Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on November 26, 2005, 09:26:09 AM
-
How could this possibly happen where guns are outlawed?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1890902,00.html
-
thats pretty poor and disrespectful bait rip. very low.
its like saying how do people in the USA get drugs when drugs are outlawed.
The wife and mother of five you used in your bait: -
http://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/section-item.asp?sid=12&iid=2029
-
criminals will simply not obey the law.
If the laws have heavy enough penalties and are fair... they will obey them slightly more tho. An armed society makes criminals modify their behavior.
So far as guns go... I believe as our founders did that guns keep free men free. Times change but people and criminals and tyrants really don't. It is prudent to have the tools to defend against them.
I believe that england is in for some real problems with more and more criminals and poor illegals and drugs to prey on a defenseless populace. That is what you are really... defenseless. You are lucky that you are a little tiny island but it seems that you are getting some implossion... home grown criminals with no fear of unarmed citizen victims.
While I feel bad for the woman officer killed... I see it as a beggining.. you can't make it more illegal to have guns or to kill people... you have allready gone as far as you can in that direction. I don't see any solution for you on the horizon.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Furball
thats pretty poor and disrespectful bait rip. very low.
+1
-
Originally posted by Furball
thats pretty poor and disrespectful bait rip. very low.
its like saying how do people in the USA get drugs when drugs are outlawed.
The wife and mother of five you used in your bait: -
http://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/section-item.asp?sid=12&iid=2029
It's a serious question. How do criminals get ahold of guns even in society's where they are outlawed? The same question of debate is applicable in New York as well.
The 2nd question would be: Were these police officers armed and if not, why not? It seems society has failed her if she were not an armed officer.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
It's a serious question. How do criminals get ahold of guns even in society's where they are outlawed? The same question of debate is applicable in New York as well.
Silly question , to make a paralel :
in the US drug is no allowed but it can be found.
The 2nd question would be: Were these police officers armed? [/B]
Dunno, will it make them more efficient ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Silly question , to make a paralel :
in the US drug is no allowed but it can be found.
Dunno, will it make them more efficient ?
No parallel where the penalty for drug possession is minor, thus making drugs more readily available. Guns are not as readily available as drugs.
Would it make them more proficient? Ask yourself, is an armed criminal more likely to confront a highly-trained armed officer?
-
Related article of whether or not at the VERY LEAST that UK's police officers should be armed (IMO).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4451640.stm
-
It's a serious question. How do criminals get ahold of guns even in society's where they are outlawed?
Mostly they don't. Occasionally they do.
It's worth pointing out that this was the 38th murder of a police officer in the UK since 1985.
In the same period, the US has seen approx 1350 police officers murdered (1302 to the end of 2004), excluding the terrorist attacks on 11th September.
How do police officers in the US keep getting murdered when they have guns to protect themselves?
-
better cops than citiizens... They get paid to go into dangerous situations... least.... ours do..
if you take out the black homicide rate (52% of all U.S. homicides) then your homicide rate is the same as ours but with more overall crime..
This seems impossible... how desperate and fearless would a criminal have to be to commit a crime on.... an island? LOL where is he gonna go?
It's like pulling a robbery in disneyland after the gates are all locked up.
and... unbelievably... it is gonna get much worse in limeyland..
as for guns... bet I could get a gun in any country on earth in a week no matter what the laws.... I could make one in a day or two. I can make ammo too.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Furball
its like saying how do people in the USA get drugs when drugs are outlawed.
I think thats his point
-
Rip; how many police officers per million ppl gets wounded / killed per year in US and how many in GB?
Do You think it's safer in GB to be a cop than in US?
If not then you have to admit Brits have taken care of their things better than You... oh what a horror!
LOL You're "special" :)
-
Rip; how many police officers per million ppl gets wounded / killed per year in US and how many in GB?
Do You think it's safer in GB to be a cop than in US?
The US has approx 700,000 full time police officers, the UK about 140,000. In other words, almost the same per capita, as the US also has about 5 times as many people as the UK.
As such, the US has 5 times the number of police, 35 times as many police murdered. By my simple maths, the US rate is 7 times ours.
better cops than citiizens... They get paid to go into dangerous situations... least.... ours do..
It's not just the cops, though, Lazs.
Total murders in the last 5 years:
England & Wales: 4129
US: 80,423
(the US figures exclude 11th September, the UK ones exclude Shipman, who's murders were recorded in the last 5 years, but carried out in earlier years)
if you take out the black homicide rate (52% of all U.S. homicides) then your homicide rate is the same as ours but with more overall crime..
