United Nations Report Validates Old Adage 'An Armed Society

[Geezah]

is a Polite Society'

A report released this week by the United Nations confirms what law-abiding Americans have known for quite some time. That being that criminals prefer victims who cannot fight back.

Based on a crime survey of the world's top industrialized countries, the U.N. report indicates that a resident of the United Kingdom is nearly 3 times more likely to become a victim of violent assault than is a citizen of the United States. The report reveals that Scotland is the most violent country in the industrialized world with over 2,000 Scots attacked every week, which amounts to about 3 percent of the population on an annual basis. England and Wales are close behind with 2.8 percent of the population falling victim to violent assault. By comparison, Americans are victimized by violent offenders at a rate of 1.2 percent.

These latest crime figures are a snapshot of the upward spiral of violent crime in the United Kingdom. The rate of violent crime in the UK continues to grow despite the passage of successively more restrictive laws governing private firearm ownership. While violent crime in the UK has been ramping up, the rate of similar crimes in the United States has been declining -- thanks in large part to the passage of "concealed carry" laws in over four dozen states.

"Criminals are cowards," commented ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson. "They like nothing better than to come upon prey that is unable to put up much resistance. Here in the United States, over 80 million citizens own firearms - a fact that makes cowardly crooks very nervous. On the other hand, thanks to sweeping gun bans, the average British subject is little more than a sitting duck. With little fear of being shot by potential victims, British thugs are free to run the streets, committing murder and mayhem with near impunity."

"For years we have heard the American gun control movement crow about how the UK is quickly becoming a gun-free utopia," continued Pearson. "To the contrary, these latest UN figures demonstrate that the UK is a place where violence is quickly replacing the rule of law."

"The UN figures illustrate the folly of gun control," said Pearson. "It's time for our political leaders to rise in support of the basic human right of self defense. It's time for Illinois to join the 46 states that allow law-abiding citizens to carry defensive firearms. It's time for Illinois citizens to enjoy the bounties of liberty rather than suffer the indignities of victimization as do their British counterparts."


The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership. For over a century, the ISRA has represented the interests of over 1.5 million law-abiding firearm owners.

Link (http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=53648)

This story is connected to these two threads,

Scotland tops UN’s violence league (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=60404&highlight=)

and

Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=60788&highlight=)

[joe mama]

This oughta bring em out of the woodwork! I'm tapin up my knuckles and warmin up now, where's that jump rope and that speed bag?
p-)

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

This oughta bring em out of the woodwork! I'm tapin up my knuckles and warmin up now, where's that jump rope and that speed bag?
p-)Wish granted. Up round these parts (Wild West Of Scotland) we are all armed to the **** and yet we have been listed as the most violent society in 1st world. Oh and Detroit plenty guns and lots of dead people. :P

[a_very_ex_STAB]

is a Polite Society'

A report released this week by the United Nations confirms what law-abiding Americans have known for quite some time. That being that criminals prefer victims who cannot fight back.

Based on a crime survey of the world's top industrialized countries, the U.N. report indicates that a resident of the United Kingdom is nearly 3 times more likely to become a victim of violent assault than is a citizen of the United States. The report reveals that Scotland is the most violent country in the industrialized world with over 2,000 Scots attacked every week, which amounts to about 3 percent of the population on an annual basis. England and Wales are close behind with 2.8 percent of the population falling victim to violent assault. By comparison, Americans are victimized by violent offenders at a rate of 1.2 percent.

These latest crime figures are a snapshot of the upward spiral of violent crime in the United Kingdom. The rate of violent crime in the UK continues to grow despite the passage of successively more restrictive laws governing private firearm ownership. While violent crime in the UK has been ramping up, the rate of similar crimes in the United States has been declining -- thanks in large part to the passage of "concealed carry" laws in over four dozen states.

"Criminals are cowards," commented ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson. "They like nothing better than to come upon prey that is unable to put up much resistance. Here in the United States, over 80 million citizens own firearms - a fact that makes cowardly crooks very nervous. On the other hand, thanks to sweeping gun bans, the average British subject is little more than a sitting duck. With little fear of being shot by potential victims, British thugs are free to run the streets, committing murder and mayhem with near impunity."

