Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: beet1e on January 09, 2005, 11:38:35 AM
-
Well, well. Found this article today. A bit of a wall-o-text, but quite readable. It bears out everything I've been saying about our respective crime rates, and the decrease in American crime rates.
If you manage to read all this, you will notice that there isn't a single mention of the G-word when accounting for America's decrease in crime. :p
Geez, I'm fed up with being right. ;)
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/09/ntec109.xml
First wall in two part wall-o-text
Splashed across many of last week's newspapers was the headline: "UK police are the worst in the developed world". That claim will have confirmed what a lot of people in the UK already believe.
It was prompted by a book by Norman Dennis and George Erdos that compared the British police's performance in dealing with rising crime rates with the forces in America, France and Germany. The British police came out of the comparison very badly.
"In fact, I don't think our police force is among the world's worst," explained Mr Dennis, who works for the think-tank Civitas and for the University of Newcastle. "But I do think that it is demonstrably true that our police force has failed, and failed miserably, to respond effectively to rising crime rates.
"The British police seem to me to have given up altogether on low-level crime and the result of their decision to concentrate only on solving serious crimes has not been that those crimes have diminished. On the contrary, offences involving violence against the person have rocketed. Our cops have mistakenly put all their efforts into detecting crime once it has happened, rather than into trying to prevent it from happening in the first place."
Part of the problem, Mr Dennis maintains, is that the Home Office, along with a lot of academic criminologists, insist on denying the most fundamental fact about crime in Britain: that it has been, and is, increasing.
"That denial is just silly," he says. "Fifty years ago, there weren't 400 street robberies in the whole of Britain. In 2001, there wasn't a single month in the borough of Lambeth that is just one London borough in which there were fewer than 400 street robberies. Crimes against the person involving violence go up every year. There is no doubt about that at all.
"But if you insist as the Home Office claimed, absurdly, in response to our book that `the latest figures show that the risk of being a victim is at its lowest since records began', then of course you find it difficult to persuade the police to tackle the problem," Mr Dennis says. "Obviously, you can't respond to a problem if you don't think it exists."
There is also the conviction, deeply ingrained in the Home Office, large portions of the judiciary and even much of the police hierarchy, that, even if some crimes are on the increase, it's not their fault: they should not be blamed because there is nothing anyone can do about the "vast, complex sociological patterns" that cause increases in crime.
They argue that we simply have to get used to higher crime rates and deal with them by such steps as improving the security in our houses and cars measures which, famously, Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, advised Britons to take on the grounds that they were the best, if not the only, way to reduce crime.
"This depressed and depressing defeatism is rubbish," responds Mr Dennis. "And to see it is rubbish, you only need to compare London with New York."
The two metropolitan areas have comparable populations of just over seven million. In 1991, while London's crime rate was, by the standards of big international cities, relatively low, New York had the reputation of being the crime capital of the world.
There were more than 2,300 murders a year in New York in 1991 and well over 100,000 street robberies. London, by comparison, had 181 murders and 22,000 street robberies in that year.
Last year, there were 538 homicides in New York. That means the murder rate has decreased by a factor of five over the past 13 years. London's murder rate has not reduced at all over the same period: there were 186 homicides in the capital last year.
More astonishing still is the comparison in the statistics for street robberies. In 2003, the last complete year for which records are available, there were just 24,334 street robberies in New York while in London, 38,490 people were robbed in the street.
It takes some time for the significance of that statistic to sink in. New York, from having had a rate of street robbery five times that of London a decade ago, now has 14,000 fewer street robberies every year than our capital.
That statistic is not the result of manipulating figures. It is simply proof that those who insist that "nothing can be done about crime" are wrong: crime can be dramatically reduced it can be, because in New York it clearly has been.
How have the Americans done it? What is being done in New York that is not being done in London? Police numbers are an important part of the solution. New York has consistently increased its police head count so that it now has more than 40,000 uniformed officers patrolling the city. With only 30,000 officers available, London has 10,000 fewer active policemen than New York.
More revealing still is the ratio of crimes to police officers in the two cities. In New York, there is one police officer for every seven recorded crimes. In London, each officer has to deal with 41 recorded crimes, which might help to explain why London's police seem so uninterested in responding to calls from homeowners about burglaries or thefts.
Police numbers, however, would not count for much if police officers were not used effectively. "Aggressive policing is the key," says Mr Dennis. "In New York, the police have taken back the streets. They have refused to tolerate low-level crime, from prostitutes or drug dealers soliciting customers, graffiti artists or abusive behaviour. They have even taken steps such as cordoning off whole apartment buildings and refusing entry to anyone who is not a resident or does not have authority from the NYPD. They have targeted the high-crime areas and the individuals and gangs who are responsible for dozens of offences, and arrested them."
Dr Eli Silverman, a professor of police studies who teaches New York police officers at the John Jay College for Criminal Justice, agrees that it is the tactics of the New York police that have been critically important: "We've taken back territory," he insists, "we've gone into the gang-controlled areas and cleaned them up, stopping gangs from being able to operate. It's a strategy of crime prevention, as opposed to one of waiting for crime to happen and then trying to clear it up afterwards."
Dr Silverman has tried to persuade the British police to adopt New York's methods. He even held meetings with David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary. But he says he discovered that "the traditional British approach considers New York's techniques too in-your-face, too aggressive in managerial style. I told them that it works and that is the difference between our police and yours. But the British police are all planning and no doing: they get bogged down in procedures. What they need is ruthless command and accountability all down the line. They haven't got it."
Police numbers and techniques are, of course, only one part of creating a comprehensive strategy that has a realistic chance of reducing crime. The police themselves argue, with some justice, that what happens to criminals after the police arrest them is an even more important element.
In London, the courts are extremely reluctant to sentence burglars and street robbers to prison. Many street robbers will commit dozens, if not scores, of offences before finally standing before a judge who decides on a custodial sentence. Usually, the sentence will be a few months at most. The average sentence for those convicted of burglary or robbery with violence is, in London (as in Britain as a whole), less than four years.
In New York, the same offence receives double that tariff: the average sentence for robbery or burglary with violence in New York is more than eight years. And whereas offenders in London are routinely let out after having served half their sentence, and are often subject to only the lightest supervision from parole officers, in New York parole has to be earned and the smallest infraction of its conditions can lead to the offender being sent back to prison to serve double his original sentence.
New York is not the only American city to have seen spectacular falls in crime. Crime of almost all varieties has tumbled across America over the past decade. The falling crime rate has coincided with decisions by the courts to increase prison sentences and by central government to embark on a colossal prison-building programme to house the more than two million Americans who are now serving time in jail.
One example of the new-found severity of America's penal code is California's "three strikes and you're out" law. Introduced after a referendum on the issue in 1994, the law mandates that any individual convicted for a third time of a serious offence which in California can include stealing from a shop or a car will be sentenced to life imprisonment.
-
Second wall in two part wall-o-text
California's crime rate is now a third of what it was a decade ago. In November last year, Californians were invited to repeal their "three strikes" law, which some claimed has led to too many people serving life sentences without parole for insignificant crimes. The voters of Californians refused the invitation: the law was supported by a large margin in a popular referendum.
Voters in Britain are not given the opportunity to express their preferences on a proposition such as California's "three strikes" law. When Michael Howard was Home Secretary, he attempted to introduce a mandatory sentence of three years for a third offence of domestic burglary. Tony Blair, then leader of the opposition, with help from the Law Lords, managed to insert a clause into the Crime Sentencing Act of 1997 that allowed judges not to impose the mandatory sentence if they did not think it appropriate.
The result has been that in the seven years since the Act came into force, fewer than 15 of the hundreds convicted of burglary for a third time have been given the mandatory three-year sentence. The great majority have been allowed "back into the community" which is one reason why domestic burglary in Britain has stayed roughly constant, as opposed to falling more by than a third, which is what has happened in the US.
The lesson from America appears to be straightforward: if Britain is to tackle rising crime, police numbers will have to increase, their tactics will have to change, we will have to build more prisons, and the judges will have to sentence more criminals to longer spells inside them.
There is, however, absolutely no indication that the Government will even attempt to achieve any of those goals. Do not expect rates of street robbery in London, therefore, to drop by a factor of five, as they have done in New York.
-
Wait, Beet, what exactly have you proven, that more guns doesn't decrease crime. Even if you can make that conclusion by some wacked-out "link of omission" argument which is illegitimate in the first place, the argument your trying to make with the article is entirely defensive.
You fail to get any offense saying that more guns=more crime, which would be the thing you would need. If by some stupid logic, you gain that more guns does not mean more crime without showing that more guns equals more crime, then guns are fine, and apparantly cause no harm. The article, at that point, does you no good whatsoever.
What is true, is the fact that you've brought an article that entirely supports my point. Lets go back a bit on the butter knife thread...
Originally posted by Gonzo
Your making a distingction that's entirely wrong. Guns aren't our problem, it's our society (which is worse, by the way).
At least we don't have nutsos going on butter-knife drive-by rampages...
And now, to the article...
there is nothing anyone can do about the "vast, complex sociological patterns" that cause increases in crime.
-
Last year,Ohio passed a concealed carry bill.
Coincidentally,homicides dropped 20% in Columbus in 2004.
The Plain Dealer (http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1104577022254020.xml)
Homicides also dropped 12% in Cincinnati in 2004,after five straight years of increases.
Cincinnati
Enquirer (http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050102/NEWS01/501020376)
No mention of the "G" word in either article,but it's interesting that the drop in homicides occurred in the same year that a right to carry law was passed.
-
Sox, you're making the same stupid "link of omission" argument Beet was using, just the other way. Learn that there's more to crime than just guns...
