RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


London crime wave...(28 posts)

London crime wave...BikeViking
Apr 19, 2002 9:33 AM
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=\ForeignBureaus\archive\200204\FOR20020418e.html

One could certainly speculate that an armed citizenry would help lower these increasing rates. The US has lower crime rates (John Lott: More Guns, Less Crime) in states where the citizens are permitted to exercise their RIGHT to self-defense. No bureaucrat in ANY nation is more interested in your self-defense that you are.

I would ask who is defending the the citizens against the rabble in London? Not the police. Perhaps the bureaucrats that disarmed the British population would like to help defend their constituents from the criminal element?
re: London crime wave...Fr Ted Crilly
Apr 19, 2002 12:40 PM
One could speculate all that one wants, but I'm confident that the vast majority of Londoners would be against relaxing the UK gun laws. Unlike many in the USA, British people don't have the same love affair with lethal weaponry. Guns are a symptom of problems in British society - not a solution to them.
Afghan crime wave...mr_spin
Apr 19, 2002 1:49 PM
Gee, everyone in Afghanistan seems to own an assault rifle. It doesn't seem to help there. Didn't help in Bosnia. Somalia. Israel. But those people are savages, right?

I could probably prove statistically that there are more SUVs in states where crime has lowered, and therefore the solution to crime is to own an SUV. But you seem to be an intelligent person. You would see how absurdly stupid and simplistic and narrow-minded that argument is.
Afghan crime wave...BikeViking
Apr 23, 2002 4:33 PM
What about Switzerland and it's "rifle in every home" standard? Israelis are armed to the teeth and, prior to the intifada, there were no "Dodge City" shootouts. Even now, armed citizens have saved lives by killing those homicide bombers. I am beginning to believe that each nation's society will dictate what is acceptable in regard to weapons. What works for one nation will not necessarily work in another. I would like to know what a recent mugging victim thinks of the "no guns for law abiding citizen" laws.
Afghan crime wave...MJ
Apr 24, 2002 12:39 AM
are you seriously using Israel as an example where gun ownership is effective?

what an absolutely ridiculous point (you should really read your posts before you post them to the board - it's embarassing)

mugging victims in London would rather be mugged by someone with a knife than someone with a gun - it's possible to run away from a blade...
Afghan crime wave...mr_spin
Apr 24, 2002 7:35 AM
Yeah, a rifle in every home. If you wanted everyone to carry around bolt-action rifles, that would be one thing. But what you really want is to carry concealed handguns everywhere you go. That is totally different.

You talk of the noble "armed citizen" preventing crime. There are many examples of cops, who are well trained in gun handling and confrontations, emptying full clips and not hitting anything. Or not hitting the suspect, anyway. There was a bank robbery on Market Street in San Fransisco a few years ago where multiple cops fired dozens of shots and didn't hit anything! Amazing and thankfully, because that is a very busy street. Adrenaline kicks in and reason is lost. Now, how do you think a regular citizen, who hasn't had the intensive training given to police, is going to react? How many innocent bystanders will be cut down by this "armed citizen?" Talk about scary.
Afghan crime wave...MJ
Apr 24, 2002 7:39 AM
Mr Spin - you're asking reaonable questions of someone who has failed to present any logical or factual support for the need to be heavily armed

not to mention the obvious irony that he is in the same military which is apparently looking to take away everyone's freedoms
Afghan crime wave...mr_spin
Apr 24, 2002 8:10 AM
Yeah, I know. But other people read this and may not come to the same conclusion as quickly.

I have a couple of good friends who could be termed "gun nuts." These guys combined have a huge arsenal of some pretty amazing weaponry. I went on a trip one time where they brought 30 guns along, and that wasn't even half of what they actually had! (There was a nice range nearby where we were staying.) I've shot many of them and while kind of fun (especially AR-15s), I have no interest in owning guns myself.

Anyway, these guys start talking like BikingViking every once in a while. One of them even gets the NRA magazine, which has a hilarious section on the latest news about "armed citizens." The language is what is funny: Grandma jones, using her legally obtained and licensed S&W 40 prevented dangerous and deadly felon Jeff Zamboni from breaking into her chicken coops...