"For years we have heard the American gun control movement crow about how the UK is quickly becoming a gun-free utopia," continued Pearson. "To the contrary, these latest UN figures demonstrate that the UK is a place where violence is quickly replacing the rule of law."

"The UN figures illustrate the folly of gun control," said Pearson. "It's time for our political leaders to rise in support of the basic human right of self defense. It's time for Illinois to join the 46 states that allow law-abiding citizens to carry defensive firearms. It's time for Illinois citizens to enjoy the bounties of liberty rather than suffer the indignities of victimization as do their British counterparts."


The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership. For over a century, the ISRA has represented the interests of over 1.5 million law-abiding firearm owners.

Link (http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=53648)

This story is connected to these two threads,

Scotland tops UN’s violence league (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=60404&highlight=)

and

Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=60788&highlight=)

Well I like shooting (so I can hardly be called a gun grabber!) but parts of that don't add up to me. AFAIK ownership of handguns was never very common in the UK (less than 1 in 1000 of the population I believe) and they weren't licensed for carry for defensive purposes except for certain people in Ulster.

It doesn't make sense to say 'thanks to sweeping gun bans, the average British subject is little more than a sitting duck' because ppl were not permitted to carry firearms for self defence anyway even before semi auto rifles and hand guns were banned.

Seems like a lot of fuss about what is mostly a bit of drunken brawling to me. It's not pretty but hardly worth all the moral panic. I wonder how much is simply due to increased reporting because greater CCTV coverage means that incidents now get seen which nobody would have known about or reported before.

As for that stuff about an armed society is a polite society. What about New Orleans? It doesn't seem very polite to shoot your neighbours up to get some food or their TV set, or rape women at gunpoint or shoot at rescue choppers.

I'm putting my flame proof boxers on now. I've noticed that nothing gets ppl on here going like a good ole gun debate :-)

[joe mama]

Actually I have to be honest (even if it spoils some fun arguments) and agree that they're making far too direct of a connection between crime rates and legal gun ownership (or legal ccw). That doesn't mean for a second that I think that allowing law abiding citizens to be armed can't contribute to lowering crime rates or, at a minimum, allows people to have a powerful self defense tool if they CHOOSE to have it.

Ok, gun nut hat going back on: if everybody had their right hand replaced at birth with an 88 magnum, there'd be no crime!
p-)

[joe mama]

This oughta bring em out of the woodwork! I'm tapin up my knuckles and warmin up now, where's that jump rope and that speed bag?
p-)Wish granted. Up round these parts (Wild West Of Scotland) we are all armed to the **** and yet we have been listed as the most violent society in 1st world. Oh and Detroit plenty guns and lots of dead people. :P

Actually I'm pretty sure Detroit, like most big cities in generally liberal states, has pretty strict anti gun laws and therefore, most of those guns involved with the lots of dead people are actually illegal guns.
Don't equate us gun nuts being in favor of legal ccw for responsible adults with us wanting a gun in every hand. We're usually more against criminals having guns than any anti gun person is, and it's the criminals that cause the problems. Well, except for those guns that walk around on their own killing people by themselves. Which there's plenty of, I'm told...
p-)

[joe mama]

As for that stuff about an armed society is a polite society. What about New Orleans? It doesn't seem very polite to shoot your neighbours up to get some food or their TV set, or rape women at gunpoint or shoot at rescue choppers.

Ummm, I think you'll find that the people shooting their neighbors to get food or their tv or raping women or shotting at rescue choppers were all...criminals breaking the law. The point of the idea about armed society is a polite society is that the legally armed law abiding citizens are generally not the ones committing gun crimes.

I'm putting my flame proof boxers on now. I've noticed that nothing gets ppl on here going like a good ole gun debate :-)

p-)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

As for that stuff about an armed society is a polite society. What about New Orleans? It doesn't seem very polite to shoot your neighbours up to get some food or their TV set, or rape women at gunpoint or shoot at rescue choppers.

Ummm, I think you'll find that the people shooting their neighbors to get food or their tv or raping women or shotting at rescue choppers were all...criminals breaking the law. The point of the idea about armed society is a polite society is that the legally armed law abiding citizens are generally not the ones committing gun crimes.