-
Gonzo - not trying to prove anything. The article speaks for itself without my having to add anything. It does, however, support what I've said all along with regard to the causes of changing crime levels. Crime in New York and California has gone down - and the reasons? Read the article - it's all in there. And, like I said, it makes no mention of guns. You are free to agree or disagree!
:aok
-
mmm there is the argument that one of the reasons for the lower crime rate in the USA is Roe vs Wade - in that abortion on demand has simply removed a large portion of the population most likely to be involved in violent crime.
Not sure if it's true or that I agree with it but an interesting hypothesis.
-
Last year,Ohio passed a concealed carry bill.
My Walther PPK and I have been spending lots of time together as well.
I've been glad that I had it when at a number of 'local drinking establishments' my band has had gigs. One, (off 161, im sure you know where that is Sox) there was a guy who pulled out a Beretta 92f and set it on the table to intimidate someone else (pre-concealed carry law) last winter. I didn't go back until I myself was legally armed.
There was also one incident, also with the band we played a house that was straight ouf of deliverence. The family of 4 that lived there had maybe 1 combined set of teeth. Animals all over the place, there was a trap door in the deck and down in a deep dark hole is where the outlet was located to plug in our equipment. Being the always prepared type, I pulled out my penlight and shined down the hole only to see a set of shackles. Bind the slave type shackle.
They had human skull "decorations" and their basement had a set of katanas which was just too damn clean for their own good. I didn't trust the place, so I actually repositioned my car in the yard with my spare key in the ignition should a fast getaway be needed. What made me real suspicious was they paid us in advance...$300. Now, I've never been paid in advance. I never ask for nor do I expect to be. That just got the whole night off to a weird vibe.
Anyways...the stainless .380 makes me feel happy and secure so I am fine with the laws.
-
Originally posted by Schaden
mmm there is the argument that one of the reasons for the lower crime rate in the USA is Roe vs Wade - in that abortion on demand has simply removed a large portion of the population most likely to be involved in violent crime.
Not sure if it's true or that I agree with it but an interesting hypothesis.
that's the most stupid thing I've ever heard.
-
Beet,
sorry bud but what numpty wrote that wall of bollocks?
"The British police seem to me to have given up altogether on low-level crime"
Rubbish.
The Filth in this country (note for Yanks, Flith = nuther word for Pigs.....at least I capitalise it) are there every time I wanna travel at 5mph over the limit with their condescending looks and the breathalyser equipment but when my bike gets stolen it's "fill out a report and hope your insurance co pays up".
I'll tell you what's wrong with the Rozzers in this country (note for Yanks, Rozzers = yet another word for the Filth), it's that they're mostly recruited from ex-forces meatheads and then told that their carreer depends on their performance. I've yet to meet a young Copper (note for Yanks, yeah you guessed it) who wouldn't take advantage of an opportunity to get an arrest on his record, hence the bastards (note for Yanks.....oh you probably get that one anyway) look for and chase after the easy ones, anything that requires a bit of thought or effort is beyond them.
My Mother got arrested once. Wanna know what for? She bought a fax machine at a car boot sale and it turned out to be stolen. My Mother has never intentionally committed a crime in her life and is too honest to run away. They kept her (a woman in her 50s at the time and not in good health) in the cells for 4 hours before an interrogation session lasting another 6.
The British Police are lazy, cynical and just looking for the next easy arrest so they can finally make detective.
Wanna know how I came to this conclusion?
Cos when I was young and stupid I thought I wanted to be one of them.....so I joined the Special Constabulary. I've seen what goes on from the inside and now have absolutely zero respect for any of em.
And may I also add: 7 minutes of paperword per arrest? Aw, poor babies. Maybe if they learned joined up writing it'd come down to 5 minutes. :rolleyes:
As for the crime rate, blame the liberal numpties who send repeat offenders on safari.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Why don't you guys do what you used to do to criminals???? export them to australia! ;)
-
Send our scum to a nice place like Oz?
Nah, we like the Aussies, after all we've gotta make up for sending em out there in the first place. No we should send our scum to a country we don't like......like France maybe.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Originally posted by Gonzo
Sox, you're making the same stupid "link of omission" argument Beet was using, just the other way. Learn that there's more to crime than just guns...
No I am not.
Beetle likes to link guns to crime,and that's not what I'm doing.He had to state that the article never used the "G" word,to bring guns into the mix,even though as he stated the article never did.You just assumed that I was linking guns to crimes.
What I'm trying to point out is that for law abiding citizens,having guns and the right to carry is NOT ABOUT STOPPING CRIME.
It's about ones right to self defense.
-
Seems like an easy task Swoop...
Just start charging for health care. Watch the EU immigration wave turn around and start walking the other way. Damn freeloaders :)
Seriously, you could give away rocks and people would show up from a thousand miles in every direction to get their free rock, and half would try to steal someone else's free rock. Get rid of the freebies and the freeloaders go elsewhere. Spend the money on creating decent basic jobs so stuff like road improvements get done and people can then pay for services they currently get for free.
Um... There's an loud crowd outside with pitchforks and torches that just drove up in 10 yr old vauxhalls pulling overloaded caravans. I'll be back in a sec after I see what they want.
-
Originally posted by Sox62
No I am not.
Beetle likes to link guns to crime,and that's not what I'm doing.He had to state that the article never used the "G" word,to bring guns into the mix,even though as he stated the article never did.You just assumed that I was linking guns to crimes.
What I'm trying to point out is that for law abiding citizens,having guns and the right to carry is NOT ABOUT STOPPING CRIME.
It's about ones right to self defense.
Alright, that's legitimate.
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Send our scum to a nice place like Oz?
Nah, we like the Aussies, after all we've gotta make up for sending em out there in the first place. No we should send our scum to a country we don't like......like France maybe.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
carefull talking about france like that. Gonzo might call you a "right wing nut-job"
-
No, I'll reserve the title for you gunslinger.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Geez, I'm fed up with being right. ;)
Well, you were sure WRONG in the last thread.
-
Wow, everyone's trying to blame or support something in some way or another. But everyone's missing the obvious items.
Who says a Criminal needs to be stationary?
Crime in New York City is going down because the neighborhood is changing.
Crime is going up in London because the neighborhood isn't changing.
Of course the lack of firepower is helping also the police count. But it's not the main source of what's happening.
-
One little known fact about the 22,000 robberies in the UK was the weapon of choice was a Soccer ball - a Spalding to be precise. :D
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Send our scum to a nice place like Oz?
Nah, we like the Aussies, after all we've gotta make up for sending em out there in the first place. No we should send our scum to a country we don't like......like France maybe.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
Give them to the cloggies where capital punishment does not exist but if they get a hang nail they will be euthanized in short order.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, you were sure WRONG in the last thread.
:rofl
Good to hear from you here, Mr. Toad - glad you're still reading my threads! :aok
Swoop - yes - your story sounds like one Dowding told a while ago. The police were ruthlessly efficient in processing a speeding prosecution, but could do naff all about his dad's bike being stolen. My cynical side thinks they go after motorists, especially where the motorist is white middle class because they know these are the folks who will pay up without a quarrel. I was staggered to read some time ago that of all the fines imposed by the courts, 55% goes unpaid. (Not sure whether that was by total amount outstanding, or the number of fines imposed)
Lasersailor: "Of course the lack of firepower is helping also the police count."
- An increasing number of police are now armed as a matter of routine.
Where's Lazs? oh wait, it's Monday. I think he will post at 14:40 - his usual time. :)
-
Yes, but from what I understand Beetle, most of the time, the gun never leaves the car.
Unlike the New York police where most of the time, the gun never leaves their hip.
-
I looked at it for the article. I sure don't expect you to make a cogent argument anymore.
-
Hmm... are you trying to prove that everything I ever say on the subject is right?
I say your crime is increasing and it's gonna get worse... first you tell me no and now you come up with this article..
I tell you that you will have to arm your police... you tell me no and then now you tell me yes... Armed police=more guns, less crime.
I tell you that we need tougher sentances and you prove it.
I tell you more guns equal less crime and you say... the article ommits the fact that 3 times as many states as a decade ago now have right to carry laws so... so what? so it isn't a factor? because the article refused to mention it? more guns here equal less crime. New york put more guns on the street(more cops) and the crime went down... I would bet there are more guns in the city too.
I say 3 strikes works and you prove it.
California is a 3 strikes state and a right to carry state.
My guess is that san fransico will have an increase in crime with their new gun laws. You can prove that latter for me.
Washington DC has london like gun laws and london like crime..
so really... if you were a young and tough criminal and you knew that all of your victims were weaker than you and unarmed and that the police were also unarmed for the most part and spred thin.... and... if you got caught you might even be able to sue for damages... why would you change careers?
nothing wrong with arming every law abiding citizen who wants to be... even if you did only about 10% of the population would take on this responsibility in a modern country regardless of the threat.
guns are a boogey man that ignorant people use to explain why their societies are failing.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
I looked at it for the article. I sure don't expect you to make a cogent argument anymore.
Ruh-roh - is this going to be the second longest sulk in history?
THIS... was the longest - started in 1975, and still going strong! :lol
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1325000/images/_1325347_heath_300.jpg)
BTW Toad, I've added to that thread - the one in which you allege I was "wrong" - might want to take a look?
-
No point, Beet. Apparently you never understood the points of the discussion. It's clear you didn't read the supporting multitude of quotations; you pretend that just one person mentioned Bolshevism when it actually was essentially the entire cabinet, other politicians, the newspapers and the head of the Army General staff.
Not to mention what was happening at the same time in other countries, including the US.
No point in revisiting an argument you don't understand.
-
From what I understand, CA is practically not a Right to Carry state.
In most places you can put "Self Defense" as a reason for getting a CCW permit. From what I hear, this isn't good enough in CA.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It's clear you didn't read the supporting multitude of quotations; you pretend that just one person mentioned Bolshevism when it actually was essentially the entire cabinet, other politicians, the newspapers and the head of the Army General staff.
