UK Now Most Violent Developed Nation in the World

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   
LostSailor, like many people you result to the age old arguement of "if I have a gun I won't be a victim of crime" which is a lie. In a society where you can legally buy guns, you are more likely to be a victim of gun crime - in a society where you can legally buy knives, you are more likely to be a victim of knife crime.

The only thing the gun can do is to protect you if that "punk" doesn't have one and it is wrong to think they wouldn't.




posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
LostSailor, like many people you result to the age old arguement of "if I have a gun I won't be a victim of crime" which is a lie. In a society where you can legally buy guns, you are more likely to be a victim of gun crime - in a society where you can legally buy knives, you are more likely to be a victim of knife crime.

The only thing the gun can do is to protect you if that "punk" doesn't have one and it is wrong to think they wouldn't.


ahh yes... But.. It is also wrong for that "punk" to assume I don't have one. See what I'm getting at here? Thereby the entire encounter has a greater chance of not happening in the first place. These punks in the UK are getting away with their crimes due mainly to the fact - In my opinion - they have no fear of being... shot...




posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
1. Scotland
2. England
3. Wales

I hate to faill you on the math buddy but 5 836 assaults per year is doesnt make scotland the worst in the world..PLUS the fact that england and wales have both thier reports bunged toghether (how nice of the UN to do that huh?) the report means bugger all...For all we know both could have low or one could be higher than the other..

And with respect, the UK is not one country its 4 and each one handles the law diffrently, you want me to start adding figures from the rest of the european union?
France and germany combined equal wales and england....mabye we should say that the EU is the most "violent developed continent on the planet?"

Btw.....one small tiny fact...doing the maths (dont qoute me on this here) the report on wales and england would mean that one person every 247 people (rounding up) will be assualted out of 52041916 people...


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Well, what they should do in the UK (and other countries in Europe that have strict gun laws) according to my humble opinion:

-Allow firearms to be legally owned by the people, if they misuse this priviledge, it will be taken away and they will go to prison.
-Fellons and mentally unstable people should not be allowed to aquire a legal firearm in any way, background checks should be done to see if they are A) legal citizens, B) have ANY gang affiliation C) had any prior convictions involving violence.
-Illegal guns should be fought fiercely, so only legal guns will be on the streets (a very hard task, but can be done under the right circumstances).
-Allow neighborhood watches and armed citizen patrols.

This will both fight crime and allow for legal gun ownership.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Gunship is legal here...

Hell you can own a .50 cal sniper rifle if its not semi auto.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
-Fellons and mentally unstable people should not be allowed to aquire a legal firearm in any way, background checks should be done to see if they are A) legal citizens, B) have ANY gang affiliation C) had any prior convictions involving violence.


You know, I always took the stance that if a person is safe enough to be allowed to walk down the street, let him have a gun. If someone is not OK to have a gun, why is he free in the first place?



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   

I've been licensed to carry one of these now for about 8 years and have never once had to use it. Why? You tell me...


Cause you live in a white suburb? Is your "gun" actually a toy gun? Is it because you point the piece of plastic at all the suspicious folk you come across?
Shush pal. I'm more worried about knifes to be honest. I can defend myself against a knife, thanks to a random ex-royal marine, and the use of a jumper. I doubt I can use my trusty jumpers to block your bullets. Guns breed guns. You can talk about all this hunting malarky and "protecting" yourselves all you want. I doubt that the folk who created guns, thought about protecting themselves. Probebly were more interested at killing their enemies way more quicker then stabbing them a couple of times. Guns are for killing. Not for sport. If you wanna be a real hunter, go fashion a bow and a good couple of arrows or something.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacDonagh
Guns breed guns.

Got bad news for ya, they are already there. That argument only works in societies with no guns, and there are none. Besides, that sounds great and all if you have limited time to think, but it has already been demonstrated that you outlawed honest citizens owning gun and your guns are still breeding. Knee-jerk your way around that.



Guns are for killing.
You are right, guns are for killing. So, what does that make you? We know the guns are there, in the hands of criminals. We know they are made for killing. You dont think that people should be able to use one for defense against the ones that are already there in the hands of killers. Again, I ask you what does that make you, when so many people who could have protected themselves with a gun are killed? You and your ilk have the blood of defenseless victims on your hands.

I think the behavior of banning things is actually psychotic. We ban drugs, guns, this vice, that vice, and they never go away. They proliferate. And all the while, we keep kidding ourselves that it is working, and continue to throw more money at.

You can continue to ignore the numbers that say the plan you back wont and has never worked, but at least don’t get mad a people how instead take a logical stance.

You can wish there were no guns. You can tell yourself that the problem isn’t getting worse. Keep kidding yourself. As for me, I know that I am as safe as I can be, and you are a victim waiting for a hospital bill (or worse.)


[edit on 26-12-2005 by cavscout]



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Firearms are not necesarilly intended for killing only, they were made during the days of war to fight war more efficiently, later guns to become hunting tools, sporting tools and more recently into a hobby.

