There has been a spate of coverage of this hot topic both in the press and on T.V. recently in England. After the 18th death due to stabbing in our nation's capital this year alone, people are starting to (finally) direct their attention to dealing with street crime.
Interestingly, kife crime (and thank god it is only just knife crime by the way, the stringent police control on activated guns is very effective in keeping them away from your average street thug) is now the number 1 metropolitan police priority (the Met is the London police force); supplanting terrorism.
The papers are rife with terrifying relations of very recent stabbing incidents. One of the reasons this epidemic of knife fatalaties has been so hard-hitting to our nation's hearts is that the victims have all been young. Ben Kinsella, a 16 year old, and brother of a semi-famous soap starlet was chased by a group of black teenagers and murdered in a frenzy of stabs.
Firstly, the symptoms of the current problem are not only that we are looking at massive reported stabbing figures (somewhere in the region of 5000 every 3 months); I think most British people will accept my the sentiment that there is a growing culture of disrespect, especially amongst younger people towards older people. Another symptom is that our schools are becoming more and more dangerous, with expensive private schools being some of the only educational facilities where a parent can be relatively certain their child will be allowed to pursue an education unimpeded by violence and peer pressure to be anti-social.
Now the reason for this post is purely to sate my curiosity. I have been enjoying talking through solutions to this worrying issue with my mum and brother; having spent some time at my house. We came up with a lot of interesting things to talk about, inspired by the programs we were watching on tv. I assume that, if I open this up to TL, some more interesting discussions can come about. Note, I would really appreciate if people just gave any sort of opinion. You don't have to be a learned social worker or accomplished sociological philosophy professor ITT.
I think the current situation in England isn't anywhere near as dire as a multitude of far less economically secure and stable countries; but this is an issue which reaches all walks of life in England. No matter where you are you will be near an estaste where there could potentially be guys running around with knives.
So the issue is; how does a society tackle this problem? There have been lots of suggestions made by people I have talked to and observed in the paper and on T.V.; and which I have made myself, and here are some choice ones to talk about (in no significant order):
- Lack of strong male role models in the family or in the media (particularly for ethnicities other than white)
- Availability of drink and drugs
- Lack of education in parenting
- Police too lenient/ bureaucratic
- 'Arms racing' with rival post-code gangs (your postcode is a handful of streets) for safety
- Education being dissatisfying, teachers being underqualified and easily disrespectable
- Not enough vocational schooling- too much focus on academics and non-physical subjects
- Lack of work ethic from families living on the dole (welfare) through generations. Lack of ambition or desire to contribute to society
- Peer pressure, 'urban culture'
- Overly bureaucratic, molly-coddling society. Too many rights for misbehaving children?
- Focus in schools on the slower and less capable children. The old system, with normal schools and grammar schools, would segregate the clever kids before they could be dragged down and weighed down by the less clever ones. That system was deleted awhile ago...and people wonder whether it should be brought back, and schools should be given new means to deal with those few troublesome children in class
There are surely more issues. Now as to the solutions, perhaps it would be good to decide which is the most important reason why the younger generations are more violent, disrespectful and directly, conspicuosly violent in society.
In my book, trouble starts at the home. But, regardless of the quality of a parent, their child has a huge chance of 'going bad' if they mix with the wrong people. Because, spending a hell of a lot more time with friends than with parents, inevitably kids will be drawn into the worlds of their friends. The availability of alcohol to kids is an important issue, but is it really 'tackleable'? Unless you basically outlaw offlicences, and tail every single man who buys drinks when there are youths waiting outside; is there really an effective way of controlling this?
I think that the dual-edged sword one should use in dealing with these issues is to increase funding for schools, and modify the curriculum. To bring back grammar schools, and make it possible to enter the grammar stream at any age due to good results in your school exams, and tackle social issues like parenting and drugs education; on the one hand, and to become tougher and more streamlined as a police force on the other.
I think that there should be a clear dividing line between restraining dangerous individuals from damaging innocent people; and preventing those individuals from becoming dangerous. I think the police should do the first job, and the government the second.
On July 08 2008 06:31 Thrill wrote: 1. Big block of text. 2. Big block of text continued. 3. Opinions? 4. ???? 5. Profit.
In all seriousness though, it's all down to education.
Purge 2008! I'm gonna think of a response to this thread, but I don't have one yet. I lived in England earlier this year for university for a term and I'm aware of the issue of child gangs, but I don't know the best way to combat it. If you ask me it all begins at home with the parents, but we have nothing to this extent in America as far as youngsters go. I would say parent education, but that's not going to help the current mess, only mold a better future.
Well yes. I definitely agree. I think that, right now, there are many children who really deserve the attention of the police more than the government and social workers, but hopefully the situation can be swerved around, and the smallest possible amount of people are actually too far gone to be shown the merits of cooperating peacefully in society.
I don't know most of the facts, but since you specifically asked for it, I will give you my opinion anyway. I think the problem is vastly exaggerated by the media. The numbers are still low and there is no knife murderer around every corner. Sure, the proportion of youngsters with bad education, social 'problems' or disrespect towards the older generation is growing, just as children seem to age faster and faster, mentally. I grant you that. But I think it's a constant progress which has been going on for centuries, basically and it hasn't been exploding during the last year or so. It's just that media has found a hot topic and the result of that is always the same.
There might be a temporary accumulation of such incidents as you described, but they are probably just a result of the media coverage, with people jumping the bandwagon. It will go away and the topic will be forgotten again.
That the whole western world is drifting away from the mind of enlightenment, _that_ is a dangerous trend which has been going on for 80 years and which causes such tendencies that you describe. But that's a much deeper problem and will never be adressed by anybody.
On July 08 2008 06:49 anotak wrote: Those CCTV and cameras are sure paying off for you brits. I wish the poor people of the USA could afford CCTV watching our every step.
Why in the world would you want to bring 1984 upon yourself.
My first reply was really a flirt with the whole purge thing - which is kind of relevant in this thread as it's a "cleaning up the streets" parallell.
As for whether or not i agree - yes, education is key and schools need to improve across the board. Certain aspects of the educational system in the UK are more flawed than in other european countries which leaves room for improvement - Jamie Oliver mentiones just one of these - food. ^^
Other points in the OP i disagree with. Some of the 'suggestions' listed are trolling in my eyes, and the finishing point regarding more power to the police i'm completely against.
This isn't really a topic that's very easy to discuss - choose one of the points you made and i'll happily give my inputs.
Rename the topic "The balance between freedom and safety taken to the streets" where we discuss how to balance the scale and how much extra authority from government/police we should allow as opposed to what can be built up from education and wellfare.
these are just things that I've observed ppl talking about on TV (the daily politics, that 4 part show on street crime where they interview important people to the issue, random discussion shows and like radio like bbc4). I am asking for your opinions for any ways to deal with these issues, and then hopefully there will develop people on one side and people on another, at which point a productive debate can occur; hopefully enlightening everyone to new and interesting takes on the issue.
And by the way, your point, thrill, about freedom and safety doesn't really apply to this. This isn't about giving more authority to the police; more about how it should redirect its focus. This post is more about how to deal with the problems before they actually arise; because to be honest dealing with crims is definitely less debatable a topic. Sentencing crims isn't, on the other hand; so I didn't want to have the topic purely about dealing with parental issues etc. There is a lot to talk about on this topic imo.
well if you are making that statement for humour then lol . Because it's very true xD. But if you are serious...
wow lol well that's never gonna happen. The problems are more street crime orientated, less burglaries and things in the home. There are big groups of teenagers and young people on street corners, frightening people and beating them up; and gangs having running battles in their estates as well as incursions into affluent areas to cause mayhem and destruction. Do you think it would be legal to run out into the street and open up on them with a 12 gauge, even in your country?
I went to a grammar school in a highly middle class area so I have very little experience with all that stuff. However what your conclusion seems to be is that you should separate the good children from the bad to stop the bad ones corrupting the good. If you keep all the good ones together then there will be no bad influences and they'll all grow up to be model citizens. In theory it sounds good and I expect it'd work. The phrase one bad apple can spoil the barrel springs to mind. The problem is that this isn't apples. These are children. You're willing to write off a portion of the nations youth in order to prevent their taint spreading to the rest of them. And the worst part about that is you're using an intelligence based exam to do it.
The clever kids go to the grammar school where they are shielded from the problems of the world and bad influences and grow up to be perfect citizens. The ones who don't work or cause problems go to secondary moderns which are basically day care for the under 16s. Society writes them off simply because they were brought up poorly and acted out at school. Maybe their problem was an abusive father who taught them it is acceptable to hit people. Who knows. Who cares. They'll drop out at 16, end up turning to crime, go to prison and be in and out for the rest of their life. The stupid kids go to the secondary moderns and can't get a good education because society has written them off. Sucks for them because they didn't actually do anything wrong. You just chose the grammar school to be the method of selection. Best case scenario they get a menial low skill job at 16 and stick with it for the next 50 years. Worst case scenario they hit back at society and spend the rest of their life in and out of jail.
the stringent police control on activated guns is very effective in keeping them away from your average street thug
This is going to be a gun control debate isn't it? I can already predict what they will say...
This is clear evidence that GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK! Look at this: you ban guns and stabbings go up sky high! See laws don't help against criminals because they won't obey them. If you take away guns all you're doing is making them use knives while innocent law-abiding citizens can't even make use of a gun to defend themselves! Had the girl who got chased down by that gang carried a gun with her, she would have easily fended them off. As a witty mockery of gun control I am going to propose that next knives get banned! After all, knives are used to kill people. If people did not have knives then no violence would ever happen. Who cares if knives have other uses? Let me make my clever debate-winning analogy!
Well no that's not at all my opinion Kwark. If you seriously want to hear it rather than insult me then for the record, as I did latently express, I believe that the top cream of society should be skimmed off and cultivated, and the bottom shit should be dealt with in a way that will be sympathetic but also expedient for the people in the middle. I also believe very strongly that vocational schooling is the way forward for most people who will in reality end up quitting school at 16 and going on to grind 9-5's.
The point of this discussion is: how to deal with the supposedly bad apples in society. So it would be pretty counterproductive to focus on how to make sure that clever people get the best start in life. Truly brilliant people will prevail regardless. I agree that competence should be encouraged and focused on in schools; but children aren't getting stabbed in the street because really clever kids can't get more latin text books (at least i hope not).
I really think the curriculum needs to change in SO many ways. And one of the most important ways, is allowing students to focus on those vocational and physical subjects.
I do most certainly NOT advocate simply leaving children by the wayside; as that is one of the biggest causes of the problems we have. But then again, I do not agree with allowing the bottom 5% to adversely affect the other 95%'s progress disproportionately.
the stringent police control on activated guns is very effective in keeping them away from your average street thug
This is going to be a gun control debate isn't it? I can already predict what they will say...
This is clear evidence that GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK! Look at this: you ban guns and stabbings go up sky high! See laws don't help against criminals because they won't obey them. If you take away guns all you're doing is making them use knives while innocent law-abiding citizens can't even make use of a gun to defend themselves! Had the girl who got chased down by that gang carried a gun with her, she would have easily fended them off. As a witty mockery of gun control I am going to propose that next knives get banned! After all, knives are used to kill people. If people did not have knives then no violence would ever happen. Who cares if knives have other uses? Let me make my clever debate-winning analogy!
Yes but we don't have school massacres by the barrell full, and it's harder to stab 10 innocent victims than shoot them with an uzi. Also, the amount of people who actually die from stabwounds is SO much lower than the amount that die from gunshots that it hurts (literally).
kids realise alcohol and fucking around is fun and cheap
kids realise you can fuck around and drink alcohol all your life and the government with give you greater support and funding than it will a straight-edge worker who toils his whole life. you can live off the dole infinitely, get housing benefit, other support benefit, child benefit, etc etc etc.
the stringent police control on activated guns is very effective in keeping them away from your average street thug
This is going to be a gun control debate isn't it? I can already predict what they will say...
This is clear evidence that GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK! Look at this: you ban guns and stabbings go up sky high! See laws don't help against criminals because they won't obey them. If you take away guns all you're doing is making them use knives while innocent law-abiding citizens can't even make use of a gun to defend themselves! Had the girl who got chased down by that gang carried a gun with her, she would have easily fended them off. As a witty mockery of gun control I am going to propose that next knives get banned! After all, knives are used to kill people. If people did not have knives then no violence would ever happen. Who cares if knives have other uses? Let me make my clever debate-winning analogy!
Yes but we don't have school massacres by the barrell full, and it's harder to stab 10 innocent victims than shoot them with an uzi. Also, the amount of people who actually die from stabwounds is SO much lower than the amount that die from gunshots that it hurts (literally).
wtf, gun law debate belongs in USA and not the UK. gun prohibitions works in UK, doesn't work in USA. /end
On July 08 2008 08:20 yn01_ wrote: Do all poorer people in england get access to education? Just wanna know
Yeah they do. State education is free up to 16 like perisie said, but state schools can be in difficult locations and are far, far, far more dangerous and rife with bullying and anti-social behaviour than private schools, which make up something like 10% of all schools in the country. Obviously state schools vary in quality.
