16 Aug 07
The post that was quoted here has been removedThis is an articulate, and in my view astute post. As someone who lives and breathes this debate, I have read with interest. The victims are mostly those without a voice, or at least, without influence. The crime debate is readily clouded by the middle / upper intellectual classes, who see human rights as a lever to reduce state intervention, when actually I see human rights as the protection of the innocent from the mob, not the mob from the state. I dispair at those who bemoan efforts to protect (CCTV being the classic example) as some form of Big Brother state. Why does it bother you that a middle aged council employee sees you picking your nose, when the same employee can prevent or detect a violent robbery, perhaps against your mother, or daughter?
Such control must be handled with absolute care, and proportionality, and with cultural sensitivity, but anyone who argues we dont need it ought to buddy up with me for a night shift on one of the city estates.
The guy on BBC1 is a pseudo 'expert' with a chip on his shoulder. His choice of language is normally inflammatory. But he is right when he says that the fabric of society is disintegrating. And sicillian smaug well and truly hits the proverbial nail on the head when he says those who think the solution is enforcement alone really need to wake up. We share the responsibility, and lack of personal responsibility for the problem, by both the human rights lobbyists, the arm chair 'blame the police' pundits, and the morons that perpetrate this behaviour, is the crux of our societys problem. To bring in a lateral argument to make a point, when the CEO of Youtube says it is not their responsibility to remove uploads depicting violent woundings, when the victims are not only picked for their vulnerability, but because of the lure of the web-audience beyond, and that it's down to the police......you realise what you are up against.
16 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSwitzerland is almost the polar opposite of the US culturally.
In Switzerland most males over the age of 18 own a rifle, since the entire male population between certain age ranges is actually a member of the Swiss Army, and are called up every so often for military service. Since people know that every house has a gun in it, and the people in those houses are trained to kill, I believe armed crime is virtually unheard of.
http://www.holysmoke.org/c000/014.htm
To compare laws in such different countries is rather desperate.
For instance, I don't think there's much of a ghettoised gang culture on the streets of Zurich!
More evidence of the problem of lack of gun control in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides
16 Aug 07
Originally posted by SquelchbelchThen, in the late 1980s, youths from affluent, upscale communities began forming their own gangs for the first time in the US and European history. Even countries such as Switzerland are experiencing the unprecedented appearance of these gangs.
Switzerland is almost the polar opposite of the US culturally.
To compare laws in such different countries is rather desperate.
For instance, I don't think there's much of a ghettoised gang culture on the streets of Zurich!
More evidence of the problem of lack of gun control in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides
http://www.ifpinc.com/Gangs/gangfaq.htm
16 Aug 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAre the Swiss gangs using guns or foul language?
Then, in the late 1980s, youths from affluent, upscale communities began forming their own gangs for the first time in the US and European history. Even countries such as Switzerland are experiencing the unprecedented appearance of these gangs.
http://www.ifpinc.com/Gangs/gangfaq.htm
Also, gun death statistics per capita in Washington DC & London would make an interesting comparison...
16 Aug 07
Originally posted by SquelchbelchNo, I was suggesting it was a better way of dealing with crime. In addition I assert that we have a right to bear arms.
I thought that ATY was suggesting that somehow the American system was a better way of dealing with gun crime than tighter restrictions & tougher regulation.
16 Aug 07
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt just seems to make things worse as far as I can see.
No, I was suggesting it was a better way of dealing with crime. In addition I assert that we have a right to bear arms.
Also, the right to bear arms is a historic relic that was meant to protect 18th century English colonial settlers who in turn had hijacked it from 11th century English law to protect Protestants from being dis-armed in the times of Henry II.
You do of course legally have the right to own a gun - I don't dispute this. I also don't dispute that things have already gone too far to turn back.
I'm so glad we don't have any crazy legislation like that over here (any longer)😉
17 Aug 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Squelchbelchyou don't?
...I'm so glad we don't have any crazy legislation like that over here (any longer)😉
"All English males over the age 14 are to carry out 2 or so hours of longbow practice a week supervised by the local clergy. "
http://www.dumblaws.com/law/1046
is rampant drive-by archery a big problem over there?