No, it's not.
The US had 16,137 murders last year.
About half those are by whites.
That's, say, 8000 murders.
The population of the US is about 295,000,000, of whom about 82% are white. That's about 242,000,000
8000 murders by 242,000,000 people is a rate of 3.3 per 100,000
The rate for England and Wales is 1.6
And that includes negligent manslaughter, which is excluded in the US. As an example, there are 20 "murders" in the UK figure that occured when a group of cockle pickers, illegal immigrants from China, drowned in Morecombe Bay. They are listed as homicide because of the negligence of the man in charge, who took them out at night without proper safety equipment etc.
In the US, cases like that aren't included in the FBI figures.
And the UK rate is also for all groups, not just cherrypicking the upper socio-economic groups and exludining large numbers of urban poor, who tend to commit most violent crimes.
You've previously said you think crime in the UK is nearly all committed by white people, as you don't think there are many immigrants in the UK.
The police are seeking 3 men for the murder of this woman officer, 2 are Somalis, the third is born in Britain of Somali parents. 25% of inmates in British prisons are from ethnic minorities.
-
constable Beshenivsky
-
Well I was getting ready for a good long typing session, but Nashwan has covered all the points. :aok
Ah yes, Ripsnort hasn't changed - he still believes that a law is pointless unless it works 100% perfectly. 98.5% isn't good enough in Ripsnort's perfect world. The fact is that NO law works perfectly - in the UK, the US or anywhere else.
By the way, Nashwan, do you have figures for the number of British police officers who were shot and killed since the beginning of 1984? I know of Yvonne Fletcher (1984) and Keith Broadhurst (2003) and now Sharon Beshenivsky, but I read of another officer shot in 1994 and also an off duty cop who had a go but was shot in 1988.
-
I don't have figures for those shot, but the police memorial trust records those killed on duty, and has a breakdown of each case for the last 10 years:
http://www.policememorial.org.uk/NationalRoll/NationalRoll.htm
-
nashwan... Ok... lets look at the murder rate... it is about 4 per hundred thousand in the U.S. and
1.7 for the U.K.
now, let's take the 52% black homicides out and we will get about 2 per hundred thousand in the U.S. excluding blacks.
I did not exclude the others because as you say... I wanted a good cross section of the population... rich poor etc. I excluded blacks because they scew the stats so badly with such a high rate.
UK has only about 2% blacks so they are statisticaly irrelevant..
In any case.. it is a small distinction. hardly worth disarming yourself..
As for police... our police make many more arrests than yours. Our police put themselves in harms way much more than yours...
What would your police death rate be if say if blacks there commited 52% of your homicides? How would your police deal with that?
And... they get paid for it... and...
every POLICE (not political taody police chiefs) association ever queried feels that they want the population armed. Why would that be? Could it have something to do with the fact that citizens with guns stop 1.5-3 million crimes a year? could it be that the beat cop knows what is going on in the streets and has some common sense?
certainly you would admit that the policeman in the U.S. knows a lot more about it than some guy living on a little island across the ocean with a high crime rate?
lazs
-
I excluded blacks because they scew the stats so badly with such a high rate.
No you excluded blacks because it doesn't suit your rosy little picture. Perhaps the fact that they skew the stats is symptomatic of a fundamental problem within US society?
Perhaps you could exterminate them all so you could 'win' arguments about statistics on internet forums. It clearly means so much to you given the amount of effort you put into crowbarring gun crime into each thread.
Our police put themselves in harms way much more than yours...
And how, pray tell, do you know such a thing? Cetainly this latest cop victim put herself in harms way.
-
dowding... when you have a segment of the population that commits 8 times as many homicides as the rest combined... you would have to admit that tarring everyone else with the same brush is kinda "convienient"
It is not me that is doing it tho... the Department Of Justice and the FBI think it is important enough to give rates by race.
If our cops are working amoung a segment of our population that is 8 times more murderous than yours.... would that not mean that they are putting themselves in harms way more often?
If our police make more arrests than yours even tho you have a higher crime rate... would that not indicate that ours are putting themselves in harms way more often?
lazs
-
the UK should reconsider its ban on execution. There are simply people alive on this planet that need to be put down for good. Whoever killed that woman should be executed, not as vengence, even though thats alright, but because as long as that person is alive they are likely to kill again and any decent society deserves to be permanently protected from those types. There is the possibility that these types will escape from imprisonment. It cannot be put to chance.
-
Back to the point. Tragic. That's what it was tragic.
And criminal.
Someone should be sacked over this and here's why.
