy a nuke or anthrax or sarin. They've got them. You're outgunned.

[lazs2]

nashwan... first of all you do admit that the latest gun ban had no effect.... did you know that before 1920 you had very little gun restrictions and very little gun crime.  

which gun ban would you say made england the paradise that it is today?

now... the brady bunch... I am glad that you leave room for doubt about their figures... they are known to outright lie...  they claim that NY had the highest reduction in violent crime rate...  it did have slightly better than most but.... the average per 100,000 population violent crime rate in the U.S. is 475 theirs was twice that high... in 5 years it dropped to a little less thatn twice that just like newark NJ (another gun ban area) and DC with over 1500 per 100,000.

I will grant you that you are safer in the country than the city but states with the least restrictive firearms laws saw the most decline in violent crime.   All those who passed concealed carry laws (right to carry) showed a reduction in violent crime higher on average than those who tightened gun restrictions.

lazs

[lazs2]

nashwan... as the waco and ruby ridge events played out.... people stopped cheering and now it is near impossible to find anyone who sides with the government on this.

you are right tho... regestration should be fought to keep government from confiscating guns....

as for "types of guns"  any hunting rifle will do better than the best assault rifle the government has and you can get whatever you want or need with it if that isn't the case.... even more reason to not give in to restrictions on type.

katrina?  the government only took guns from the old and infirm and ultra law abiding... they didn't even get many... estimates are they got less than 1% of what was out there.   I could give em a gun and still be armed.  no big deal.

I will concede that in your country some of the gun bans were done at the request of the people.

That is why I am glad that we have a second amendment to keep the wolves outvoting the sheep on whats for dinner democracy from happening here.

your country is different than ours.  the split was inevitable in 1776 and it is even more so now.   Our people have different ideas of freedom and individual rights and how much to trust government.

you are welcome to yours.   It works for you... it makes you happy and hopefully.... you are doing the right thing for you..

here we don't think the same.. our country is far different... we use a gun to maintain independence... a tool... we have more violent people here... with or without a gun they are violent and we stop between 1.5 and 3 million of em a year from commiting crimes against us..

for most of us... that is enough to make it worth it.   We have hundreds of millions of firearms in this country.   they aren't going to go away... the only good way to handle violent people and all the guns in the country is to make sure the right people are armed.   We gladly accept the harm guns do because of the harm it would do if we couldn't have em.

lazs

[Nashwan]

nashwan... first of all you do admit that the latest gun ban had no effect.... did you know that before 1920 you had very little gun restrictions and very little gun crime.

which gun ban would you say made england the paradise that it is today?

I'd say it's incremental.

Guns used to be legally available before the first world war, but they were expensive. Therefore hard to get for criminals.

The restrictions on legal ownership since then have restricted supply, which has pushed the price of guns up. That means guns are hard to get for criminals.

That's why the UK didn't see the huge increase in murders that the US has.

now... the brady bunch... I am glad that you leave room for doubt about their figures... they are known to outright lie... they claim that NY had the highest reduction in violent crime rate... it did have slightly better than most but.... the average per 100,000 population violent crime rate in the U.S. is 475 theirs was twice that high... in 5 years it dropped to a little less thatn twice that just like newark NJ (another gun ban area) and DC with over 1500 per 100,000.

I'm not sure what you are saying here, but New York experienced the largest drop in crime rate in the US. Certainly small areas experienced larger percentage drops (a village with 2 crimes one year, 1 the next has halved it's crime rate).

I will grant you that you are safer in the country than the city but states with the least restrictive firearms laws saw the most decline in violent crime. All those who passed concealed carry laws (right to carry) showed a reduction in violent crime higher on average than those who tightened gun restrictions.

Do you have a source that makes that claim?

nashwan... as the waco and ruby ridge events played out.... people stopped cheering and now it is near impossible to find anyone who sides with the government on this.

Right. But Clinton is still living the high life, and the waco-ists are still dead.

as for "types of guns" any hunting rifle will do better than the best assault rifle the government has

Assault rifles aren't the real firepower of the military, though. Machine guns, grenades, artillery, aircraft and tanks are.