On July 08 2008 07:51 HamerD wrote: Well no that's not at all my opinion Kwark. If you seriously want to hear it rather than insult me then for the record, as I did latently express, I believe that the top cream of society should be skimmed off and cultivated, and the bottom shit should be dealt with in a way that will be sympathetic but also expedient for the people in the middle. I also believe very strongly that vocational schooling is the way forward for most people who will in reality end up quitting school at 16 and going on to grind 9-5's.
The point of this discussion is: how to deal with the supposedly bad apples in society. So it would be pretty counterproductive to focus on how to make sure that clever people get the best start in life. Truly brilliant people will prevail regardless. I agree that competence should be encouraged and focused on in schools; but children aren't getting stabbed in the street because really clever kids can't get more latin text books (at least i hope not).
I really think the curriculum needs to change in SO many ways. And one of the most important ways, is allowing students to focus on those vocational and physical subjects.
I do most certainly NOT advocate simply leaving children by the wayside; as that is one of the biggest causes of the problems we have. But then again, I do not agree with allowing the bottom 5% to adversely affect the other 95%'s progress disproportionately.
I didn't insult you. If I were to insult you I'd call you a retard. What I did was point out that you can't have special schools for nurturing the 'good' children because that in turn means that the 'bad' children are getting a worse education and therefore a worse chance in life. And don't say the other schools would be good too, but the good ones better because that means that the other schools are comparitively bad. By actively cultivating the top cream you are actively neglecting the bottom.
Further more you mentioned grammar schools, not me. And by mentioning grammar schools with selective exams you automatically condemn children to the bad schools based purely upon intelligence. And that is total bs.
In other criticisms. By having schools for clever hard working kids and having schools for "other" you create sink schools. If you were a young talented teacher then where would you choose to teach? This was the problem with grammar schools. Even given equal funding you end up with sink schools in which children have no prospects.
As for vocational training, what is this, the 1950s. What you're saying is basically a repeat of the 1943 Butler Education Act, creating the tripartite system. However given the decline of British industry and the rise of an economy based upon the services and banking vocational training has lost it's niche. How many plumbers and builders does society need? Higher education is required for the British economy these days and by increasing vocational training you're fucking over the students.
Basically what you're saying is nothing new. We've been there, done it and moved away from it because it sucked. You've written a manifesto for an outdated system.
This is called a moral panic. It pops up every once in a while when the news media latches onto something or other.
The same thing happens all over the western world. Something grabs people's attention, and in order to sell newspapers, whatever people are scared of starts getting reported - It's not that there are more stabbings or kidnappings or shootings or whatever, it's that the media is suddenly reporting every single one of them instead of glossing them over.
In your case, it's the chavs or whatever you call fuckup kids in the UK. There have always been fuckup kids, and let's face it, there always will be. They've just had different names over the past three thousand years.
the stringent police control on activated guns is very effective in keeping them away from your average street thug
This is going to be a gun control debate isn't it? I can already predict what they will say...
This is clear evidence that GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK! Look at this: you ban guns and stabbings go up sky high! See laws don't help against criminals because they won't obey them. If you take away guns all you're doing is making them use knives while innocent law-abiding citizens can't even make use of a gun to defend themselves! Had the girl who got chased down by that gang carried a gun with her, she would have easily fended them off. As a witty mockery of gun control I am going to propose that next knives get banned! After all, knives are used to kill people. If people did not have knives then no violence would ever happen. Who cares if knives have other uses? Let me make my clever debate-winning analogy!
Holster your mockery until you explain the detour in logic. To your dismay, that suggestion is clearly in line with the "logic" of gun control.
Of course, I point this out as an opponent of gun control, because guns/knives don't kill people. People kill people. Cliché? Sure. It's still correct, though. If you outlaw guns/knives/whatever, people are still going to find a way to kill each other. A baseball bat, a sharpened broom handle, a philips screwdriver. All deadly weapons.
England has a big problem with racism, ageism, and stratified wealth distribution. These are cultural problems, and they breed violence. To contrarily state that the means for violence propagates violence itself, is ludicrous. That we have arrived at a juncture where gun control logic would literally require outlawing of knives in this case, is why you felt the need to preempt that suggestion with mockery.
I say England stay the course. Outlaw knives. Please, continue to be the working example of failed gun control.
On July 08 2008 07:51 HamerD wrote: Well no that's not at all my opinion Kwark. If you seriously want to hear it rather than insult me then for the record, as I did latently express, I believe that the top cream of society should be skimmed off and cultivated, and the bottom shit should be dealt with in a way that will be sympathetic but also expedient for the people in the middle. I also believe very strongly that vocational schooling is the way forward for most people who will in reality end up quitting school at 16 and going on to grind 9-5's.
The point of this discussion is: how to deal with the supposedly bad apples in society. So it would be pretty counterproductive to focus on how to make sure that clever people get the best start in life. Truly brilliant people will prevail regardless. I agree that competence should be encouraged and focused on in schools; but children aren't getting stabbed in the street because really clever kids can't get more latin text books (at least i hope not).
I really think the curriculum needs to change in SO many ways. And one of the most important ways, is allowing students to focus on those vocational and physical subjects.
I do most certainly NOT advocate simply leaving children by the wayside; as that is one of the biggest causes of the problems we have. But then again, I do not agree with allowing the bottom 5% to adversely affect the other 95%'s progress disproportionately.
I didn't insult you. If I were to insult you I'd call you a retard. What I did was point out that you can't have special schools for nurturing the 'good' children because that in turn means that the 'bad' children are getting a worse education and therefore a worse chance in life. And don't say the other schools would be good too, but the good ones better because that means that the other schools are comparitively bad. By actively cultivating the top cream you are actively neglecting the bottom.
Further more you mentioned grammar schools, not me. And by mentioning grammar schools with selective exams you automatically condemn children to the bad schools based purely upon intelligence. And that is total bs.
In other criticisms. By having schools for clever hard working kids and having schools for "other" you create sink schools. If you were a young talented teacher then where would you choose to teach? This was the problem with grammar schools. Even given equal funding you end up with sink schools in which children have no prospects.
As for vocational training, what is this, the 1950s. What you're saying is basically a repeat of the 1943 Butler Education Act, creating the tripartite system. However given the decline of British industry and the rise of an economy based upon the services and banking vocational training has lost it's niche. How many plumbers and builders does society need? Higher education is required for the British economy these days and by increasing vocational training you're fucking over the students.
Basically what you're saying is nothing new. We've been there, done it and moved away from it because it sucked. You've written a manifesto for an outdated system.
Ok well this is interesting although really off topic. While your style of debate is almost always reactionary, and I accept that; I don't want to spend ages arguing about potential educational reforms. I would rather that you posit your opinion as to a solution to the problem at hand.
To outline my opinion though, I do believe that the university figures should be about 20-30% of students going to higher education, rather than the government's intended 50%. Although the country, specifically London, is focused more around tertiary employment; forcing our society into the funnel of university in the desperate attempt to create more suits and less bods; is drastically misguided (in my opinion). I wouldn't happen to know the university drop out rates, and I wouldn't particularly care. I happen to know enough shop floor workers and 9-5'ers with degrees to convince me that the government's current direction is wrong. I think A levels are too easy and GCSE's and in fact all education is too coursework-based and not problem-solving enough.
Your point about vocational schooling...I guarantee that a plumbing GCSE would be more useful than a french GCSE to most people in the country. This society needs huge amounts of plumbers and builders. But regardless of that, what my point was is that no matter how good the teacher, trying to teach a lot of the standard curriculum in the basic hostile environment of a dodgy state school is bound to virtually unsolvable problems.
Your point about young talented teacher choosing grammar schools is bogus. Young talented teachers choose private schools anyway. Or uni. Or high performing state schools. The fact is that there simply aren't enough talented teachers to go around. I think it's critical that more money be pumped into teaching pay, because teaching is such a vital role.
Now you say that I proposed a return to the 1950's. Well I don't. I simply propose that the GCSE system be mutated to allow for less academics. In all schools. Not separate vocational schools, but definitely more funding into a vocational subject branch of the curriculum. I think that this could help turn schools into more interesting places. Let's face it, it's easier to see how you could use a course in building than how to use a course in science. The issue is dealing with not really just problem children here, but general youth disaffection with the education system.
I finish by hoping that you aren't satisfied with the current education system. I truly hope that because the current education system sucks balls imo and is one of the leading contributing factors to growing disrespect and violence.
the stringent police control on activated guns is very effective in keeping them away from your average street thug
This is going to be a gun control debate isn't it? I can already predict what they will say...
This is clear evidence that GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK! Look at this: you ban guns and stabbings go up sky high! See laws don't help against criminals because they won't obey them. If you take away guns all you're doing is making them use knives while innocent law-abiding citizens can't even make use of a gun to defend themselves! Had the girl who got chased down by that gang carried a gun with her, she would have easily fended them off. As a witty mockery of gun control I am going to propose that next knives get banned! After all, knives are used to kill people. If people did not have knives then no violence would ever happen. Who cares if knives have other uses? Let me make my clever debate-winning analogy!
Holster your mockery until you explain the detour in logic. To your dismay, that suggestion is clearly in line with the "logic" of gun control.
Of course, I point this out as an opponent of gun control, because guns/knives don't kill people. People kill people. Cliché? Sure. It's still correct, though. If you outlaw guns/knives/whatever, people are still going to find a way to kill each other. A baseball bat, a sharpened broom handle, a philips screwdriver. All deadly weapons.
England has a big problem with racism, ageism, and stratified wealth distribution. These are cultural problems, and they breed violence. To contrarily state that the means for violence propagates violence itself, is ludicrous. That we have arrived at a juncture where gun control logic would literally require outlawing of knives in this case, is why you felt the need to preempt that suggestion with mockery.
I say England stay the course. Outlaw knives. Please, continue to be the working example of failed gun control.
you don't seem much of an opponent of gun control. Most people in Britain openly deride the idea of having the same ridiculous gun laws of America. Headbangaa...a gun is MORE dangerous than a knife. A knife is MORE dangerous than a baseball bat. More people die from gunshots than from stabwounds. It is a GOOD idea that we have less guns in our streets. Although this isn't the topic for that, people seem desperate to avoid the actual OP. Perhaps they think it wasn't extensive enough ¬¬.
On July 08 2008 08:51 Plutonium wrote: This is called a moral panic. It pops up every once in a while when the news media latches onto something or other.
The same thing happens all over the western world. Something grabs people's attention, and in order to sell newspapers, whatever people are scared of starts getting reported - It's not that there are more stabbings or kidnappings or shootings or whatever, it's that the media is suddenly reporting every single one of them instead of glossing them over.
In your case, it's the chavs or whatever you call fuckup kids in the UK. There have always been fuckup kids, and let's face it, there always will be. They've just had different names over the past three thousand years.
Well this is an important thing you see. Because we really have always had issues with class and violence, for example football violence used to be FAR more widespread. But any Brit will tell you, the streets are, every day, becoming more and more dangerous. This isn't, this really isn't just another manifestation of a new generation's discontent. Drugs are stronger, people are more violent and disrespectful and the streets are more dangerous than before. From the 1990's to the 2000's, where there has been just as much TV coverage and documentation, most people will agree in England that they aren't exaggerating when they say things have deteriorated. No one can really put their finger on it. I guess you have to come over here and experience it. In England, you don't so much have 'trouble kids' as clearly identifiable members of society. They will be interspersed with the normal kids who have been allured to their cause. You have big groups of kids kicking around most towns, specifically Manchester Liverpool and London; in all of the inner cities clearly, but also most of the suburban areas. Just growing amounts. This is of course a case of panic in the nation. This isn't just about stabbings and deaths though, it's about the fact that people are more likely to be crossing roads and staring at the pavement than they were years ago. I wouldn't just blank it out as nothing, in all honesty.
I don't know what any other English ppl think here, but I think most of you will agree that problems with hoodies/ chavs/ townies have not stayed on a steady slope since 1990, they have been increasing everywhere. Problems used to be mostly in the inner cities. Dudes would go around with guns and knives and shit all the time yeah sure. But it's now creeping into all aspects of society. It's flooding every location except the poshest areas and the most public of locations. And people really have reached a point where they would like to sort this problem out, because parents now fear their children being mugged at knifepoint wherever they go; not just if they are heading out to brixton on a cold night.
I'm not an expert on juvenile delinquency in Britain or whatever, but I suggest that you go look up actual statistics, instead of relying on hearsay and anecdote. Also, take the time to look up who the Mods and Rockers were.
Anyways, I actually spent my time looking up statistics on crime in the UK, and I found a nifty report right Here that says that violent crime has been pretty much steady for the past eight years.
the stringent police control on activated guns is very effective in keeping them away from your average street thug
This is going to be a gun control debate isn't it? I can already predict what they will say...
