And you guys thought *I* was nuts.

[tomclarke]

Homicide rates are almost 100% reported everywhere and can be compared. US comes out 5X worse than UK

Going on the last available figures it's 4x - see my response a few posts back.

(Note: my post was in response to williatw's quoting from the Daily Mail.)

I'll give you 4X - apologies.

[CKay]

You are right we don't trust our politicians/gov as much as you brits/europeans seem to.

Difficult to say which is the least trustworthy: a Daily Mail article, or a politician.

However, in this case the politician makes a reasonable point (it's difficult to compare violent crime rates from one country to another due to differences in the way they are recorded), so solving that tricky little dilemma.

By the way, outside of their swivel-eyed readership, The Daily Mail is widely regarded as a joke - see here, and here, not to say its support for Hitler in the 30's.

[williatw]

The Road to London Riots paved with good intentions by
Joyce Lee Malcolm
http://www.londonsocietyjournal.org.uk/ ... alcolm.php

While shops and buses in London were still blazing and bystanders being beaten senseless, excuses for the arsonists, looters and muggers began streaming in – government austerity cuts were to blame, the rioters couldn't find employment, they had disappointing A-levels, they suffered from broken homes, poverty, feelings of alienation. Society was at fault. What better behaviour could be expected until the deep roots of Britain's social ills were corrected. Punishing the offenders, the public was warned, would put a strain on the courts and the prisons but change nothing.

Few fingers pointed at the distortions in the British legal system that denies law-abiding men and women the means and the right to protect themselves, then leaves them to the mercy of offenders who, if caught, are quickly returned to the streets, or never removed from them at all. Police and prisons are expensive and, as we all know, incarceration doesn't always rehabilitate prisoners. But with a defenceless public and only minimal punishment there is little to deter anyone keen on preying on fellow citizens. This regrettable tilt in British law was in large measure responsible for the anarchy and violence Londoners experienced in early August.

[williatw]

Government's decision to opt for public order at the cost of individual safety began in 1920 when fears of a Bolshevik revolution led to passage of the Firearms Control Act, the first real restriction on handguns for self-defence. The act required police to license handguns. Approval was to be based upon whether the applicant was a "suitable person" to have a gun and had a "good reason" to have it. A series of classified instructions from the Home Office narrowed the definition of "good reason" until in 1969 the police were informed: "It should never be necessary to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person." In 1997, in response to the terrible Dunblane massacre, all handguns were banned and those already owned were confiscated. No exception was allowed for Britain's crack Olympic shooting team or for handicapped target shooters. The result has not been what the proponents expected. Gun crime had doubled a decade later with the very weapon banned. Indeed, in London gun crime in 2010 had doubled in one year. While gun crime climbs, the police are intolerant of any innocent contact with a gun. In 2009 when former soldier Paul Clarke turned in a gun he found in his garden to the Surrey police, he was immediately taken to the cells to face a five-year prison sentence. Surrey law required him to telephone the police and they would pick up the gun. At Clarke's trial the judge pointed out: "in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge. The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant."

[Diogenes]

For us in the UK it is very strange to hear that people in a democracy feel the need to have weapons to stage a coup just in case the government turns bad.

I think that it is because in the US they more or less have the choice between two parties and they are more or less the same (as we could see with certain decisions) where it really counts. The rest is just smoke and mirrors to make people believe they really have a choice.

Only someone who is completely unfamiliar with the thinking and the consequences of governance by each of the parties could make such an ignorant statement.

George Bush demonstrated what a small dose of Democrat thinking and politics are like. Obama came along and multiplied the idiocy times 10.

Ronald Reagan was the last Republican which was representative of the party base. The reason we keep ending up with the Rockefeller Republicans (which we refer to as Democrat lite) is because those country club elite bastards contribute most of the money.

They suffer from the same myopia as do rich Democrats.

As bad as the screw ups are for the Democrat lite, the actual full flavored Democrat creates super-nova level cockups.


I could go down the list from the very first Democrat (Andrew Jackson) till the present, and relate how the foolish decisions they made while in office had consequences which were disastrous, and which we are still suffering with today.

You yourself agreed that had Woodrow Wilson (Arrogant Elite Democrat "know it all") not involved the United States in World War I, the war would have fought down to a stalemate, and the resulting timeline would likely have excluded the rise of Nazism, the Development of the Atomic bomb, and myriad other evils which were subsequently inflicted on mankind.

