Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on September 20, 2005, 03:56:13 PM
-
The news article tells how this woman survived an attack.
http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050916/APN/509160943
Worlds MOST VIOLENT country according to a U.N. report.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1786945,00.html
interesting. and seems to go along with what some, including myself, that post on this BBS believe.
I'm sure some will have a statement claiming otherwise but if the shoe fits?????
-
Three cheers for the woman that took her own protection seriously and got the job done. One less wacko to to cause other women problems.
As far the other story...surely the figures must be wrong. I mean, we have been told here on the BBS repeatedly that there was no violent crime to speak of in the places mentioned and absolutely no need for self or home protection. :)
-
According to the way they sampled the data the studies was made by some clowns.
As it was UN clown I must say it was certainly very expensives clowns !
-
Thanks for the link. They were talking about this on the radio this morning and I've been looking for a copy of the story all day.
Of course, in typical form their first thought for a solution? Ban alcohol and knives. lol
-
"...limiting the sale of knives would at least reduce the problem."
Bwahahahahahaha! :rofl
-
Detective Chief Superintendent John Carnochan, head of the Strathclyde Police’s violence reduction unit, said the problem was chronic and restricting access to drink and limiting the sale of knives would at least reduce the problem.
We must Ban the Butterknife FOREVAR in the UK.
... and cut off their booze as well.
After all, if only one life is saved, it will be well worth it.
It's clear people dying or being seriously injured affects the rest of the UK population.
Avoidable knife/alcohol injuries put extra strain on our National Health Service. The presence of someone injured in a drunken Scottish brawl, in an NHS hospital, means that someone else somewhere down the line is not able to get treatment.
And if the person is killed, his life assurance has to pay out - a payment of many thousands of £/$/whatever. That means that they have to recover that cost - by higher premiums for everyone else.
Thus we are affected by the negligence of those who irresponsibly wield butterknives or drink themselves into a bread knife wielding rage.
Why should UK citizens have to pay higher life assurance premiums to guard against the life assurance company having to make a large payout on a death that could have been avoided?
Why should someone be denied hospital treatment because the last bed was taken by someone slashed with a steak knife in a Scottish pub?
That's why we have the The Criminal Justice Act of 1988. I don't get this "freedom" thing. How does owning a butterknife or a steak knife seatbelt create more freedom? Either way, you have responsibilities to yourself and other knife or pub users. What can you do with a butterknife that you can't do with your fingers?
What we need are more laws to control sharp objects. These laws would make perfect sense.
Licensing the sale of non-domestic knives
Banning the purchase of non-domestic knives except from licensed sellers
Licensing the sale of swords, with an additional condition that retailers could only sell swords to members of approved organisations
A blanket ban on all swords with potential exceptions in the case of swords used for ceremonial, religious, sporting or cultural purposes.
Banning the sale of samurai swords
Licensing the purchase of swords on an individual basis
-
Dammit Toad. You beat me to it. :)
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
"...limiting the sale of knives would at least reduce the problem."
Bwahahahahahaha! :rofl
watch it. Cricket bats may be next LOL
Then Pens and Pencils.
Personally I'd rather be stabbed by a knife then a pencil
-
Wht not just make it illegal to attack someone? Wouldn't that solve the problem?
-
Originally posted by VOR
Wht not just make it illegal to attack someone? Wouldn't that solve the problem?
Stop trying to be logical. What is needed here is some "feel good" legislation to ban something material and physical, something so they can put pictures up of the offending objects and focus the public on something besides the crappy job the people in charge do of preventing crime.
-
The second article makes sense. Alcohol is a major contributor to voilent behavior and any country named after a type of whiskey must have a problem in that regard,
-
BAN THE CRICKET BATS!!!! :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Karaya
-
I don't see how, like a seatbelt law... taking away the privildge of drinking or the privilidge the government gives you to carry a knife can be considered to infringe on your freedom..
I don't drink anyway... I mean... the savings in health insurance and medical bills will run into the bazillions... everyones rates will plummet.
but.. even if they left it alone... so what? sure it is a teensy bit humiliating and life threatening to be at the mercy of any thug or group of thugs that comes along and so what if it get's worse every day?
