EPTStabbing burglars 'will be legal' in UK - Page 17
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
obesechicken13
United States10467 Posts
| ||
|
VK-Vio
United Kingdom8 Posts
(BTW I am just about to graduate with a LLB law degree on the 11th) | ||
selboN
United States2523 Posts
| ||
|
Kamais_Ookin
Canada4218 Posts
On July 01 2011 07:07 selboN wrote: That's how it should be.In Texas we shoot first and ask later. | ||
|
Pessle
United Kingdom37 Posts
| ||
|
BeefyKnight
United States127 Posts
| ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On July 01 2011 04:39 ilikejokes wrote: European society hasn't "solved something." The populations of European countries are more-or-less homogeneous ethnically, racially, and culturally, and the economic disparities are, on the whole, smaller than they are in the United States. If you look at the communities in the United States that are similar in terms of cultural, racial, ethnic, and economic homogeneity to European communities, the crime rates are similar. However, in the United States it is not uncommon for a multicultural, multiracial, low-income community to be in close proximity to an upper-middle class, predominantly white, predominantly Protestant community, for example. This lack of homogeneity fosters an increase in the crime rate (and this goes both ways; rich whites commit crimes against poor blacks and vice versa). For whatever reason, people aren't able to get along with people of other cultures. This is also the case in Europe, it is just less common because populations are more homogeneous. Just look at French xenophobia against Muslims and immigrants. Another reason that attitudes about property and crime (particularly crimes related to property) are different between America and the Scandinavian countries is the difference in attitudes about economics. In the Scandinavian countries there is a much more socialist approach to economics, whereas in America capitalism is king. This reflects a cultural attitude that places enormous value on earning your keep by the sweat of your brow, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, etc.; the whole concept of the "American Dream" is founded in this principle. While socialistic Scandinavian countries have universal healthcare, better subsidies for education, and more social welfare, they do not have a comparable idea of a "Scandinavian Dream," they do not have as many top universities, and they do not produce as many top corporations. There are advantages to many of the attitudes of Swedes and Danes about crime, gun ownership, violence, economics, et cetera, such as lower crime rates, contentment; America trades higher crime rates and a certain level of caution (or fear) for the opportunity and capacity to produce other factors that are at the forefront of the world. Accusing each other of being immoral is ridiculous. There is no "universal law of morality" that says a man doesn't have a right to defend his home. Is it morally reprehensible to take a life under any circumstances? Yes. Does that mean that the person who kills a burglar is an immoral person? Absolutely not. This isn't a discussion that can be decided by morality this, morality that. For many of the Europeans participating in this thread, it seems like their arguments come from a decidedly "European" perspective, that burglaries are largely about taking possessions and little else, and that burglars are often unarmed or (relatively) nonviolent. For many of the Americans, it is obvious that their attitudes are informed by living in a society where violent crime is more common, burglars are often violent, and the personal rights to life, liberty, and property are held in the highest esteem. American posters would do well to take a step back and realize that the European attitudes in this regard are naive with respect to what goes on in America, and European posters would be wise to realize that Americans live in a country where not everybody is the same and where cultural and economic tensions play a larger part in crime dynamics. Edit: Just some numbers to give everyone an idea of the homogeneity vs inhomogeneity thing: The United States is 72.4% white (as in, all whites combined, which includes some Hispanics). The Czech population is 94.24% Czech. The German population is 81% Germans of no immigrant background (i.e. exclusively German background). In France it's apparently illegal to collect census information about ethnicity and race (but they're perfectly fine with religious discrimination). The population of Sweden is 85% Swedish (as of 2005). Funnily enough, the total population of the entire country of Sweden (9,422,661) is comparable the population of the city of Chicago (9,461,105), and less than the populations of Los Angeles (~12 million) and New York City (~18 million). Maybe if we concentrated the entire population of Sweden in a single city and created some economic and cultural disparity there would be a little bit more worry about crime, hm? Yeah it's kind of strange comparing Scandinavian industrialism to American, as the population of America is about 30 times bigger than Swedens. However considering companies like Saab (historically), Volvo, Ikea, H&M, fairly good sports rankings all round etc, I wouldn't say that socialistic economics has stopped us from becoming fairly big for our population. Personally I think the crime rates have to do with two things beside the ones you already mentioned. 