England and crime

[Shuckins]

While the following thoughts do not relate directly to the situation in Britain, they are, nevertheless pertinent to the discussion about the responsibilities of the individual to help maintain order in society.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution apparently were of a like mind when it came to defining the responsibilities of the individual, and the line that divided the areas of responsibility of the civil populace and the government.

ALL of the rights listed in the First Ten Amendments of the Constitution were originally defined as individual rights. At that time, this was beyond dispute and no one would have thought to argue differently.  The concept of the armed citizen providing, in some measure, his own security was basic and fundamental.  There was no way to telephone for help in a crisis, no electronic home security devices, no police force capable of responding rapidly to a call for help.  There was only the individual, who had to rely on his own two fists, his wits, and whatever tools of defence he could afford and utilize.

The very thought of disarming the civil population would have seemed ludicrous to the likes of Jefferson and Madison.

Fast forward two hundred years, and everything has changed.  While people on both sides of the political spectrum have no trouble understanding that nine of the Ten Amendments of the Bill of Rights deal with individual rights, many of those of the left of that spectrum have been arguing in recent years that the Second Amendment does not specifically protect an individual right.  Indeed, they state that it is a collective right, meant only to provide for a type of national guard.

If they are correct, that makes the Second Amendment an anomally, for it would be the ONLY amendment in the Bill of Rights that does NOT specifically guarantee an INDIVIDUAL right.

This group believes that the individual does not bear the original responsibility for maintaining his own security;  rather, they see the security of the individual as being the responsibility of the city, state, or federal governments.

So, in the last 200 years, there has been a pole change in our fundamental attitudes about the very nature of individual responsibility that is, to say the least, disturbing.

[Maverick]

Laz,

Seriously guy, you were out of line on that one. I didn't get that impression at all from Chairboy in this thread nor have I in others.

Now to address the thread

I'm sure there will be more apologists for Britain and it's populace being kept by their nanny government. I really do not begrudge them their system, if they are happy with it, so be it, as long as they do not try to bring it here.

I don't want a government that decides what I can do to that level and that promises to "protect" me from other members of society. I was in that business and I know from personal experiance that the government is purely reactive and cannot, will not protect you. They will be there to clean up and write up the resulting reports but the action will almost always be over by the time any response can get there. Getting there in the nick of time is hollywierd, not reality as a matter of course. It does happen but it is purely by happenstance and coincidence.

It's just simple physics, Police cannot be everywhere all the time. The previous study (Kansas City I believe, it's been a long time since I read it)showed that when the Police presence increases in one area the "bad folks" simply move to where they aren't and it's business as usual. I've seen it in action even in my own local jurisdiction.

Having said all of that, do I feel it is absolutely necessary to have a gun all the time? No. Do I feel the need to strap one on to feel secure everytime I step out my door? No. I already know the best way to get out of trouble is to not be there when it happens and your absolute best "weapon" is your mind coupled with your senses to detect a problem before it comes to you. Cooper's 3 color conditions of awareness works.

I carried one virtually every day of my life during my career. I no longer do so simply as I just do not want to and do not have to. Does it bother me that there are people who do carry lawfully? Nope. I had a person come to my aid in the street a couple times and I was happy for it.

Now do I want to have a government tell me that I do not deserve to have a weapon, can't be trusted with one even though I have done nothing wrong with one? Absolutely not. I want to have the right to carry if I feel the need and I do not want a government dictating to me. It is supposed to be the servant of the citizenry, not the other way around.

There are people who are not nice. They are predators and predators always work freely when there is no threat to them. You cannot get rid of them, you cannot prevent them from harming others and you cannot keep them all sequestered from the general population. We try to do so for many of the most egregious offenders and are unsuccessful in many cases. We even are criticised for putting them away by those who have no clue what those folks are like.

Enough with the wall of text.

[lazs2]

shukins... that is of course, the fundamental truth.... you have nailed it perfectly on the individual rights ideal.

I was avoiding that because I assumed that because moot is not American and that individual rights would not be an arguement that he could use with the people he is talking to.... that I needed to get even more basic... to show that even if individual rights were not the issue...  that society could not argue that....

they could protect you...