1) Two probationary police officers were patroling together. This should not have happened, one probationer should have been patroling with an experienced officer. The shift inspector should have damn well made sure of this.
2) Two probationers were sent to a bank robbery. This should not happen either, the armed response car should have been sent, at the very least experienced officers should have been sent, not two unexperienced newbies. The dispatching sergeant should have damn well made sure of this.
3) deleted comments about middle aged women police officers due to not wanting to take flak from the equality crowd
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/48257/20029211530-0-Swoop.gif)
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Back to the point. Tragic. That's what it was tragic.
And criminal.
Someone should be sacked over this and here's why.
1) Two probationary police officers were patroling together. This should not have happened, one probationer should have been patroling with an experienced officer. The shift inspector should have damn well made sure of this.
2) Two probationers were sent to a bank robbery. This should not happen either, the armed response car should have been sent, at the very least experienced officers should have been sent, not two unexperienced newbies. The dispatching sergeant should have damn well made sure of this.
3) deleted comments about middle aged women police officers due to not wanting to take flak from the equality crowd
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/48257/20029211530-0-Swoop.gif)
So Swoop, after reading the above replies, seems no one who is from the UK has attempted to touch my 2nd question about Police in UK being armed. Should they consider arming all police officers, naturally after extensive training?
-
nashwan... Ok... lets look at the murder rate... it is about 4 per hundred thousand in the U.S. and
1.7 for the U.K.
now, let's take the 52% black homicides out and we will get about 2 per hundred thousand in the U.S. excluding blacks.
No Lazs, it doesn't work like that.
You only halve the rate by halving the number of murders if you keep the same population
So, 16,137 murders, 295 million people, murder rate is 5.5 per 100,000 people
Take away all murders committed by blacks: 8,000 murders. But the population is no longer 295 million people, because that population figure includes black people.
You only halve the murder rate by excluding black people if you exclude the murders they commit, but include them in the total population figure.
So the true picture:
All murders: 16,137 murders, 295 million people, 5.5 murders per 100,000 people
White muders: 8,000 murders, 242 million white people, 3.3 murders per 100,000 people
I did not exclude the others because as you say... I wanted a good cross section of the population... rich poor etc. I excluded blacks because they scew the stats so badly with such a high rate.
The point is blacks in America are the urban poor, to a very large extent. By removing a race that makes up most of the urban poor, you are removing most of the urban poor, and skewing the statistics.
UK has only about 2% blacks so they are statisticaly irrelevant..
No, that's an old figure, and excludes mixed race and Pakistani/Indian/Bangladeshi which is the largest minority group in the UK.
As for police... our police make many more arrests than yours. Our police put themselves in harms way much more than yours...
Your police certainly do put themselves at more risk, they have to deal with armed criminals on a regular basis.
What would your police death rate be if say if blacks there commited 52% of your homicides? How would your police deal with that?
They'd deal with it in the same way they deal with other groups committing murder.
And... they get paid for it... and...
That's all right then.
every POLICE (not political taody police chiefs) association ever queried feels that they want the population armed.
And here they don't even want the police armed, let alone the population.
And yet our method results in far less murders, both of civilians and police officers.
dowding... when you have a segment of the population that commits 8 times as many homicides as the rest combined
If blacks in the US commit "8 times as many homicides as the rest combined", how come they only commit about half of all homicides?
For them to commit "8 times as many as the rest combined" they'd need to commit about 88% of all homicides in the US.
If our cops are working amoung a segment of our population that is 8 times more murderous than yours.... would that not mean that they are putting themselves in harms way more often?
Of course they do. The whole US population has easy access to firearms, and uses them frequently to murder other members of the US population, including policemen.
-
Wait..............
Where are you getting your population numbers for the US? Because they dont match up with the figures from the US Census Bureau. It may not be entirely current information, being almost 3 years old now, but unless the US has experienced a significant population drop in the last 3 years, which I doubt ............. well, I'd really like to see the sources for this population data.
-
CIA world factbook.
But the US census data fits it rather well. The 2000 census records the US population at 281.5 million, so 295 million is close to 14 million more, not less, people.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
How could this possibly happen where guns are outlawed?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1890902,00.html
That question makes about as much sense as asking how a bunch of Saudis could fly two planes into some skyscrapers in a country where hijacking planes and flying them into buildings is outlawed.
-
USA allows guns = bad
UK disallows guns = good
That's about all I ever see in these threads.
-
“On the average, somewhere in America one police officer is killed every 57 hours"
Gee Rip ya really steped in a **** this on this one ;)
-
Originally posted by texace
USA allows guns = bad
UK disallows guns = good
That's about all I ever see in these threads.