1. How you treat criminals. In Sweden if you commit a serious crime, you're often assumed to be psychologically hindered in some way, and you get treated as such. You basically go to get help with your mental health. In the US the tendancy is to pile up these people, close the door and see what happens, and then let them out after 20 years. Generally this will not solve their issues. You have to put yourself in their position, and try to help them with their issues to minimize crime rates I believe. This is more expensive in the short run, but if you did it right they won't come back, right? 2. War veterans. A fairly large percentage of war veterans go on to become criminal in some way. They're often fairly young when they go out, and are taught to kill without hesitation. Problems arise when they come home. Most European countries don't have a very active army. Basically only the UK. Ninja edit!: 3. Education! Education is probably the biggest crime stopper. I think if everyone have a university degree of some kind, the crime rates would drop insanely. Getting shot for entering someones property is like the definition of madness for me, but I guess if you grow up in another society this is perfectly sensible. Does that law include neighbours crossing over your lawn for instance by the way? I'm just a naive European though, so it's totally ok if you wave this away >.> Overall I think you brought up a lot of valid points though, even though I don't agree with everything. I also don't think that racial problems are a necessity. People are either integrated or not. Generally if you manage to form a homogene society it's going to be alot more peaceful. I don't think these things are inherited. For instance you made an example of black vs white crimes, but I don't think that say an adopted black baby would fit that description and vice versa. (this is not crazy nazi race science or anything, just saying that behaviour isn't enherited). | ||
|
ilikejokes
United States217 Posts
On July 01 2011 06:43 mcc wrote: Well some Europeans countries are much less homogenous than others, and some are pretty close to US yet none of them comes close to US in terms of crime rates. I would actually be interested in knowing if there is even correlation between not being homogenous and crime rates on a country basis. But I am not wholly dismissing this idea as I think there is a lot to it, just that it does not explain the whole difference between "Europe" and US. My whole post wasn't directed at just you (though I did quote you), more at the thread in general. About the ethnicity thing--I really don't think there is any European country that compares to the United States in terms of diversity. Even the U.K. is just over 85% White British (and over 90% White overall). The homogeneity in Europe stands in stark contrast to the United States where the largest minority is more than 12% of the population. Yeah it's kind of strange comparing Scandinavian industrialism to American, as the population of America is about 30 times bigger than Swedens. However considering companies like Saab (historically), Volvo, Ikea, H&M, fairly good sports rankings all round etc, I wouldn't say that socialistic economics has stopped us from becoming fairly big for our population. I wasn't directly comparing industrialization or anything like that though. Obviously GNP/GDP and whatnot are going to be different because of the drastically different populations. But I don't think that looking at the numbers of universities on a per capita basis would capture what I mean by the United States producing the best university system. The United States has the top-ranked universities in the world. That's not a per-capita thing---it's not like being a bigger country necessarily means you'll have better universities. Just look at China and India, the two countries more populous than the United States. Yes they have good schools, but they are not the top schools in the world. That is what I'm getting at with my talk about academia in the United States. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On July 01 2011 09:11 ilikejokes wrote: My whole post wasn't directed at just you (though I did quote you), more at the thread in general. About the ethnicity thing--I really don't think there is any European country that compares to the United States in terms of diversity. Even the U.K. is just over 85% White British (and over 90% White overall). The homogeneity in Europe stands in stark contrast to the United States where the largest minority is more than 12% of the population. I wasn't directly comparing industrialization or anything like that though. Obviously GNP/GDP and whatnot are going to be different because of the drastically different populations. But I don't think that looking at the numbers of universities on a per capita basis would capture what I mean by the United States producing the best university system. The United States has the top-ranked universities in the world. That's not a per-capita thing---it's not like being a bigger country necessarily means you'll have better universities. Just look at China and India, the two countries more populous than the United States. Yes they have good schools, but they are not the top schools in the world. That is what I'm getting at with my talk about academia in the United States. The distribution of wealth, education, and public services is greater in the states is far greater most other countries, and that's a bad thing (probably all of them if we discount 2nd and 3rd world countries). Peoples lives become simply a gamble, being born in a certain way and place almost determines how you will end up. Also I would rather go to Oxford or Cambridge rather than Yale. | ||