What is the alternative? let people carry guns? and have shootouts at every fender bender like in America in all the concealled carry states? Sure.... crime goes down and self esteem goes up but at what cost? Criminals are people too you know!
the UN is pushing gun control on a world scale.... you will be seeing a lot more of these articles... there can be no one world, powerful socialist government so long as the little pissant people are armed.
lazs
-
It's a culture thing.
The study, by the UN’s crime research institute, found that 3 per cent of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2 per cent in America and just 0.1 per cent in Japan, 0.2 per cent in Italy and 0.8 per cent in Austria. In England and Wales the figure was 2.8 per cent.
-
Culture thing eh? Are you saying the Brits and Scots and Welsh are inherently more violent than Americans?
Well, no wonder they had to take their guns away.
:D
-
No.... they took their guns away because they could.
There is no such thing today as a government that doesn't fear it's citizens and want to disarm em.. england is just ahead of us in this one... they have conditioned their citizens to blindly accept any loss of freedom just a little sooner than us is all.
A very good book is "the best defense" It is true stories of people who defended their lives or those of others with firearms.
lazs
-
Are you saying the Brits and Scots and Welsh are inherently more violent than Americans?
Probably not, but criminals in Britain don't get sentenced to anywhere near as long terms as in America, leaving them free to commit more crimes.
In the US at any one time, 701 people per 100,000 population are in prison.
In the UK it's 141 per 100,000.
What's also interesting is that the Scots feel they are amongst the safest, 80% reporting they felt safe outside alone after dark, second only to Sweden at 82%
And whilst violence is more common in Scotland, murder is much more rare.
The homicide rate per 100,000 people in Scotland is 2.1, in the US it's 5.5
So, you are more likely to be attacked in Scotland, but more likely to be killed in the US. I wonder why that is? Couldn't have anything to do with the availabilty of the favoured tool for killing people, could it?
(And the murder rate in Scotland includes negligent manslaughter, the US figures exclude it, so the Scottish murder rate is actually lower in comparison than the figures show)
(And one more for Lazs. The Scottish murder rate is higher than the rate for England and Wales, despite the fact very few ethnic minorities live in Scotland compared to England and Wales)
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Culture thing eh? Are you saying the Brits and Scots and Welsh are inherently more violent than Americans?
Well, no wonder they had to take their guns away.
:D
Guns really don't have anything to do with it.
Look at Japan. Private ownership of guns? Yet they have Samarai swords and knives.
Had they had gun ownership laws like here in the US, they'd still be at 0.1 %.
We'd be the same 1.2% here in America even if guns were illegal.
Violence is a trait inherent in its people, not because some of them have more knives, guns, bats, etc. they are who they are regardless of the weapons available to them.
It is silly for a brit or any other nonamerican that doesn't live in America to preach to Americans about what our gun ownership laws should be.
....just as it is silly for us Americans preaching what gun control laws the English should have.
This whole constant bickering of what the otherside should have is kind of stupid.
-
so nashwan... you are saying that the sentances for crime in england are lower (that the criminals spend less time) ?
How could they be lower than some of our out in one year manslauter or burglary sentances?
No... what you are really proving is that in the U.S. we are better at catching criminals because we have more of em... they fall into our lap... not all criminals are violent either... few are comparitively.
as for your ridiculous race card arguement... comparing the amount of minorities in a country with 3% to one that is lower yet is not really worth doing... 3% is insignificant.... any lower number is no less insignificant.... when you get up to about 20% or so then you can compare with those who have 1% or so.
The fact is that we have a large criminal society composed of a very high percentage of minorities. In this country and situation.... people who are armed prevent such criminals from commiting crimes a couple of million times a year.
For anyone who has stopped a violent attack by using a firearm.... no arguement for gun control can ever be taken seriously.
In the U.S. you are more likely to be murdered than in england but... that is still allmost a negligible number... like getting hit by a meteorite.... on the other hand... in both england and the U.S. you are much more likely to be mugged or assaulted (not knowing how it will turn out) .... I want to face the bad buy with better training and a better weapon.
lazs
-
Gary Baker... A jewelry store owner who, with his employees help.... killed two long time mad dog killers and robbers in his store said...