Funny that - because I went into the library today, and looked up this book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415268702/qid=1105403993/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_2_1/026-8723465-1338028) about British Political History 1867-2001. I found only one passage which referred to "Bolshevism" c1920 - and the book says the government took the threat very seriously. But that's all - no mention of paranoia and the suppression of an armed proletarian uprising - that is left to the American observers. ;):D
Toodle-Pipski :aok
-
Find this book:
Jones, Thomas : Whitehall Diary: volume I: 1916-1925
I think you'll find it enlightening.
-
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 (http://www.claytoncramer.com/firear~1.htm) 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. :rolleyes:
I thought I'd give it a read anyway, and came across this. 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 rτle 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. :)
-
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.:D
Les
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.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.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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
I suspect what bothers Beet most is the meticulous nature of Cramer's article with 97 footnotes documenting what happened and supporting his argument.
So much easier when one can just dismiss any argument by attacking the writer.
Facts are so inconvenient for guys like Beet.
2+2=4, no matter who does the math. So it is with the relationship between England's upper classes + Fear of Bolshevism = Firearms Act of 1920.
-
If more police are on the beat in NY then there are more guns in the city... no way around that. Beets and englands solution to crime is to put more guns on the streets (more armed police). How is that supporting beets arguement?
lazs
-
Good point Laz.
Beetle's argument has officially been shot to hell about 3 different ways.
-
More fun with statistics:
Physicians --
The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year is 120,000.
Accidental deaths per physician are 0.171.
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services)
Gun owners --
The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
The number of accidental gun deaths per year is 1,500.
The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
We can twist and turn statistics any way to suit our purpose. In the end, people are killed and maimed in all societies by accidents and willful actions. A society's set of laws and enforcement of them reflects its moral values.
Violent crime is a societal issue for the major part, and the actions of social misfits and mentally ill for the minor part. There forever have been, and forever will be, a percentage of misfits in every society. It is unavoidable. The societal issues that cause violent crime are not so easily answered in societies where the rights of citizens are cherished.
Logical, common sense law enforcement, education that prepares people for gainful employment (Not everyone is university caliber and what is a new high school graduate actually prepared to do? Nothing.), jobs, jobs, jobs and most importantly -- families and the guidance and values taught and tolerated by them during childhood do more to prepare children for living and prospering in a society as adults than diminshing the rights of tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners.
The American dream is not about the house and car. The dream of America and reason for its strength (beyond the natural resources and the potential it offered) is the self-reliant mindset nurtured by personal freedoms and rights. I truly believe Americans are far more resistant to limits being placed on their behavior because of the actions of a small portion of social misfits and mentally ill than any other nationality.
-
Rolex... that is very well put. It is one of the reasons that I say things like "who cares what the homicide rate with firearms is" or "it is a small price to pay"... It is why I am less moved by a picture of a child shot than I am by one drowned or run over by a drunk or a cell phone user who is trying to make a point to the extremely important person on the other end of the connect and can't bother to control 1.5 tons of deadly force.
It is also the basic reason why Americans are not understood by the soicialists on this board who believe that the government is your friend and that it is some how perverted to be self reliant and to not bow to the wishes of special interest groups.
"Logical, common sense law enforcement, education that prepares people for gainful employment (Not everyone is university caliber and what is a new high school graduate actually prepared to do? Nothing.), jobs, jobs, jobs and most importantly -- families and the guidance and values taught and tolerated by them during childhood do more to prepare children for living and prospering in a society as adults than diminshing the rights of tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners.
The American dream is not about the house and car. The dream of America and reason for its strength (beyond the natural resources and the potential it offered) is the self-reliant mindset nurtured by personal freedoms and rights. I truly believe Americans are far more resistant to limits being placed on their behavior because of the actions of a small portion of social misfits and mentally ill than any other nationality."
We have had our "dunbanes" and the women couldn't shame us into giving up our rights... Gun owners get angry at crime... If anything... they feel even more like they need to take care of themselves and their families.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
I suspect what bothers Beet most is the meticulous nature of Cramer's article with 97 footnotes documenting what happened and supporting his argument.
So much easier when one can just dismiss any argument by attacking the writer.
Facts are so inconvenient for guys like Beet.
2+2=4, no matter who does the math. So it is with the relationship between England's upper classes + Fear of Bolshevism = Firearms Act of 1920.
Well, it looks like we have a stalemate. We have two reports giving reasons for the 1920 Firearms Act. - The "Fear and Loathing" report by Clayton Cramer, the senior NRA vice president and gun lobbyist - and even he concedes that Thomas Jones believed the threat of armed uprising to be "greatly exaggerated", and that PM Lloyd George believed it to be overblown. But ask yourself why Cramer would be writing about Britain, other than to add weight to his NRA gun lobby campaign at home.
- Then we have the Blackwell Report (http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/1-blackw.htm) - an official report which makes no mention of Bolshevism and is impartial unlike Cramer, but part of which has been dismissed as lies by the pro-gun lobby
Part of the NRA propaganda that I've seen on this board is that disarmament of the public is a prelude to their being rounded up and exterminated. LOL. I posted a pic of a dalek the first time I saw that.
Well, I can confirm that we have not been exterminated. So read Cramers report, and read the Blackwell report. Also take into account that in various texts in British history books I looked at this week noted concern about "bolshevism" but went no further. No mention of guns, the firearms act.
So I leave it to you to decide which of these two accounts is more in keeping with actual events from 1920 to the present. I've made my choice. YMMV.
-
There's no stalemate whatsoever.
First, there are other sources than Cramer that make the same case successfully. Cramer just seems to be the only one you looked at.
Second, while Jones himself may have considered the threat exaggerated he does not 1) say the other Cabinet ministers felt the same way and in fact points out that many of them fervently believed it and 2) he himself does not discount it but merely views it as exaggerated.
Third, the Blackwell Committee needs more research on your part. Suffice it to say you continually overlook the obvious:
There are two distinct categories of person from whom danger is to be apprehended, viz., (1) the savage or semi-civilised tribesmen in outlying parts of the British Empire, whose main demand is for rifles and ammunition, and (2) the anarchist or 'intellectual' malcontent of the great cities, whose weapons are the bomb and the automatic pistol. There is some force in the view .... that the latter will in future prove the more dangerous of the two
[/b]
Given the time of the report, 1918, and the participation of anarchists in the Russian revolution there can be no doubt about the reference here. The anarchists and Bolsheviks used many of the same slogans during that period. It's just immutable history no matter how you try to discount it.
It's the same with you discounting any NRA source. As I said, fact is fact, no matter who points it out.
Salve your ego as you like; you're SO totally wrong on this it is laughable.
-
Originally posted by Toad
There's no stalemate whatsoever.
First, there are other sources than Cramer that make the same case successfully.
What - other NRA sources? Oh puhleeeeze... :rolleyes:
Third, the Blackwell Committee needs more research on your part. Suffice it to say you continually overlook the obvious:
.
.
Given the time of the report, 1918, and the participation of anarchists in the Russian revolution there can be no doubt about the reference here. The anarchists and Bolsheviks used many of the same slogans during that period. It's just immutable history no matter how you try to discount it.
I suspect that the real threat - "malcontents" - was in reference to the Irish question. Granted, I'm assuming that - but you're assuming that the reference in the Blackwell report to malcontents is with regard to the bolsheviks - and that assumption seems to be the only material you have to support any link between the Firearms Act and any perceived threat of a bolshevik uprising in Britain. Well let's look at the facts, shall we? There was an armed Irish uprising - in 1916; there was no bolshevik uprising in Britain. Ever.
And here's the quote from tce2506 in an earlier thread, warning us of what happens after our government has disarmed us. No doubt this is more NRA induced claptrap - at least it is with regard to Britain.
HISTORY....
==============
Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that
because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't matter?
CONSIDER; In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Erm, 85 years after the 1920 Firearms Act: We have still not been rounded up. We have still not been exterminated.
Like I said - two documents - each giving an account of the reasons for the Firearms Act. You have chosen which one you want to believe. I have done the same - based on a number of factors, including the fact that we have not been rounded up and exterminated. :lol
Gotta laugh - the people supporting you here in this thread are all NRA members - to a man. :lol
-
You're the one that brought up "exterminated" beetle... in an aparent attempt to take it to a rediculous extreme. The words everyone else was using is "defenseless". That's actually the key word in every line you quoted. You don't really notice because you simply don't know any better.
And kudos on, once again. ignoring everything toad linked... or simply misunderstanding it. Only you can think "admits the bulshevic concerns were exagerated" to mean it wasn't even a consideration. That's pretty damn funny. Only you can think that still being allive means that being defenseless is obviously the best solution. Talk about lack of foresight.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
What - other NRA sources?
Two points yet again:
1. Facts are facts. If Cramer is an NRA guy, show where's he's wrong. You are clearly unable to do that, so you merely toss out the red herrings. 2+2 = 4 no matter if an NRA guy does the math or anyone else.
2. I have given you other sources. Several. From newspaper accounts at the time to the Whitehall Diaries of Jones where he CLEARLY points out that the majority of the Cabinet viewed Bolshevism as a major threat. For just one of the MANY examples I posted (footnoted)
At a Cabinet meeting on January 17, 1919, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff raised the threat of "Red Revolution and blood and war at home and abroad."
Beet: I suspect that the real threat - "malcontents" - was in reference to the Irish question.
You ASSumed and it proved you an.........
First, the "Irish malcontents" were already subjected to a gun licensing system before the Firearms Act of 1920 under colonial laws.