This is clear evidence that GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK! Look at this: you ban guns and stabbings go up sky high! See laws don't help against criminals because they won't obey them. If you take away guns all you're doing is making them use knives while innocent law-abiding citizens can't even make use of a gun to defend themselves! Had the girl who got chased down by that gang carried a gun with her, she would have easily fended them off. As a witty mockery of gun control I am going to propose that next knives get banned! After all, knives are used to kill people. If people did not have knives then no violence would ever happen. Who cares if knives have other uses? Let me make my clever debate-winning analogy!
Holster your mockery until you explain the detour in logic. To your dismay, that suggestion is clearly in line with the "logic" of gun control.
Of course, I point this out as an opponent of gun control, because guns/knives don't kill people. People kill people. Cliché? Sure. It's still correct, though. If you outlaw guns/knives/whatever, people are still going to find a way to kill each other. A baseball bat, a sharpened broom handle, a philips screwdriver. All deadly weapons.
England has a big problem with racism, ageism, and stratified wealth distribution. These are cultural problems, and they breed violence. To contrarily state that the means for violence propagates violence itself, is ludicrous. That we have arrived at a juncture where gun control logic would literally require outlawing of knives in this case, is why you felt the need to preempt that suggestion with mockery.
I say England stay the course. Outlaw knives. Please, continue to be the working example of failed gun control.
you don't seem much of an opponent of gun control. Most people in Britain openly deride the idea of having the same ridiculous gun laws of America. Headbangaa...a gun is MORE dangerous than a knife. A knife is MORE dangerous than a baseball bat. More people die from gunshots than from stabwounds. It is a GOOD idea that we have less guns in our streets. Although this isn't the topic for that, people seem desperate to avoid the actual OP. Perhaps they think it wasn't extensive enough ¬¬.
I find it interesting that "danger" is attributed to an item rather than its intended use.
A gun is simply efficient when employed for dangerous purposes. More efficient than a knife, which is more efficient than a screwdriver. None of these items are "dangerous"; that is personification of an inanimate object. This alludes to my original point.
So when we outlaw because their "efficiency in killing" is too high, I believe that is a very slippery slope.
Chibi's suggestion that we consider incidental details is also slippery and subjective. But this isn't a gun control thread (well, it sort of is) so I'll just leave it at that.
I can tell you that's not true ¬¬. All of my friends, poor and rich have all noticed the rise in anti social behaviour and violent crime over the past 20 years. I can't vouch for Kwark obviously, due to the fact that he clearly lives in a box (in an incredibly good area) from which he daren't venture to actually experience 'the streets'. If I can regularly encounter groups of kids causing trouble and threatening people in Brighton of all places, I have no idea how he has failed to do the same in London.
Regards your post plutonium, I am pretty dismayed to see that no one has really any opinion on solutions to the social situation. They all seem desperate to disprove it is the case that any action is needed at all. The problems with your post are that the facts and figures the government presents do nothing to account for the anti social behaviour, the increasing prevalence of intimidating and dangerous groups, haranguing and beatings. There is no figure indicating the amount of areas which are now dangerous to walk through. I don't even know if there's a separation between stab woundings and beating woundings.
I wonder if any other English ppl have an opinion on whether this media escalation is pure hyperbole or if actually the media is finally viewing the subject in fair light (which is my opinion).
the stringent police control on activated guns is very effective in keeping them away from your average street thug
This is going to be a gun control debate isn't it? I can already predict what they will say...
This is clear evidence that GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK! Look at this: you ban guns and stabbings go up sky high! See laws don't help against criminals because they won't obey them. If you take away guns all you're doing is making them use knives while innocent law-abiding citizens can't even make use of a gun to defend themselves! Had the girl who got chased down by that gang carried a gun with her, she would have easily fended them off. As a witty mockery of gun control I am going to propose that next knives get banned! After all, knives are used to kill people. If people did not have knives then no violence would ever happen. Who cares if knives have other uses? Let me make my clever debate-winning analogy!
Holster your mockery until you explain the detour in logic. To your dismay, that suggestion is clearly in line with the "logic" of gun control.
Of course, I point this out as an opponent of gun control, because guns/knives don't kill people. People kill people. Cliché? Sure. It's still correct, though. If you outlaw guns/knives/whatever, people are still going to find a way to kill each other. A baseball bat, a sharpened broom handle, a philips screwdriver. All deadly weapons.
England has a big problem with racism, ageism, and stratified wealth distribution. These are cultural problems, and they breed violence. To contrarily state that the means for violence propagates violence itself, is ludicrous. That we have arrived at a juncture where gun control logic would literally require outlawing of knives in this case, is why you felt the need to preempt that suggestion with mockery.
I say England stay the course. Outlaw knives. Please, continue to be the working example of failed gun control.
you don't seem much of an opponent of gun control. Most people in Britain openly deride the idea of having the same ridiculous gun laws of America. Headbangaa...a gun is MORE dangerous than a knife. A knife is MORE dangerous than a baseball bat. More people die from gunshots than from stabwounds. It is a GOOD idea that we have less guns in our streets. Although this isn't the topic for that, people seem desperate to avoid the actual OP. Perhaps they think it wasn't extensive enough ¬¬.
So when we outlaw because their "efficiency in killing" is too high, I believe that is a very slippery slope.
regardless, that is the basic reason. Guns enable people to be more lethal than knives. Incidentally, the murder statistics would apparently be much higher if kids knew how to slash and stab arteries correctly.
Sorry btw for that other guy, even if it were the case that crime and social indimidation and general disrespect and disillusion has stayed the same for 8 years; that wouldn't mean it shouldn't be dealt with and tackled and diminished.
Situations like this provide cause for debate. Saying that these situations have caused the debate is pretty obvious. The thing is that problems float around society for ages until they become the most publicised, at which point even parliament gives more attention to them. So it is often healthy to follow the country's general attention, because it regularly changes and it means we all have something direct to talk about.
I actually addressed your solution in a well informed argument against it. Something you ignored. I pointed out your solution is just a rehashing of outdated and failed education policy which we left for a good reason. I explained why vocational training is utterly redundant, why selection based upon merit is unfair and will always create sink schools and why "creating better environments for the good (read middle to upper class)" translates as a bad deal for the bad (read working class).
And I grew up in the south in a middle class area (which is why we still have grammar schools) and my university, although technically part of the University of London, is in Surrey and therefore chavs can't afford the houses.
On July 08 2008 08:46 Plutonium wrote: "Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book."
-Cicero
Times were bad. Cicero lived in the death throes of the Roman Republic.
It was a time not unlike today. A time when great wealth, which did not stem from the labor of the general population (in his case, military conquest with professional armies, in our case, technological advancement driven by a tiny minority), flooded his country, and the people all felt entitled to a share of what they never contributed to. A time of growing egotism and partisan politics, which together brought the end of sincere rational discourse. A time when labor was increasingly seen as a thing to be done by foreigners (in his case, captured slaves, in ours, third-worlders and immigrant laborers, legal or otherwise).
Imperial Rome turned out to be a city of welfare bums and the idle rich, which slowly fell apart. I wonder where we're headed.
On July 08 2008 10:11 Kwark wrote: I actually addressed your solution in a well informed argument against it. Something you ignored. I pointed out your solution is just a rehashing of outdated and failed education policy which we left for a good reason. I explained why vocational training is utterly redundant, why selection based upon merit is unfair and will always create sink schools and why "creating better environments for the good (read middle to upper class)" translates as a bad deal for the bad (read working class).
And I grew up in the south in a middle class area (which is why we still have grammar schools) and my university, although technically part of the University of London, is in Surrey and therefore chavs can't afford the houses.
Like I said previously, you argued in your typical style which is reactionary. You didn't provide an opinion of how to solve the issues at hand, like I said. Your speculations as to what might occur if my suggestions were implented are just that, speculations. Not only is your opinion that the old education policy was worse than the current one simply an opinion; you didn't address the fact that we already have sink schools, everywhere. I don't even know what the hell your point about class means there. Free education is free education regardless. You didn't satisfactorily explain how vocational training is redundant. Far from it. You threw a few words in its direction. I completely disagreed. I restate that a course in building is more interesting and applicable than one in science. It's about holding attention. The aim is not to create a rocket scientist out of every state schooler; just to make sure we get the most potential out of kids who aren't necessarily of the academic persuasion. And often, the most troubled kids are the ones to whom the academic curriculum does not appeal.
Selection based upon merit is clearly fair. I believe thoroughly in setting, in subjects. Do you seriously disagree with setting? I see it as the most efficient way to deal with kids of all different ranges of ability; and similarly I find the same thing to happen with schooling. Some of our nation's best and brightest were grammar school educated. Free private school-quality education has always sounded good to me. But this is completely beside the point, in reality. What's on the cards is how to hold the attention and respect of the kids who are causing the violence and disruption in society; and how to engage them in society.
And well I can't believe that you don't regularly run into (or rather away from) chavs and townies, you must live in some sort of eutopia.
Knives are multipurpose. Guns are not. Once someone can think of a way for a gun to prepare my meals I'll give them a second thought as to whether they have any value to society. To the argument that weapons aren't inherently dangerous, I would have to say that you're right. A weapon is not dangerous, just as a tool does not fix things by itself. Except that tools do fix things, and weapons do kill people. Pleading somethings innocence just because it is inanimate and has no power on it's own in my mind makes no sense.
They're not speculations on what might occur because what you're suggesting has been tried and tested and what I'm saying will happen has happened. You're acting like it's this new untried idea whereas anyone who has studied postwar British history (again with the me being a history student at the University of London and you being a college dropout) will know is both old and failed. Either qualify yourself to discuss the failures of the Butler education act or listen to one who is. Don't just deny it failed.
The kind of parents who bring up chavs cannot afford houses in the surrey commuter belt. Add into that the fact that most of my friends are students at a university which is difficult to get into and you have very few chavs.
Selection upon merit is fair provided those selected recieve the same education as those not. This is very markedly not the case in the grammar school system. I went to a grammar school, the standard of education is quite simply better. It's unfair. Better teachers, better connections, better equipment and better prospects. At my grammar school we had a specialist in Oxbridge applications because there were 40 or so a year. Most schools can't boast a single Oxbridge entry a year. This is not simply cleverer students. Everything is better. Which in turn means everything is worse at the secondary moderns.
On July 08 2008 10:31 Jibril_13 wrote: Knives are multipurpose. Guns are not. Once someone can think of a way for a gun to prepare my meals I'll give them a second thought as to whether they have any value to society. To the argument that weapons aren't inherently dangerous, I would have to say that you're right. A weapon is not dangerous, just as a tool does not fix things by itself. Except that tools do fix things, and weapons do kill people. Pleading somethings innocence just because it is inanimate and has no power on it's own in my mind makes no sense.
And now, objects are attributed with innocence vs guilt. The personifications continue! And you are making an assumption I disagree with, that is, that guns are useless. This implies that you favor the government as being the only protector of the self. That is a notion I cannot agree to. The government should yield to its constituents, not vice versa. I realize this sounds radical to neomodernist liberals. I would feel quite safe in a homogeneous society where all people were allowed to be armed. Notice the key adjective I decorated that last sentence with.
Guns can do quite a bit to feed a person, and more than knives I daresay. A knife only moves food from a plate to your mouth, a gun moves food from outside the house to in.
On July 08 2008 10:43 Kwark wrote: They're not speculations on what might occur because what you're suggesting has been tried and tested and what I'm saying will happen has happened. You're acting like it's this new untried idea whereas anyone who has studied postwar British history (again with the me being a history student at the University of London and you being a college dropout) will know is both old and failed. Either qualify yourself to discuss the failures of the Butler education act or listen to one who is. Don't just deny it failed.
From cursory reading it seems the 1944 act was less than successful because it comes down to misspent funding, failure to develop the technical schools in particular and general lack of motivation to actualise the plans- with grammar schools and secondary moderns staying in equal proportion and the majority of funding actually going to secondary moderns. There were of course many vital and important things that arose from the Butler act but I assume you are referring exclusively to the tripartite separation.
Not only did I present only a very slight similarity in the concept of adding more vocational GCSEs (and I also advocate more onus being placed on vocational diplomas); my point about enforcing the return of the grammar school doesn't equate to the tripartite system. I believe that, well-actualised, a strong and thorough reform of all education would be a welcome dose of medicine for the failing school culture which tells students to clamour for a piece of paper with some letters on but doesn't really care about teaching them anything useable. I think that meritocracy should be the absolute conerstone of education. Children should never be satisfied with just doing enough. That is a terrible work ethic to take into the real world.
and you are making speculations because what I proposed was clearly not the exact same thing that had already been tried and failed...and it's at a different time period entirely in different economic situations. It's all so different that you clearly are making speculations.
On July 08 2008 11:02 NovaTheFeared wrote: Guns can do quite a bit to feed a person, and more than knives I daresay. A knife only moves food from a plate to your mouth, a gun moves food from outside the house to in.
On July 08 2008 11:02 NovaTheFeared wrote: Guns can do quite a bit to feed a person, and more than knives I daresay. A knife only moves food from a plate to your mouth, a gun moves food from outside the house to in.