I'm putting my flame proof boxers on now. I've noticed that nothing gets ppl on here going like a good ole gun debate :-)

p-)

Well they probably wouldn't be committing crimes in a 'normal' situation I agree but when things have really gone down the toilet who knows what any of us would do.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Actually I have to be honest (even if it spoils some fun arguments) and agree that they're making far too direct of a connection between crime rates and legal gun ownership (or legal ccw). That doesn't mean for a second that I think that allowing law abiding citizens to be armed can't contribute to lowering crime rates or, at a minimum, allows people to have a powerful self defense tool if they CHOOSE to have it.

Ok, gun nut hat going back on: if everybody had their right hand replaced at birth with an 88 magnum, there'd be no crime!
p-)

:-) FWIW I would like to see the UK bans on ownership of handguns and semi auto rifles ended because I'd love to be able to use them on the range w/o having to travel to Arizona or something. I just don't think it is ever going to happen though.

[joe mama]

As for that stuff about an armed society is a polite society. What about New Orleans? It doesn't seem very polite to shoot your neighbours up to get some food or their TV set, or rape women at gunpoint or shoot at rescue choppers.

Ummm, I think you'll find that the people shooting their neighbors to get food or their tv or raping women or shotting at rescue choppers were all...criminals breaking the law. The point of the idea about armed society is a polite society is that the legally armed law abiding citizens are generally not the ones committing gun crimes.

I'm putting my flame proof boxers on now. I've noticed that nothing gets ppl on here going like a good ole gun debate :-)

p-)

Well they probably wouldn't be committing crimes in a 'normal' situation I agree but when things have really gone down the toilet who knows what any of us would do.

Do you mean the people shooting at rescue choppers and such? I'm sorry, but they're absolutely people who probably were committing crimes in 'normal' situations. The average decent person won't loot (except maybe for food in this kind of situation) or shoot at rescue choppes or rape anyone, regardless of the situation. For every one of these assholes, and for every able bodied person complaining about no one helping them, I saw 10 people who got off their ass and either helped themselves or helped someone else. What you saw in NO causing trouble was the bottom of the barrel, regardless of race. The good people, regardless of race, had evacuated ahead of time or once the storm came, or were staying to help others.

NO is 67% black. Anybody who thinks it was racist that the black people got left behind or whatever they want to call it or believes that anyone who insults the people causing the touble there is being racist ignores the fact that of the huge amount of people who did evacuate, many (most?) of them were black too, simply because of the way the population is. Scum is scum, regardless of color.

[joe mama]

:-) FWIW I would like to see the UK bans on ownership of handguns and semi auto rifles ended because I'd love to be able to use them on the range w/o having to travel to Arizona or something. I just don't think it is ever going to happen though.

See, you've been corrupted by the evil influence of the guns you've already used. No sane person would want such a thing, guns are evil, pure and simple, and they do nothing but kill, as some here have told me. They still haven't told me, however, if that means I can get my money back for my guns which must be defective because they haven't killed, even though guns do nothing but kill.
p-)

[Geezah]

is a Polite Society'

A report released this week by the United Nations confirms what law-abiding Americans have known for quite some time. That being that criminals prefer victims who cannot fight back.

Based on a crime survey of the world's top industrialized countries, the U.N. report indicates that a resident of the United Kingdom is nearly 3 times more likely to become a victim of violent assault than is a citizen of the United States. The report reveals that Scotland is the most violent country in the industrialized world with over 2,000 Scots attacked every week, which amounts to about 3 percent of the population on an annual basis. England and Wales are close behind with 2.8 percent of the population falling victim to violent assault. By comparison, Americans are victimized by violent offenders at a rate of 1.2 percent.

These latest crime figures are a snapshot of the upward spiral of violent crime in the United Kingdom. The rate of violent crime in the UK continues to grow despite the passage of successively more restrictive laws governing private firearm ownership. While violent crime in the UK has been ramping up, the rate of similar crimes in the United States has been declining -- thanks in large part to the passage of "concealed carry" laws in over four dozen states.

"Criminals are cowards," commented ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson. "They like nothing better than to come upon prey that is unable to put up much resistance. Here in the United States, over 80 million citizens own firearms - a fact that makes cowardly crooks very nervous. On the other hand, thanks to sweeping gun bans, the average British subject is little more than a sitting duck. With little fear of being shot by potential victims, British thugs are free to run the streets, committing murder and mayhem with near impunity."