Second:
the anarchist or 'intellectual' malcontent of the great cities, whose weapons are the bomb and the automatic pistol. There is some force in the view .... that the latter will in future prove the more dangerous of the two. At any rate, his activities will call for unceasing vigilance, and very special precautions will be necessary to control the trade in automatic pistols, which, apart from their extreme deadliness, are, by reason of their size and shape, more easily smuggled than any other type of weapon.
You ASSume Ireland had multiple "great cities" on the scale of say London or Glasgow or Manchester? Think about it; this clearly refers to an arena far larger than Ireland.
Beet: seems to be the only material you have to support any link between the Firearms Act and any perceived threat of a bolshevik uprising in Britain.
[/b]
Well, I'm sure you think so since you ignore all the other clear links previously posted.
The Chief of the Imperial General Staff; The Minister of Transport, Sir Eric Geddes; Sir Basil Thomson, Scotland Yard's Director of Intelligence; the Bishop of Oxford; Walter Long, Secretary of State for the Colonies; Robert Munro, Secretary of State for Scotland; Home Secretary Shortt; Adjutant-General Sir George Macdonogh and Food Minister Roberts all commented.
But of course, you discount them since they don't agree with your hypothesis.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the NRA.
It is totally cocerned with your monstrous ego and your inability to admit your are wrong when faced with overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence in the form of quotes from the very men who made up your government at the time.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
You're the one that brought up "exterminated" beetle...
Nope - that was tce2506 in another thread.
Mr.Toad - then why is there so little made of this "bolshevik" question - in the Blackwell Report, and in various British historical accounts? I told you that I looked at several at the library this week. You are right in saying that there WAS concern regarding Russian subversion in Britain following 1917. But I have seen NO evidence of any REAL threat of armed proletarian uprising. All I have seen is a bunch of rumours, which you and Cramer and other victims of NRA paranoia have seized upon to make a point.
Going back to British historical accounts, I looked at a few - here is one. Bolshevism is mentioned - but nothing about the likelihood of an armed uprising, which seems to have have been more imagined than real, and forms the centrepiece of your argument.
Oh, and no mention of the "draconian gun seizure about to befall Britain". Maybe it was another non-issue?
Excerpt from British Political History 1867-2001 - ISBN-0-415-26870-2
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/txt3.jpg)
-
The Blackwell Report does directly mention the Bolshevik threat, although you refuse to recognize it.
We regard the whole position as one of considerable gravity. There are two distinct categories of person from whom danger is to be apprehended, viz., (1) the savage or semi-civilised tribesmen in outlying parts of the British Empire, whose main demand is for rifles and ammunition, and (2) the anarchist or 'intellectual' malcontent of the great cities, whose weapons are the bomb and the automatic pistol. There is some force in the view .... that the latter will in future prove the more dangerous of the two.
Now given the time, 1918, and the alliance of anarchists and Bolsheviks in the Russian revolution at that time, only someone as ego-blinded as yourself could fail to see the connection.
Beet: I have seen NO evidence of any REAL threat of armed proletarian uprising
[/b]
That's just another of your red herrings. No one has made the case that an actual proletarian uprising took place in Britain.
The case made, which you studiously ignore is that the Chief of the Imperial General Staff; The Minister of Transport, Sir Eric Geddes; Sir Basil Thomson, Scotland Yard's Director of Intelligence; the Bishop of Oxford; Walter Long, Secretary of State for the Colonies; Robert Munro, Secretary of State for Scotland; Home Secretary Shortt; Adjutant-General Sir George Macdonogh and Food Minister Roberts all commented on the percieved threat they saw of Bolshevism in England.
They are not rumors; they are in most cases direct quotes from the politicians in power. These quotes are documented. Not all are from an NRA member. Those that are from an NRA member as researcher have no shadow on their historical accuracy. The source documents are available.
Beet: draconian gun seizure about to befall Britain
[/b]
That would be because YOU are the only one to mention that and tie it to the 1920/Bolshevism/Firearms Act discussion.
I challenge you to go back through this thread and the other thread and find where I said anything about "draconian gun seizure about to befall Britain in the immediate post-1920 and the percieved threat of Bolshevism" period.
What I said was it was the beginning of the slide towards confiscation that finally happened after Hungerford/Dunblane.
You again just choose to deliberately mis-interpret what is said so you can make a straw man argument.
-
Why do you constantly feel the need to defend not only yourself but your country beetle? is your dick that small that you have to show everyone how big your balls are?
Im so sick of seeing your crap that you post to try and show us all how much better you are than americans.
Lazs might like you, and you dam well might be an "OK" guy in real life, but i think your a complete idiot.
Should i find a Golly-gee article to prove that?
Jesus give it a freakin rest.
-
On a side note.
What the hell would you care if we all picked up a gun and started killing each other here until we were all dead and gone...
That would just mean you'd have no one to blame watermelon on is all.
-
Morpheus Im having an interesting discussion with Toad. Add me to your ignore list if it bothers you.
Toad! :) Well, your earlier equation seemed quite unequivocal that the 1920 Firearms Act was introduced for one reason, and one reason only the perceived threat of an armed bolshevik uprising. Your equation was 2+2=4 -which leaves no room for any other variables at all.
And yet, turning to the Blackwell Report once more, we find that there ARE other variables in the equation. I shall reproduce a section of the report and highlight some of the salient points.
Grounds for strengthening the Law.-That the control of firearms should be made far more stringent than it is now is a proposition which hardly anyone could be found to question. Attention had been called to the matter in Parliament before the war, and on the 13th of March 1913, a Return was made to the House of Commons of the cases in which firearms had been used against Police Officers in England and Wales in the five years 1908-1912. The Return (Paper 188 of 1913) showed that in these five years 47 cases had occurred, in which 92 Police Officers had been shot at, 6 had been killed and 24 had been injured. In 34 of the 47 cases the weapon used was known to be a revolver or some other kind of pistol. Of the 47 cases 15 occurred in the Metropolitan Police District.
In October, 1912, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informed the Home Secretary that in the dock strike of that year seven cases had occurred in which men concerned in the strike came into the hands of the Police for using firearms and five others for carrying them though not actually using them; and that ten other cases of the carrying of firearms were known to the Police, although in these no offender had been actually apprehended or summoned. The Commissioner of Police has also furnished us with other figures to show the extent to which firearms were used for criminal purposes, or if not actually used, were at any rate in the possession of persons who came into the hands of police, in the three years 1911-1913 and 1915-1917 respectively. It appears that in the three years 1911-1913, firearms were used in the Metropolitan Police District by 100 persons of British nationality and by 23 aliens; while firearms were found in the possession of British subjects in 76 cases and of aliens in 27 cases. The corresponding figures in the three years 1915-1917 were 42 and 5 as regards the use of firearms by British subjects and aliens, respectively, and 44 and 10 as regards the possession of them. The decline in the latter period as compared with the three years before the war is no doubt due to the restrictions on the purchase of firearms imposed by the Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act, and the measures taken for the internment of alien enemies during the war; but if firearms can be brought into the country or obtained here with the same ease when peace is concluded as the law at present allows, the numbers may be expected to rise to or above their former level.
The returns also show that in nearly half of the cases in which firearms were used, sometimes with fatal effect, in the Metropolitan Police District in the years 1910-17, they appear to have been used without any particular premeditation in the course of ordinary quarrels - in some cases in street-fights - when, but for the offender's possession of a lethal weapon, probably no serious harm would have been done or attempted. In many of these cases the Courts appear to have taken an extremely lenient view of the offence of using firearms; and the question whether it would not be to the interest of public order that more deterrent penalties should be imposed for this offence, even when no serious injury may have been inflicted, and particularly when firearms are used or carried by persons engaged in crime, is one which it seems to us might well be submitted for the consideration of judicial authorities. In any case the Returns show that there is good reason for so altering the law as to make it much more difficult to obtain firearms than it is at present.
.
.
.
It will be seen, therefore, that prior to the war there was strong reason for amending the law, and this was recognised by the Government in 1911 when the Bill to which we shall presently refer in detail was drafted under the instructions of the Home Secretary. Strong, however, as the case was in 1911, it is immensely stronger now. We have to face the situation that the war will have added enormously to the world's stock of rifles and pistols, that large numbers of pistols, and possibly other weapons, will have come into the possession of private persons, notably discharged soldiers and their relatives, and that the number of men skilled in the use of firearms will have greatly increased. It must also be borne in mind that we can hardly hope to escape on demobilisation an increase in crime. Large numbers of the criminal classes have entered the Army, both voluntarily and under the Military Service Acts; and however effective may be the measures taken to facilitate the return of discharged soldiers to civil life and peaceful occupations, it would be unreasonable to expect that all these men will be ready to settle down at once to agricultural or industrial employment. There would be additional ground for apprehension if men of this class, and indeed discharged soldiers in general, were permitted to retain any revolvers which have come into their possession during their army service, or to procure them under the easy conditions allowed by the existing law.
As can be seen from the above, the need for a change in the law was recognised as long ago as 1911 long before the Russian Revolution of 1917.
But, it seems that your NRA source is quite dismissive of the reasons given in the Blackwell Report. From one of your earlier posts, he is quoted as saying Although popular revolution was the motive, the Home Secretary presented the government's 1920 gun bill to Parliament as strictly a measure "to prevent criminals and persons of that description from being able to have revolvers and to use them." In fact, the problem of criminal, non-political misuse of firearms remained minuscule.
Minuscule? LOL! In a five year period (1908-1912), 92 officers had been shot at, 24 injured and 6 killed thats a police mortality rate higher that that of modern times! But your NRA source does not believe the governments motives, and his considered opinion is Of course 1920 would not be the last time a government lied in order to promote gun control.
The governments rationale according to the Blackwell report seems reasonable and straightforward, so the question that remains is WHY did your NRA source not believe it? Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that in HIS view it was tantamount to "anti-gun propaganda", and that it provided him with useful material to use in his campaign as a gun lobby activist closer to home? Hmm?