We don't hunt anymore. And farmers can still have guns.
On July 08 2008 10:31 Jibril_13 wrote: Knives are multipurpose. Guns are not. Once someone can think of a way for a gun to prepare my meals I'll give them a second thought as to whether they have any value to society. To the argument that weapons aren't inherently dangerous, I would have to say that you're right. A weapon is not dangerous, just as a tool does not fix things by itself. Except that tools do fix things, and weapons do kill people. Pleading somethings innocence just because it is inanimate and has no power on it's own in my mind makes no sense.
And now, objects are attributed with innocence vs guilt. The personifications continue! And you are making an assumption I disagree with, that is, that guns are useless. This implies that you favor the government as being the only protector of the self. That is a notion I cannot agree to. The government should yield to its constituents, not vice versa. I realize this sounds radical to neomodernist liberals. I would feel quite safe in a homogeneous society where all people were allowed to be armed. Notice the key adjective I decorated that last sentence with.
And you're implying that the only way governments can yield to their constituents is if they take up arms. I must also disagree with you in the fact that I would not feel safe if I knew that everyone around me was armed. It makes me wonder how many more people would end up getting shot in the heat of road rage or a bar fight. Deterrents are only effective when everyone in the situation is level headed.
To the person who ate the grouse: how did you come to eat it? You shot it, and it died. That's what guns do.
On July 08 2008 10:31 Jibril_13 wrote: Knives are multipurpose. Guns are not. Once someone can think of a way for a gun to prepare my meals I'll give them a second thought as to whether they have any value to society. To the argument that weapons aren't inherently dangerous, I would have to say that you're right. A weapon is not dangerous, just as a tool does not fix things by itself. Except that tools do fix things, and weapons do kill people. Pleading somethings innocence just because it is inanimate and has no power on it's own in my mind makes no sense.
And now, objects are attributed with innocence vs guilt. The personifications continue! And you are making an assumption I disagree with, that is, that guns are useless. This implies that you favor the government as being the only protector of the self. That is a notion I cannot agree to. The government should yield to its constituents, not vice versa. I realize this sounds radical to neomodernist liberals. I would feel quite safe in a homogeneous society where all people were allowed to be armed. Notice the key adjective I decorated that last sentence with.
And you're implying that the only way governments can yield to their constituents is if they take up arms.
That's more true than modern thought usually entertains. The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Hey that's catchy, I'm going to write that one down.
I must also disagree with you in the fact that I would not feel safe if I knew that everyone around me was armed. It makes me wonder how many more people would end up getting shot in the heat of road rage or a bar fight.
The fallacy I despise the most of gun control enthusiast is this one. A paranoid distrust of other people, coupled with a curious acceptance of government control. Individuals are, for the most part, intelligent and reasonable. And in a society where each man has the means to ultimately defend himself, there is even less reason to believe that individuals would virtually commit suicide over a petty disagreement. I can't believe how popular this assumption is. It is paranoia plain and simple.
The problem isn't bad yet, but it's geting worse I'm assuming. In the town I'm from we have a much smaller population, and a much larger murder rate from thugs. Orlando, FL sucks
On July 08 2008 07:38 Kwark wrote: I went to a grammar school in a highly middle class area so I have very little experience with all that stuff. However what your conclusion seems to be is that you should separate the good children from the bad to stop the bad ones corrupting the good. If you keep all the good ones together then there will be no bad influences and they'll all grow up to be model citizens. In theory it sounds good and I expect it'd work. The phrase one bad apple can spoil the barrel springs to mind. The problem is that this isn't apples. These are children. You're willing to write off a portion of the nations youth in order to prevent their taint spreading to the rest of them. And the worst part about that is you're using an intelligence based exam to do it.
The clever kids go to the grammar school where they are shielded from the problems of the world and bad influences and grow up to be perfect citizens. The ones who don't work or cause problems go to secondary moderns which are basically day care for the under 16s. Society writes them off simply because they were brought up poorly and acted out at school. Maybe their problem was an abusive father who taught them it is acceptable to hit people. Who knows. Who cares. They'll drop out at 16, end up turning to crime, go to prison and be in and out for the rest of their life. The stupid kids go to the secondary moderns and can't get a good education because society has written them off. Sucks for them because they didn't actually do anything wrong. You just chose the grammar school to be the method of selection. Best case scenario they get a menial low skill job at 16 and stick with it for the next 50 years. Worst case scenario they hit back at society and spend the rest of their life in and out of jail.
Sound about right?
Sounds pretty good. Western societies are too focused on bad and good people, rather than identifying the social factors that drive people to act a certain way. The other purpose of that dichotomy is to remove the blame from "good" people, who have nothing to do with "bad" people being "bad." At the risk of sounding like a hippie, the issues rest much deeper than good and bad people and society as a whole must take responsibility.
I bet most of these kids' lives are largely predetermined before their own intelligence or ability becomes a factor.
The Lucifer Effect is a good read for this subject.
You forget that these governments that you have such little trust in are made up of the same people that you accuse me of distrusting so much. I could just as well say the same thing for you, a paranoid distrust of governments coupled with a curious acceptance of other people. It's not that I don't trust other people per se, because as you say, they are for the most part intelligent and reasonable. It's the other part I'm worried about.
At the risk of answering the gun control advocates and thus degenerating this topic further. There is no reason to legalise guns in Britain. The average man on the street doesn't need a gun to defend himself because he's in no danger of getting into a gunfight. This is because the other men on the street don't have guns. This is not comparable to the situation in the US in which the idea of gun ownership is ingrained deeply into the popular consciousness. Guns are pretty rare even among criminals here simply because it's not worth owning them. Getting caught with a gun will add a long time to your jail sentence and actually shooting someone will get every police force in the country after you. Guns are sufficiently rare to make them more trouble than they are worth. After all, what can a criminal really do with a gun that he can't with a knife. He's just as fucked in a firefight with the police. Tyranny is not a legitimate fear in the UK. Our political system is sufficiently stable not to require the constant threat of popular uprising to keep it honest. It's one of the perks of being the oldest democracy in the world. It's unthinkable that it could change. Equally foreign tyranny is not considered a threat. Given a nuclear deterrent and a highly capable armed forces the resort of a citizens milita with handguns is unlikely to be necessary, or useful if the above fail. Hunting? All the bears and wolves are dead. All the large game is dead. That leaves deer, game birds and rabbits. Farmers still shoot rabbits and indeed have a license for their guns. Shooting game is still a popular sport among the landed classes. We don't load up the truck with hunting rifles and go out into the country for our food. We go to the supermarket. It's just the way we do things.
In short, the British people don't want guns, don't need guns and are better off without them. This does not translate to the American example because it's a completely different culture. However I feel a hell of a lot safer knowing that people aren't walking around the street with guns in their jackets. To be honest the idea terrifies me. That at any moment somebody could just kill you for no reason and that you just have to trust them not to.
On July 08 2008 12:32 Kwark wrote: To be honest the idea terrifies me. That at any moment somebody could just kill you for no reason and that you just have to trust them not to.
On July 08 2008 12:32 Kwark wrote: To be honest the idea terrifies me. That at any moment somebody could just kill you for no reason and that you just have to trust them not to.
It's not guns you fear. It's reality.
No. It's your reality I fear. Fortunately in my reality it's a fair bit harder to kill random strangers because as a society we decided that tools which serve only to end human lives prematurely weren't very constructive.
the wiki article doesn't explain it as well as Malcolm Gladwell does in his book "The Tipping Point"
Basically it says the although nuture and nature plays a role in our psychology (therefore our intent or willingness to commit crimes) what really affects our behavior is our environment. For further reference look up The Stanford Prison Experiment
Basically they took normal people with no history of violence or malice but in the situation that they were in they filled those roles and did so rather well.
the subjects were told either that they were already late for the talk and had to hurry, that they had just enough time to get to the talk, or that they had a few extra minutes......Whether the experimenter instructed the subjects to hurry or not, however, mattered a great deal. Subjects in a hurry were far less likely to stop and provide assistance than the other subjects.
What this shows is that people are heavily affected by context and not by upbringing or philosophy. So my solution to britain's crime problem is to remove all context of crime, be it graffiti, pickpockets, peddlers, vandalism, littering, whatever
I think it all comes down to values that are taught by your parents. For example, my parents being jewish and very anti-violence/pro peace (everyone is "pro peace") made a very strong impression on me. Sure I listen to scary music and like to play shooting games, and "raping" people on sc is fun too, but would i ever want to kill someone for the thrill of it? Would I ever want to just start fights on "da streets". No... why? because i have had education from a good school AND from my parents, which is where it all stems from. The problem is very slippery because how can we possibly erase bad impressions from kids with moronic parents? Once the ball starts rolling it is very hard to stop. I think we just need to look at education to save us all. Make education the major financial priority in society and great empires will be constructed and MAINTAINED. Sweep education aside and empires rise and fall.. Teachers need to be paid exponentially more, and funding needs to be increased 10 fold for schools everywhere.
Im from the US, and i think it would benefit us too.
edit: and no im not rich, lower middle class (60k/year for whole family).
IMHO several factors play a role: - parents often aren't there for children/teens - media influence: gangsta rappers are idols, stupidity is cool, education is gay, life is only about money, drugs, violence and bitches - bad friends, and parents don't care - sit too much in front of TV or comp games -> less sense for social life, less respect etc. - almost no discipline, they don't get stuff done and just hang around. No real goal in life - stupidity and apathy are increasing -> less participation at elections, loss of interest in democracy and politics in general
On July 08 2008 12:32 Kwark wrote: To be honest the idea terrifies me. That at any moment somebody could just kill you for no reason and that you just have to trust them not to.
It's not guns you fear. It's reality.
No. It's your reality I fear. Fortunately in my reality it's a fair bit harder to kill random strangers because as a society we decided that tools which serve only to end human lives prematurely weren't very constructive.
With a gun, or a knife, or a car, or a brick, if someone just randomly decides to kill you, they will probably succeed.
Here in Canada, it may be a crime for an ordinary citizen to carry a loaded pistol on his person outside of a gun range, but anyone who takes a short course can buy whatever pistol they like. And of course, pistols are easy to conceal. Anyone could be carrying one at any time, if they felt like it, and could probably go their whole lives without getting caught unless they decided to shoot someone.
Canada's murder rate is nearly identical to the UK's. My "reality" isn't any more frightening than yours.
On the other hand, the rate of non-firearm murder in the USA is considerably higher than the UK's total murder rate. (and yes, I mean "rate", as in murders per 100,000)
It's a matter of culture more than anything else. Some groups of people in some areas of the USA have very violent cultures. There are people like that in the UK, too, and since they can't easily get guns, they often just carry knives and stab each other, but they aren't as large a proportion of the population as in the USA, so the statistics aren't as high.
I think a case could be made that the guns make the USA much safer and more orderly. Criminals are constantly in fear of being shot by a victim. I do believe there is much more violent culture in the USA, however, there is more crime in every category, including violent crimes other than murder or rape, in the UK than there is the USA. In the UK, young, strong criminals have very little reason to fear for their lives, as long as they pick weak victims.
If you look at the Rwanda massacre, about a million people, about one in seven of the total population, were hacked to death with machetes.
That's society: you live among people, mixing with them defenselessly, and if they decide to just kill you, you die. There are lots of ways to do it. They can run up and stab you. They can run you over with a car. They can make a simple but powerful bomb with ordinary household materials. They can just grab you from behind, throw you down, and kick you to death.
If you believe that people can't just kill you whenever they decide, you're living in a dream world. It is just part of the reality of society. It is the basis of society: we stop worrying about defending ourselves from each other, we ignore the obvious threat we pose to each other, so we can all go about our business.
You can face that like a man, and reason starting from the truth, or you can distort your logic and make yourself vulnerable in order to feel safe.
Has anyone here seen A Clockwork Orange? Its a very controversial movie not to mention I didn't really like it that much. Anyways, this sounds like a good old case of ultraviolence. They should give criminals mind altering therapy by making them sick when they watch violent images.
I read the book. Maybe you do not know this but the moral of the story is that the conditioning did not affect the main character, he made his own choice to shy from violence. its a pretty ridiculous book, very hard to read but its sweet once you understand the language. Korvvy krovvy sunday
On July 08 2008 12:32 Kwark wrote: To be honest the idea terrifies me. That at any moment somebody could just kill you for no reason and that you just have to trust them not to.
It's not guns you fear. It's reality.
No. It's your reality I fear. Fortunately in my reality it's a fair bit harder to kill random strangers because as a society we decided that tools which serve only to end human lives prematurely weren't very constructive.
So you basically want more government to protect you from other individuals, based on a vague distrust.