|
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
| ||
|
Inertia_EU
United Kingdom513 Posts
| ||
|
ilikejokes
United States217 Posts
On July 01 2011 09:29 sluggaslamoo wrote: The distribution of wealth, education, and public services is greater in the states is far greater most other countries, and that's a bad thing (probably all of them if we discount 2nd and 3rd world countries). Peoples lives become simply a gamble, being born in a certain way and place almost determines how you will end up. What? Think about this logically. What you're saying is, the situation a person is born into, economically, largely determines how they will end up. Ok, fine, I accept that premise. But that applies to being born ANYWHERE, whether you're born in Louisiana or Chicago or London or Hyderabad or Cambodia. In Australia, how do you think your life winds up being different if you're born into a middle-class family in Sydney versus into an Aboriginal family in the bush? The disparity in economic situation is going to be enormous for a country as large and as populous as the United States, it's simply unavoidable. There are finite resources to be shared among everyone. Australia has the advantage of having a large number of resources and a fairly small population, but that's not the case in most of the world. Also I would rather go to Oxford or Cambridge rather than Yale. And that's your opinion. Oxford and Cambridge are two of the top schools in the world. But so is Yale, and so is Harvard. When you dig a little deeper you find that most of the major universities in the United States are among the top schools in the world, however. The 40,000 or so students at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, for example, attend a school that is ranked in the top 70 overall worldwide and even higher for specific colleges like Engineering. A lot of the state schools, like Wisconsin-Madison, University of Michigan, and the like are top universities, not just Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On July 01 2011 09:11 ilikejokes wrote: My whole post wasn't directed at just you (though I did quote you), more at the thread in general. About the ethnicity thing--I really don't think there is any European country that compares to the United States in terms of diversity. Even the U.K. is just over 85% White British (and over 90% White overall). The homogeneity in Europe stands in stark contrast to the United States where the largest minority is more than 12% of the population. I am not sure that concentrating on race is that useful. I would assume that black American and white American are on average closer culturally than Englishmen and Russian. Netherlands has around 80% Dutch population, Luxembourg is pretty crazy, but also small so let's skip it. But my point was that the difference in homogenity does not correlate well with differences in crime. On July 01 2011 09:11 ilikejokes wrote: I wasn't directly comparing industrialization or anything like that though. Obviously GNP/GDP and whatnot are going to be different because of the drastically different populations. But I don't think that looking at the numbers of universities on a per capita basis would capture what I mean by the United States producing the best university system. The United States has the top-ranked universities in the world. That's not a per-capita thing---it's not like being a bigger country necessarily means you'll have better universities. Just look at China and India, the two countries more populous than the United States. Yes they have good schools, but they are not the top schools in the world. That is what I'm getting at with my talk about academia in the United States. First, comparison should be made on countries with similar level of development when comparing universities, so India and China should not be considered. As for the ranking, it is quite contentious, but I might agree, but only slightly disproportionate to its population. But how is quality of universities linked to crime rates and approach to private property ? The good things I see on US universities would work as well elsewhere if there was enough political/social will and it would work without significantly changing anything else. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On July 01 2011 09:54 ilikejokes wrote: What? Think about this logically. What you're saying is, the situation a person is born into, economically, largely determines how they will end up. Ok, fine, I accept that premise. But that applies to being born ANYWHERE, whether you're born in Louisiana or Chicago or London or Hyderabad or Cambodia. In Australia, how do you think your life winds up being different if you're born into a middle-class family in Sydney versus into an Aboriginal family in the bush? The disparity in economic situation is going to be enormous for a country as large and as populous as the United States, it's simply unavoidable. There are finite resources to be shared among everyone. Australia has the advantage of having a large number of resources and a fairly small population, but that's not the case in most of the world. Yes it is true everywhere, but to what degree. As I already noted US has lower social mobility than many European countries. | ||
