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.

 

Citizen disarmament led to drop in national average age?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Just an op-ed but an overlooked connection. Not necessarily that a gun ban leads to a drop in the national average age but that as children become increasingly violent and criminal against their own society it slowly but measurably kills off everyone in that society. An obvious connection at least I have never made.


England's laws also produced a spike in violent crime and contributed to the proliferation of teen gangs. This in turn has led to a nationwide decline in the average age, from 24 to 19, of violent criminals and their victims. Some adults fail or refuse to connect the gun-control dots, but young thugs aren't so obtuse. They know gun restrictions make crime, by gun, blade or other weapon, easier.
Link

A readers comment:

" I find myself in total agreement with this article.As a former UK Police Officer,a member of the NRA and now a US resident,i saw at first hand the gradual suppression of gun ownership that led to a total handgun ban in the UK .This was compounded by the liberal lawmakers Blair and co who made a criminal of anyone who used a weapon for self defence.The result was an explosion in armed crime ,that led to even more panic laws such as a ban on replica and deactivated weapons.The crime rate continued to climb.The US agenda of the Brady campaign and the democratic party is all to familiar to me .Lets hope that The gun owners of the US are not so easily duped.If they are then the British Nightmare is also the US Future.
Steve Challis
Lexington Ky "



[edit on 22-1-2009 by thisguyrighthere]




posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


If you read the article correctly it actually says that it leads to a decline in the average age of violent criminals and their victims, not the average age of law abiding citizens. As it also lowers the age of the victims then is it not more likely that the average age of law abiding citizens rises?

The MSM loves to have a group in society that they can blame for all its crime and ills and unfortunately at the moment its focusing on teenagers. There have always been teenagers beating on each other for whatever reason. In the 50's there were teddy boys with flick knives, the 60's were mod's and rocker's, the 70's had punk's, the 80's had skin heads and so on. Its nothing new. Its just as likely to be that due to cctv and our big brother society, criminals are getting caught earlier.

Unfortunately there is nothing that can convince me that the UK needs to repeal the law on handguns. I was 17 when Dunblane happened and i still remember it like yesterday



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   
England's gun laws will never make sense. The people here are too apathetic about crime, and assume that the police has a responsibility to protect them.

A while back, the government was considering outlawing .22 bolt action rifles in order to combat crime... bloody morons. Since when has a .22 bolt action rifle ever been used in a drive-by?!

At the same time, Yardies and the street gangs have easy access to weapons and continue to kill bystanders.

England Inc will never learn. Its just a different mentality here, that people would rather be a victim than the aggressor. I mean it was pretty innate in the British psyche (most people still think handing over your possessions is better than killing a robber), but the laws just exacerbated it.

As to the issue of the reduction of the age of criminals: Yes its certainly a trend that we can see here. However I don't think the outlawing of guns had much to do with it. The UK has banned concealed carry since 1948, so there has never been a culture of self defence.

However what is occuring now is a radicalisation in the nature of the young criminals and gangs. They realise that they work with near-immunity, and even if they are caught, they will be out in relatively no time. The gangs are becoming more and more organised, sucking in impressionable youngsters to staff their empires.

Some people say that the best way to counter this is to offer youngsters a better option than crime... but lets be honest, as long as crime pays, it will be the more attractive option to inner city kids.

The simple way to stop it would be to arm the victims of crime. Its the simplest and most effective way to create a disincentive against crime.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   
It's a widely accepted fact that every decade has been safer to walk the streets in england than the one preceding it - the statistical rise in reported crime is a quirk of logic which is quite clever, let me explain....

When innercity areas such as Mossside, Hackney Wick, etc were at their most violent during the depression of the 70's most crime was either unreported or unrecorded - busy police teams often at odds with the community and with huge case loads often didn't both recording the minor crimes which were reported (and before the system was computerized many reported crimes sat in piles in back rooms or got junked). Combined with the fact that either out of fear of reprisals or lack of faith in the police most crimes weren't reported.

In the 80's britain was split between Thatchers Yuppies and a massive unmentionable tide of poverty stricken urban scum, the booming brittannia lie couldn't be ruined by inconvenient truths such as rising crime and massive innercity decay. The police were very heavy handed in the 80's and criminals who got their attention were punished, but with limited budgets and plenty of pressure to keep crime stats low many crimes were unrecorded, many types of crime ignored (i.e. crime against the poor, etc) and still vast amounts of people were too scared or unwilling to report many crimes.

The 90's was a much more peaceful time crime wise, innercity areas got improved, neighborhoods once considered virtual no go areas got down graded to being simply 'rough' and the police developed community focused policing into a fairly effective and trusted force. Again more people reported crimes to the police and with the improved systems at the police stations more crimes got reported - however everyone was on performance related everything and everyone worked to targets -some creative maths and reorganizeing of statistics kept the numbers low.

Tony was never going to let his coolB be shown up by crime statistics which had been repressed for decades, again creative maths can make stats show anything they want.