Why do you think firearms can still be legally owned in most countries? because they kill? absolutely not (well no human beings), they are for Sporting Purposes I.E. target shooting, plinking and hunting (which is partially for fun, for stopping over population and for food).

Guns have their place in this world, get over it, crossbows can be legally aquired in most parts in the world WITHOUT any restrictions, knives can be legally aquired everywhere, even swords (which only has one legitimate use, hanging it on the wall).

And what about us people that actually LIKE guns? should we all suffer because of some criminals that get there gun anyway? no...



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
LostSailor, like many people you result to the age old arguement of "if I have a gun I won't be a victim of crime" which is a lie. In a society where you can legally buy guns, you are more likely to be a victim of gun crime - in a society where you can legally buy knives, you are more likely to be a victim of knife crime.

The only thing the gun can do is to protect you if that "punk" doesn't have one and it is wrong to think they wouldn't.


I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree. States that pass the conceal weapons permit show that crime is noticeably lower. As for your arguement for a society that retails arms is more susceptible to gun violence is evasive at best. A criminal would not adhere to laws and circumvent and still purchase a gun via blackmarket, so the only person that would be hurt is the law abiding citizen who would not be on even footing protecting himself or his family. I would like to see your meathodology to come to these conclusions. I have yet to see any demographics to prove otherwise.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Fine then. Ignore the 850 murders+ and probebly even less murders in gun crime as well. And the probable huge cost in AMERICA because of gun culture and crime. Up in Scotland, it's knives. Not guns that are the bloody problem. If you introduce guns, it'll just give an even bigger excuse for a ned or a chav to rob ya. You can't shoot someone if you've got a knife in your head.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
You are right, guns are for killing. So, what does that make you? We know the guns are there, in the hands of criminals. We know they are made for killing. You dont think that people should be able to use one for defense against the ones that are already there in the hands of killers. Again, I ask you what does that make you, when so many people who could have protected themselves with a gun are killed? You and your ilk have the blood of defenseless victims on your hands.

They dont NEED to used them, thats the fact.
The police are there for THAT SPECIFIC JOB, or should we disband the orginised police because the government should not be responsible for babysitting its citiznes?
Mabye disband free health since the government is not respsonsible for its civitzens.
Mabye even get rid of some of the military, I mean whats the point in the government looking after you if you are not willing to defend yourself against an apache gunship or F-22 raptor ?
Mabye start allowing people to own stingers, RPG's, Fully automatics?



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   
eventhough it is not entirely true - luxembourg does in no way ban all guns, it is just complex (not difficult) to get a detention and concealed weapons permit, and it will not prevent criminals to obtain some- this article is quite interesting .
Most (legal) gun owners in Luxemburg own another few that are not declared , mostly full auto (full auto weapons being the only type banned in our country, shortly said as long as it is not full auto you can get it registered, whatever the caliber) for those of you who have spent some time in uniforms , you probably know how easy it is to tune-up a semi auto civilian version of an assault weapon to it's military version.
All this to agree with the content of the following article : it's not about gun laws, it's about education and "culture" (and probably the ammount of booze available to depressed and violent people aswell)

"If more guns mean more violence, nations with high gun-ownership rates should have high murder rates. But two international studies comparing gun ownership with murder rates in 36 and 21 nations (respectively) found “no significant correlations.”

Anti-gun advocates never mention these facts. Nor do they mention all the European nations with high gun ownership rates but very low murder. Norway, with the highest gun ownership rate in Western Europe, has the lowest murder rate—far below England's. The only European nation that bans all guns, Luxembourg, has the highest murder rate (except for Russia): 30 percent higher than the U.S. and ten times that of gun-dense Norway. Holland, with Western Europe's lowest rate of gun ownership, has a 50 percent higher murder rate than Norway. Greece has much higher gun ownership than the Czech Republic but much less murder. Finland has 14 times more gun ownership than neighboring Estonia but much lower murder rates."

read the whole article here

[edit on 9-1-2006 by Hvitserk]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   
With respect Hvitserk we can play with numbers and percentages all day and make both sides look good in an argument, the fact is why do we need them?

To defend ourselves?
What are the chances of me comeing face to face with a Semi automatic glock 9mm pistol in my little town?

Very low I suspect.

Chances of meeting a shotgun? Higher but low at best.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:49 AM
link   
well to be honnest i do not "need" firearms (eventhough i own a few) , just like i do not "need" a car (eventhough i own one ) as our public transport infrastructure is fairly well organised, i could do without a pc , a phone , a tv etc... i could go on forever with similar examples but then i believe we could go back to basics and live off hunting and forageing (which wouldn't be so bad after all
)

the need of security and safety is definitely not the triggering factor for owning guns around here , as ,unlike some numbers might portray, it is a very safe country to live in.
It is more (putting aside professional reasons)a mix of needing to show off , get away from the "better half" at week ends ,plain interest for weapons or even socialising in a club (after all the shooting club is just another one) oh yes and of course hunting (which is very closely controlled and regulated)



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   
I'm afraid all the stats in the world cannot conceal the fact that 'guns don't kill people...people do!'