"And why shouldn't we be armed? Why should we fear the armed thug? They have failed at everything they have tried... job, home and life.. Why should not us people who have been successful in life be better at defending than they are at making us victims? We have the choice of weapons while they have only what they can steal... we can practice and train while they hide and do nothing.. We have been succesful in the things we want while they have not."
That was a paraphrase but the meaning is intact... He is correct. We only have to fear these predetors when our government disarms us and makes us sheep.... Citizens with guns are the defense... not cops taking reports or coroners taking away the bodies.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
How could they be lower than some of our out in one year manslauter or burglary sentances?
I bet I'd need to make 5 burglaries to do any time at all, I'm guessing it's about the same in the UK.
-
Originally posted by mora
I bet I'd need to make 5 burglaries to do any time at all, I'm guessing it's about the same in the UK.
What would be a normal response to a first or second time offender? Some type of parole?
-
so nashwan... you are saying that the sentances for crime in england are lower (that the criminals spend less time) ?
Yes. A lot lower.
See for example his page from the US department of justice, comparing sentences for some offences between the US and E&W:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/isl.htm
How could they be lower than some of our out in one year manslauter or burglary sentances?
They could be community service orders.
They could even be police cautions, which is where you admit guilt, the police read out a formal caution, which is held on record for a few years. No real punishment involved. (not for manslaughter, of course, but for burglary)
In E&W in 2005, 25,360 were sentenced for burglary. (this doesn't include those who got cautions etc).
Of those, 11,820 got custodial sentences, of an average 17 months. (There is automatic remission of sentence, and offenders typically serve 1/3 - 1/2 their sentence. So of those sent to prison, the average time spent inside is about 6 - 8 months.
Cautions for burglary account for only 6% of adults proceeded against, but 45% of those under 18 (ie for those under 18, 45% get only a caution for burglary, 55% go to court)
No... what you are really proving is that in the U.S. we are better at catching criminals because we have more of em.
No, the sentences in the UK, when caught, are lower than in the US. That's irrespective of clear up rates.
as for your ridiculous race card arguement... comparing the amount of minorities in a country with 3% to one that is lower yet is not really worth doing... 3% is insignificant.... any lower number is no less insignificant....
Where's 3%? England and Wales have a much higher proportion than that, from memory it was about 9% at the 2001 census, which ignores the illegal immigrants and the huge numbers allowed in since then (the government, frightened by the bad publicity about asylum seekers, decided the way to get lower numbers of asylum seekers was to allow them in without waiting for them to claim asylum)
The government itself estimates that, as of 2001, there were about 500,000 illegal immigrants working in the UK, and that doesn't include asylum seekers, or dependents of those working here.
Id be very suprised if the total figure wasn't around 12 - 14% at the moment.
In the U.S. you are more likely to be murdered than in england but... that is still allmost a negligible number..
Negligible? It's equivalent to about 5 9/11 attacks a year, every year. In fact, since the 3,000 people were murdered on 9/11, about 65,000 Americans have been murdered by other Americans.
in both england and the U.S. you are much more likely to be mugged or assaulted (not knowing how it will turn out) .... I want to face the bad buy with better training and a better weapon.
i'd rather face the bad guy who hasn't got a gun.
The thing is, life isn't a John Wayne movie. The good guy doesn't always win. The criminal not only has the advantage of suprise in most cases, he's also better prepared to use his weapon, because he knows you're the target, but you don't know he's the threat until he instigates the encounter.
That's borne out by the stats, too. Less than 300 people killed criminals in self defence, criminals killed over 15,000 people during commision of their crimes.
I bet I'd need to make 5 burglaries to do any time at all, I'm guessing it's about the same in the UK.
I don't think it's quite that bad. First offence, extremely unlikely to get prison. Third offence, probably get prison, but not for long.
The government brought in a "mandatory" 3 year sentence for a burular convicted for a third time. I's supposed to be mndatory, but judges have discresion not to apply it if there are exceptional circumstanes. In the first 3 years, less than 15 3 year sentences were handed out.
What would be a normal response to a first or second time offender? Some type of parole?
Community service order. Spend about 180 hours doing some work in th community and being told how to reform. (The highest judge in the UK issued sentencing guidelins a few years ago saying first time burglary offenders should not be sent to prison)
-
Ban teh Assault Knives!!!