Nope, my opinion is:
USA Allows guns = necessary
UK /Aus /NZ disallows/licenses guns properly = good
The situations in each country is chalk and cheese. You cannot remove the guns from the US, its simply not practical. However, the US cannot apply its logic to other countries, they simply don't have the same crime/gun issues.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So Swoop, after reading the above replies, seems no one who is from the UK has attempted to touch my 2nd question about Police in UK being armed. Should they consider arming all police officers, naturally after extensive training?
I don't think all of them have to be armed necessarily...some are...and that speaks to Swoop assement that someone should be fired for sending these two officers into a potentially dangerous situation involving gun play.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Gee Rip ya really steped in a **** this on this one ;)
You'll note he did not link any of his U.S. related sources. Also note, that when you do search on officers killed in the line of duty, about 40% of those deaths are auto accidents.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Mostly they don't. Occasionally they do.
It's worth pointing out that this was the 38th murder of a police officer in the UK since 1985.
In the same period, the US has seen approx 1350 police officers murdered (1302 to the end of 2004), excluding the terrorist attacks on 11th September.
How do police officers in the US keep getting murdered when they have guns to protect themselves?
Where are your links? I don't see anything to back these statistics up.
In 2004, almost 1/2 the fallen officers (and this includes State, local and federal officers) are traffic-related accidents:
154 police officers lost their lives in the US in 2004. Seventy-two local, state and federal officers died from traffic-related accidents while 57, about one-third, died from shootings, the organizations said. A variety of causes led to the other deaths.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6762180/
-
You'll note he did not link any of his U.S. related sources. Also note, that when you do search on officers killed in the line of duty, about 40% of those deaths are auto accidents.
I didn't mention accidents, because the figures I quoted are for officers murdered in the line of duty.
See the table here: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2004/table1.htm
It's titled "Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed"
When you look at last year's figures, for example, it breaks down the weapons used:
"Of the 57 officers slain, 54 were killed by assailants using firearms. Of these, 36 officers were killed with handguns, 13 were killed with rifles, and 5 were killed with shotguns. In addition, 2 officers died when vehicles were used as weapons, and one was killed with a knife."
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2004/section1felonkilled.htm
Edit: if you still doubt these are murder figures, look at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2004/section1summaries.htm which gives a bbrief description of each incident last year.
-
By the way, Nashwan, do you have figures for the number of British police officers who were shot and killed since the beginning of 1984? I know of Yvonne Fletcher (1984) and Keith Broadhurst (2003) and now Sharon Beshenivsky, but I read of another officer shot in 1994 and also an off duty cop who had a go but was shot in 1988.
I found something on police officers shot and killed in England and Wales, but it only covers 1992 - 2003. There was 1 in 1992, 1 in 1993, 1 in 1995. The Keith Broadhurst and Sharon Beshenivsky killings were both after that, so the total is 5 from 1992 - 2005.
-
Originally posted by texace
USA allows guns = bad
UK disallows guns = good
That's about all I ever see in these threads.
What an incredible thing to say in a thread that started with a post about how...
USA allows guns = good
UK disallows guns = bad.
PS: If you exlude the number of murders in Canada commited by murderers (they skew the statistcs), then Canada has a murder rate of 0.00 per 100,000. Take that yanks and brits!
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
What an incredible thing to say in a thread that started with a post about how...
USA allows guns = good
UK disallows guns = bad.
PS: If you exlude the number of murders in Canada commited by murderers (they skew the statistcs), then Canada has a murder rate of 0.00 per 100,000. Take that yanks and brits!
The thread was about
USA Cops are allowed weapons=Good
UK Cops are not allowed weapons=Bad
I realize the mistake that I've made of not narrowing down the statement I initially posted.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So Swoop, after reading the above replies, seems no one who is from the UK has attempted to touch my 2nd question about Police in UK being armed. Should they consider arming all police officers, naturally after extensive training?
No.
My reason is simple but won't be very popular.
In Great Britain the job of the copper is.......well it's crappy. You spend your entire time dealing with the dregs of society, you get no thanks or praise from the general public and are generally looked down. The wages are ****. The hours are long. And you look like a bleedin idiot in one of those tit helmets. Oh and the public refer to you as 'The filth'.
Who in their right mind would become a copper?
Answer: Ex-service meat heads lacking the IQ to do anything else and odd idealistic people......lacking the IQ to realise what they're getting into.