That you did not have a right to defend yourself..

that no fight is fair and that the potential for death increases for the most vulnerable and least at fault.

that society itself could not be trusted to weild such power alone. (you did mention that)

The main thing that is interesting with chairs post is the "progressive" (ever wondered why they love that word?)  nature of gun control and the proof that no amount of gun control will ever satisfy the gun control nuts.  There is no appeasement and that no gun control no matter how slight is not worth fighting with all our might...

lest we end up like england.... granted.... some may like that... I do not.

lazs

[lazs2]

mav... yes... I probly was wrong about chair and said as much.  I said that I "think you like socialism"  that was hardly a diatribe tho.

As for the rest of your post.... couldn't agree more.  I like a firearm by the nightstand or when traveling... I don't feel the urge or need to carry all the time.  I have wished I had one more often than wished I didn't tho.

I understand perfectly what you are saying about the people that may be out there...  you can sometimes sense it... sometimes not.  I know one thing tho.... the bad guys aren't as bad (most of em) around cops or when they think someone may be armed..

just as you were glad to have a citizen come to your aid.... I am sure that all of us would be happy if one citizen in 10 was armed and willing to help us.

I agree competely with your post.

lazs

[Urchin]

Hahaha, Chair, you gotta admit that it is funny.  

Lazs has the shortest memory... I remember you and me going back and forth in the union thread, THAT LAZS WAS IN ALSO...

And now he is calling you a socialist.  

LOL.

[john9001]

the "right" to defend yourself predates all law and governments. I think that's what they meant by "inalienable rights"

[Nashwan]

Despite increasingly stringent laws banning weapons, increasing video surveillance ("If you have nothing to hide....") and so on, violent crime seems to be mysteriously increasing.

There are two measures of crime in Britain. The first is police recorded crime, the second is the British Crime Survey, which interviews large numbers of people to get a statistical summary of crime.

Police recorded crime has always recorded very high percentage of serious crime (murder, serious assaults) and a much smaller percentage of minor crime (common assaults, burglary attempts, criminal damage etc). That's because people are less likely to report minor crime, and the police were less likely to bother with it.

With the advent of the Labour government, the police have been recording more crime. They've been pushed into that by the government, who are obsessed with recording and "targets".

As a result, the police are recording large numbers of minor crimes they never used to bother with. That's especially the case with minor violent crime. Violent crime, as recorded by the police, includes assaults with no injury, threats to commit assault, and verbal harassment (if you shout offensively at someone, it's now recorded as "violent crime" in the UK)

The latest crime figures as recorded by the police, that the Guardian report is refering to:

violence against the person
oct-dec 2004 - 257,500
oct-dec 2005 - 259,900

So violent crime has gone up. But the most serious violent crime, those resulting in serious injuries (anything from a broken nose to death) have gone down. Less serious violence is up.

There were 73 people killed with firearms in England and Wales in 2004, that fell to 51 in 2005.

furbie.... You are young and strong and male and do not live around the people who would be a threat to you. I think that you would be in more danger if you were elderly or infirm or a small woman living in a high crime area...

Actually no. Young men are far more at risk of violent crime than the old or infirm, in both the US and UK. (apart from infant children, who have the highest murder rate)

For example, in the US, the number of violent attacks where the victim is aged 12 - 24 is about 143 per 1000 people. Where the victim is over 35 there are only 31 assaults per 1000 people. For those over 65 there are only 2 assaults per 1000 people.

It's a similar story in the UK, and women are at far less risk than men.

That being the case.... what would you suggest that those people do to protect themselves? Call a cop? make their wheelchair or walker go really really fast?

Luckily it hasn't happened to you but what would you do if three big guys with knives or clubs wanted your money and said you had a pretty mouth?

What would you do if 3 big guys with guns wanted you money and said you had a pretty mouth? They are already pointing their guns at you, so you can't draw you own.

What's the US murder rate again? Several times higher than the UK rate. What's the American rape rate? Much higher than the UK rate. What's the murder rate for US police officers? Many times the rate for UK police officers.

Somehow, it seems American's aren't able to defend themselves, and are far more likely to suffer serious crime than the UK, despite (or rather because of) the easy availability of weapons. Perhaps an armed criminal is more dangerous than an unarmed criminal?

[lazs2]

I may have been wrong about chair but.... even lenin wasn't socialist enough for you urchin.  

I doubt I will forget that...even with my short memory.

lazs

[lazs2]

again nashwan.... your crime has increased in relation to itself.   maybe we should compare your crime rate with the Swiss who are allmost all armed?

no?  don't like that?  why not?  they have guns you do not.... if that is the only criteria that you use then it would be a valid comparison.

countries are different... made up of different peoples.   The only fair way to judge the impact of firearms is within the country itself...  