-
nashwan... so I guess you are correct... you have a system that releases violent criminals to prey on the population again and again... I still say we are too lenient but you are.... like in so many things.... insane in your laws. I don't know if you are bragging or complaining.... I certainly wouldn't trust a government that allowed these predetors out to make my decisions on how I was to defend against them! Oh... and you guys catch a lot fewer crooks too don't ya?
Last I heard the population of minorities in england was 3% even if it is 9% like you say... that is negligible compared to the U.S. and... you are not seriously wanting to comapare the amount of illegals in both countries are you?
You calim that you would rather not be attacked by a criminal with a gun... that is fine... me either but... what you leave out of that statement is that in order for there to be a chance of that you are willing to disarm yourself... you are willing to meet whatever he comes at you with... with your bare hands....I don't even know you but I bet me and one other guy on here could kill you with our bare hands in about 20 seconds.... I know I could kill your mom or sister or wife or son or daughter in that time.
You act like the U.S. is some tiny little island like england... we have allmost 300 million people (that will admit it) and still.... you have to be one of a couple of people in 100,000 in order to be murdered... and.... if you don't live in the **** holes of cities that don't allow firearms.... you are even less likely than that to be murdered....
The real best situation is for violent criminals to be forbiden guns and the citizens to be armed... it is best if the bad guys die at the citizens hands and don't see prison again. Next best is to put them away for a long time.
Your crime continues to rise... you never really had a murder problem... guns or no guns... nothing has changed there... what has changed is that your people are more and more at the mercy of thugs that are stronger than them... you have removed your ability to defend yourself and offered no alternative. Not to mention choice and rights...
Our crime is going down... where citizens carry guns it goes down even more... where citizens are unarmed it goes up.
I would really like you to convince that woman in the story that because the man who attacked her had no gun... she was safe.... because we have police... she was safe... because she had a phone... she was safe... convince her that she is a murderer because she killed a man needlessly with a firearm that she had no right to have.... convince her of that stuff... not us here...
Throw some stats at her.
lazs
-
I think the real difference is that nashwan believes that any amount of violent attacks on innocent people is fine so long as only a few of em end up dead... or at least..
He thinks it beats citizens being able to defend yourself with a weapon that is effective if that means that those weapons will be out and murderers will use them instead of something else.
He shows no improvement in murder rate in england when citizens are diarmed but instead.... an increase in assaults and burglaries...
In fact... no country has ever shown that gun control is effective in lowering crime much less murders..
In the U.S.. by contrast... the places with the most gun control are the most dangerous and the places with the least gun control are the safest.
Go figure.
But... all that asside.. the fundamental issue is.... no matter what... Do you think it is your right to defend yourself from attack by those who would do you harm?
If so... how would you do so? If you are one... even young and strong with a cricket paddle back home under the bed... how do you defend against many? how does your dad or mom or sister or the poor sickly guy down the road? Hell with em eh? It's a tough world and they can just suffer? What rights do they have in england? the right to hide?
lazs
-
You got to be sure to remember to remind the attackers at the VERY beginning of the attack...."Ummmmm.......You do remember you are not allowed to use a gun, right?"......"OK, go ahead with your attack now. I just wanted to get that straight." :)
-
In the U.S. the vast majority of the over 2 million cases a YEAR where citizens defend themselves or others with firearms... the attacker is not armed and/or is frieghtened away by the firearm without a shot being fired...
If only one percent of those cases ended in a death of an innocent because they didn't have a firearm..... 20,000 deaths more a year at the hands of psycopaths.
most of you/us carry a cell phone around with us every waking moment of our lives... "in case of an emergency" is why you couldn't be banned from carrying it... The odds are that you will never have an emergency in your lifetime that you could not have dealt with without a cell phone.
It is no differnent with a firearm... you may never need it... you hope you don't but... if you do... nothing else will do. And... an armed society is a polite one... by carrying a gun you are protecting the othe 80-90% that probly wouldn't...
That is changing tho... guns are smaller and lighter and easier to carry... they can weigh as little as 8 oz.
none of these firearms inovations were of course.... made in england.
lazs
lazs