"For years we have heard the American gun control movement crow about how the UK is quickly becoming a gun-free utopia," continued Pearson. "To the contrary, these latest UN figures demonstrate that the UK is a place where violence is quickly replacing the rule of law."

"The UN figures illustrate the folly of gun control," said Pearson. "It's time for our political leaders to rise in support of the basic human right of self defense. It's time for Illinois to join the 46 states that allow law-abiding citizens to carry defensive firearms. It's time for Illinois citizens to enjoy the bounties of liberty rather than suffer the indignities of victimization as do their British counterparts."


The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership. For over a century, the ISRA has represented the interests of over 1.5 million law-abiding firearm owners.

Link (http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=53648)

This story is connected to these two threads,

Scotland tops UN’s violence league (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=60404&highlight=)

and

Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=60788&highlight=)

Well I like shooting (so I can hardly be called a gun grabber!) but parts of that don't add up to me. AFAIK ownership of handguns was never very common in the UK (less than 1 in 1000 of the population I believe) and they weren't licensed for carry for defensive purposes except for certain people in Ulster.

What time period are you talking about, in the last 10-15yrs?
The British Guberment have even admitted that the knee jerk bans on legally held firearms did not work, seeign as the majority of those firearms were very seldom used to commit crime.


It doesn't make sense to say 'thanks to sweeping gun bans, the average British subject is little more than a sitting duck' because ppl were not permitted to carry firearms for self defence anyway even before semi auto rifles and hand guns were banned.

Yes they were, restrictions on firearms started back in the 30s, and from there it just got worse. Thing is there was no reason for the bans in the first place. Firearm crime was extremely low but firearm ownership was high.



Seems like a lot of fuss about what is mostly a bit of drunken brawling to me. It's not pretty but hardly worth all the moral panic. I wonder how much is simply due to increased reporting because greater CCTV coverage means that incidents now get seen which nobody would have known about or reported before.

CCTV has been in place for atleast 15yrs, now all of a sudden more people are aware of violent crime?



As for that stuff about an armed society is a polite society. What about New Orleans? It doesn't seem very polite to shoot your neighbours up to get some food or their TV set, or rape women at gunpoint or shoot at rescue choppers.

Maybe it should read "A Legally Armed Society is a Polite Society", thing is, we know criminals own firearms, so it is nice knowing that we're on an even playing field.
I'm not saying I'm a have a go hero, but I would like to retaliate(if I had to) with fire.
Also as stated above, the majority of those people that are commiting crime are criminals, so there's a good chance that Mr Joe Blog's(I obey the law) isn't the one shooting at the helicopters.



I'm putting my flame proof boxers on now. I've noticed that nothing gets ppl on here going like a good ole gun debate :-)

You're not wrong there ;)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

a_very_ex_STAB wrote:

Seems like a lot of fuss about what is mostly a bit of drunken brawling to me. It's not pretty but hardly worth all the moral panic. I wonder how much is simply due to increased reporting because greater CCTV coverage means that incidents now get seen which nobody would have known about or reported before.


CCTV has been in place for atleast 15yrs, now all of a sudden more people are aware of violent crime?


But IIRC the reporting rules about crimes have changed recently. I saw some coppers being interviewed about this on TV here recently. They cited 2 examples of ways in which the violent crimes stats can be artificially inflated by recent changes in the law.

1. If a cctv operator spots a crime like an assault they can now report it as a crime even if no victims come forward to make a complaint. So it goes in the stats whereas it wouldn't have before.

2. If say 3 ppl get beaten up by a gang of say 6 ppl it now counts as 3 separate crimes whereas it would be previously have been counted as one.

Voila - you have an 'epidemic' of violent crime.

[Geezah]

a_very_ex_STAB wrote:

Seems like a lot of fuss about what is mostly a bit of drunken brawling to me. It's not pretty but hardly worth all the moral panic. I wonder how much is simply due to increased reporting because greater CCTV coverage means that incidents now get seen which nobody would have known about or reported before.


CCTV has been in place for atleast 15yrs, now all of a sudden more people are aware of violent crime?


But IIRC the reporting rules about crimes have changed recently. I saw some coppers being interviewed about this on TV here recently. They cited 2 examples of ways in which the violent crimes stats can be artificially inflated by recent changes in the law.

