It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING NEWS: Someone Somewhere Is Shooting Somebody... WITH A GUN!

page: 4
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: PhoenixOD

Okay fine if they run and trip and get hurt, sure. But 'punking' someone leads to arrest and stats is just absurd.

But if it is that extreme, that could account for the over-the-top social engineering people into 'sissies' (thus influencing lower murder rates).

Your links dont work.




posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I totally agree, its madness. Though im not sure 2 people arguing in each others face would be taken seriously in court. But one kid shouting threats at another who was scared would.

Links should work now.

Also just like in the US most of out violent crime is committed in just two cities , for us its London and Manchester where its attributed to the rise gang culture.

Anyway im off to bed, its 7am here



edit on 29-6-2016 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 01:47 AM
link   
All I see is "Actual Bodily Harm (ABH)" in there.

Anyways, like there are 100,000+ people actually charged a year for 'scaring' somebody.

These couldn't even hold up in court. All kids would have to do is say something happened, no physical evidence of harm, and then kids 'go to jail'.

NO WAY!



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I cant seem to get the link for common assault to work. Im very tired, been up all night.

Try typing "UK common assault examples" into google.


What is Common Assault?

Under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act the offence will be committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.

A battery is classified as the application of unlawful force. This could be anything from a push or slap.

An assault is when the one person makes the other fear that immediate force will be used against them. This could be anything from shaking a fist or running a finger across a throat. No force needs to be applied in order for it to be an assault.

Will there be a prison sentence?

Common assault carries a maximum penalty of six months in prison and/or a fine.

If someone is being charged for the first time it is unlikely that they will go to prison with a fine the usual outcome. If the offender has previous convictions or if they were proven to have had a particular motivation for the attack, specifically if it is racially motivated this could however lead to a prison sentence.

Actual Bodily Harm (ABH)

What is Actual Bodily Harm?

Assault causing actual bodily harm (ABH) is a criminal offence which is governed by Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act.

In this case the assault or battery needs to cause harm to the person’s body. The harm is not necessarily serious but it would need to be more than a shove which would remain common assault. Harm such as bruises, scratches and bite marks is sufficient.

What needs to be remembered when dealing with ABH is that there only needs to be intention to apply unlawful force not the intention to cause actual bodily harm. If someone pushes another he will have intended to apply unlawful force. If the person who was pushed then bangs his head this will be charged under Section 47 even if the defendant did not intend the victim to hurt their head.
Will there be a prison sentence?

ABH carries a maximum sentence of five years.

As with common assault, if someone is being charged for the first time it is unlikely that they will go to prison with a fine the usual outcome. Again, if the offender has previous convictions or if they were proven to have had a particular motivation for the attack, specifically if it is racially motivated this could however lead to a prison sentence.


edit on 29-6-2016 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-6-2016 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Also theres two more crazy charges that get lumped in with the violent crime stats for the UK

-Harassment
-Possession of Offensive Weapon (with intent)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 02:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
Also theres two more crazy charges that get lumped in with the violent crime stats for the UK

-Harassment
-Possession of Offensive Weapon (with intent)


Doesn't apply here but would a dog chain meet that requirement?



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 02:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
Also theres two more crazy charges that get lumped in with the violent crime stats for the UK

-Harassment
-Possession of Offensive Weapon (with intent)


Doesn't apply here but would a dog chain meet that requirement?


Probably depends if you have a dog...



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 02:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
Also theres two more crazy charges that get lumped in with the violent crime stats for the UK

-Harassment
-Possession of Offensive Weapon (with intent)


Doesn't apply here but would a dog chain meet that requirement?


Probably depends if you have a dog...


I didn't but I carried one in the 80's. Much more effective than a knife. That's Canada though. Hell, I think pepper spray is illegal here. Chain works.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 02:25 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Its possible

see number 3


In order to be considered an offensive weapon, the article must come within one of the following three categories:

1An offensive weapon per se (The following have been held to be offensive weapons per se: a machete, a sword, a flick knife, a truncheon, etc. Part of the reason that these have been so categorised is because they do not per se have any innocent quality. However a lock knife, ordinary razor, penknife have been held not to be offensive weapons per se, because they do have an innocent purpose)

2 Something adapted to cause injury (for example a bottle that has been deliberately broken, a potato with a razor blade inserted into it, an unscrewed pool cue, etc).