All Wilson had to do was maintain U.S. Neutrality, which he had promised in his Presidential campaign, but he couldn't even keep that promise. We also have him to thank for J. Edgar Hoover and the excesses he engaged in.


No, the two parties are not the same, but the Republican one has been steadily growing to resemble the Democrat one more and more with each election cycle. The Media, which is completely controlled by the Democrats, has too great an influence on the national dialogue, and as a result, the Elites in the Republican party have been trending towards Democrat positions.

[tomclarke]

Government's decision to opt for public order at the cost of individual safety began in 1920 when fears of a Bolshevik revolution led to passage of the Firearms Control Act, the first real restriction on handguns for self-defence. The act required police to license handguns. Approval was to be based upon whether the applicant was a "suitable person" to have a gun and had a "good reason" to have it. A series of classified instructions from the Home Office narrowed the definition of "good reason" until in 1969 the police were informed: "It should never be necessary to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person." In 1997, in response to the terrible Dunblane massacre, all handguns were banned and those already owned were confiscated. No exception was allowed for Britain's crack Olympic shooting team or for handicapped target shooters. The result has not been what the proponents expected. Gun crime had doubled a decade later with the very weapon banned. Indeed, in London gun crime in 2010 had doubled in one year. While gun crime climbs, the police are intolerant of any innocent contact with a gun. In 2009 when former soldier Paul Clarke turned in a gun he found in his garden to the Surrey police, he was immediately taken to the cells to face a five-year prison sentence. Surrey law required him to telephone the police and they would pick up the gun. At Clarke's trial the judge pointed out: "in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge. The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant."

homicide rate 4 X lower than US? How is that not safer?

All countries have had nasty riots at specific times and places. They are a sign that a subclass of people are completely at odds with societies norms. We last has them in Bristol (1980 I think). That caused a major rethink of many things.

This time the riots are more difficult because they had no clear cause, just young people being completely lawless. Deep-seated causes no doubt.

Would guns have protected people? Only if the rioters did not haveguns. othrwise in the chaos and fear (yes, lots of that) many more people on both sides would have died.

It is extremely silly to post outlying events and think that they prove anything about the average. Do you want me to post stuff about nasty US riots? You have had them!

[williatw]

Government's decision to opt for public order at the cost of individual safety began in 1920 when fears of a Bolshevik revolution led to passage of the Firearms Control Act, the first real restriction on handguns for self-defence. The act required police to license handguns. Approval was to be based upon whether the applicant was a "suitable person" to have a gun and had a "good reason" to have it. A series of classified instructions from the Home Office narrowed the definition of "good reason" until in 1969 the police were informed: "It should never be necessary to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person." In 1997, in response to the terrible Dunblane massacre, all handguns were banned and those already owned were confiscated. No exception was allowed for Britain's crack Olympic shooting team or for handicapped target shooters. The result has not been what the proponents expected. Gun crime had doubled a decade later with the very weapon banned. Indeed, in London gun crime in 2010 had doubled in one year. While gun crime climbs, the police are intolerant of any innocent contact with a gun. In 2009 when former soldier Paul Clarke turned in a gun he found in his garden to the Surrey police, he was immediately taken to the cells to face a five-year prison sentence. Surrey law required him to telephone the police and they would pick up the gun. At Clarke's trial the judge pointed out: "in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge. The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant."

homicide rate 4 X lower than US? How is that not safer?

All countries have had nasty riots at specific times and places. They are a sign that a subclass of people are completely at odds with societies norms. We last has them in Bristol (1980 I think). That caused a major rethink of many things.

This time the riots are more difficult because they had no clear cause, just young people being completely lawless. Deep-seated causes no doubt.

Would guns have protected people? Only if the rioters did not haveguns. othrwise in the chaos and fear (yes, lots of that) many more people on both sides would have died.

It is extremely silly to post outlying events and think that they prove anything about the average. Do you want me to post stuff about nasty US riots? You have had them!

The point is that the steps taken by your government in the 20th century i.e. the gradual systematic banning of firearms and practically speaking self defense have not helped the British people in fact they have made things worse. All you are saying is well your homicide rate is still much lower than the US so there. They were lower before your gov did anything, the point is that the things they have tried has only made things worse for you not better.

[CKay]

Ah yes, a country where the citizenry is armed never experiences riots (and of course, should the unthinkable happen in such a country, only the good guys would use guns).

London Riots 2011 deaths: 1

LA Riots 1992 deaths: 53


Did I mention that the homicide rate is four times higher in the US than here in the UK?

Four. Times. Higher!