1. If a cctv operator spots a crime like an assault they can now report it as a crime even if no victims come forward to make a complaint. So it goes in the stats whereas it wouldn't have before.

2. If say 3 ppl get beaten up by a gang of say 6 ppl it now counts as 3 separate crimes whereas it would be previously have been counted as one.

Voila - you have an 'epidemic' of violent crime.

FYI:

Closed circuit TV systems are of little use in the fight against crime, a surprise government report claims today.

Home Office researchers who studied 14 schemes across Britain found that only one had brought a clear fall in the local crime rate.

While there was strong public support for CCTV before it was installed, opinion began to shift when people realised the cameras made little difference.

And researchers found that some of the schemes were botched, making them less effective. Six of the 14 control rooms were left unstaffed for part of the day or night. And in some cases, cameras could not capture clear images at night due to the glare from artificial lights.

The findings come as a blow to the Home Office, which has trumpeted CCTV as a key crime-fighting weapon for the past 10 years.

The report's author, Professor Martin Gill of the University of Leicester, said: "For supporters these findings are disappointing. For the most part CCTV did not produce reductions in crime and did not make people feel safer."

The only one of the 14 schemes found to be a success was targeted at car parks, where it led to a significant drop in vehicle crime. Other schemes in city centres, residential areas and hospitals produced no clear benefits.

Professor Gill said that because government funding was available for CCTV schemes, local officials tended to fit the cameras without any clear goal in mind.

On the plus side, only one in six people objected to CCTV on civil liberties grounds.


Oceania (http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/16856213?source=Evening%20Standard)



The UK government recently suspended the deployment of more speeds cameras pending the outcome of of a University College London probe into whether they actually save lives.

We have no doubt, then, that the investigators will be taking a close interest in the Motorcycle News revelation that road deaths have risen dramatically in those areas favoured with the most Gatsos.

According to the MCN figures - joyfully reported in today's Sun - Hertfordshire saw a 24 per cent rise in speed camera numbers between 2003 and 2004. In the same period, road fatalities rose by 34 per cent.

Likewise in Wiltshire, camera numbers went up 14 per cent, and those killed 22 per cent. In County Durham, meanwhile, a lone Gatso oversaw a 22 per cent drop in fatalities.

The Sun is also delighted to report that in North Wales, where "Gatso fan Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom has a league table for traffic cops", 56,247 speeding tickets were issued although this had little effect on safety, with an 18 per cent increase in road deaths.

The reason? Simple, says safety expert Paul Smith: “Crashes are avoided by making a safe plan based on what you see. Cameras move attention away from hazards to speedometers.”

Link (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/19/gatso_deaths_link/)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

a_very_ex_STAB wrote:

Seems like a lot of fuss about what is mostly a bit of drunken brawling to me. It's not pretty but hardly worth all the moral panic. I wonder how much is simply due to increased reporting because greater CCTV coverage means that incidents now get seen which nobody would have known about or reported before.


CCTV has been in place for atleast 15yrs, now all of a sudden more people are aware of violent crime?


But IIRC the reporting rules about crimes have changed recently. I saw some coppers being interviewed about this on TV here recently. They cited 2 examples of ways in which the violent crimes stats can be artificially inflated by recent changes in the law.

1. If a cctv operator spots a crime like an assault they can now report it as a crime even if no victims come forward to make a complaint. So it goes in the stats whereas it wouldn't have before.

2. If say 3 ppl get beaten up by a gang of say 6 ppl it now counts as 3 separate crimes whereas it would be previously have been counted as one.

Voila - you have an 'epidemic' of violent crime.

FYI:

Closed circuit TV systems are of little use in the fight against crime, a surprise government report claims today.

Home Office researchers who studied 14 schemes across Britain found that only one had brought a clear fall in the local crime rate.

While there was strong public support for CCTV before it was installed, opinion began to shift when people realised the cameras made little difference.

And researchers found that some of the schemes were botched, making them less effective. Six of the 14 control rooms were left unstaffed for part of the day or night. And in some cases, cameras could not capture clear images at night due to the glare from artificial lights.

The findings come as a blow to the Home Office, which has trumpeted CCTV as a key crime-fighting weapon for the past 10 years.