On July 08 2008 12:44 caution.slip wrote: What this shows is that people are heavily affected by context and not by upbringing or philosophy. So my solution to britain's crime problem is to remove all context of crime, be it graffiti, pickpockets, peddlers, vandalism, littering, whatever
I would tend to agree with you here. Like I say in my OP (I think), no matter how good your parenting, a lot must be done to clear up peer pressure. But like I don't say, you are advocating literally cleaning up the neighbourhood? It's an interesting solution, but I'm not sure it's feasible. It's something that's done in some neighbourhoods in very rare initiatives. It definitely does help, but requires huge resources. Is it really a good idea to perhaps make even more community service sentences rather than prison time to get prisoners to clean up graffiti? Or much tougher laws to put pickpockects and peddlers away? Btw pickpockets really don't encourage violent crime. I think everyone has to accept that there will be opportunism crime forever. But we don't have to accept the level of violence and anger so many people and especially so many of the new generation have on streets.
On July 08 2008 13:16 Hypnosis wrote: I think it all comes down to values that are taught by your parents. For example, my parents being jewish and very anti-violence/pro peace (everyone is "pro peace") made a very strong impression on me. Sure I listen to scary music and like to play shooting games, and "raping" people on sc is fun too, but would i ever want to kill someone for the thrill of it? Would I ever want to just start fights on "da streets". No... why? because i have had education from a good school AND from my parents, which is where it all stems from. The problem is very slippery because how can we possibly erase bad impressions from kids with moronic parents? Once the ball starts rolling it is very hard to stop. I think we just need to look at education to save us all. Make education the major financial priority in society and great empires will be constructed and MAINTAINED. Sweep education aside and empires rise and fall.. Teachers need to be paid exponentially more, and funding needs to be increased 10 fold for schools everywhere.
Good post. I totally agree with that solution. I disagree that it all comes down to the values taught by your parents, but agree that parents as role models are very very important. My dad is a lawyer. I can remember always watching the way he dealt with trouble causers or rude staff members at a shop, or any matter of issues. Then replicating his actions amongst friends to seem knowledgeable or at least experienced. I'm sure the same thing is done for kids of violent dads, and for kids who don't have a dad and rely on a gang leader with strong resolve and experience in the gang world.
I have seen plenty of kids with great parents go completely off the track after having gone to a state school which is rife with violent culture and intimidation. I think making schools more of a priority is an excellent idea. More money into the teacher faculties similarly sounds like the way forward. Education is society's only way of really getting through to kids, and we need to make it count where there are so many parents who lack communication and parenting skills to do that job for society.
The only problem is: what do you divert money from?
On July 08 2008 12:32 Kwark wrote: To be honest the idea terrifies me. That at any moment somebody could just kill you for no reason and that you just have to trust them not to.
It's not guns you fear. It's reality.
No. It's your reality I fear. Fortunately in my reality it's a fair bit harder to kill random strangers because as a society we decided that tools which serve only to end human lives prematurely weren't very constructive.
With a gun, or a knife, or a car, or a brick, if someone just randomly decides to kill you, they will probably succeed.
Believe me, this is completely wrong. There are situations all over the country where people try to kill people with even more than 1 stab wound and fail. It really is SO much harder to kill someone from a knife wound than a gunshot. Guns will always break the ribcage, break the skull, create more disturbance in areas they hit, possibly severing arteries. Fatal torso wounds are much higher in frequency from guns than from knives.
If everyone were armed, there would be far more killing and potentially lawlessness. There is no way our country would allow undiplomatically qualified members of the public to carry guns on the streets. The thought blows my mind.
You need to come here. Because I've been to Canada 4 times and I never felt more safe in my life. And I'm certain it's nothing to do with the weapons. Weapons don't make people safer. You touch on it in your post, I'm happy to see. The only times when street crime really gets near people having to defend their homes is in the case of Gary Newlove et al. He went outside his house to break up some youths causing trouble, and then when they refused they smacked him one, knocked him out cold and beat him to death. If he had pointed a gun at them, and then they responded by pointing 4 back, would the situation have resolved more peacefully?
In Manchester, in the estates, and well in every big city's estates; there are huge battles every day. Sometimes up to 100 members on either side gang up to fight with weapons and fists. They capture each other, torture each other for information and spring ambushes on the other estates. I really don't like the idea of them all having pistols and uzis. It's interesting because what Americans have 'in the hood' is far less savage and violent (talking beatings and rudimentary weapon usage, not deaths) than what goes on in the mean streets of Glasgow or Manchester. That's actually just my guess. I think you really have to just come and observe the culture here. The problem we have is hate and division. I'm sure you have it all in USA too but, it definitely feels different. I think that if you gave people in England the capacity to do drive by's, it would make our murder figures shoot up through the roof. I think. I will never get to find out because there is no way our government would de-criminalize drugs, because the streets are definitely safer without them.
And your point about anyone just trying to kill you in the streets doesn't help for much. If someone wants to kill you, then you have done something wrong and you're in trouble. If they are in a gang, I doubt a colt .45 is going to help you anyway. The second someone wields a pistol in most areas of London, the rapid response police cars will be there in a few minutes. And the police in England, although they usually only carry truncheons, become mobilised with submachine guns and sniper rifles VERY quickly, the second there could be a riot or disturbance involving violence towards innocent members of the public.
It's theoretically impossible for the whole of the country to suddenly rise up and start attacking its fellow man. What you are doing by advocating gun ownership just for the purpose of defending yourself in that situation, is allowing irrational fear to dictate your policies. The police in England actually defend the innocent. It might be a difficult concept to grasp in America. They are bastards sometimes, often on power trips, but they can kick ass. Having the police as the only seriously armed visible organised force is rather useful for a society I believe.
It's all speculation though. Though I get annoyed by people who say gun control laws have failed. No, they haven't failed. We have less deaths per capita than the USA by a country mile. We really do, it's staggering. After a brief look at some figures, I pulled out a stat of the overall USA homicide number to be around 15-20k a year. In England, it's almost always less than 1k.
The gun crime deaths in USA are usually 2/3s of all deaths, however it's staggering to see that non-gun crime deaths in the USA are also disproportionately high compared to Britain. One might speculate that actually this is because of its god-awful, amoral healthcare. Regardless, though the UK has similar crime numbers, proportionally, to the USA, we have a lot less killing. And sir, that is because we don't all have mac 10s.
The other day I've been attacked by two guys in the streets. They ran at me, they punched me a lot and then took everything I had => broken Biff.
You know, I'm sorry, I don't want to be a patriotic idiot, but when I got robbed in France, people ask before punching. They hit if you resist. That's how it should be in civilized country. Here in England, they punch before robbing and if you resist, they stab.
My opinion is that English society is incredibly individualistic, nihilistic and exists by and for profits only. Newspapers are amongst the worst in the world (read the Sun, you want to puck). Transports suck. Health services suck. Education sucks A LOT. London is a good place to live if you are a dollar, but the most awfull city I know if you are a normal person, even worse a student.
When you are at the top of this over-capitalist society, I guess it's all right. You make a crap lot of money and you don't think further than that. But when you were born and have to live all your life in one of London's ghettos... well... you have large chances of not really understanding which place you have in this world and what you future should look like. Especially when you know that you parents are poor and you don't even have a chance of going in a decent school or university, which are obscenely expensive. Then comes teenagers gang-culture and criminality.
Next step is the answer given by the society to this criminality. Which is: repression. Putting CCTV everywhere (you are recorded hundred times a day in London, which create an ambiance of constant suspicion), hardcore sentimentalistic crappy media coverage of the problem etc etc... nobody ever thought that MAYBE, something deeper had to be done with that. That's very British by the way: the criminal are the bad ones, everything else is perfect, and we, the good ones, are not responsible for anything.
So well, the problem is, imo, that at a certain very advanced stage of capitalism, there is no place for humans anymore. So, fair enough, humans behave like animals.
There is a fundamental aspect of civilization associated with guns, and that is the fact that everyone with a gun is equal.
Guns changed the balance of power from professional soldiers to average citizens.
Artillery changed it back... but it is still fundamentally the case that guns are the easiest weapons to use and thus make a vulnerable woman who walks by herself the equal of Fedor Emelianenko.
The way in which guns are fundamentally associated with civilization is that they make thugs and bullies powerless. They also make defense trump offense in that even if ten guys try to rob a house, one guy properly positioned could kill all of the ten robbers without suffering a scratch being hidden or under cover and knowing where they are while the robbers don't know where he is at first, and have to at some point leave cover once a firefight erupts if they are going to make progress.
Guns also make bystanders more powerful, in that the average weakling witnessing a crime can pull out a conceiled pistol and end a particular source of crime forever without being concerned about their own physical frailty. (the frailty they have because they don't lift weights all day and talk about their biceps.)
One average person who doesn't waste tons of energy working out and supporting a bunch of normally worthless muscles can defend him/herself while excelling at other things.
With knives, it is more about numbers and less about strategy. Women and men who perform quality jobs using their brain fair less well.
With nothing but fists, its all about size. Most Women fail completely and every nerdy man has to start working out and avoiding "worthless pursuits" like Nuclear physics, Starcraft, etc...
Take everything away that equalizes us and start worshiping huge ogres. Get ready to start practicing ****-sucking.
As an ex-pat of England i believe the country is in deep trouble They don't produce enough things anymore , their debt as a % of GDP is higher than the USA and the resources in the North Sea are running out forcing them to become a net importer of energy.
The standard of living in that country is going to drop quite substantially and i see unemployment being very high for the foreseeable future.
On July 08 2008 12:32 Kwark wrote: To be honest the idea terrifies me. That at any moment somebody could just kill you for no reason and that you just have to trust them not to.
It's not guns you fear. It's reality.
No. It's your reality I fear. Fortunately in my reality it's a fair bit harder to kill random strangers because as a society we decided that tools which serve only to end human lives prematurely weren't very constructive.
With a gun, or a knife, or a car, or a brick, if someone just randomly decides to kill you, they will probably succeed.
Here in Canada, it may be a crime for an ordinary citizen to carry a loaded pistol on his person outside of a gun range, but anyone who takes a short course can buy whatever pistol they like. And of course, pistols are easy to conceal. Anyone could be carrying one at any time, if they felt like it, and could probably go their whole lives without getting caught unless they decided to shoot someone.
Canada's murder rate is nearly identical to the UK's. My "reality" isn't any more frightening than yours.
On the other hand, the rate of non-firearm murder in the USA is considerably higher than the UK's total murder rate. (and yes, I mean "rate", as in murders per 100,000)
It's a matter of culture more than anything else. Some groups of people in some areas of the USA have very violent cultures. There are people like that in the UK, too, and since they can't easily get guns, they often just carry knives and stab each other, but they aren't as large a proportion of the population as in the USA, so the statistics aren't as high.
I think a case could be made that the guns make the USA much safer and more orderly. Criminals are constantly in fear of being shot by a victim. I do believe there is much more violent culture in the USA, however, there is more crime in every category, including violent crimes other than murder or rape, in the UK than there is the USA. In the UK, young, strong criminals have very little reason to fear for their lives, as long as they pick weak victims.
If you look at the Rwanda massacre, about a million people, about one in seven of the total population, were hacked to death with machetes.
That's society: you live among people, mixing with them defenselessly, and if they decide to just kill you, you die. There are lots of ways to do it. They can run up and stab you. They can run you over with a car. They can make a simple but powerful bomb with ordinary household materials. They can just grab you from behind, throw you down, and kick you to death.
If you believe that people can't just kill you whenever they decide, you're living in a dream world. It is just part of the reality of society. It is the basis of society: we stop worrying about defending ourselves from each other, we ignore the obvious threat we pose to each other, so we can all go about our business.
You can face that like a man, and reason starting from the truth, or you can distort your logic and make yourself vulnerable in order to feel safe.
How truthful is this website? I'm guessing it's associated with the NFA.
The general notion from down here is that Canadian hand gun laws are much more strict and somewhat effective.
England is heavy man. Fucking crews and impudent kids ruined garage and grime totaly. All this stabbing at partys and some badmans that jump you just for looking at them. I've seen those underground grime partys and the energy is allways on the edge of party and massacre. Believe me you cant compare that to some rap events where it's mostly about showing presence, these kids don't hold back and groups in general wont back down.
It's not about guns or knives it's about the whirl of violence that a part of the society build up and they threat it like everyday business to the point where it gets very very hard to step out of it.
My tip: Dress so you can run anytime as fast as possible. And if you have no obligation to the place you're at just run. I've seen enough people who tried to act tough and then draw the short straw.
well I can't be asked to read the whole thing now but police is doing a good job at keeping guns away? Maybe you should go ask the people who live in nottingham, liverpool and you will see, just because it is not in the capital it doesn't get reported as much.
Gun prohibition is both a question of lethality and purpose. Guns are a tool to simplify the killing of people. That is their only purpose (in the UK at least because we don't do hunting). In a society that disagrees with the killing of people it seems absolutely logical that tools to facilitate the killing of people are illegal. Their purpose is to cause gunshot wounds and the British society believes gunshot wounds are a relatively negative thing. Knives have a different purpose. They are a tool that enables a human to cut through things more simply. There is a lot of stuff that needs cutting (compared to relatively few things that require shooting) and therefore the negative purposes of knives, such as stabbing people, are outweighed by the positive purposes, such as cooking. Fortunately the law is able to distinguish between the two so if I'm caught in a public place with a hunting knife I'm going to be fucked whereas if I'm caught in my kitchen with a cooking knife I'm fine.