[Diogenes]

maybe we should disarm the police too.

You joke, but they more or less did in England.

[Diogenes]

I've always objected to guns and knives being used for protection,

So did the Nazis and the Communists. It is completely contrary to the Founding principles of this country though.

in my view, there should be a amnesty period wherein the populace must hand in all privately owned firearms.

Yes, and drugs, subversive literature, any gold that they may have, and any information on their neighbors as well.

As a substitute, it should be mandatory that at all times all citizens 18 and up be armed with military grade flamethrowers. This would prove a vastly superior deterrant to crime and lawlessness.

Not at all. They are bulky and heavy, difficult to conceal, and cannot reach as far as a good gun. Also they create massive amounts of collateral damage, and their fuel tanks make a good target.

I know you are trying to be funny with a false comparison, but you ought at least suggest something more practical.

The gunfight at the Okay corral would have been a very different affair, likewise, the battle in Seattle with both the police and protesters so armed. We limit ourselves by thinking traditional gunpowder technology is the only way forward.

Forward thinking is phasers and needlers, as is mentioned in various science fiction stories.

[CKay]

The point is that the steps taken by your government in the 20th century i.e. the gradual systematic banning of firearms and practically speaking self defense have not helped the British people in fact they have made things worse.

Nah, the point is the vast majority of us here in the UK are very happy that guns and crime involving guns are rare and wouldn't want that to change. Why would we?

And by all means, you lot keep your guns and your 85 fatal shootings per day and your incredibly high homicide rate. No skin off my nose. I never intend to visit - in fact the aforementioned being prime reasons not to.

[williatw]

maybe we should disarm the police too.

You joke, but they more or less did in England.

Cause if you disarm the police injuries/deaths among the police decline. Of course they do because disarmed cops are far less likely to intervene in violent situations because they can't defend themselves let alone help a crime victime. If cops patroling in violent neighborhoods in the US were disarmed, thats what they would do "patrol" from the safety of their cars, only showing up much much later to take victim statements(if their still alive) and cart away the bodies. Suppose incidents of police brutality would decline...crime would skyrocket as the gangs were emboldened realizing they had little to fear from the police.
Bet if you disarmed our soldiers in Afghanistan injuries/deaths among them would decline too. Because they would be to scared to patrol outside of being inside well armed vehicles and would refuse to leave the base to patrol.

[tomclarke]

The point is that the steps taken by your government in the 20th century i.e. the gradual systematic banning of firearms and practically speaking self defense have not helped the British people in fact they have made things worse. All you are saying is well your homicide rate is still much lower than the US so there. They were lower before your gov did anything, the point is that the things they have tried has only made things worse for you not better.

I never like proof by asertion. Do you have evidence to back up this idea? Like historic homicide rates in UK? Noting also problems caused by lack of reporting a long time ago?

As arguments go, the ones on the other side (see above) look much stronger and are backed by:

(1) clear inverse correlation between overall homicide rate and gun owndership

(2) no correlation between non-gun homicide rate and gun ownership.

Across many different countries.

[Diogenes]

For society yes, individually no. So it is relevant to whether gun control laws increase safety.

But the Branas study is very carefully controlled and quite powerful evidence for even individual lack of safety under weak gun control laws.

Relative to other people in the same area, but still much SAFER than they would have been with STRONG gun control laws.

Well the Branas study shows pretty conclusively that your premise (individually 2X safer with gun) is wrong. It is worth reading, tho probably behind a pay wall, and the sumaries do not of course do it justice.

Do you have a study which shows the advantages of suppressing freedom of speech, or freedom of the press? I bet you could stop a lot of crime if you suppressed freedom of religion, (especially Islamic) or freedom to peaceably assemble.

I bet a study would show that randomly searching in people's houses for contraband would also do a lot to combat crime.

It seems as though those freedoms are just downright troublesome, aren't they?


It's funny. Prior to both World Wars, England had succeeded in rounding up all it's excess firearms and getting rid of them, all to come begging to we Americans to send them guns for protection because they hadn't any, any longer.




Silly buggers, weren't they?

[Diogenes]

Nope. At least not precisely. Smart humans are not "more sapient" than stupid ones. Sapience is more like a phase change rather than a temperature.

You are trying to slice a continuum. There is no identifiable point which is different from another except at the beginning.

Nope. Sentience is a continuum. Sapience is a character. It is or is not. Though without mutual language, it is sometimes difficult to tell which.

And when you come up with a surefire way to predict this character before the fact, THEN you will have a valid argument.