They're also putting lots of time into recruiting 'community police officers' recently, they look like coppers but aren't really. They're cheaper than regular police officers.
Should these civilian officers be armed? Jesus, no way.
Should regular police be armed? Christ no!
Put it into perspective. How many American police officers were shot at while responding to a bank robbery last month?
It happens so infrequently in Britain that it makes international news.
Leave the arms to SO19 and the armed response vehicles, these are highly trained officers who've demonstrated a certain aptitude for the job and some good judgement. There is such a thing as a good copper. But there ain't many.
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/48257/20029211530-0-Swoop.gif)
-
Originally posted by Swoop
No.
My reason is simple but won't be very popular.
In Great Britain the job of the copper is.......well it's crappy. You spend your entire time dealing with the dregs of society, you get no thanks or praise from the general public and are generally looked down. The wages are ****. The hours are long. And you look like a bleedin idiot in one of those tit helmets. Oh and the public refer to you as 'The filth'.
Who in their right mind would become a copper?
Answer: Ex-service meat heads lacking the IQ to do anything else and odd idealistic people......lacking the IQ to realise what they're getting into.
They're also putting lots of time into recruiting 'community police officers' recently, they look like coppers but aren't really. They're cheaper than regular police officers.
Should these civilian officers be armed? Jesus, no way.
Should regular police be armed? Christ no!
Put it into perspective. How many American police officers were shot at while responding to a bank robbery last month?
It happens so infrequently in Britain that it makes international news.
Leave the arms to SO19 and the armed response vehicles, these are highly trained officers who've demonstrated a certain aptitude for the job and some good judgement. There is such a thing as a good copper. But there ain't many.
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/48257/20029211530-0-Swoop.gif)
interesting insight into your societal psyche. let me see if I grasp this entirely. there are people who provide an invaluable service to the whole community by keeping the bad element (which exists in all societies) at bay. they are generally looked down upon by the protected? they are underpaid? why would you be opposed to they being armed? for the record, where I'm from we teach our children to respect authority and we most certainly are very appreciative of all our first responders. the only place where this may not be the case is in the areas of town where the citizens are those that have a proclivity to break laws and harm primarily themselves and often times the greater society. the UK seems really messed up to me. moreso than what I thought from my last visit over a decade ago.
-
Originally posted by Furball
thats pretty poor and disrespectful bait rip. very low.
its like saying how do people in the USA get drugs when drugs are outlawed.
The wife and mother of five you used in your bait: -
http://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/section-item.asp?sid=12&iid=2029
Ah, so it is OK to point this crap out to the Americans? I'll remember this post in the future.
Karaya
-
'Gun Control' is NOT about Guns.
It's about CONTROL.
-
Originally posted by storch
interesting insight into your societal psyche. let me see if I grasp this entirely. there are people who provide an invaluable service to the whole community by keeping the bad element (which exists in all societies) at bay. they are generally looked down upon by the protected? they are underpaid? why would you be opposed to they being armed? for the record, where I'm from we teach our children to respect authority and we most certainly are very appreciative of all our first responders. the only place where this may not be the case is in the areas of town where the citizens are those that have a proclivity to break laws and harm primarily themselves and often times the greater society. the UK seems really messed up to me. moreso than what I thought from my last visit over a decade ago.
Yeah storch, like everyone looks up to the Pi....um I mean cops in the USA. They are totally respected there, are well paid, and are mostly university graduates.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
OINK OINK
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Ah, so it is OK to point this crap out to the Americans?
I dont!!
Well, at least i cannot remember ever doing so?
-
What are 2 40 yearold unarmed women rookies doing being the 1st response to a bank robbery call?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Yeah storch, like everyone looks up to the Pi....um I mean cops in the USA. They are totally respected there, are well paid, and are mostly university graduates.
well, that pretty well sums up what a sc... er person you are doesn't it. btw I'm not a police officer or first responder. the police officers in my town all have at least an associate's degree. furthermore the insurance companies pay into a pool that provides retired police officers with an excellent pension equalling their last year's salary and adjusting for inflation. given the homes where they live and the cars that they drive I would say they are well above the national income average. but then again I don't live in some vulcan bassackwards town populated by a bunch of vulcan morons either. I certainly believe the opposite might true for you though.
-
oops.. I was wrong... http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
blacks commit 7 times more homicides than the rest of the population.
There if we have a rate of even 5 homicides per 100,000 then if you take out the black population (of which england has little 2-3% tops) you get about 2.5 at most per 100,000...
england is like 1.7 with 1.7 vs 2.5... it's really not worth getting all excited about... and... taking out our blacks still leaves more minortity population than is found in the UK... it does not get rid of the poor either.
if... we took out every police death caused by a black I am sure the police death rate would be very low also.