The more you ban them the worse off you are... the more we allow people to carry concealed the better off we are.   Our worst crime rates are in cities that completely ban firearms for the most part.... DC... Detroit, Chicago... NY. kalifornia cities like LA where it is allmost impossible to get a legal concealed carry permit.

In the US... 1.5-3 million crimes a year are stopped by a firearm  they appear to do far more good than harm.... and... for the right people.

If I were being robbed by three guys with clubs (as sentances for armed crime go up armed crime goes down) then I would like to have a gun.... in the unlikely event that they were armed I would like to have an armed citizen intervene on my behalf..

put another way....  would you not be glad to see an armed policeman intervene?  an armed citizen is allmost as good in my book and way ahead of say....you.... trying to explain their folly to them.

lazs

[Urchin]

Originally posted by lazs2
I may have been wrong about chair but.... even lenin wasn't socialist enough for you urchin.  

I doubt I will forget that...even with my short memory.

lazs

Haha, sure thing, Mr "B-B-but price gouging is ILLEGAL!".

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Nashwan
What would you do if 3 big guys with guns wanted you money and said you had a pretty mouth? They are already pointing their guns at you, so you can't draw you own.

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?

[lazs2]

price gouging is illegal especially as I had said.... price fixing.  I didn't make that law and as I get older I don't necessarily agree with it but it is the law.

but really... you do admit that you thought that lenin was a little soft on socialsm right?  that he wasn't socialist enough?

lazs

[Sparks]

Chair - First I want to emphasise that I am not in favour of the guncontrol laws in the UK - they have done nothing to reduce GUN RELATED CRIME in the UK.  But here is where I think you mis-understand the real root causes in the UK that cause the crap we are in now.
1. The failure of the justice system to protect the victim - defending yourself and property in the UK has become a more serious crime than the one the criminal is committing - and I mean defnese by any means.
2. The failure of the justice system to provide a deterent to criminal behaviour.
3. The failed imigration policy which allows violent criminals into the country either via EU open borders or the failed assylum laws.
4. The lack of focus on drugs by the police - possesion of ecstasy and coke on a personal level will rarely get you more than a warning now.
5. A culture of drink embedded where a fun night out is to get completely hammered - a persons drinking ability is currency.

This is from my home town:-
The latest murder murder by Wakil Sahebzadeh
The "Campaign" to beat it :-Text messages, more lights and cameras to record what they did to you

Notice the amount of effort on controlling drink based violence, on youth crime, and how the best you can do is expect to video what happens. This isn't a question of gun ownership - it's a matter of the crimnal facing no consequence from any source.

Lazs - aside from the personal protection issue which I basically agree with  - you repeatedly run out the line that citizen gun ownership is the prime method of restriction of government control over the populace.  This really is becoming the sort of thing you hear from those groups in Montana with signs on the property saying "no police" and who claim independance.  SO at what point would you as an individual in todays California take up your gun to go and use it against a government institution ? When the army is lined against you what then ??  In todays America do you REALLY believe an armed uprising of the civilian population would happen ??

[Yeager]

I keep thinking I should post something in this thread but decided that I really dont care about crime in england.  I say let the english deal with their own crime problems.

[lazs2]

sparks.... of course I do.   It would not even have to be much of an organized rebellion.

let's be realistic.... have you seen our riots?  have you seen the thousands of ILLEGAL aliens marching and not being arrested?

Why do you suppose that is?  An all powerful government would not allow that right?  what are they afraid of?  I will tell you.... they still govern by our giving them that right and they know it... they know that they are outnumbered and really have no control....  That is why governments everywhere want more police and to disarm society.

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?

Do you believe that our government could function if even 10% of the 90 million gun owners in this country caused 9 million standoffs in 9 million different places?  and... how many Waco's or Ruby ridges would the population put up with before they demanded a regime change?

That is all it is about... not a few miltias with some revolutionary pact all supporting some leader..... just people getting PO'd and civil disobediance till the government pandered or died.  

They don't stop riots or looting or burning and they don't stop illegal marches by criminals.... they rule us only by our good graces and they know that they had better not test that theory untill they are one hell of a lot stronger and we are one hell of a lot weaker.

That is all I am saying.... besides my human right to defend myself.... It just makes good sense to keep myself strong and the government weak or.... at least a balance..

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

I fear that englands balance is way off and you are just lucky at this point.

lazs