The report's author, Professor Martin Gill of the University of Leicester, said: "For supporters these findings are disappointing. For the most part CCTV did not produce reductions in crime and did not make people feel safer."

The only one of the 14 schemes found to be a success was targeted at car parks, where it led to a significant drop in vehicle crime. Other schemes in city centres, residential areas and hospitals produced no clear benefits.

Professor Gill said that because government funding was available for CCTV schemes, local officials tended to fit the cameras without any clear goal in mind.

On the plus side, only one in six people objected to CCTV on civil liberties grounds.


Oceania (http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/16856213?source=Evening%20Standard)



The UK government recently suspended the deployment of more speeds cameras pending the outcome of of a University College London probe into whether they actually save lives.

We have no doubt, then, that the investigators will be taking a close interest in the Motorcycle News revelation that road deaths have risen dramatically in those areas favoured with the most Gatsos.

According to the MCN figures - joyfully reported in today's Sun - Hertfordshire saw a 24 per cent rise in speed camera numbers between 2003 and 2004. In the same period, road fatalities rose by 34 per cent.

Likewise in Wiltshire, camera numbers went up 14 per cent, and those killed 22 per cent. In County Durham, meanwhile, a lone Gatso oversaw a 22 per cent drop in fatalities.

The Sun is also delighted to report that in North Wales, where "Gatso fan Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom has a league table for traffic cops", 56,247 speeding tickets were issued although this had little effect on safety, with an 18 per cent increase in road deaths.

The reason? Simple, says safety expert Paul Smith: “Crashes are avoided by making a safe plan based on what you see. Cameras move attention away from hazards to speedometers.”

Link (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/19/gatso_deaths_link/)

:) I just said cameras led to increased reporting of crime I didn't say (and I don't believe) they actually prevent it. Those are two separate issues. And don't get me started on 'greed' cameras!

[Geezah]

:) I just said cameras led to increased reporting of crime I didn't say (and I don't believe) they actually prevent it. Those are two separate issues. And don't get me started on 'greed' cameras!


And researchers found that some of the schemes were botched, making them less effective. Six of the 14 control rooms were left unstaffed for part of the day or night. And in some cases, cameras could not capture clear images at night due to the glare from artificial lights.


To get back on subject as we drifted somewhat this is a quote from the original article,


The increasingly free availability of alcohol has been blamed by police and health workers for much of the violence that afflicts Scotland.However, a report by the think tank Civitas, published earlier this year, said Britain had one of the world’s most ineffective police forces and highest crime rates. It said the police spend too much time behind their desks instead of tackling crime. Crime, it says, is “a very low-risk activity for the criminal”.

also


The study, based on telephone interviews with victims of crime in 21 countries, found that more than 2,000 Scots were attacked every week, almost ten times the official police figures. They include non-****** crimes of violence and serious assaults.

I do not believe that the increase in reported incidetns has anythign to do with the camera operators.

[AlisterMcRae]

Why did we need the UN to tell us this? Isnt this commen sense? I mean, take it from a professional hitman Sammy "The Bull" Gravano as he states in an interview:

"Gun Control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety Locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins."

[Geezah]

Why did we need the UN to tell us this? Isnt this commen sense?

If only it were that easy, for some, sense is not that common p-)

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Hmm interesting read for sure.

But it fails to mention anything about why people commit crim in the first place.

I'm in the group that would have no problem with a person that could own a ak47 if they wanted to providing the conditions that lead to a person commiting a crime are removed from society.

Until such a time then I strongly support restricted access to firearms and CCW

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Hmm interesting read for sure.

But it fails to mention anything about why people commit crim in the first place.



Most of the stuff in that report relating to Scotland has to be post-pub fighting by fit young men. I mean come on its Scotland for Gods sake. There's nothing else to do up there :-)

[WarriorMonk]

Hmm interesting read for sure.

But it fails to mention anything about why people commit crim in the first place.

I'm in the group that would have no problem with a person that could own a ak47 if they wanted to providing the conditions that lead to a person commiting a crime are removed from society.

Until such a time then I strongly support restricted access to firearms and CCW

If we ever do that (remove conditions that lead to a person committing crime) you'd be screaming "FASCISTS" at us until your vocal cords snapped in half before you could tell the wackos on your side to bum rush us...