|
ilikejokes
United States217 Posts
On July 01 2011 10:00 mcc wrote: I am not sure that concentrating on race is that useful. I would assume that black American and white American are on average closer culturally than Englishmen and Russian. Netherlands has around 80% Dutch population, Luxembourg is pretty crazy, but also small so let's skip it. But my point was that the difference in homogenity does not correlate well with differences in crime. Yes but Englishmen and Russians don't live in adjacent neighborhoods, and anyway there is less evidence to suggest that whites commit crimes against other whites (or, for that matter, that blacks commit crimes against other blacks, or purples against purples---you get the idea). There is overwhelming evidence that, for whatever reason, when you have situations where people of different races are living in close proximity to each other, crimes are more likely to occur. On July 01 2011 10:00 mcc wrote: First, comparison should be made on countries with similar level of development when comparing universities, so India and China should not be considered. As for the ranking, it is quite contentious, but I might agree, but only slightly disproportionate to its population. But how is quality of universities linked to crime rates and approach to private property ? The good things I see on US universities would work as well elsewhere if there was enough political/social will and it would work without significantly changing anything else. On the development thing: fine, but then we should only consider the parts of the United States that are as developed as, say, Sweden and the United Kingdom. One point that I didn't expound upon, but probably should have, in my talk about homogeneity was that the economic differences in different parts of the country also result in a certain level of "development disparity." There are parts of the South and the West in the United States that are, for lack of a better term, Third World. But when you talk about the United States being larger than European countries, that very pertinent detail gets lost in the discussion. I don't think the quality of universities is linked to crime rates. It's the diversity that is linked to crime rates. The quality of the universities is linked to attitudes about private property and personal accomplishment, and those qualities are also linked to attitudes about defending your home against intruders (burglars, etc.) | ||
|
TMStarcraft
Australia686 Posts
On June 30 2011 12:15 endy wrote: Cool, so I wanna kill someone, I just invite him at home, break a window and stab him ? As long as there is no witness it's fine. And even if there's a witness, since no charges will be pressed against me, it should be fine. Even if someone saw me in the street opening the door and shaking my victim's hand, unless he specifically learns later in the newspaper that I killed that guy and is able to recognize both of us he has no reason to mention it to anyone. edit : If a burglar enters your home with a knife and you stab him, it should be considered "right of self defense", right ? Well you'd have to be pretty evil to do that. I'd assume that you'd have to hate this person a lot to do this, they'd bring this up in court, bring in witnesses who will attest to this fact and you go to jail. It's not like it's a get out of jail free card. | ||
KwarK
United States42017 Posts
On July 01 2011 09:45 Inertia_EU wrote: If you break into my home, threaten the safety of my family, you leave your human rights at the doorstep. It's as simple as that. No, they're still human. The humanity of a human is a pretty static thing. | ||
|
TALegion
United States1187 Posts
On July 01 2011 10:12 KwarK wrote: No, they're still human. The humanity of a human is a pretty static thing. A shitty human at that. You try to fuck me, I will fuck you back. | ||
|
Stil
United Kingdom206 Posts
On July 01 2011 09:44 Blasterion wrote: Question for UKers is a projectile that Isn't a firearm legal? Say a bow or a cross. Legal and no need for a license - so long as you're not a minor or displaying them in public or shooting in an area that's not designated a range. But no reason why you couldn't leave one out on the bedside table with a bolt ready... just in case  Source: Missus is an archery nerd | ||
|
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
On July 01 2011 10:32 Stil wrote: Legal and no need for a license - so long as you're not a minor or displaying them in public or shooting in an area that's not designated a range. But no reason why you couldn't leave one out on the bedside table with a bolt ready... just in case Source: Missus is an archery nerd 100lb recurve + Broadhead =Surekill granted you don't miss. Too bad I am too poor and only have a 20lb Compound | ||
| ||