2+2=4 and few people would disagree, but in this case it's an oversimplification. Its clear that other factors are involved here, and were under review long before 1920.
-
LOL! Beetle, read the whole thing you posted... not just the parts you highlighted.
Damn dude... you keep posting stuff that supports toads argument and totally ingoring ignoring it.
The decline in the latter period as compared with the three years before the war is no doubt due to the restrictions on the purchase of firearms imposed by the Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act, and the measures taken for the internment of alien enemies during the war; but if firearms can be brought into the country or obtained here with the same ease when peace is concluded as the law at present allows, the numbers may be expected to rise to or above their former level.
ROTFLMAO!
The 1920 legislation was built attop the "defense of the realm" act. Some might even call that a "patriot bill" of sorts. People like to use fancy terms like that when taking away your rights.
The section also highlights striking workers with guns beetle. I wonder why they'd do that. Who were the bolshevicks again?
You haven't posted a single thing that refutes the quotes Toad posted. You've only posted things that support his assertions. You really are quite bad at this.
-
hmm... looks like the "upper class" were not only afraid of commies but they were afraid of all the other peasants too..
this is what I have allways calimed... the brits hang on to their class system and feel that any subject "below" them has no rights except what the upper class gives them... they were worried that all this riff raff and criminal class that fought a war for them would now be armed and might take offense at being "the lower class" and "criminals".
lazs
-
39 murdered in Norway last year, and 9 with guns.
looks like our guncontrol is working here.
work it out yourselve we are 4.7 mill inhabintants here. (that is a pretty good % in killings with guns I think)
And yes we have weapons here too, but most of it is hunting weapons like shotguns (and there is strickt regulations for how to keep them in the home too) That means there is no fast way to use it when you get mad or loose it anyway, it pretty much have to be a planned murder and that is harder for normal people to do.
who the *** need a revolver or a handgun, unless for using it for beeing in a competition.
-
Lazs,
Your comment on the class system here in England is right on the money, even if many Brits don't realize that's what they're doing.
My wife is of Taiwanese descent, but she has lived in the US all her life. She went to a local Cambridge college tonight to take a computer class and here's how she was greeted:
Betty: "I'm looking for the Computer course. Can you tell me where the room is?"
Receptionist: "The Coversational Chinese course is in Room 4L"
Betty: (not getting mad yet) "I'm not here for any Chinese course, I'm here for the Computer course."
Receptionist: "Down the hall, room 6"
Betty goes down the hall, finds the door locked and the room empty, goes back to the receptionist and finds another person at the desk.
Betty: "Room 6 is the wrong room. Where is the Computer course?"
Receptionist 2 leans over and says to receptionist 1: "I thought you said she was American"
*finger*
Every damn place we go, we get this sort of thing. It's like everyone here is wearing these magical glasses so they only see what they're used to seeing, and magical ear plugs so they only hear what they want to hear. A green martian with 3 eyes could go to a school in the most inbred middle-American town and at least get directions to a class without being insulted, incorrectly labeled, and given the run-around, but it happens almost every time my wife leaves the house here.
It's not just the guns Lazs. The whole country looks at many things completely differently than Americans. When an American woman goes into a school and clearly asks in an upper middle class east-coast accent how to get to a computer class, 2 separate receptionists were completely unable to get past their preconceived biases to provide a simple room number. This happens to her every damn day. It's not always the same bias, but there is always SOME bias that shows through. Whether it's because she's a colonist, a foreigner (any foreigner), looks Chinese, is a woman, has natural lighter brown streaks in her otherwise dark brown hair, or is a medical doctor, almost every so-called "service employee" she's met in this country has come up with some reason to demean her or lie to her.
She hates this place, hates most of the people she's met in this country, and I can't blame her. The last time we went through customs, even though she handed her passport to the customs official, he refused to speak to her. After the usual entry questions all directed to me, he handed both passports back to me as if she wasn't even there. Coming back to this country after a vacation makes her want to cry because she's treated like crap.
I personally rather like England, but that's because nobody treats me like that and I have a thick enough skin to shrug off the small amount of anti-american sentiment I occasionally run across. But when we get out of here, we're not coming back.
-
eagl... I understand that... It is ingrained in euro trash. I don't think this kind of biggotry will ever go away there. It taints everything they do or say. It is a form of racism where even the "royals" feel that they have to comment and wonder why the lower classes can't just behave as their "station" should dictate.
The guns thing just points it out... Ihave allways had the peculiar Amercian habit of not judging a persons abilities or worth based on his social standing and find that human rights doled out on such a basis (that of social status) is particularly repugnant...
That is why when euros here say that it is ok for me to have a gun but not my countrymen..... I say.... save that crap for your own biggoted litttle trainwreck of a pissant country. I want no part of it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
eagl... I understand that... It is ingrained in euro trash. I don't think this kind of biggotry will ever go away there. It taints everything they do or say. It is a form of racism where even the "royals" feel that they have to comment and wonder why the lower classes can't just behave as their "station" should dictate.
The guns thing just points it out... Ihave allways had the peculiar Amercian habit of not judging a persons abilities or worth based on his social standing and find that human rights doled out on such a basis (that of social status) is particularly repugnant...
That is why when euros here say that it is ok for me to have a gun but not my countrymen..... I say.... save that crap for your own biggoted litttle trainwreck of a pissant country. I want no part of it.
lazs
What your now says is what you hate : racism.
You have not a clue about europe do you ? upper class and lower class was removed long time ago.
Gun control works in Norway look at my post over, it do keep the insane or outofcontrol idiots apart from easy getting guns. and 9 kills a year is still to much with guns but % it can be ok since we all are humans.
I want it to stay this way here, and by all means you can have your guns if you want, why should I care ? It is after all your country and I think you need it too, I never said anything else.
With all this I mean handguns.
werll this is about skandinavia anyway dont know if england suck the way eagl says ?
-
Lazs and eagl remind me of Austin Power's father from Goldmember.
"There are two things I cannot stand:
Intolerance of other people's cultures
and the Dutch (in this case Brits)"
lol
-
Lazs and eagl remind me of Austin Power's father from Goldmember.
Eagl reminds me more of the American from a Fawlty Towers episode ;)
-
Originally posted by Curval
Lazs and eagl remind me of Austin Power's father from Goldmember.
"There are two things I cannot stand:
Intolerance of other people's cultures
and the Dutch (in this case Brits)"
lol
Hardly.
And for some reason, judging by the type of person I think eagl is, and lazs as well, would never treat someone the way eagl mentioned his wife being treated.
The thing I find most comical is the simple fact that the brits defend themselves before an attack is ever made, and probably would have never been made in the first place.
-
Originally posted by streetstang
The thing I find most comical is the simple fact that the brits defend themselves before an attack is ever made, and probably would have never been made in the first place.
Like GWB before Iraq was supposedly gonna attack with his supposed WMDs?
And about the Irish thing someone mentioned earlier (Lazs?), and there being 'no big cities in Ireland'. Yeah, cos the Irish were over here in all our big cities my friend ;)
And there was serious miscontent at that time among the Irish immigrants, especially in Glasgow and Liverpool.
@ Eagl: It's a shame this happens with your wife. I would suggest you both move to Scotland - however while I could guarantee a warm welcome and hassle-free stay for your wife, you might get one or two snide comments when someone hears your English accent :p
-
Originally posted by streetstang
Hardly.
And for some reason, judging by the type of person I think eagl is, and lazs as well, would never treat someone the way eagl mentioned his wife being treated.
The thing I find most comical is the simple fact that the brits defend themselves before an attack is ever made, and probably would have never been made in the first place.
This is what lazs said and what prompted my comment:
"It is ingrained in euro trash. I don't think this kind of biggotry will ever go away there. It taints everything they do or say. It is a form of racism where even the "royals" feel that they have to comment and wonder why the lower classes can't just behave as their "station" should dictate. "
Lazs attacked with an all encompassing bigoted remark and then pointed a finger at British bigotry in the next sentance.
I mean, if that isn't irony what the heck is?
It's also quite funny to see them argue two completely different issues and meld them into one. Lazs, who has been to Britain ONCE, is yammering on about Class distinction and eagl is talking about racism. Now, unless university receptionists are classified as "gentry" then how can this be the same issue?
I am horrified by what happened to eagl's wife, but the acts of a few idiots should not taint the whole country and whole population. If it does then THAT is bigotry.
My wife is Vietnamese and was never treated that way in Britain. If we ever go to the US and a few idiots treat her badly due to her race should I paint all Americans in the same light as lazs and eagl have done here? Please let me know so I can act in accordance with your twisted morals.
-
Like GWB before Iraq was supposedly gonna attack with his supposed WMDs?
His WMD's?. Sorry this shall not pass. Every major player involved claimed Iraq had WMD's. A few examples: Russia, France, Great Britain, the U.N.
Attempt to blame Bush for the problem........DENIED
-
attempt to blame bush for disaterous nation building?
accepted.
-
what disaster? Back up your Bs or STFU.
-
you really want me too?
i'll tell you what. you get one more person to second that request and i will. but i warn you. i will.
-
holy broken record hijacks!
Stick with what you know jb and glas... it works for you.
-
Originally posted by JB88
you really want me too?
i'll tell you what. you get one more person to second that request and i will. but i warn you. i will.
I second it. Tell us all the disaster Bush has brought to Iraq.
Man, you are one annoying person.......did you just suddenly decide to post dumb things 5 million times a day in the OC?
-
eagl you distinguish your wife with having an upper middle class east coast accent while lamenting the class system in the UK which seems odd. As for her hatred of England and most of the English she's met, this just might possibly be picked up by receptionists and other service employees, the self-fulfilling prophecy/pygmalion effect in action.