As Hang points out.... gun control is about control..
It is pathetic to think that there are men out there that think they are better off losing the right to defend themselves... most tho are young and don't see past their own youth... they know they can maybe beat off an attacker in anything like a fair fight...
and... you live on a tiny little island where the bad guy knows he can't get away... it's friggin silly to compare.
My point is that taking the white population of the U.S. Guns don't make us any more or less murderous than any other country .. Blacks here would be just as murderous no matter what also.
every study ever done on gun control in the U.S. points to the fact that no gun control measure has ever done any good and in allmost every case does much more harm...
1 or 2 more or less killings per 100,000 is meaningless tho to the poor old infirm man in his apartment when the home invasion happens... or the woman who's ex is beating her door down... it is meaningless in the face of the 1.5-3 million times a year that guns stop a person bent on criminal intent...
1 or 2 killings per 100,000 is meaningless compared to the countless millions of citizens murdered by their governments after they had their guns taken away.
It is meaningless in the light of U.S. citizens sending guns to england so that they wouldn't have to use rakes and shovels to defend against invaders...
It is meaningless in light of the great firearms genious that is spawned here like John Browning.
-
but... women and small, unfit men should not be police officers and police officers should be armed.
It should also be.... "one riot, one Texas Ranger" not.... One wino..... 600 swat team members"
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
oops.. I was wrong... http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
blacks commit 7 times more homicides than the rest of the population.
There if we have a rate of even 5 homicides per 100,000 then if you take out the black population (of which england has little 2-3% tops) you get about 2.5 at most per 100,000...
england is like 1.7 with 1.7 vs 2.5... it's really not worth getting all excited about... and... taking out our blacks still leaves more minortity population than is found in the UK... it does not get rid of the poor either.
if... we took out every police death caused by a black I am sure the police death rate would be very low also.
As Hang points out.... gun control is about control..
It is pathetic to think that there are men out there that think they are better off losing the right to defend themselves... most tho are young and don't see past their own youth... they know they can maybe beat off an attacker in anything like a fair fight...
and... you live on a tiny little island where the bad guy knows he can't get away... it's friggin silly to compare.
My point is that taking the white population of the U.S. Guns don't make us any more or less murderous than any other country .. Blacks here would be just as murderous no matter what also.
every study ever done on gun control in the U.S. points to the fact that no gun control measure has ever done any good and in allmost every case does much more harm...
1 or 2 more or less killings per 100,000 is meaningless tho to the poor old infirm man in his apartment when the home invasion happens... or the woman who's ex is beating her door down... it is meaningless in the face of the 1.5-3 million times a year that guns stop a person bent on criminal intent...
1 or 2 killings per 100,000 is meaningless compared to the countless millions of citizens murdered by their governments after they had their guns taken away.
It is meaningless in the light of U.S. citizens sending guns to england so that they wouldn't have to use rakes and shovels to defend against invaders...
It is meaningless in light of the great firearms genious that is spawned here like John Browning.
So, instead of better gun control, we need better black people control?
-
well... we need better criminal control.
I do not presume to know the answer to black crime. I certainly am not in favor of punishing the victims of crime tho by disarming them.
Guns work well in the U.S. for the intened (constitutional) purpose of giving power over their own lives to the weak.
I have no problem with laws that punish murderers in the most sever way... or even those who would use firearms in a criminal manner. Anything else is a silly solution fit only for beat down island dwellers on their way to oblivion.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
The situations in each country is chalk and cheese. You cannot remove the guns from the US, its simply not practical. However, the US cannot apply its logic to other countries, they simply don't have the same crime/gun issues.
Go make sense somewhere else.
-
Lazs - the FBI provides racial profiling for comparative purposes. I know your knowledge of statistics is pretty exhaustive, but, unlike yourself, I don't think your own government's intention is to disown black crime.
Perhaps if you tried to understand the problem your poor people have instead of ignoring it, you might find a solution.
-
Dowding,
Your last post implies that the Brits have found a solution to that problem. If that is the case why is there theft, robbery and burglaries there?
-
Not at all. But surely recognising and admitting a problem is the first step to a solution? Lazs conditions all his statistics based arguments with the proviso "excluding black crime" - which is inane.
-
So that first step has accomplished what for you?
As to Laz and his "preoccupation", I have been avoiding this thread because of it. I didn't feel it was worth getting into.