3 Something that is not offensive per se, or adapted, but is intended to be used for the purpose of causing injury (for example, a work hammer, a stone etc).


if the object falls under the third category, then the prosecution must prove the intent to injure. This makes perfect sense, as a knife or a broken bottle are obvious weapons, whereas something like a hammer would only become a weapon once an intent to use it to injure somebody can be established.
edit on 29-6-2016 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 02:30 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

You can kill someone with a newspaper if you hold it right


Milwall Brick



edit on 29-6-2016 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 02:30 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

You would probably be OK carrying a dog chain as most UK police would not immediately view that as a weapon (although they may depending on location/circumstance)

However if you used it in any circumstances other than 100% clear self defence it would probably cause you issues if you did not have a valid reason for carrying one.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: PhoenixOD

I believe up here a glass Irnbru bottle was more the weapon of choice.

Just goes to show you should never underestimate human ingenuity when it comes to kicking the **** out of each other.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
No one is really getting shot in the UK. It's exceptional if it happens. That's point.

Jesus...its like trying to teach infants logic.


Not getting shot... maybe...

But more people getting raped, mugged, stabbed, robbed, etc.

England has worse crime rate than the US, says Civitas study
England and Wales has one of the worst crime rates among developed nations for rapes, burglaries and robberies, a major report has found.
England and Wales was ranked sixth for burglaries – worse than Sweden, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Turkey, Italy and Chile - and for robberies, England and Wales was seventh.

For rapes, England and Wales was ranked ninth, worse than the likes of Norway, Poland, Sweden, Australia and Germany, while for car thefts, England and Wales was eighth – worse than Slovenia, Chile, Mexico, Greece and the Czech Republic.



The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed. The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence. In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.




All of which are preferable to being shot. So, thanks for proving my point. Also, those statistics dont convey what gets lumped in with what, so is meaningless.
edit on 29-6-2016 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 06:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Guns I know FAR better than you...ZBrush ...not so much.
Experience a war and these MYTHS of how cool combat and killing is ENDS when a bullet whizzes by your head.


I dont use ZBrush
Im not a modeller

I dont understand what you experiencing war has to do with anything. No offence



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Orionx2

I think that banning guns altogether would be unfair. However, allowing people to own guns after passing a background check, for example, does focus on weeding out the individuals that might not be safe with a gun and lets responsible people own guns. Also, mandatory training to get licensed would be a nice touch that wouldn't harm anyone. What to look for in the background check seems like an area for debate.
edit on 29amWed, 29 Jun 2016 07:36:28 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

What is Common Assault?
An assault is when the one person makes the other fear that immediate force will be used against them. This could be anything from shaking a fist or running a finger across a throat. No force needs to be applied in order for it to be an assault.


Clearly these 2 are felons, here's the proof:


Perhaps the idea was to prevent Jersey Shore from taking over the UK?


I dont know what's worse, a nation of sissies or a Jersey Nation.
edit on 29-6-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
So back to my OP topics:


In July, researchers presented a terrifying idea: mass killings and school shootings may be contagious. Using a mathematical contagion model typically applied to the spread of diseases, the study found that 30 percent of mass killings and 22 percent of school shootings appeared to have been inspired by previous events. One possible reason, says lead author Sherry Towers, is media coverage.

“What we found was, in ones that didn’t get a lot of media attention there was no contagion, and in the ones where we did see a lot of media attention, that’s where we saw the contagion,” Towers says.
www.newsweek.com...