For example, imagine if someone like Lazs had to come to England with his firmly held beliefs that the English are bigotted euro trash racists living in a pissant train wreck of a country ruled by, horror of horrors, women. Admitedly he would probably be a bit nervous without his 6 shooter but do you think he'd be able to hide this contempt for the English? This obvious contempt might lead to unpleasant situations which help reinforce Lazs original beliefs.
Now your wife has first hand experience whereas Lazs gets his info from Soldier of Fortune and Survivalist Weekly but the general ideas the same.
-
airguard... I don't know the laws in your country but some guys I read on a reloading forum live there and they seem to be able to have more exotic guns than I am allowed to have... they are allowed to have silencers for instance. He lives out in the boonies and has a nice range on his property. He also owns a few handguns that I know of including a 44 mag.
lazs
-
chortle... you confuse my disgust with societies and governments with that of how I treat individuals. I don't take my ques from my government or any societies. I treat people as individuals.
They gain my contempt or respect based on being an individual... I have nothing but contempt for governments and for ideal based groups.
lazs
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I second it. Tell us all the disaster Bush has brought to Iraq.
Man, you are one annoying person.......did you just suddenly decide to post dumb things 5 million times a day in the OC?
well nukey, now you know how i feel about your posts. glad we have something in common.
thanks for the second on that motion.
ill get to work on it right away.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Mini D
The 1920 legislation was built attop the "defense of the realm" act. Some might even call that a "patriot bill" of sorts. People like to use fancy terms like that when taking away your rights.
Mini, the Defence of the Realm Act was an Act passed to cope with the new emergency situation of being at war. It was passed at the beginning of WW1 just four days after Britain had declared war on Germany. "The legislation gave the government executive powers to suppress published criticism, imprison without trial and to commandeer economic resources for the war effort."
Better come down from your high horse, Mini. The stance of the US was no different in WW2 with regard to treatment of Japanese Americans - people actually born in the US who were imprisoned in internment camps, often far away from where they had lived. These included the actor, George Takei - famous for his role as Mr. Sulu in the original Star Trek series. His biography on IMDB states His first hand knowledge of the unjust internment of 120,000 Japanese Americans in WW II, poignantly chronicled in his autobiography, created a life-long interest in politics and community affairs. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, George and his family were relocated from Los Angeles to Camp Rowar in Arkansas, and later, as the war was ending they were moved to a camp at Tule Lake in Northern California.
Source: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001786/bio
As for our "rights", we never had any "rights" to possess weapons as you did. It was just that there was a time when no gun control legislation existed because none was needed - just as there was no need for a 30mph speed limit in my town 200 years ago.
I've been looking around at some of the NRA supporter websites lately, and they all seem to follow the same theme: - Look for material in foreign countries - examples of gun control legislation being passed.
- Make it look as if it were forced upon the population, who as "subjects" (as opposed to citizens, though MiniD doesn't know the difference) were powerless to oppose it.
- Make it sound as if the gun control legislation was tantamount to a confiscation, and a prelude to the population being rounded up and exterminated - that will add weight to the cause for keeping guns at home, should the citizens need to rise up against the US government. :lol
- Conveniently overlook the fact that said legislation in said foreign country was passed by a democratically elected government.
- Give consideration to making the lack of any protest look as if it was because the "subjects" were powerless to protest.
- Ignore the real reason for any lack of protest, which is that very few people are interested in guns and therefore most people couldn't give a fork.
- Make it look as if the gun control legislation has not worked, and make it look as if the country with gun control has a bigger problem than the US by drawing ridiculous comparisons such as Myth #3 on this web page - "Nine Myths" of gun control (http://www.2asisters.org/education/ninemyths.htm#*%20Myth%20#3) Nashwan's going to love reading #3 - it's got Lazs's name written all over it! It states: "We have noticed that, if one subtracts the inner city contribution to violence, American homicide rates are lower than in Britain and the other paragons of gun control." :lol
According to the Blackwell Report, 6 police officers died as the result of gunfire in the years 1908-1912. Had the status quo continued, we could have expected about 24 officers to die by gunfire in a 20 year period.
Now compare that to modern times, when we have a much more serious problem with crime - immigration, ethnic unrest, car crime, drugs, lack of discipline in schools... and yet in the 20 calendar years 1984-2003, we lost only two (IIRC) police officers nationwide to gunfire: Yvonne Fletcher (1984), and Ian Broadhurst (2003).
Clearly gun control legislation was needed; clearly it was what most people wanted; clearly it has been successful.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum, mi old nose-sparrow. :aok
Eagl said "The whole country looks at many things completely differently than Americans." Maybe, but at least we can see the door handles! :D Sorry to know that you've had problems in Britain. My ladyfriend Tomato is not British (born in Africa, German nationality) but has no problems at all.
-
Wow beetle... you are simply a ****ing moron. There really isn't any other way to put it.
I say:
The 1920 legislation was built attop the "defense of the realm" act. Some might even call that a "patriot bill" of sorts. People like to use fancy terms like that when taking away your rights.
comparing your defense of the realm act to our patriot act (which you then confirm with your description of it) and you accuse me of being on a high horse? What the **** man? Can't you comprehend that not everything is a competition? You said something stupid and are trying to camoflouge it by saying something even dumber now.
Japanese internment? Are you ****ing serious?
Oh well, the farther this strays from the original point you've still failed to make, the better off you are.
-
MiniD - but I was talking about US citizens! Being carted off to internment camps!! Heck, even our subjects get a better deal than that.
Earlier you stated (incorrectly)You haven't posted a single thing that refutes the quotes Toad posted.
Like I said - get stronger reading glasses. Toad claims that the Firearms Act came as a direct result of the fear of bolshevik uprising, and nothing else. BS I say. The need for firearms legislation was already under discussion as long ago as 1911, and the process was accelerated by the end of WW1 and the threat of a deluge of surplus weapons returning home after the war.
Do me a favour - my knee is getting sore. Bite the other one next time.
-
Once again beetle... you have not refuted it. Every post you have made... every quote you have made... has mentioned union uprisings and foreigners.
THEN it mentions personal safety.
You seem to think it was all about personaly safety, saying that there was no bulshevic concerns. Every quote you've made refutes that stance.
Read what you're posting nimrod. It will go along way towards understanding exactly why you've become laughable on this subject.
japanese internment camps. ROTFLMAO!
-
Lazs, thats fair enough. I can appreciate the distinction.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
holy broken record hijacks!
Stick with what you know jb and glas... it works for you.
Sorry, I should have included a smiley after that sentence, it was meant as a joke. Didnt mean to derail the discussion.
-
Chortle,
I only pointed out my wife's accent to make it clear that she enunciates her words properly, does not make excessive use of slang or "street words", and has a well rounded but non-snobbish vocabulary that does not lead a listener to immediately think she is either uneducated or an elitist snob.
As for receptionist picking up on her distaste for the treatment she gets here, that's a bogus excuse for their poor behavior. I've walked into stores and other places where my wife is practically bubbling with excitement and perfectly happy to discuss whatever needs discussing with whoever works there, and we walk out with her almost in tears from the degrading treatment she gets.
You've seen the scene in "Pretty Woman" where Julia Roberts walks into the upscale clothing store and is pretty much thrown out by the sales ladies... That's mild compared to what she gets and my wife doesn't dress like a hooker either. If I'm with her, she either still gets that treatment or they ignore her and just talk to me even if she's the one who asked the question.
Regarding this being merely a rude American making a snap judgement about another culture, we've been here for more than a year and interacted with hundreds of people, and nearly everyone being paid to provide a service in a service job has done this to my wife. She has met dozens of very friendly people, mainly shop owners, however the average person, clerk, salesperson, whoever behind the desk or counter, has almost universally treated her with contempt. Even a secretary at the office that she is applying through to get her medical credentials recognized in the UK flat out made up some "rules" that would have resulted in an extra several hundred dollar expense and another 4-6 months delay in here credentialling process, and only hunting down a supervisor illuminated the fact that this secretary had lied several times in an attempt to prevent Betty from completing her credentialling process.
At first I thought it was just isolated incidents, but when it repeats day after day after day after day for a whole year, I feel entitled to make a few generalizations about certain people in this part of the world.
In their defense, England is facing a huge immigration problem along with increasingly poorly behaved roving populations, so it's not suprising that anyone "different" is treated badly. It is not uncommon around here for 50+ caravans to pull into a village or town and set up their own little mini township. The local laws are completely insufficient to prevent entire villages being trashed by these wandering groups so the little towns have no choice but to suffer through the occupation until the group packs up and leaves, then clean up the horrific mess left behind. Add on a massive immigration wave following full EU integration, and you have a situation tailor-made for ethnic friction. Add on what seems to be a common British disdain for people in the lower social classes, and it becomes a very unfriendly place for anyone who isn't obviously from around here.
Regardless of the reasons why, it sucks being on the receiving end of this crap. We mostly sorted out this sort of thing in the US back in the 50s and 60s and while there are still areas of outright racism and discrimination in the US, I hadn't seen anything this consistently bad except in movies back home.
And Betty doesn't hate everyone here, she just hates everyone who treats her like this. It just happens that almost everyone she's interacted with here has acted the same way. I didn't believe it either until I saw it happen over and over and over and over and over...
-
Originally posted by Mini D
ROTFLMAO!
-that would depend on a sense of humour - something I don't think you have.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Regardless of the reasons why, it sucks being on the receiving end of this crap. We mostly sorted out this sort of thing in the US back in the 50s and 60s and while there are still areas of outright racism and discrimination in the US, I hadn't seen anything this consistently bad except in movies back home.
And Betty doesn't hate everyone here, she just hates everyone who treats her like this. It just happens that almost everyone she's interacted with here has acted the same way. I didn't believe it either until I saw it happen over and over and over and over and over...
eagl, I was a bit strong in my response due to the nature of the post I was replying to.