-
There if we have a rate of even 5 homicides per 100,000 then if you take out the black population (of which england has little 2-3% tops) you get about 2.5 at most per 100,000...
No Lazs. What you are doing there is counting black people towards the overall population, but not towards the murder total.
If 242 million white people commit about 8,000 murders, then the rate is about 3.3, not 2 or 2.5.
There if we have a rate of even 5 homicides per 100,000 then if you take out the black population (of which england has little 2-3% tops) you get about 2.5 at most per 100,000...
What you are doing is taking the murder rate and halving it because half the murders are committed by blacks. You do realise that exactly the same method says that the murder rate by black people is also 2.75 per 100,000, don't you? After all, if the US murder rate is 5.5, and blacks are committing half the murders, then the black murder rate must be 2.75 as well, mustn't it?
What you are doing, of course, is excluding the murders committed by a segment of the population, but including that segment of the population in the population total.
Whites in the US commit about 8,000 murders, for a rate of about 3.3 per 100,000.
england is like 1.7 with 1.7 vs 2.5.
1.7 vs 3.3, if you use real figures, rather than made up ones.
it's really not worth getting all excited about... and... taking out our blacks still leaves more minortity population than is found in the UK... it does not get rid of the poor either.
It gets rid of a large percentage of them.
if... we took out every police death caused by a black I am sure the police death rate would be very low also.
According to the FBI, about half the murders of police officers are by whites. That would mean white people murder police officers in the US about 3.5 times more often than all ethnic groups murder police officers in the UK.
And what if we took out the murders of police officers by black people in the UK?
Going through the list from the last 5 years, of the 9 police officers murdered in the UK, 2 were killed by white people, one by an Arab, 5 by black people and 1 I can't find the race of the murderer.
Murdered by black offenders:
Sharon Beshenivsky
Michael Swindells
Bryan Reginald Moore
Andrew Carl Munn
Malcolm Edward Walker
Murdered by white offenders:
Gerald Walker
Stephen Oake (murdered by an Arab, suspected Al Qaida operative)
Ian Nigel Broadhurst (murdered by an American)
Race of killer unkown:
Alison Armitage
So you can more than halve the rate of murders of police officers in the UK as well by excluding black people, even if you include Al Qaida and Americans, meaning white people in the US murder policemen at 7 times the rate of white people in the UK.
It is pathetic to think that there are men out there that think they are better off losing the right to defend themselves
Who are these people who have lost the right to defend themselves? I haven't. In fact, I don't even have a duty to retreat before defending myself, as applies in large parts of the US.
My point is that taking the white population of the U.S. Guns don't make us any more or less murderous than any other country
Apart from the fact that white people in the US have twice the murder rate of ALL people in the UK, and white people in the US murder police officers at more than 7 times the rate in the UK.
1 or 2 more or less killings per 100,000 is meaningless tho to the poor old infirm man in his apartment when the home invasion happens
Not if he's one of the people getting murdered. Because the US has more people murdered in their own homes during home invasions than the UK does.
Lazs - the FBI provides racial profiling for comparative purposes. I know your knowledge of statistics is pretty exhaustive,
Lazs gets his statistics from pro gun lobby groups and authors, and by making them up. Note his "2 per 100,000 white murder rate", which he gets by claiming the US murder rate is 4 (it's 5.5 according to the FBI) then halving it, without realising (or admitting) that the whole population of the US isn't white (he realises that when looking at the number of murders, but forgets it when looking at the population to get his "per 100,000" figures)
-
Regardless of the stats the Brits need to get hold of the current situation over there. They have a huge problem looming with the muslim population. The hardcore types are planing on bringing down the government by violent means. The recent terrorist attacks in London bear out their intentions.
I say arm all the officers and quit pretending you are a gentler and more sophisticated society. The more cops with guns the better chance you have of getting them before they get you, or at least cause them some concern over your presence if they plan to strike.
-
Ok... but you are not counting unsolved murders... it would be prudent to figure that the number of unsolved murders followed the same trend... 52% black.
But... say that the amount of white murders was 2.5 or 3 per 100,000 is that so much different than 1.7? especially if you consider that the entire minority population of the UK is a tiny percent.
and... for nashwan and dowding... I bring up the racial makeup only because it is significant in explaining our murder rate. and.. to point out that disarming the victims would not make things any better even in the best case scenario for the majority of the population... this would assume that no more blacks would commit murders if guns were banned.