[Geezah]

Hmm interesting read for sure.

But it fails to mention anything about why people commit crim in the first place.

I think you might have missed this from the original article.


Violent crime has doubled in Scotland over the past 20 years and levels, per head of population, are now comparable with crime-ridden cities such as Rio de Janeiro, Johannesburg and Tbilisi.

The attacks have been fuelled by a “booze and blades” culture in the west of Scotland which has claimed more than 160 lives over the past five years.

The level of knife crime in Glasgow is similar to that in the most violent eastern European cities. The worst offenders are males aged between 15 and 25. Since January this year there have been 13 murders, 145 attempted murders and 1,100 serious assaults involving knives in the west of Scotland.

The problem is exacerbated by sectarian violence, with casualty wards reporting higher admissions following Old Firm matches.

I suppose you are right, it does not address why so many Scots are getting p!ssed up in the first place.


Detective Chief Superintendent John Carnochan, head of the Strathclyde police violence reduction unit, said that the problem of violence, particularly in the west of Scotland, was “chronic”.

“Controlling licensed premises and restricting access to drink will not stop the violence. However, it will reduce it,” he added.



I'm in the group that would have no problem with a person that could own a ak47 if they wanted to providing the conditions that lead to a person commiting a crime are removed from society.

Until such a time then I strongly support restricted access to firearms and CCW

Even though this access has been proven time and again to help curb a hell of allot of violent crime?

2.5million defensive uses if firearms a year and you would restrict that?

[joe mama]

Hmm interesting read for sure.

But it fails to mention anything about why people commit crim in the first place.

I'm in the group that would have no problem with a person that could own a ak47 if they wanted to providing the conditions that lead to a person commiting a crime are removed from society.

Until such a time then I strongly support restricted access to firearms and CCW

It's already illegal for criminals to get/have/use firearms. What are you going to do, make it more illegal? If they don't obey the laws we have now, they'll obey the laws if we have more - which really can't restrict criminals from having guns now since they're already restricted, so therefore can pretty much only restrict non-criminals from having them. Instead of coming after my guns, why not double or triple or quadruple the punishments for criminal possession/use of guns?

Serious question for a moment: do you think the problem with allowing legal CCW is that legal CCW'ers commit a significant amount of crimes?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

No because 99.9% of CCW holders are responsible people. I admit that.

My gripe is this.

By allowing people to be armed takes away the value of liberty.

Is a society truly free if people are required or need to arm themselves for protection?

My stance on guns is not so much against people like yourself. But rather an idealogical view that an armed society is not a free society.

[DOOMSDAYDEXTER]

"The study, based on telephone interviews with victims of crime in 21 countries" - etc

So the study doesn't actually utilize the figures on violence collected by the national databases of the respective countries, but posits new one based upon statistical projection from the responses to telephone interviews. Have I got that right?

:cantbeli:

[DOOMSDAYDEXTER]

Anyway having lived in Scotland on and off for years I can vouch for the fact that they are nails.

[Geezah]

"The study, based on telephone interviews with victims of crime in 21 countries" - etc

So the study doesn't actually utilize the figures on violence collected by the national databases of the respective countries, but posits new one based upon statistical projection from the responses to telephone interviews. Have I got that right?

:cantbeli:

Read my post above and follow the links on page 1 to the original article, it would seem that the local plod seems to think there is a problem also.

[joe mama]

No because 99.9% of CCW holders are responsible people. I admit that.

My gripe is this.

By allowing people to be armed takes away the value of liberty.

Is a society truly free if people are required or need to arm themselves for protection?

My stance on guns is not so much against people like yourself. But rather an idealogical view that an armed society is not a free society.

I would say one portion of what makes a society truly free is if it allows people to possess things and do things that, while dangerous, can be done/possessed responsibly. A truly free society is one that shouldn't overly restrict people from doing things they want to do (assuming they do them responsibly) just because some people cannot or will not do those same things responsibly.

Would society be better if no one needed to armed? (Ie, no crime, no threats from other societies, no dangerous animals) Definitely! But I'd still be ok with people having weapons if they chose to have them and as long as they behaved responsibly with them and were punished if they didn't.

Your "free" society is free from danger, I'd say, which is different from free, by which I mean one that has freedom (ie liberty).