What is happening to your wife is not acceptable at all and I feel badly for her. I'm at a loss to explain it. My wife, and some of her relatives experinced small amounts of it here on this little "disney world" (to use a lazsism). Nothing like what Betty seems to be facing though.
My point is that what you are talking about is racism. What lazs is talking about is class difference and institutional elitism.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
-that would depend on a sense of humour - something I don't think you have.
:rolleyes:
Did you tell a joke that I missed, or are you just upset that I'm laughing at you?
I don't think "sense of humor" means what you think it means.
-
Originally posted by eagl
The local laws are completely insufficient to prevent entire villages being trashed by these wandering groups so the little towns have no choice but to suffer through the occupation until the group packs up and leaves, then clean up the horrific mess left behind. Add on a massive immigration wave following full EU integration, and you have a situation tailor-made for ethnic friction. Add on what seems to be a common British disdain for people in the lower social classes, and it becomes a very unfriendly place for anyone who isn't obviously from around here.
Imagine if a pool of guns was added to that ethnic friction problem. :eek:
Those "travellers encampments" are not new problems. There was one notorious one on the Marlow bypass (road between my home and where Mechanic/Batfink lives) for years in the 70s/80s. Then there was one on Enstone Airfield where I used to fly from - right next door to USAF Upper Heyford where some AH guys have served. In both cases, the travellers were moved on by an army of police. In cases like that it's usually peaceful. The problem with a lot of them is all their dogs and kids - neither species is subject to any birth control. And their vehicles in almost all cases are not fit to be on our roads, and it's doubtful that any of them have driving licences.
What are you actually doing over here, Eagl? We could have included you in the UK meets if we'd known. Perhaps we should schedule a Duxford do. I had a neighbour called Pauline who was Malaysian, but she seemed well integrated with the UK pop. I was always confident introducing her to friends and there were no problems... I might email her to find out her take on the problems you've been having.
MiniD - OK, OK - I think we're even on insults for now. :aok I'd add you to my ignore list, but I always enjoyed reading your posts about gameplay issues, and your arguments with Toad before you became joined at the hip.
Lazs - I think you should be allowed to have as many guns as you want, and any kind you want. But they should be confiscated from everyone else on your block! ;)
Going back to my original topic in this thread, one of my local towns - Maidenhead - has a policy of putting crime fighting wardens on the streets. It's working, with burglaries down by 75% in some areas, car crime down too. Now if only we could add tougher sentencing as a deterrent for those who slip through the net, we'd be in good shape.
I wouldn't want to shoot/kill a burglar, even if I could - and I could get a shotgun if I wanted. But many of those burglaries are just local kids, stealing stuff to sell to buy drugs. A taser would be nice, but if a taser was available to me, it would be available to the burglar - increasing the chances of being zapped myself. :mad:
-
Beet1e,
I'm here on a 3 year assignment at RAF Lakenheath flying the F-15E. Except that I'm not currently flying due to a medical issue that I'm trying to resolve. But that's what I'm doing here and why I can't just pack up and go.
In the past in the US, travellers were "encouraged" to leave when they overstayed their welcome. Guns helped the more obnoxious ones make up their minds to leave, that's all. If they insisted on staying and got shot for being a^&holes, it made everyone else behave more politely.
It's reasonably well documented that people were simply more polite and civil to each other in small towns back when being intolerably rude would result in either having your neck stretched or getting shot. Limiting firearms reduced deaths in the a%&hole population but pretty much made everyone hateful and suspicious because there were no consequences for being rude.
I'm not saying we need a return to the wild west, but...
On one of my cable channels last week I saw one of those cop shows, and they videotaped some guy beating the living crap out of another guy. The victim ended up in the hospital for 3 weeks due to the severe head trauma. The attacker was released and later fined 60 pounds in spite of all the witnesses and evidence of the quite severe assault.
THAT is what is the most f**ked up about England. You can nearly kill someone and get fined 60 pounds, but if you kill an armed intruder in your own house you go to jail as a murderer. It's no wonder why many Americans are completely unable to understand the people here, because the social and legal structures encourage poor behavior.
In another thread I already mentioned the pseudo-scandal about the lady left lying in the road for hours after being hit by a bus, with nobody stopping to help. The media tried to cover it as a big story, but nobody gave a crap so the story abruptly vanished from the news even though they hadn't yet exhausted their supply of witnesses and videotape of the hit and run and the people just ignoring this lady lying in the street. Nobody cares here, and people who do care (Americans) are looked down upon for being overly emotional.
At the last D-Day memorial services, an American General got a bit choked up during his speech, and a couple of British military members commented that such things don't hit them the same way emotionally and they'd never dare actually show any emotion, and seeing such a strong American leader get emotional explained "almost everything" about our culture. Watching the video of dozens of irate Brits driving around the lady who dared impose herself on them by lying injured in the street sure did a lot of explaining to me, and the fact that nobody cared much about the story said even more. Stopping to help that lady (or my friend who flipped his car, or...) would have been a sign of WEAKNESS and EMOTION, and they won't have any of that around here.
I'm done griping for now I think... There are a lot of nice brits (Beet1e for one) that aren't like that and the country is beautiful, but it's too easy to start listing incident after incident so I'm done. Sorry about making you guys read my sob story.
-
In October, 1987 The Florida Legislature passed an unprecendented law allowing any citizen who was not a convicted felon or mentally ill to obtain a concealled weapons permit. The liberals in the state (which own the media) printed reams of rubbish agonizing over the perceived folly on the part of the law makers etc ad nauseum. The end result has been that we are indeed a much politer society here in Florida and street crime has been greatly reduced.
virtually gone are;
traffic rage fisticuffs
neighborly disputes resulting in fistfights
hot home invasions
parking lot abuctions
strong armed robberies at ATMs
car jackings
The situation has been further improved since 1997 when legislators implemented new laws exacting tough manditory sentencing of felons convicted of using firearms during the commissioning of a felony.
if a felon has a firearm in his possession or if a firearm is discovered in the immediate area of where the felon was apprehended but said firearmed was not brandished results in a mandatory 5 year sentence which must be served out.
if the firearm is even seen by a witness, 10 years.
if the firearm is discharged during the commission of a felony, 15 years.
if anyone is injured by the firearm, 25 years.
if a death results, mandatory life without possibilty of parole.
What the legislature here has done is effectively disarmed the criminal element while allowing the law abiding citizen to maintain his right of self preservation.
Here's what I see in the streets. I provide access controls and perimeter security to both commerce and residences. The nature of my business routinely places me in some of the most crime ridden neighborhoods in Miami and Ft. Lauderdale. The nature of street crime has changed and in my opinion for the better. Last week we were commissioned to fabricate and install some doors that would be tamper/damage resistant for the electrical rooms of a large apartment complex. The residents of this particular complex are largely street thugs and crack cocaine peddlers. Prior to 1987 that was a gamey assignment and we usually required the apartment complex to provide armed security for our trucks/tools. Today we just go about our business and that element does not acknowledge our presence but they give wide berth to our crew and equipment. They know they stand to lose greatly in the event of the slightest altercation.
Here in my state the criminal has to be very very careful, as it should be.
-
curval... I never said racism... I said biggotry. I am a simple guy... if you are discriminating against someone it is biggotry. Class or clothing or whatever.. and as eagle says... almost killing or killing someone is the same to me no matter what the weapon... a criminal should get a worse sentance for it than a person defending himself or his property.
beet.... I want the criminals to know that every law abiding house on my street is armed to the teeth.
lazs
-
On one of my cable channels last week I saw one of those cop shows, and they videotaped some guy beating the living crap out of another guy. The victim ended up in the hospital for 3 weeks due to the severe head trauma. The attacker was released and later fined 60 pounds in spite of all the witnesses and evidence of the quite severe assault.
Eagl, I suspect this sis one of those cases, like taps/faucets, where you are simply wrong about Britain.
There are various degrees of assault of in Britain.
Common assault is the least serious, where no proper injury is caused. It usually isn't prosecuted, although is in some cases. The definition of common assault is where injury is no more severe than "minor bruising" or a black eye.
Actual bodily harm is an assault that causes minor injury, like more severe bruising, broken nose, broken tooth, needs stitches etc.
Grievous bodily harm covers more serious assaults, with injuries like broken limbs, permament scarring and in particular "injuries resulting in lengthy treatment or incapacity" (from the crown prosecution definitions)
There is a more serious version, GBH with intent, where it can be shown that the person intended to cause such wounds.
Severe head trauma, resulting in 3 weeks in hospital, clearly comes under the definition of GBH.
The most recent figures I have, for 2002, show that 61% of those convicted or pleading guilty for GBH recieved an immediate prison sentence (ie not suspended), the average being 27.7 months in prison.
If the person you saw recieved only a £60 fine, either he was convicted of a much lesser charge or there were very special circumstances involved.
If the injuries were as severe as you describe (and I wouldn't trust the media to report it accurately), then either the court decided the defendent didn't inflict them, or he got off on a technicality.
Either way, the normal sentence for the crime you describe is a couple of years in prison.
THAT is what is the most f**ked up about England. You can nearly kill someone and get fined 60 pounds, but if you kill an armed intruder in your own house you go to jail as a murderer.
Care to name a case?
If you kill an armed intruder in your house, you only have to plead self defence.
In the last 15 years, there have been 11 prosecutions for people who attacked intruders. I can name a few.
Tony Martin. Shot dead an unarmed youth as he ran away, after previously announcing his intention of killing the next person who tried to rob him. Had a history of firearms offences, including shooting at a man he caught stealing apples from a tree.
Carl Lindsay. Drug dealer selling drugs from his flat. 4 customers tried to rob him with an imitation gun, he chased them outside and stabbed one of them repeatedly in the back with a samurai sword as he ran away (outside his house).