Thankfully, my friends are very responsible people who are maniacal about gun safety and gun use. I don't worry about them. It's the people who aren't responsible and not maniacal that I worry about. Unfortunately there are more of those.
Afghan crime wave...MJ
Apr 24, 2002 8:59 AM
I'm no stranger to weaponry - and have certainly enjoyed shooting - what galls me is the (inaccurate) belief it is integral to retaining freedom and protection - it's an assertion stated without the benefit of evidence, fact or logic - well it's redneck logic

sounds like the NRA magazine is only one step away from 'Soldier of Fortune'

actual statistics (rather than NRA propoganda) emphatically conclude that owning a gun is statistically more likely to result in that gun being used on the gun owner or a family member (whether through accident, suicide or homicide) - protect that
Afghan crime wave...BikeViking
Apr 25, 2002 4:05 PM
Sorry if the American Rifleman states FACTS about how people defend themselves with firearms. Facts are not "redneck" logic. Isn't that a bit condescending to say that all believers in the 2nd Amendment are rednecks? I would say it is. A difference of opinion is not reason to resort to such tactics?

Where are your "facts" regarding that stat about guns being more dangerous to the owners? I can find some to the contrary and will post when I find them. It would seem you are using rhetoric just like you accuse me of doing. As with ALL dangerous implements (cars and fireamrs), sometimes people do dumb things and that is part of our freedom is the freedom to do dumb things or kill youself. Freeedom is an on/off switch, you have it or you don't.
Afghan crime wave...BikeViking
Apr 25, 2002 3:58 PM
I won a firearm and I consider myself SCRUPULOUSLY safe with it. Owning firearms is an IMMENSE responsibilty and if anyone has taken my ardent advocacy as an unsafe "cowboy" attitude have made a gross and incorrect assumption.
Afghan crime wave...BikeViking
Apr 25, 2002 3:55 PM
Nice distortion...I have never advocated that EVERYONE should be armed. THose of us who want to take responsibility for our OWN safety, do have the right to do so. This Utopian dream of "the cops will save me" or Run away" is nonsense. Those dealers selling drugs are selling them to people who don't hold jobs. How will they get money?!?!?! Hmmmm...Mugging innocent people!

Washingtoin D.C. has the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Doesn't keep the murder rate down. Richmond, VA has a TOUGH law that if you are caught using a gun in a crime you get TEN years added to your sentence.

You just refuse to comprehend that the objective is to take firearms away from criminals NOT law-abiding citizens
I think we must all be stupid....muncher
Apr 26, 2002 12:31 AM
No one can seem to see how more people carrying guns is going to to take criminals' guns away - perhaps you could explain clearly and simply how this is going to work? Us simpletons seem to think that the muggers are just more likely to use a gun to mug you.
I think we must all be stupid....BikeViking
Apr 26, 2002 3:53 AM
People carrying firearms will not reduce the number of criminals carrying them. Long prison terms for criminals with guns is the best method for doing that. HOWEVER, all people (criminals included) like the path of least resistance. Muggers in the UK know the will not face anyone with a gun, so mugging is a crime of "least resistance". If it is unclear whether their next victim is armed, they will certainly be more cautious about whom they pick. With the firearms crime in the UK being committed by drug dealers, it is my opinion there is a "trickle-down effect". THose using their drugs aren't usually upstanding citizens. THat being said, where are these addicts going to get money for drugs? THey will get it from law-abiding citizens (mugging/assault). It is my opinion these law-abiding citizens have a right to defend themselves is a manner they see fit.

As said earlier, the American Rifleman (NRA pub) is full of FACTUAL instances every month, where people defend themselves with firearms. To obtain a carry permit anywhere in the US, you must complete a course and demonstrate you know how to SAFELY use your firearm. Firearms crimes committed by those with these permits in nearly nonexistent, showing that a responsible law-abiding person can carry a firearm SAFELY.

This is how it works in the US. I simply believe that all people that that inherent right to self-defense in a lawful manner of their choosing.
So how does that woek then?muncher
Apr 26, 2002 6:02 AM
How do the muggers "Pick" who is not carrying a gun then? They don't. They decide to carry a gun when they go mugging just in case.

Burglary/theft/fraud is the crime of least resistance, not mugging. People here in the UK would use guns for mugging if there was a need to (i.e. if they though that there was a serious risk of someone confronting them with one) and they were cheaply and readily available. At the moment, nether of those conditions are fulfilled, so guns are very rarely used in that situation. This is a good thing.

And I suppose to be balanced they also detail all the FACTUAL screw-ups of various sorts where people get shot, and all those injured in cross-fire/driveby shootings?