That is why I am glad that we have a second amendment to keep the wolves outvoting the sheep on whats for dinner democracy from happening here.

What if the constitution is amended? Will you obey the new law?

And what if the constitution is re-interprated? It says "arms". That's already been restricted to semi autos. What if it's restricted further? What if, say, only bolt action rifles are allowed? If the government decides all semi autos are "assault weapons", and bans them, do you fight back then? I don't remember a fightback when "assault weapons" were banned based on looks.

we have more violent people here...

But "England" has more violent crime, surely? Isn't that what this thread was all about?

We have hundreds of millions of firearms in this country. they aren't going to go away... the only good way to handle violent people and all the guns in the country is to make sure the right people are armed.

Ah, but you don't make sure the right people are armed, you make sure almost all[ people are armed. Which includes all the wrong people as well.

We gladly accept the harm guns do because of the harm it would do if we couldn't have em.

Well, most of the rest of the civilised world has looked at the harm freely available guns do, and looked at the harm restrictions on guns does, and chosen the latter. The US has, of course, gradually restricted guns. Any radical advance in weapons of the 20th century has been banned. You are limited to 19th century technology in firearms, in effect.  (no poison gas, no nukes, no guided missiles, etc)

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Nashwan

No, lazs, by far the largest drop in crime rate has been in New York, not exactly the home of concealed carry.

It IS the home of an extremely alert, pissed off and fed up populace thats conciously decided to not be beaten down by criminals or terrorists. The place has been very self-involved in cleaning itself up for most of the last decade, the mayors have a policy of zero tolerance for street crime elements. There's an interesting public policy campaign called 'If you SEE something, SAY something!' Some punk pulls a knife or gun on a train, 40 cells phones come out and others move TOWARD the source of the disturbance. NYC ain't a 'safe' place for a gang banger.

And as mav noted further up thread.. when the police increase their patrols and presence, the bad guys go someplace else. End result is that metropolitan NYC's seedy underside has moved out to the boroughs.

[Hangtime]

nashawn, some holes in yer logic pop out at me.. if i might observe;

Assault rifles aren't the real firepower of the military, though. Machine guns, grenades, artillery, aircraft and tanks are.

Wrong. The power of the military is the soldier. Infantry. Boots on the ground. You can't subdue a populace, control territory, consolidate, operate without troops on the ground. Those troops are armed. With automatic assault rifles.

And, an automatic assault rifle is not anywhere near being in the same leauge in caliber and range as a semi automatic battle rifle.. which, last time i checked, is what we, the people, in order to protect in imperfect union, have decided we'd rather have in the closet anyway.

Nashwan, that last time I checked the population of these United States was 295,734,134. Conservative estimates for gun ownership here are 35%. That's at least 103 million weapons in the hands of American citizens. At least!

The Army's current reported size is 500,000. there's another 700,000 National Guardsmen. They seem to be a mite buzy elsewhere right now; which, as most americans would agree, is a good thing; because an armed american soldier on the streets of baghdad is viewed as a hero by americans.. but an armed american soldier on the corner of 5th and main in Hometown, USA would be viewed as a dire symbol of a Government run amok.. and that trooper in service of a government attempting suppression of constitutional rights would be viewed as anything BUT a hero.

And, the government knows the populace outside of blue cities is less than receptive to the kind ministrations of a government that wants our guns. They can legislate, they can pontificate, but they can't get the 100+ million guns outta those closets by any other means than coming to get them.

And, frankly; the chances of this government getting those guns by force are no better than Englands were over here 230 years ago.

Lastly, since it's been debated in situ for so long perhaps a short review of the Second ammendment is appropriate.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[/i]

Two parts. The first is an aknowledgement of the necessity for the government to keep an armed security force. The founding fathers, having just fought just such a force, have made it plain with the frank and uncomplicated wording in this, the SECOND ammendment that they wanted it to be absolutely clear that the PEOPLE must have the right to arms for defense against that force should it become oppressive. "The right of the people[/b] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The 'people' in contrast to the 'state'. Simple, really. And it remains the backbone of the document, the amendment that reinforced the first, and gave teeth (dental health is overlooked in england to this day) to all the rest.