I defy anyone to tell me how this is racist to point out the facts. Blacks murder blacks here... I do not want to be disarmed because one segment of the population is killing each other.... How would that make any sense?
our murder rate is falling... our crime rate is falling...yours is going up... we are putting more guns in society and you are putting less...
you have stooped to trying to ban knives.... what is next a poison and high places ban? take away peoples hands? Nothing you do toward banning guns makes you any safer... You want this for us?
maverick... you will have to believe that if the figures showed that mexicans or people of scottish extraction were causing 52% of the homicides I woulda used it but it was blacks so that is what I used... a very small portion of the population is causing a huge anomally in the stats.
simple as that.
If blacks commited 100% of the murders would that be enough reason to disarm me? How bout 10%?
point is.... you don't punish the victims and you don't let government be the only ones who are armed no matter what the cost.
Of the 1.5-3 million crimes stopped here with firearms a year... how many would have been homicides?
lazs
-
Give it up, Lazs - before the wall falls down. Nashwan has provided all the facts, and has ripped you to shreds in this and other threads. You keep saying your homicide rate is going down when the number of homicides rose for 5 consecutive years. I quoted the figures myself from the FBI website in an earlier thread. You can go on being wrong, but has Nashwan has pointed out in the past, no matter how often or how loudly you say it, you're still wrong. Claiming that your per capita homicide rate has gone down simply because large numbers of law abiding folks have immigrated across your southern border is just weak.
Besides, this was a thread about an English cop, not the US.
-
Originally posted by Swoop
No.
My reason is simple but won't be very popular.
In Great Britain the job of the copper is.......well it's crappy. You spend your entire time dealing with the dregs of society, you get no thanks or praise from the general public and are generally looked down. The wages are ****. The hours are long. And you look like a bleedin idiot in one of those tit helmets. Oh and the public refer to you as 'The filth'.
Who in their right mind would become a copper?
Answer: Ex-service meat heads lacking the IQ to do anything else and odd idealistic people......lacking the IQ to realise what they're getting into.
They're also putting lots of time into recruiting 'community police officers' recently, they look like coppers but aren't really. They're cheaper than regular police officers.
Should these civilian officers be armed? Jesus, no way.
Should regular police be armed? Christ no!
Put it into perspective. How many American police officers were shot at while responding to a bank robbery last month?
It happens so infrequently in Britain that it makes international news.
Leave the arms to SO19 and the armed response vehicles, these are highly trained officers who've demonstrated a certain aptitude for the job and some good judgement. There is such a thing as a good copper. But there ain't many.
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/48257/20029211530-0-Swoop.gif)
Thanks for your input. I see that our cultures are very different in the training between our officers, and now that you've explained it, I would probably tend to agree that they should not be armed if they're not getting the extensive training their US counterparts get. Officers get pretty good pay here, however its my opinion that its still not enough considering the fact that they lay their lives on the line day in and day out.
-
so you are saying that the difference between 1.7 per 100,000 and 2 or 3 per 100,000 is huge? that is insane. and that is using a country (the U.S.) with thousands of miles of borders and a bigger minority population (even excluding blacks) than your tiny little island.
as for resisting... DOJ figures show that resisting with a firearm is the most effective way to resist with the injury rates for those who resist with a firearm are three to 15 times less likely to be injured http://johnrlott.tripod.com/other/NCVS.html
that is from Lotts site but it is simply a chart taken from Gary Klecks book that distills the 115 charts from the DOJ site for latest data.
so yeah.... In order for the weak to be able to have an effective defense against thugs and in order to prevent 1.5-3 million criminals from getting their way a year.... yeah.... 1 or two extra homicides that may or may not have happened without firearms is insignificant...
I would go so far as to say that even if a tiny fraction of the crimes stopped with firearms here would have ended in homicides otherwis... we probly are reducing our homicide rate by several per 100,000.... Certainly we are reducing crime..
And where do you get that our homicide rate is increasing every year? DOJ says it has fallen dramaticaly since 1980 and leveled off in the last couple of years.
lazs
-
so you are saying that the difference between 1.7 per 100,000 and 2 or 3 per 100,000 is huge? that is insane.
No, it is basic maths that an 8 year old could understand. Mathematically, the difference between 1.7 and 3.3 is nearly a 100% increase.
I think you are onto something though. You should write to MIT or Harvard and tell them you'd like to submit a paper on statistics. Here's a provisional structure:
Title: Lazsmatics and related mathematical anomalies
Abstract: A little ignorance goes a long way, a lot of ignorance really gets your BBS post count up.
References: Just about any gun lobbying media I can get my hands on.
-
Dowding - when Lazs has run out of gas, talking to him is like talking to a ventriloquist's doll. Blah blah blah blah blah -