Any fool can carry a firearm safely. Just don't load it, and keep in in a hidden holster. That had nothing to do with USING it safely. And being able to hit a target on a range at 50m does not mean that you can USE a weapon safley either. In any event, we are not talking about the direct effect of lawful holders of weapons, we are talking about the effect of them on unlawful holders, i.e. that there will be more of the latter due to the former, and they will have a greater propensity to involve guns in crime if they think that the victim or some "have a go hero" is going to wade in with a gun during a mugging.

This is not rocket science - it's simple common sense. Americans have a radically different psychy with regard to guns I know, but I can tell you for nothing that getting 1,000s of guns onto the streets of Britain is not going to help law and order one iota. See my post at the end of the thread.
So how does that woek then?BikeViking
Apr 26, 2002 5:40 PM
Like I said (somewhere inthis thread) each society has to decide how best to deal with this issue. None are necessarily wrong for that particular group, but the imposition of, for example, US or UK attitudes, on the other, won't necessarily work.

It is my strongly held belief that each individual is respnsible for their own safety. The police do help, but her in the US, they cannot be sued because their job is to protect "society" not individuals. This is why I believe in each of us taking responsibility for our satefey in whatever reasonable means available.

BTW, I hope those druggie bastards wind up in those Victorian prisons of yours!! I wish our prisons weren't as "sensitive" as they are. Prison should be a horrible place (within reason) that should deter any potential returnees.
Crime is up, yes, but murder?Sintesi at home
Apr 19, 2002 5:20 PM
A quote from your article:

"Even the number of murders, a relatively rare crime in Britain, rose from 171 to 190, an increase of 11 percent"

That's pretty enviable. What do you think? Are most of the murders in America caused by knifings, strangulations,... rocks? Or maybe murder is insanely prevalent here because of handguns. And who is shooting who? Innocent, law abiding citizenry merely defending themselves, or criminals shooting victims or other criminals? Tell me.
one more thing.Sintesi at home
Apr 19, 2002 5:21 PM
A teenager in America on a good day can kill up to 5 to 10% of the annual murder count in the UK.
Buddy, you gonna answer or not?Sintesi at home
Apr 21, 2002 1:38 PM
Lay it out. Your plan to help Britain with an armed Citizenry...
Buddy, you gonna answer or not---Yes I amBikeViking
Apr 22, 2002 3:56 PM
I was 'puter negligent for a few days. Oops!

Anyway, why does everyone have such an aversion for people protecting themselves from criminals? I am not saying a wholesale pistol issue will cure London's crime woes, but American criminals consistently say they will look for other "targets" if they think a person is armed. The teen murder rate is not a greater part of the problem. It's just sensationalized in the media because it the "children" Our problem is getting firearms away from criminals. The crimes committed by people with concealed carry permits is astoundingly low and nearly non-existent. Responsible people with firearms are only a danger to criminals. With up to 2 million crimes thwarted each year simply by brandishing a firearm is a good thing. It may not work in the UK, but it woks well for us. It's always poo-pooed, but what protects an unarmed citizenry from the government? Just a thought...
can you give just one exampleMJ
Apr 23, 2002 4:31 AM
of where an armed citizenry has protected itself againstits own government's usurpations? you're living in an 18th century fantasy world - do you play Dungeons and Dragons too?

I think your statistics (2 million, er, brandishings) come from the same guy that you got all that ridiculous 'scientific' information about global warming - or maybe it's just the loonies down at the NRA

anyways aren't you in the military? - aren't you the jack booted oppressor looking to thwart freedom of the average Joe at every opportuntiy? how can you protect yourself from yourself?

it's actually difficult for me to count the number of logical fallacies and failures, misdirection and lack of evidence in your argument in this thread so far - suffice to say I think, and apparently all the other (so far sane) posters, you're full of it

if all the guns could be magically removed from the US overnight (excepting law enforcement and you military boys (and girls)) wouldn't it be a safer place for everyone?
can you give just one exampleBikeViking
Apr 23, 2002 4:47 PM
No I am not a D&der, however I am sure the German citizens in 1930 had no idea the evil they would be committing in WWII. Just when you think humankind has learned, you discover they have not. We are not any smarter.

He is a Harvard scholar and I have yet to read any rebuttals that specifically address his facts. There is a lot of handwringing and naysaying, but nothing concrete.

I am a citizen before I am a military member. I read and adhere to the Constitution. It is so easy to be an armchair quarterback and say "It'll never happen here", but it is always possible. Any a citizenry must always be ready.