On to the question of lethality. I have no idea where the American obsession with handguns comes from given how far technology has moved on. You're thinking far too small. After all you can hardly expect to overthrow a tyrannical Government with some pistols and a few hunting rifles. The army has fucking tanks. Somewhere along the line the "right to bear arms" has become "the right to bear small arms". You were given the right to arm yourselves with any weapon you saw fit in the Constitution and yet as newer weapons have been introduced and the weapons of the founding fathers became obsolete the law was twisted. There has been nobody to defend your right to because the average man cannot afford heavy artillery so it doesn't really come up. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't have the right to it. If he forms a citizens militia they could club together and maybe buy a few humvees with mounted machine guns. Get enough people together and you could get a tactical nuke or two. That'd show King George if he tried to oppress you. The writers of the constitution would be ashamed if they saw you today. Sure, you can still own handguns and rifles but what are they worth in a modern war. There's a reason they wrote "bear arms" rather than "bear rifles, muskets and pistols". They realised that weaponry evolves and old weapons become obsolete so they were clear to allow you access to any weapons, not simply the weapons of their time. But you've not only given up the right to keep a tactical nuclear weapon in your house in case the Redcoats attack but now see the idea as ridiculous. They must be spinning in their graves.
The point I am attempting to make here is that there is no argument you can use for making handguns legal that does not apply to making all tools for killing others legal. No fucker would dare murder you if you had your hand on a dead mans switch wired to a nuclear weapon. You could walk the streets safe at night.
...one to point out that the UK has always had a lower homicide rate than the USA, and UK crime rates rose as tighter gun-control and disarmament laws were put into place: http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
There is no point in arguing with someone who is incapable of understanding your arguments, or unwilling to apply honest logic to their own justifications of their positions. I don't remind myself of that enough.
On July 09 2008 00:30 Kwark wrote: Gun prohibition is both a question of lethality and purpose. Guns are a tool to simplify the killing of people. That is their only purpose (in the UK at least because we don't do hunting). In a society that disagrees with the killing of people it seems absolutely logical that tools to facilitate the killing of people are illegal. Their purpose is to cause gunshot wounds and the British society believes gunshot wounds are a relatively negative thing. Knives have a different purpose. They are a tool that enables a human to cut through things more simply. There is a lot of stuff that needs cutting (compared to relatively few things that require shooting) and therefore the negative purposes of knives, such as stabbing people, are outweighed by the positive purposes, such as cooking. Fortunately the law is able to distinguish between the two so if I'm caught in a public place with a hunting knife I'm going to be fucked whereas if I'm caught in my kitchen with a cooking knife I'm fine.
On to the question of lethality. I have no idea where the American obsession with handguns comes from given how far technology has moved on. You're thinking far too small. After all you can hardly expect to overthrow a tyrannical Government with some pistols and a few hunting rifles. The army has fucking tanks. Somewhere along the line the "right to bear arms" has become "the right to bear small arms". You were given the right to arm yourselves with any weapon you saw fit in the Constitution and yet as newer weapons have been introduced and the weapons of the founding fathers became obsolete the law was twisted. There has been nobody to defend your right to because the average man cannot afford heavy artillery so it doesn't really come up. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't have the right to it. If he forms a citizens militia they could club together and maybe buy a few humvees with mounted machine guns. Get enough people together and you could get a tactical nuke or two. That'd show King George if he tried to oppress you. The writers of the constitution would be ashamed if they saw you today. Sure, you can still own handguns and rifles but what are they worth in a modern war. There's a reason they wrote "bear arms" rather than "bear rifles, muskets and pistols". They realised that weaponry evolves and old weapons become obsolete so they were clear to allow you access to any weapons, not simply the weapons of their time. But you've not only given up the right to keep a tactical nuclear weapon in your house in case the Redcoats attack but now see the idea as ridiculous. They must be spinning in their graves.
The point I am attempting to make here is that there is no argument you can use for making handguns legal that does not apply to making all tools for killing others legal. No fucker would dare murder you if you had your hand on a dead mans switch wired to a nuclear weapon. You could walk the streets safe at night.
If you were to use nuclear weapons you would kill yourself and others. How is that in any way similar to the precision of a gun?
No argument used to make handguns legal apply to nuclear weapons if you would be bothered to think about it.
What on earth is going to stop large people from beating the crap out of small people and men beating up women if there were no guns at all? Of course you have the police and the fear of retribution and that would be all that prevented crime ultimately. But if the police don't get there in time you're at the mercy of whoever is near you if they happen to be large enough to beat the **** out of you.
Getting rid of guns simply makes it once again important to be a large gym-loitering beefcake.
What is strength training for? Beating the shit out of people? Well, for most people who don't have a job that requires lifting heavy things that would have to be the case if you are going to rule out gun collection as a valid reason to own a gun.
Are guns only about killing people? No. Obviously guns can be used to prevent robberies, injure morons who don't back down from a robbery, or ultimately DEFEND against murder. Why on earth would you think that killing someone who is trying to kill you a bad thing? How can that be considered part of the "guns are only tools for killing" shtick?
Guns used for killing would-be murderers are a valuable tool. Society benefits greatly with their use.
Guns are the ultimate equalizing tool. They are not only for murder, they are also for killing or maiming murderers. They can prevent rape, break-ins, animal-attacks...
Guns are the ultimate personal weapon. And for some reason all armies still carry them. Why don't you ask them why they don't just rely on tanks? Why don't you compare the amount of tanks countries have to the amount of infantry they have?
Why don't you figure out the new strategies required to clear a house with a tank? Or the new vehicles required to move through a wooded area? How paratroopers are going to fit tanks with parachutes.
Guerilla warfare works. Its prevalence is sort of a measure of how bad the ruling government is to the people. If it is really bad and the people have enough weapons they can resist the government or harm it enough to force it to be nicer to the populace. Firearms work well in that case.
Guns are only used for killing people.You can argue that at times killing people is good, for example self defence. I never said that wasn't the case. I just said that all they can do is kill people. This is true. They prevent robberies by being able to kill people. It is a tool that allows one person to kill another.
If a gang were to attempt to rob me and I had a gun and they all had guns then the result would be for me to die and several of them to die. It's a numbers question, just as it is with the knife. The gun is not the perfect self defence weapon, a few of them would survive. You need a more powerful weapon. The natural conclusion of this, to protect the weak individual against the world, is a nuke for every man. All I'm doing is extending the logic that justifies the gun over the knife.
As for clearing a house with a tank, firing a shell at it should do the trick. Now figure out a strategy to take down a modern main battle tank with a gun. Vehicles for wooded areas? Helicopter gunships seem to manage. And tanks have been deployed by air for years.
Do you honestly believe the only reason your Government doesn't oppress you is because you could take it upon yourselves to start a rebellion? Do you have that little faith in democracy.
Now consider those 9/11 conspiracy nuts who believe the right wing media brainwash everyone and the left wing media is just another form of control for the people, while a business oligarchy rule as tyrants and own both political parties. In their mind it is a tyranny and it is perfectly justified to start shooting shit up. You cannot give people that freedom. We have conspiracy nuts over here and they write angry letters to newspapers and vote for stupid parties which never get elected and sign petitions. Arming them all and telling them it's their duty to overthrow the tyrannical Government seems pretty retarded to me.
On July 09 2008 01:25 Kwark wrote: Guns are only used for killing people.You can argue that at times killing people is good, for example self defence. I never said that wasn't the case. I just said that all they can do is kill people. This is true. They prevent robberies by being able to kill people. It is a tool that allows one person to kill another.
As for clearing a house with a tank, firing a shell at it should do the trick. Now figure out a strategy to take down a modern main battle tank with a gun. Vehicles for wooded areas? Helicopter gunships seem to manage. And tanks have been deployed by air for years.
Do you honestly believe the only reason your Government doesn't oppress you is because you could take it upon yourselves to start a rebellion? Do you have that little faith in democracy.
Now consider those 9/11 conspiracy nuts who believe the right wing media brainwash everyone and the left wing media is just another form of control for the people, while a business oligarchy rule as tyrants and own both political parties. In their mind it is a tyranny and it is perfectly justified to start shooting shit up. You cannot give people that freedom. We have conspiracy nuts over here and they write angry letters to newspapers and vote for stupid parties which never get elected and sign petitions. Arming them all and telling them it's their duty to overthrow the tyrannical Government seems pretty retarded to me.
Wow, ya I guess a democracy has never turned hostile to its population...
/sarcasm
I didn't think you would try to argue against modern military doctrine. You have no clue though how few tanks there actually are due to their expense, and the fact that sometimes buildings are desired to remain intact. Your strategy would work better for the Guerillas than for you as then all they'd have to do is make the government think that they were occupying a particular building and let the government do the shelling. Brilliant!
Helicopter gunships cannot see everything or remain in the air forever. You lack a sense of scale as well. These things are expensive.
The burning of the Reichstag is a very important model to watch out for in regards to 9/11. I don't see that 9/11 was an inside job, but to ignore history is done at your own peril.
Your own government is flatly refusing to give its population a say in a document that undermines your country's sovereignty... and they do it without a care evidently towards whether they are going to be re-elected. There is a thing called bribery and as the population rises while our number of representatives stays the same, the relative ease in which large concentrations of wealth take control increases.
You are not saying "its only a tool for killing" to make that statement itself, you are implying that everyone who owns a gun wants to kill someone with it, which implies murder, obviously. Its a ridiculous tactic. If you are aware of the fact that self defense is a good thing, that line in your statement shouldn't exist.
Democracy in Germany was very new when Hitler happened. There was no great democratic tradition. There is no threat of tyranny in the UK. It just wouldn't happen. There is absolutely no need for the people of Great Britain to arm themselves against the threat of Government tyranny. Furthermore take pretty much any police shootout. Who wins? The ones with the better guns, bullet proof jackets, snipers and helicopters? Or the ones with the handguns. Handguns are simply not a deterrent to a Government taking over if that is what it wishes to do.
On July 09 2008 01:25 Kwark wrote: And tanks have been deployed by air for years.
Not in parachutes, lol. On long runways.
Light tanks are actually deployable by parachute although I didn't say they had so you're not even making a point here. You're not only attempting to be pedantic and failing but you're also wrong.
On July 09 2008 01:25 Kwark wrote: Guns are only used for killing people.You can argue that at times killing people is good, for example self defence.
Well, yeah.
If a gang were to attempt to rob me and I had a gun and they all had guns then the result would be for me to die and several of them to die. It's a numbers question, just as it is with the knife. The gun is not the perfect self defence weapon, a few of them would survive. You need a more powerful weapon. The natural conclusion of this, to protect the weak individual against the world, is a nuke for every man. All I'm doing is extending the logic that justifies the gun over the knife.
If a gang wanted to rob or kill you, that's going to happen regardless. The example is unrealistic.
I think the problem is that you view "bad guys with guns" like minor 1-hit-kill enemies from a video game, who are completely OK with suiciding themselves to attack you, the protagonist, to prevent you from saving the princess. If it were common to carry, that in itself is a deterrant. But you're dismissing that. The data funchuk linked to corroborates that.
As for clearing a house with a tank, firing a shell at it should do the trick. Now figure out a strategy to take down a modern main battle tank with a gun. Vehicles for wooded areas? Helicopter gunships seem to manage. And tanks have been deployed by air for years.
If the military turned on its own armed populace, they would lose. It's not just about having bigger guns. You are implying that somehow, the aims of the military would be not to quell but to demolish. Such a campaign would arguably fail for a number of obvious reasons.
Do you honestly believe the only reason your Government doesn't oppress you is because you could take it upon yourselves to start a rebellion? Do you have that little faith in democracy.
No, I don't think anybody is saying that. That's stupid. But ultimately, people should be able to defend themselves with deadly force. Up to and including from a rogue military, if necessary.
Now consider those 9/11 conspiracy nuts who believe the right wing media brainwash everyone and the left wing media is just another form of control for the people, while a business oligarchy rule as tyrants and own both political parties. In their mind it is a tyranny and it is perfectly justified to start shooting shit up.
"In their mind"? If it came down to revolting, it would be a far more dramatic situation, and would have to inspire solidarity and support from fellow countrymen. Again, you are brimming with distrust of the individual. You and others keep alluding to this idea that individual people, who you interact with everyday, will go full tilt the moment they get a gun in their hands. That is ridiculous and unsupported by the facts.
You cannot give people that freedom. We have conspiracy nuts over here and they write angry letters to newspapers and vote for stupid parties which never get elected and sign petitions. Arming them all and telling them it's their duty to overthrow the tyrannical Government seems pretty retarded to me.
People have a right to dissent. You are pretending that any amount of dissent will result in a full revolt. That's the kind of reasoning that leads to massacres of the people by the state, and frankly, it sickens me to read what you wrote here.
On July 09 2008 01:25 Kwark wrote: And tanks have been deployed by air for years.
Not in parachutes, lol. On long runways.