The arming of all UK Police Officers will come evetually I'm sure, but the damage inflicted by the shooting of the Brazilian gentleman last year has damaged any political push for this. The brutality of the shooting of an unarmed man allied to the lies and inconsistences spouted by the leading figures involved have certainly shaken many UK citizens as to the potential of abuse from fully armed Police Forces throughout the UK.

One theory I would like to put forward is that 'when there are rich pickings to be had the vultures will not be too far away.' The UK's borders are pourous and have allowed many of Europe's criminal fraternity and those who claim to be fleeing persecution from further afield to flood in and make good on their ambivilance towards the use of violence and the use of the gun in perpetrating their crimes. This may not totally account for the sharp rise in violent crime, but given that their use of violence is mirrored by those established criminals in an attempt to protect themselves and their ill-gotten gains would certainly help push these figures upward.

I'd also be looking for any death or injury from the use of a knife, gun etc (with obvious caveats), to carry an automatic mandatory or discretionary 'Life Sentence', thus resulting in a licence being issued on the perpetrator's release from prison. Judges in the UK now give a minimum time for each life sentenced prisoner to serve (a tariff) and would therefore have as much discretion in sentencing powers as they need with the added security that the 'Establishment' have the power to revoke the licence of any potentially violent person.

I believe that certain breaches of licence would have to be pre-determined before release and would have to be based on percieved or actual uses of violence i.e. threatening, carrying of weapons, actual bodily harm etc would result in an automatic return to the penal system without the opportunity of bail prior to trial. The message has to be sent out that the use of violence inflicted on the UK populace, in whatever shape or form, cannot and will not be tolerated.

The US authorities, although far from perfect, have the right idea and stamp on violence and send out the clear message 'If you use a weapon you're going down'; whether its to the grave or to prison makes very little difference as those affected won't have the opportunity to inflict their penchant for violence on innocent US citizens for a very long time or in many cases, never again.

Just some thoughts.

Best Wishes

J



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hvitserk
well to be honnest i do not "need" firearms (eventhough i own a few) , just like i do not "need" a car (eventhough i own one ) as our public transport infrastructure is fairly well organised, i could do without a pc , a phone , a tv etc... i could go on forever with similar examples but then i believe we could go back to basics and live off hunting and forageing (which wouldn't be so bad after all
)

It depends who you are and what you need, I dont need a car to get to work but I need a car to get home.



the need of security and safety is definitely not the triggering factor for owning guns around here , as ,unlike some numbers might portray, it is a very safe country to live in.
It is more (putting aside professional reasons)a mix of needing to show off , get away from the "better half" at week ends ,plain interest for weapons or even socialising in a club (after all the shooting club is just another one) oh yes and of course hunting (which is very closely controlled and regulated)

I agree with the social and hunting gun clubs, I mean shooting can be relaxing and fun.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by gingerlad
I'm afraid all the stats in the world cannot conceal the fact that 'guns don't kill people...people do!'

J


agree 200 % with you and that is why "control" has to be stricter



Originally posted by gingerlad

The arming of all UK Police Officers will come evetually I'm sure, but the damage inflicted by the shooting of the Brazilian gentleman last year has damaged any political push for this. The brutality of the shooting of an unarmed man allied to the lies and inconsistences spouted by the leading figures involved have certainly shaken many UK citizens as to the potential of abuse from fully armed Police Forces throughout the UK.

J


on this one i'll have to point out that it is quite clear that he has not been shot by let' say "normal policemen" the methods used by the team responsible for shooting Jean Charles de Menezes definitely point to more specifically trained men (still does not excuse anything, i'd say it makes it even worse)



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Just one thing to make sure you all known.

In the United Kingdom, the way they measure the statistics can be heavily misleading. For instance, say one man is attacked by six people in reality one assault has happened. The problem is, they record six individual assaults and this can boost up the official charts.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   
The gun issue is a red herring and takes the discussion away from the original topic. The fact is crime, of the anti social, random and brutal type (the kind of crime that impacts everyone) is spiralling out of control. I don't care if it's not as bad as Brazil or LA or Bolivia, I care that it makes me scared to be out on the streets and that old, young, male and female are all legitimate targets. We now have several generations of an underclass who have no sense of ethical moral or social responsibility whatsoever and who are shored up in their behaviour by a legal system that refuses to act accordingly on the severity of their crimes. People are essentially being left to face these things on their own, any policing is of the cardboard variety that bothers the perpetrators not one bit and supports victims not at all. Sooner or later decent, law abiding people will band together and take the law into their own hands and while the police, justice system and govt continue to act as they are, I for one wont condemn it.





top topics
 
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join