If guns could be "magically" swept away, sure it would be better, but it will never happen. I don't deal in fairy tales. Therefore why would any resonable person have a problem with another person LEGALLY protecting themselves and their family in any manner they see fit?

What will keep the London hooligans from moving up the crime ladder and starting in on you, the citizens? Unarmed citizens are targets of opportunity and criminals aren't that dumb if there is an "easy meal" to be had.
can you give just one exampleMJ
Apr 24, 2002 12:36 AM
what does 1930's Germany have to do with your twisted interpretation of the 2nd amendment

who is the Harvard scholar? (keeping in mind that a scholar is a professional academic)

I didn't ask for you to opine on whether it could happen 'here' but if it had happened anywhere - any examples? - apparently you do deal in fairy tales

London hooligans aren't criminals - they're hooligans - London criminals who commit murder, as Muncher pointd out, are associated with the drugs trade and kill each other rather than the public - they don't want to kill people they want to sell drugs to people - it's not exactly rocket science this point

we should all be scared of well meaning heavily armed people like yourself more than some 'evil' government (which you work for and have been trained to kill for)

you appear to have bought every bad argument that gets put out by the loonies at the NRA - you have surpassed the previous count of logical fallacies and inaccruacies (not to mention the absence of any onbjective facts) in your argument = TKO
the ultimate solutionmr_spin
Apr 23, 2002 9:00 AM
If criminals consistently say they will look for other targets if they think a person is armed, then there is the solution. The government should mandate that all citizens be armed at all times. Every man, woman, and child must pack heat. Crime would vanish, and a utopian society would blossom. Even the toilets would clean themselves.
Crime is up, yes, but murder?MJ
Apr 23, 2002 4:36 AM
the murders in Britain that are not drug/gang related are usually exceptionally brutal - beating, stabbing, kicking, burning, glassing people to death is very nasty business and is actually often quite difficult to do - the lack of immediacy with a firearm keeps things a bit safer

most of those brutal murders require a huge amount of emotional involvement - which is not a requirement to objectively pull the trigger while mimicing your favourite gangter rap star

190 murders in a year for the UK population 60 million is a pretty good statistic
Crime is up, yes, but murder?MJ
Apr 23, 2002 4:37 AM
of course in BV's case he'd be mimicing Charleton Heston
No guns for London thankyou....muncher
Apr 23, 2002 2:35 AM
First, there in no "crime wave" in London. There has been a steady increase in crime, and it continues. There may have been a surge in reported crime, as it's become a political issue of late, and people are more willing to report crime.

Most of the serious crime in London is organised, drug-related, and gang driven. These people are already bristling with big bags of guns. For the most part, they kill themselves, rather than people outside of that world, and the occasional policeman, and very occasionally, an innocent member of the public. Us others wandering around with pistols in our pockets is not going to help this issue one iota. What would happen though, is that there would be a general escation of weaponary, untill guns became common-place amongst "common criminals", where at the moment, they are not.

We already have a lot of armed police around the capital, other major cities and airports etc. As things stand, the man who might fancy stealing your BMW will generally not carry a gun, because he knows that no-one else is going to try to shoot him while he is commiting the crime, and he knows that once he is reported as being armed, police with guns will be all over him - armed crime being, thankfully, still rare.

He also knows that the posession of a firearm is a short-cut to a long prision term: we have no issues with infringing anyone's rights in that department - you carry a gun - you go to prision. It works well.

The weapon of choice here for the ordinary criminal is still very much the knife. That is not a problem that needs to be tackled with guns, or knives will turn into guns.

The way crime needs to be tackled in the UK, and London especially, is for the government to get a grip, and put more police on the street, and for them and others to develop better intelligence resources. This will help with the single biggest problem in the UK - which is that people are tired of reporting crime and nothing happening about it - slow response times, poor clear-up rates, and hence they allow much activity to go unreported/challenged on a "what's the point" basis.

In tandem with that, we need a Criminal Justice System that works, with hard, rapid senencing, and rehabilitation where it's needed. At the moment this doesn't happen - the courts are too busy and too slow, and there is no more room in our (mostly Victorian) prisions, so custodial sentences are frequently spurned in favour of "community punishment" which is, in turn, often soft, poorly run and enforced, and hence, ineffective.

Filling the streets and homes of Britain is not going to help with any of that.
Make that last line..muncher
Apr 24, 2002 8:35 AM
"streets and homes of Britain with guns..."

Long day in the office.