Light tanks are actually deployable by parachute although I didn't say they had so you're not even making a point here. You're not only attempting to be pedantic and failing but you're also wrong.
I pointed to dropping things in parachutes, and you responded with saying that tanks have been deployed by air for years. I didn't say they had not been deployed by air for years, I just said they aren't deployed by parachute. And even if they would be you would have like one per transport vs 100 infantry.
I was in an airborne division and there were no tanks.
The problem here is a conflict of cultures. In America gun ownership is seen as natural in order to defend oneself. In the UK it is not. I'd argue that the contexts are very different because of that and therefore the arguments of the other seem completely alien. I'll stop debating gun ownership in the US if you guys stop debating it in the UK.
On July 09 2008 01:25 Kwark wrote: And tanks have been deployed by air for years.
Not in parachutes, lol. On long runways.
Light tanks are actually deployable by parachute although I didn't say they had so you're not even making a point here. You're not only attempting to be pedantic and failing but you're also wrong.
I pointed to dropping things in paratroops, and you responded with saying that tanks have been deployed by air for years. I didn't say they had not been deployed by air for years, I just said they aren't deployed by parachute. And even if they would be you would have like one per transport vs 100 infantry.
I was in an airborne division and there were no tanks.
Check the tank division. I hear that's where they keep them.
On July 09 2008 01:25 Kwark wrote: And tanks have been deployed by air for years.
Not in parachutes, lol. On long runways.
Light tanks are actually deployable by parachute although I didn't say they had so you're not even making a point here. You're not only attempting to be pedantic and failing but you're also wrong.
I pointed to dropping things in paratroops, and you responded with saying that tanks have been deployed by air for years. I didn't say they had not been deployed by air for years, I just said they aren't deployed by parachute. And even if they would be you would have like one per transport vs 100 infantry.
I was in an airborne division and there were no tanks.
Check the tank division. I hear that's where they keep them.
Check the history of airborne warfare. And no, infantry is the most important fighting force. And no, they do not drop Abrams from parachutes.
On July 09 2008 01:25 Kwark wrote: And tanks have been deployed by air for years.
Not in parachutes, lol. On long runways.
Light tanks are actually deployable by parachute although I didn't say they had so you're not even making a point here. You're not only attempting to be pedantic and failing but you're also wrong.
I pointed to dropping things in paratroops, and you responded with saying that tanks have been deployed by air for years. I didn't say they had not been deployed by air for years, I just said they aren't deployed by parachute. And even if they would be you would have like one per transport vs 100 infantry.
I was in an airborne division and there were no tanks.
Check the tank division. I hear that's where they keep them.
Check the history of airborne warfare. And no, infantry is the most important fighting force. And no, they do not drop Abrams from parachutes.
If I understand it correctly the Abrams is a MBT and therefore not a light tank and therefore not what I said. But we don't use Abrams, we use Challenger 2s (which for the record are much more awesome). However I believe our Scimitars are parachutable.
I was sufficiently bored to look it up. The M551 Sheridan is a light tank fully deployable by parachute and has been parachuted into the field in Panama. The reason it's not in your airbourne division is because it's a tank and therefore rarely parachuted (ie only on terrain that makes parachuting worthwhile). As I suggested, if you wish to see a Sheridan, look in a tank division.
On July 09 2008 01:54 Kwark wrote: The problem here is a conflict of cultures. In America gun ownership is seen as natural in order to defend oneself. In the UK it is not. I'd argue that the contexts are very different because of that and therefore the arguments of the other seem completely alien. I'll stop debating gun ownership in the US if you guys stop debating it in the UK.
Hmm, I can't agree to these terms. Everything I've said with respect to state and people is totally in line with Lockean social contract.
On July 09 2008 01:54 Kwark wrote: The problem here is a conflict of cultures. In America gun ownership is seen as natural in order to defend oneself. In the UK it is not. I'd argue that the contexts are very different because of that and therefore the arguments of the other seem completely alien. I'll stop debating gun ownership in the US if you guys stop debating it in the UK.
Hmm, I can't agree to these terms. Everything I've said with respect to state and people is totally in line with Lockean social contract.
Well you're refusing to accept my arguments regarding why the gun is a rather arbitary point on a scale between a penknife and a nuke and not some sacred guardian of personal liberty and I'm refusing to accept your arguments on how crime rates are unrelated to gun ownership and how the gun equalises things by removing the strength factor. We could either keep repeating our points and dismissing the others because we are both fully indoctrinated in our own culture or we could just give up and play some bw.
On July 09 2008 01:25 Kwark wrote: And tanks have been deployed by air for years.
Not in parachutes, lol. On long runways.
Light tanks are actually deployable by parachute although I didn't say they had so you're not even making a point here. You're not only attempting to be pedantic and failing but you're also wrong.
I pointed to dropping things in paratroops, and you responded with saying that tanks have been deployed by air for years. I didn't say they had not been deployed by air for years, I just said they aren't deployed by parachute. And even if they would be you would have like one per transport vs 100 infantry.
I was in an airborne division and there were no tanks.
Check the tank division. I hear that's where they keep them.
Check the history of airborne warfare. And no, infantry is the most important fighting force. And no, they do not drop Abrams from parachutes.
If I understand it correctly the Abrams is a MBT and therefore not a light tank and therefore not what I said. But we don't use Abrams, we use Challenger 2s (which for the record are much more awesome). However I believe our Scimitars are parachutable.
Well, regardless, each tank weighs about as much as 100 infantry so take your pick. There is also a lack of a sense of scale. They are very expensive and few in number. It isn't too hard to remove their tracks. And the ease of disabling them makes their expense negated cheaply in areas where there are cover. Tanks are not good in various terrain. One such terrain would be the city. If tanks were as numerous as needed to take over a country that is not smaller than the country that produced them, you would think there would be far fewer casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On July 09 2008 01:25 Kwark wrote: And tanks have been deployed by air for years.
Not in parachutes, lol. On long runways.
Light tanks are actually deployable by parachute although I didn't say they had so you're not even making a point here. You're not only attempting to be pedantic and failing but you're also wrong.
I pointed to dropping things in paratroops, and you responded with saying that tanks have been deployed by air for years. I didn't say they had not been deployed by air for years, I just said they aren't deployed by parachute. And even if they would be you would have like one per transport vs 100 infantry.
I was in an airborne division and there were no tanks.
Check the tank division. I hear that's where they keep them.
Check the history of airborne warfare. And no, infantry is the most important fighting force. And no, they do not drop Abrams from parachutes.
If I understand it correctly the Abrams is a MBT and therefore not a light tank and therefore not what I said. But we don't use Abrams, we use Challenger 2s (which for the record are much more awesome). However I believe our Scimitars are parachutable.
Well, regardless, each tank weighs about as much as 100 infantry so take your pick. There is also a lack of a sense of scale. They are very expensive and few in number. It isn't too hard to remove their tracks. And the ease of disabling them makes their expense negated cheaply in areas where there are cover. Tanks are not good in various terrain. One such terrain would be the city. If tanks were as numerous as needed to take over a country that is not smaller than the country that produced them, you would think there would be far fewer casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What do you mean well regardless? I said tanks could be deployed by air. You said they couldn't be parachuted and acted like you'd made a great point. I pointed out I didn't specifically say parachuted but actually some can be parachuted. You claimed they can't and pointed out the biggest tank you could think of. I demonstrated that actually Sheridans can and therefore you have no idea what you are talking about.
And then you say "well regardless"? You lost the argument. You claim to have actually been in the army and yet somehow I know more about your armys capability than you do. You stood your ground over a rather stupid point and it turns out you were completely wrong. You have been fully discredited and you can't just say "well...." and move on as if it didn't happen and you might still have some credibility.
On July 09 2008 01:54 Kwark wrote: The problem here is a conflict of cultures. In America gun ownership is seen as natural in order to defend oneself. In the UK it is not. I'd argue that the contexts are very different because of that and therefore the arguments of the other seem completely alien. I'll stop debating gun ownership in the US if you guys stop debating it in the UK.
Hmm, I can't agree to these terms. Everything I've said with respect to state and people is totally in line with Lockean social contract.
Well you're refusing to accept my arguments regarding why the gun is a rather arbitary point on a scale between a penknife and a nuke and not some sacred guardian of personal liberty and I'm refusing to accept your arguments on how crime rates are unrelated to gun ownership and how the gun equalises things by removing the strength factor. We could either keep repeating our points and dismissing the others because we are both fully indoctrinated in our own culture or we could just give up and play some bw.
Its not an arbitrary point. Anything explosive is fundamentally different. How can you consider that there would be so many people willing to blow themselves up? No one would use an explosive in self defense. Thats ludicrous.
There are two issues: the right to defend yourself from robbers and the right to defend yourself against the government. Guns help defend against both.
With explosive devices you cannot defend yourself against a robber though. If you didn't think it was ludicrous you wouldn't have added it and yet you say its rather arbitrary? Really? Explosive devices versus precise devices? Theres no fundamental difference there?
On July 09 2008 01:25 Kwark wrote: And tanks have been deployed by air for years.
Not in parachutes, lol. On long runways.
Light tanks are actually deployable by parachute although I didn't say they had so you're not even making a point here. You're not only attempting to be pedantic and failing but you're also wrong.
I pointed to dropping things in paratroops, and you responded with saying that tanks have been deployed by air for years. I didn't say they had not been deployed by air for years, I just said they aren't deployed by parachute. And even if they would be you would have like one per transport vs 100 infantry.
I was in an airborne division and there were no tanks.
Check the tank division. I hear that's where they keep them.
Check the history of airborne warfare. And no, infantry is the most important fighting force. And no, they do not drop Abrams from parachutes.
If I understand it correctly the Abrams is a MBT and therefore not a light tank and therefore not what I said. But we don't use Abrams, we use Challenger 2s (which for the record are much more awesome). However I believe our Scimitars are parachutable.
Well, regardless, each tank weighs about as much as 100 infantry so take your pick. There is also a lack of a sense of scale. They are very expensive and few in number. It isn't too hard to remove their tracks. And the ease of disabling them makes their expense negated cheaply in areas where there are cover. Tanks are not good in various terrain. One such terrain would be the city. If tanks were as numerous as needed to take over a country that is not smaller than the country that produced them, you would think there would be far fewer casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What do you mean well regardless? I said tanks could be deployed by air.
You said they couldn't be parachuted and acted like you'd made a great point. I pointed out I didn't specifically say parachuted but actually some can be parachuted. You claimed they can't and pointed out the biggest tank you could think of. I demonstrated that actually Sheridans can and therefore you have no idea what you are talking about.
And then you say "well regardless"? You lost the argument. You claim to have actually been in the army and yet somehow I know more about your armys capability than you do. You stood your ground over a rather stupid point and it turns out you were completely wrong. You have been fully discredited and you can't just say "well...." and move on as if it didn't happen and you might still have some credibility.
You said tanks could be deployed by air after I said they couldn't be parachuted. How does it add to the discussion to claim you weren't disagreeing with me?
EDIT: My point there was that there are fundamentally things that tanks either can't do are not cost effective to use. And I was right in that argument while your previous statements implied something that was not true.
I guess you are right about tanks being parachuted, but you are wrong about the scale. You have been wrong about the scale since the beginning of the argument. Now we can be equally non-credible. Or perhaps you using fallacies such as implying that firearms are only used for murder, and that arguing against the trustworthy-ness of the government means a lack of faith in democracy tip the credibility scales in my direction a bit?
You're not getting it. When in a debate you use the specialist knowledge card (for example you claiming to be in the army in this debate) you stake your reputation on it. If therefore I was in any doubt on an issue army related I would defer to your experience. For example when Moltke posts on a historical subject everybody assumes he is right, simply because of his reputation and experience. The flip side of that is that when you are unequivocably wrong you lose all respect. After all if you don't know what you're talking about in the field of your experience then how can you be trusted to talk about anything. That is what has happened here. You are apparently a member of the American Armed Forces who knows less about the American Armed Forces than an average British civilian. Therefore the result of engaging in any debate with you will be knowing less than I did at the start. This is why I am not going to bother with you.
On July 09 2008 02:49 Kwark wrote: You're not getting it. When in a debate you use the specialist knowledge card (for example you claiming to be in the army in this debate) you stake your reputation on it. If therefore I was in any doubt on an issue army related I would defer to your experience. For example when Moltke posts on a historical subject everybody assumes he is right, simply because of his reputation and experience. The flip side of that is that when you are unequivocably wrong you lose all respect. After all if you don't know what you're talking about in the field of your experience then how can you be trusted to talk about anything. That is what has happened here. You are apparently a member of the American Armed Forces who knows less about the American Armed Forces than an average British civilian. Therefore the result of engaging in any debate with you will be knowing less than I did at the start. This is why I am not going to bother with you.
You took one thing out of the entire argument and then ran away. I told the truth, there were no tanks. That was my experience. I was in the infantry. We were told of the value of infantry quite a bit, and it was surprising to me. No, infantrymen don't know everything about the army, how could they? Infantrymen have one job to do and it isn't overall tactics, and strategy. I was relating what I saw, not as a specialist. I am not even currently in the army, I said I WAS.