Here's the paper: Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings

We find significant evidence that mass killings involving firearms are incented by similar events in the immediate past. On average, this temporary increase in probability lasts 13 days, and each incident incites at least 0.30 new incidents (p = 0.0015). We also find significant evidence of contagion in school shootings, for which an incident is contagious for an average of 13 days, and incites an average of at least 0.22 new incidents (p = 0.0001). All p-values are assessed based on a likelihood ratio test comparing the likelihood of a contagion model to that of a null model with no contagion. On average, mass killings involving firearms occur approximately every two weeks in the US, while school shootings occur on average monthly. We find that state prevalence of firearm ownership is significantly associated with the state incidence of mass killings with firearms, school shootings, and mass shootings.


edit on 29-6-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
How The Media Inspires Mass Shooters

"STAGECRAFT":

Since the 1980s, forensic investigators have found examples of mass killers emulating their most famous predecessors. Now, there is growing evidence that the copycat problem is far more serious than is generally understood. Ever since the 1999 massacre at Colorado's Columbine High School, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been studying what motivates people to carry out these crimes. Earlier this year, I met with supervisory special agent Andre Simons, who until recently led a team of agents and psychology experts who assist local authorities in heading off violent attacks around the country, using a strategy known as threat assessment. Since 2012, according to Simons, the FBI's unit has taken on more than 400 cases—and has found evidence of the copycat effect rippling through many of them. Evidence amassed by the FBI and other threat assessment experts shows that perpetrators and plotters look to past attacks both for inspiration and operational details, in hopes of causing even greater carnage.


COPYCATS:

As part of our investigation into threat assessment, Mother Jones documented the chilling scope of the "Columbine effect": We found at least 74 plots and attacks across 30 states in which suspects and perpetrators claimed to have been inspired by the nation's worst high school massacre. Their goals ranged from attacking on the anniversary of Columbine to outdoing the original body count. Law enforcement stopped 53 of these plots before anyone was harmed. Twenty-one of them evolved into attacks, with a total of 89 victims killed, 126 injured, and nine perpetrators committing suicide.


CELEBRITYDOM:

"A lot of times they thrive on posing," says Reid Meloy, a forensic psychologist at the University of California-San Diego and a leading researcher on targeted violence who has interviewed and evaluated mass killers. He cites the police booking photo of Jared Loughner, who shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others in Tucson, Arizona, in 2011. "He's got that contemptuous smile, like it's a great pose. The savvy of these individuals to capitalize on visual exposure should not be underestimated."


INCREASING INTENSITY:

"They don't just want to be like them—they are envious and want to one-up them," Meloy explains. Copycats will aim to accomplish that either by going for a higher body count, he says, or, as in the Virginia case, killing in a more sensational way.


DELIBERATE POSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOP:

Meloy argues the media should also rethink some of its language. "Stop using the term 'lone wolf' and stop using 'school shooter,'" he says. "In the minds of young men this makes these acts of violence cool. They think, 'This has got some juice behind it, and I can get out there and do something really cool—I can be a lone wolf. I can be a shooter.'" Instead, Meloy suggests using terms such as "an act of lone terrorism" and "an act of mass murder."
Listen to National Public Radio's Robert Siegel interview Mark Follman about this investigation

Changing how the media covers these stories may be especially important when it comes to preventing gun rampages in schools, according to John Van Dreal... "I hear how all the kids talk about it," Van Dreal says. "When it gets played up so much in the media, it becomes heroic to the kids who are thinking about doing it." No one can control what explodes across social media platforms. But news organizations remain powerful magnifiers of content and could work toward "an ethical best practice to leave out the imagery and the name as much as possible," Van Dreal says.
.
edit on 29-6-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

OK. The "gun proliferation" isn't a problem thing. Wanna bet? It's a HUGE problem that has been ignored in the past but now is being an accepted aspect of society. I can't think of any other developed country that works that way. Oh, don't think we don't have guns. We do. Lots of them. Just not automatics and handguns need special privilege. Now go see if the NRA has spun that to look like it's worse than the States.



Automatics are rather rare here and need very special permits that cost a lot. Wait you might mean semi-automatic...big difference.

Do you see semi-automatics as a HUGE problem?

I do agree that cheap handguns are a problem and are the main way people die from guns, but once again in the vast majority of those deaths they are use illegally in the first place. So how do you make something more illegal than they already are in their use, and would that some how stop people from illegally using them since using them right now illegally does not seem to bother them slow them down?
edit on 29-6-2016 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
>2 kids get up in each others face talking big ####, they both get charged with 'battery'.

LOL


Yup. Happens in damn near every developed nation. People's rights come before imaginary "God given" ones.


Seems like a loss of rights then. The biggest threat to one's right is when the Government uses the word safety as their reason.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join