Barry-Lee Hastings. Stabbed an unarmed burgular 12 times in the back, including several times when the burgular was lying face down in the garden outside.
Steven Parkin. Confronted 3 men who were trying to steal a vehicle from his demolition business in the night. All 3 ran, Parkin attacked one with a pickaxe handle, then stabbed him in the back of the knee, causing massive loss of blood. The burgular died, the case against Parkin was thrown out on the directions of the judge.
Brett Osborn. Stabbed an unarmed burgular 5 times in the back. Both Osborn and the burgular were high on crack at the time, and Osborn was also sentenced to 2.5 years for benefit fraud. Osborn pleaded guilty to manslaughter. (from what I've seen of the case, he should have gone to a jury, who would have aquitted him on the grounds of self defence)
That's almost half the people who have been prosecuted for tackling intruders in the last 15 years. In one of the cases the intruder had an imitation firearm, but the "victim" was a drug dealer engaged in selling drugs at the time, who chased and stabbed the man. In the other cases, the intruder was unarmed.
I can, if you like, give you several cases where an armed intruder was killed by a homeowner who was not prosecuted.
Eagl, I'm sorry to say, but after reading your postings on AGW as well, I have to think there's something in your attitude when approaching people.
For example:
I've found that regular people in the UK are nice but service employees are collectively the biggest group of jerkwads I've ever come across. Every single one I've met in the last 3 weeks has a compulsion to prove themselves superior to mere "colonials". Both my wife and I have been systematically lied to, called liars, ignored, insulted, and been told in no uncertain terms that we have no business being here and any preferences we may have regarding services we are using/purchasing do not matter because we don't own anything here.
Requests for actual customer service are met with a supercilious smile and then ignored or refused.
I like lots of stuff in the UK and I have met some really nice people here, but it took me less than 2 weeks to realize why my ancestors left here and never came back. The country is run by a bunch of sheep, with the heirarchy being determined by how much money you have or how you were born. Holding your place in society is measured by how much of a salamander each particular sheep is, and they gain status by showing people like me how worthless we are. It's both sad and disgusting.
I'm determined to leave as little money in this country as possible by doing everything possible to buy only from on-base stores and mail order, but it's clear that even "voting with your wallet" doesn't work here because a lower-status person isn't worth pursuing as a customer because having someone like me as a customer actually decreases the status of a company. That's fine with me, and I'll leave here knowing that the world will march on leaving the stuck-up salamanders here in the dark ages where they belong. I have a new mission in life - to get at least 1 jerkwad brit fired from an on-base job per year while I'm here. I don't have the option to leave so if they're not going to do the job that my govt is paying them to do, they can get the hell out. The whole base knows the service here sucks and our leadership has several programs in place to address the problem, so maybe we can get some people in here who aren't above providing service to lowly Americans.
LTjgmn, an American who visits Britain quite frequently, posted this:
I don't quibble with your experiences, eagl. But you have turned a tongue-in-cheek post about the good and bad things in Britain into a crusade against them, and I would just like you to remember that Brits DO read this forum, and are only going to see another Ugly American. If you feel so strongly about your treatment there, why not write the same article in the local newspaper? Post it on the library bulletin board?
And Eagl's response:
So, let me get this straight...
To complain about being treated in a very bad fashion is to be an "ugly american"?
To say that a service employee who does not provide service, and in fact actively places barriers against achieving official business should be fired is being an "ugly american"?
Saying that incompetent and rude service employees ought to do their jobs or be fired is being an "ugly american"?
Saying that blantantly sexist behavior in a customer service job is not acceptable is being an "ugly american"?
If that's your standard, then piss off, you're one of the "bad ones" and your attitude is exactly what has made my short stay here a living hell. I have not asked for a single thing other than a few people do the job they're paid to do, yet in your mind that brands me as an ugly american.
It's not a crusade against brits. You're trying to make excuses for a bunch of lousy people with lousy attitudes and lousy behavior. Get off of your high moral stepstool and re-read what I wrote before placing yourself in the same corner as the rude people who have been intentionally making moving to a new country a living hell for literally thousands of US servicemen, women, and their spouses.
http://agw.bombs-away.net/showthread.php?t=28931&highlight=hate+britain
Eagl, with every post, you seem to me to have a chip on your shoulder, and I think that's coming across in the way you are being treated in the shops here.
-
I think it is the weather there.
lazs
-
Piss off nashwan. This is a good place to vent that's all.
You're blaming the victim. I liked this place at first sight until my wife started being treated poorly. We had looked forward to living here for a year.
But of course your mind is made up, so f*&k off.
-
Now now, Nashwan - you know how upset some guys get on this board when confronted with the facts!
-
Originally posted by eagl
Piss off nashwan. This is a good place to vent that's all.
You're blaming the victim. I liked this place at first sight until my wife started being treated poorly. We had looked forward to living here for a year.
But of course your mind is made up, so f*&k off.
no offense intended but when folks with your attitude show up at my shop to commission work the price is doubled and even then they are usually more trouble than they're worth.
is that the gay pride avatar?
-
Eagl - just a question - how often do you and your wife set foot off that base?
-
Beet1e,
We live in Cambridge so we don't spend much time ON base. Just work for me and trips to the commissary/BX a couple times a week, an occasional trip to the crafts center or movie theater, but otherwise we're out and about.
You're right storch, when we walk into the library, smile at the lady behind the desk, and ask where the map section is (it was not labeled on the library layout), it's obvious we're just looking for trouble and deserve to have the clerk look at Betty, sniff loudly, and walk away without responding.
No offense, but you sound like the kind of shopkeeper that makes customers leave pissed and come back at midnight to toss bricks through your storefront.
And the avatar is a little joke, poking a teeny tiny bit of fun at people who take their avatars very seriously. It's not representative of anything except it was the funniest thing I saw on the intardnet in the month of November.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Beet1e,
We live in Cambridge so we don't spend much time ON base. Just work for me and trips to the commissary/BX a couple times a week, an occasional trip to the crafts center or movie theater, but otherwise we're out and about.
You're right storch, when we walk into the library, smile at the lady behind the desk, and ask where the map section is (it was not labeled on the library layout), it's obvious we're just looking for trouble and deserve to have the clerk look at Betty, sniff loudly, and walk away without responding.
No offense, but you sound like the kind of shopkeeper that makes customers leave pissed and come back at midnight to toss bricks through your storefront.
And the avatar is a little joke, poking a teeny tiny bit of fun at people who take their avatars very seriously. It's not representative of anything except it was the funniest thing I saw on the intardnet in the month of November.
forgive me I can't imagine what you have described occurring, my experiences in england were very different. I found most folks to be very affable. I really enjoyed the pubs and the discussions therein. I found that A. people in England generally support Fidel Castro. B. Found it interesting that I would swap Cuba for the U.S. C. were impressed that I spoke english (or any other language) well. D. they give as well as they got in barbs and jibes but were generally good natured amonst each other as well as with me. I think I probably missed alot due to the language barrier. :D would you really throw a brick through my masonry walls when no one was looking? That seems so out of character!!!
The avatar is funny, I don't know if spidey is performing a kata in some obscure semi gay martial arts style or if he is trying to impress andrew lloyd webber.
Lighten up on the pommies. 10 centuries of inbreeding has to have it's negative effects. Plus look at what they eat. show some sympathy man, where's your humanity? :D
-
brits would rather live in cuba than the U.S.?
lazs
-
LOL!
This is funny Eagl, people have come back at you with "that couldn't have possibly happened" to "you probably deserved it." You've even received a "when people like you..." comment.
The fact that bigotry is excused as most likely being deserved (even though they weren't there) is pretty damn funny and a bit telling.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
brits would rather live in cuba than the U.S.?
lazs
my last time in england was in the mid '80s. I don't think anyone said that however some did seem to think that perhaps living in Cuba should be preferrable to living in the US for a Cuban. Brits are a funny lot, who can figure them out? :D
-
I think Beet1e is just trolling and all you guys are taking the bait ;)
What else could be a more reasonable explanation for him completely ignoring things that prove him wrong and posting things that prove the opposition right?
-
MiniD
I was thinking the same thing. It's tough to understand things like this when it's never been personally experienced.
When I'm out alone, I usually get treated more like anyone else and I've even picked up a tiny bit of a pseudo-British accent that when combined with using more typical British vocabulary, is enough for people to ask me what part of the UK I'm from. I don't do that to gain advantage or make fun of anyone, but I've been taught ever since my Academy days that making a little effort to fit in is usually appreciated, so using British terms instead of US equivalents is something I've consciously tried to do. I hope it makes it easier for people in England to understand what I'm talking about, and it avoids embarassments like going into a restaurant and asking for a napkin for my wife :)
Plus in some parts of Europe, passing for British is a bit safer than being recognized as American. It's tougher and I'm not having much success, but I'm even trying to buy more British-looking clothing. Being a total styling idiot to begin with though, I'm probably making it worse.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I think Beet1e is just trolling and all you guys are taking the bait ;)
What else could be a more reasonable explanation for him completely ignoring things that prove him wrong and posting things that prove the opposition right?
I think we may be missing another possibilty. Beet1e confirms the veracity of the "uncle dad" concept. he's living proof that it's no urban legend. :D
-
storch - LOL! Not sure what that means, but it looks funny. :D
eagl - I see from AGW that wipass has invited you over. I've known wip for many years and have met him in person many times. You should take up his kind offer.
Also, I expect to be in Cambridge later this month or into next month. One of Tomato's sons is attending Cambridge University, and we'll be paying him a visit. May be able to squeeze in a social visit with you. I'll bring some door handles with me. :D;)
-
Ok :)
I'm a bit of a hermit sometimes but I'm sure I'll try to get around to more visiting when it warms up around here. I need to give wipass a call for sure.