I guess the fact that you are saying that I am currently in the army would call into question your ability to read and comprehend, but I would regard that as what some would refer to as a "mistake".
Logic doesn't care about the fact that humans aren't perfect. Science thrives in spite of the fact that humans aren't perfect. The point with both is that arguments about truth don't depend at all on the credibility of the participants.
On July 09 2008 02:49 Kwark wrote: You're not getting it. When in a debate you use the specialist knowledge card (for example you claiming to be in the army in this debate) you stake your reputation on it. If therefore I was in any doubt on an issue army related I would defer to your experience. For example when Moltke posts on a historical subject everybody assumes he is right, simply because of his reputation and experience. The flip side of that is that when you are unequivocably wrong you lose all respect. After all if you don't know what you're talking about in the field of your experience then how can you be trusted to talk about anything. That is what has happened here. You are apparently a member of the American Armed Forces who knows less about the American Armed Forces than an average British civilian. Therefore the result of engaging in any debate with you will be knowing less than I did at the start. This is why I am not going to bother with you.
From now on every time I'm right about a single side issue in an argument I'll run away and hide from any aspects of the argument I might have been wrong about.
On July 09 2008 03:21 L wrote: If everyone had portable suitcase nukes, i'm sure we'd all act rather civil most of the time.
Discuss.
Is it not fundamentally different to deter people with a weapon that would not kill you as well?
If for some reason everyone had a nuke and there was no desire to change the laws legalizing personal nukes, I don't think that would change the civility of the population at all. No one would set one off next to them because they would gain nothing, and hence no one around them would need to be civil.
For guns its obviously fundamentally different in that the person who fires the weapon isn't held back by an instinctual urge to...not blow oneself up.
This is quite ridiculous as an argument against firearms. Its obvious that there is a fundamental difference between the two which is present in every argument supporting them. It is almost as if this example is brought forth to make gun-control look more ludicrous.
The only type of gun that would fit fine in that argument is a double-barrelled gun with one of the barrels pointed back at the operator.
Is it not fundamentally different to deter people with a weapon that would not kill you as well?
Is it not the ultimate form of deterrance to assure the death of an assailant regardless of circumstances?
No, because you're not going to use it. Why would you want to deter them from killing, or robbing from you by killing yourself? What do you gain?
Thats why in the movies they always say they are crazy when they pretend to carry explosives. Its generally regarded as ludicrous to believe that sane people would act that way.
On July 08 2008 06:31 Thrill wrote: In all seriousness though, it's all down to education.
ya i'm inclined to agree.
but by education, i mean, family education, not school education.
it happens a lot in the US that parents are retarded, and the children end up getting "raised" by their peer groups.
i like the idea of separating the smart kids from the dumbasses though. when you put them together, the dumbasses are picking on the smart kids. when you separate them, the dumbasses are stabbing other dumbasses. so why would you put them back together so the smart kids can take the hits instead? i hate dumbasses. they picked on my so much
A guy in my physics AS class died yesterday, his life support was shut down. He was beaten by a group of guys in town for no apparent reason and had to be put into a medically induced coma which he never came out of. There will always been violence, knives or not, knives are an everyday thing and you can't stop people carrying them and as in this example people still kill without them, if anything it's more brutal than a stabbing, much, much more. The problem lies in social attitudes in Britain and the maniac depression culture we have, we and our media view the world as a crap hole, we look so sceptically, negatively and badly on anything. We see innocence as pathetic and a weakness. This "values" that have become british are the thing that fuels these attitudes of depression and aggressiveness. The people who don’t have money, education or supportive parents/friends to cling to, tend to think its ok to be an ass, because everyone in Britain thinks that the world is crap right, so why not be an ass, why not beat up who the hell you like, because nothing matters, no-one cares, life is shit, deal with it. This is the problem with Britain today, no-one criticises people with bad intentions they see it as fair play or a suitable reaction to the awfulness of the world, that’s the problem. The guy who stands up for the little guy is laughed at, seen as a "do-gooder" or "old-fashioned" or even an idiot. The guy I knew was in fact at that very time breaking up a fight between his friends at the time, trying to do the right thing, then people he didn’t even know, doing the complete opposite philosophy, came and ended his life for no reason. The sad thing is that society is on the offender’s side, sure they'll say "how tragic it is" and hell they'll lock them up. But they wouldn't dare criticise their anti-social behaviour before that, they would agree life is bad, if they were in the bad luck these people were in to end up in a gang or in that state they would act in the same way and they know it. They would of laughed at my friend for standing up for interfering with two people’s dispute for he died, but I bet no-one would laugh at the thugs for going out and being anti-social until they actually kill someone. The only thing that separates these "thugs" from everyone else is circumstances, this is the friggin problem and people know it. Ok maybe that’s quite drastic, not everyone in Britain is a killer inside I know but I’m still saying the attitude is still on the side of the thugs only changes because someone dies. Until these attitudes change, which they never will through government policy, but through tragic trail an error over 10's of years. This is the sad thing.
That's pretty goddamn outrageous redmourn, where do you live?
I think a lack of police powers plays a big part in all of this. I've seen programs with cops patrolling council estates and all the "chavs" throw rocks at them and all they can do is tell them not to or run away. If that happened in the US they'd probably get shot. Also the way under 16's are handled by the law pretty much gives them freedom to do what they want. If "convicted" of most serious crimes pretty much all they have to do is write a letter of apology.
Enforcing police action isn't the problem, sure we could live in a padded room our whole lives and then no-one murders. We shouldn't have to enforce harsh laws, the law in palce now should be enough for people not to go out and kill. People who have the mentailty and the socail attitude to kill shouldn't be just "oppressed" they shoudln't exist to such an extent in the first palce. There have been times in history when society has held up the law and the police didn't need to anywhere near interfer to the extent they do now. There are times when you could walk the streets of Britain without being attacked, not because of the police but because people were taught that you should respect eachother and other people looked down on people that hated others. The people who did this were not under the age of 16, they were 17 and 18 years old by the way.
I walk down the street everyday without being attacked and so do millions of others. This isn't a new problem, it's just a problem that has become larger and is a lot more widely reported than in the past. There are a lot of reasons why some young people act this way but the situation could definitely be improved if some changes were made to the law and in the way that police deal with these offenders. (For example ASBOs are pretty much a joke and are seen by teens as a "badge of honour")
Edit:also im not talking specifically about just knife murders but anti-social behaviour as a whole
Since in switzerland the army is mandatory and you keep your rifle at home inbetween service there are lots and lots of rifles around. But murder with firearms is very rare. It's just not cultural interlinced with society. Just shows you how quality of life and economic status play a huge role when it comes to gun crime.
Yeah...switzerland owns your country. So don't come here you filthy foreigners. If you have to come at least open a bankaccount. And have some chocolate on your way out. Course we take euro. Everything for the cow..eh customer.
On July 10 2008 02:36 redmourn wrote: A guy in my physics AS class died yesterday, his life support was shut down. He was beaten by a group of guys in town for no apparent reason and had to be put into a medically induced coma which he never came out of. There will always been violence, knives or not, knives are an everyday thing and you can't stop people carrying them and as in this example people still kill without them, if anything it's more brutal than a stabbing, much, much more. The problem lies in social attitudes in Britain and the maniac depression culture we have, we and our media view the world as a crap hole, we look so sceptically, negatively and badly on anything. We see innocence as pathetic and a weakness. This "values" that have become british are the thing that fuels these attitudes of depression and aggressiveness. The people who don’t have money, education or supportive parents/friends to cling to, tend to think its ok to be an ass, because everyone in Britain thinks that the world is crap right, so why not be an ass, why not beat up who the hell you like, because nothing matters, no-one cares, life is shit, deal with it. This is the problem with Britain today, no-one criticises people with bad intentions they see it as fair play or a suitable reaction to the awfulness of the world, that’s the problem. The guy who stands up for the little guy is laughed at, seen as a "do-gooder" or "old-fashioned" or even an idiot. The guy I knew was in fact at that very time breaking up a fight between his friends at the time, trying to do the right thing, then people he didn’t even know, doing the complete opposite philosophy, came and ended his life for no reason. The sad thing is that society is on the offender’s side, sure they'll say "how tragic it is" and hell they'll lock them up. But they wouldn't dare criticise their anti-social behaviour before that, they would agree life is bad, if they were in the bad luck these people were in to end up in a gang or in that state they would act in the same way and they know it. They would of laughed at my friend for standing up for interfering with two people’s dispute for he died, but I bet no-one would laugh at the thugs for going out and being anti-social until they actually kill someone. The only thing that separates these "thugs" from everyone else is circumstances, this is the friggin problem and people know it. Ok maybe that’s quite drastic, not everyone in Britain is a killer inside I know but I’m still saying the attitude is still on the side of the thugs only changes because someone dies. Until these attitudes change, which they never will through government policy, but through tragic trail an error over 10's of years. This is the sad thing.
this is exactly what I think too. It's fashionable to be rude, cynical, derogatory, aggressive, stupid in society. I can't count the amount of fucking comedians i see coming up with one liners like 'why don't you take your "art" and SHOVE IT UP YOUR ARSE'. It is a cultural problem. But what's important is how can England solve this problem?
On July 09 2008 01:03 Funchucks wrote: I'm just going to link two articles:
...one to point out that the UK has always had a lower homicide rate than the USA, and UK crime rates rose as tighter gun-control and disarmament laws were put into place: http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
There is no point in arguing with someone who is incapable of understanding your arguments, or unwilling to apply honest logic to their own justifications of their positions. I don't remind myself of that enough.
funchucks, I would seriously question whether stricter gun controls actually directly caused more crime.
And secondly, I don't think anyone argues that gun control reduces violence. It reduces deaths, almost certainly, because, the facts are there for everyone to see; gunshots kill more often than knifewounds.
"gunshots kill more often than knifewounds." Actually thats incorrect, a bullet makes a very small hole and if shot in limbs or un-impiortant torso areas many people live, while many people die from stabs to the leg for example as a knife is huge and often bursts an atery because of its size.
On July 10 2008 02:36 redmourn wrote: A guy in my physics AS class died yesterday, his life support was shut down. He was beaten by a group of guys in town for no apparent reason and had to be put into a medically induced coma which he never came out of. There will always been violence, knives or not, knives are an everyday thing and you can't stop people carrying them and as in this example people still kill without them, if anything it's more brutal than a stabbing, much, much more. The problem lies in social attitudes in Britain and the maniac depression culture we have, we and our media view the world as a crap hole, we look so sceptically, negatively and badly on anything. We see innocence as pathetic and a weakness. This "values" that have become british are the thing that fuels these attitudes of depression and aggressiveness. The people who don’t have money, education or supportive parents/friends to cling to, tend to think its ok to be an ass, because everyone in Britain thinks that the world is crap right, so why not be an ass, why not beat up who the hell you like, because nothing matters, no-one cares, life is shit, deal with it. This is the problem with Britain today, no-one criticises people with bad intentions they see it as fair play or a suitable reaction to the awfulness of the world, that’s the problem. The guy who stands up for the little guy is laughed at, seen as a "do-gooder" or "old-fashioned" or even an idiot. The guy I knew was in fact at that very time breaking up a fight between his friends at the time, trying to do the right thing, then people he didn’t even know, doing the complete opposite philosophy, came and ended his life for no reason. The sad thing is that society is on the offender’s side, sure they'll say "how tragic it is" and hell they'll lock them up. But they wouldn't dare criticise their anti-social behaviour before that, they would agree life is bad, if they were in the bad luck these people were in to end up in a gang or in that state they would act in the same way and they know it. They would of laughed at my friend for standing up for interfering with two people’s dispute for he died, but I bet no-one would laugh at the thugs for going out and being anti-social until they actually kill someone. The only thing that separates these "thugs" from everyone else is circumstances, this is the friggin problem and people know it. Ok maybe that’s quite drastic, not everyone in Britain is a killer inside I know but I’m still saying the attitude is still on the side of the thugs only changes because someone dies. Until these attitudes change, which they never will through government policy, but through tragic trail an error over 10's of years. This is the sad thing.
this is exactly what I think too. It's fashionable to be rude, cynical, derogatory, aggressive, stupid in society. I can't count the amount of fucking comedians i see coming up with one liners like 'why don't you take your "art" and SHOVE IT UP YOUR ARSE'. It is a cultural problem. But what's important is how can England solve this problem?
Ps jayson x you aren't from italy then?
Unfortunatly i dont think there is a direct solution, eventually people will realsie 20 years on as the crime gets worse and worse, and how britain's society gets more depressed that maybe theres a problem, and if we look to other countries they seem to have a happy society in the modern world, and maybe the world is not quite as bad as the British like to think it is.
EPT
. Because it's very true xD. But if you are serious...
![[image loading]](http://teaching.mrbelshaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/lolcat-annoyed.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://cheeju.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/fattest-man3.jpg)