So while life in innercity slums (like mine) has got better, less people are scared of criminals, etc, etc the statistical reporting of crimes has gone up.

The media love it, it sells papers and if someone like the daily mail can print 'KNIFE CRIME THROUGH THE ROOF IN IMMIGRANT MADDNESS ALL GORDON BROWN'S FAULT -BAN THIS SICK FILTH' then it might just get a few people to vote for the torys again, which is of course what this sick game is really about. The torys hide it so that it comes out during a labour gov, labor hide it so it comes out during a tory gov, the cycle continues slowly until the numbers line up.

ok thats british criminality and crime statistics - i might have a go at your gun control arguments next



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
In terms of the sheer level of violence, the Victorian period in Britain looks particularly nasty. Street violence throughout the nations cities were so common that many gentlemen carried a handgun if they were venturing out at night. Here's an article specifically on street violence in Manchester in the late 19th Century:

Victorian Gang Violence in Manchester

One also has to also remember that the common brutalisation of child workers in the Industrial era created generations of seriously maladjusted individuals.

I believe that the main problem we have is more the lack of respect and courtesy we have for each other. The ownership of guns would simply mean that the same attitudes continue to exist along with a gun.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by DenyAllKnowledge]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by DenyAllKnowledge
The ownership of guns would simply mean that the same attitudes continue to exist along with a gun.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by DenyAllKnowledge]


A disrespectful attitude doesnt make a killer. A gun doesnt make a killer. And the combination of both doesnt make a killer. There are plenty of perfectly respectful people who kill for whatever reason with whatever they can get their hands on and there are plenty of disrespectful jackasses who, though intensely annoying and offensive, never commit a crime of any level.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Indeed not, but there are deep rooted causes of crime. Simply making guns legal and having the right to shoot a burglar will not make the situation any better.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by DenyAllKnowledge
 


I beg to differ.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.ncpa.org...

From the Brady Campaign to Reduce Gun Violence a map showing all ov the gun crime is located where gun law is most strict. www.bradycampaign.org...



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by DenyAllKnowledge
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Indeed not, but there are deep rooted causes of crime. Simply making guns legal and having the right to shoot a burglar will not make the situation any better.


It will make my situation better.

Poverty does not absolve one of responsibility.

reply to post by NatureBoy
 


Your perception is correct.

However, the level of crime is not of concern. Just because I have a 0.5% chance of being stabbed doesn't make it any better than if I have a 1% chance of being stabbed.

In either scenario, as a mentally stable, responsible subject, I should be allowed to defend myself.

Until all crime ceases, or until the police are capable of stopping all crimes while they are committed; I don't think disarming victims makes much sense.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer

Poverty does not absolve one of responsibility.


I agree, however poverty is not the sole source of the problem. A wide variety of reasons can cause individuals to lose their sens of social responsibility such as upbringing and abuse (be it mental, physical or sexual). Having people carry guns will not have any impact whatsoever on the trauma that these people have gonethrough.

I've worked with some seriously disturbed people in a prison, all of whom were there on account of violent crime, and it becomes clear that these individuals came to be where they are due to their inability to cope with the traumas inflicted on them at a very impressionable age.

While this is obviously not the case for all criminals (after all, aren't the middle class responsible for the increase of shoplifting at the moment) in the cases I've had the opportunity to meet it is very much a case of evil begetting evil.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by DenyAllKnowledge
Having people carry guns will not have any impact whatsoever on the trauma that these people have gonethrough.


No, it wont. But it will give people a way to defend themselves against these "trauma" sufferers should they decide to act out.

A way other than blowing a whistle and hoping some spandex clad space alien swoops in to save the day.

Or are you one of those "it's morally superior to be killed in the commission of a crime than to kill to save yourself" types? If you are then we may as well stop this right here.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Maybe what a lot of americans don't get is when people talk about gangs in england we mean a group of kids who hang around on street corners and sell a little weed - these aren't gangs like the Bloods or MS14 (or whatever they're called) who live a 'thug life' of gunz and glory.

English gangs might get involved in a knife fight -it's very rare for people not involved to get caught in the cross fire of a knife fight, I've never heard of a innocent victim getting chopped down in a drive by knifeing, never heard of a guy locking himself in a bell tower and blowing people away with his knife one by one, never heard of a crazed knifeman hiding in a book depository and stabbing the president as he drove past in his motorcade.

I for one don't care if idiots get in knife fights and kill each other, knives are easier to protect yourself or someone else against and less deadly. I would rather the criminals are armed with something i can run away from.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by DenyAllKnowledge
 


I'm not questioning the source of crime.

Sure, some people kill because they are unstable and others kill in cold blood to protect their drug dealing business.

The issue is one of pragmatism and practicality.

What can be done to stop crimes of this nature?

Increase emphasis on rehabilitation? - We've tried that

Increase eduation? - We've done that

Increase child protection? - We've done that

Increase prison terms - We've done that

Every single measure can be tried and tested... fine, thats OK. Trying to help someone come out of a "stupor" is better than condemning them.

However what happens in the interim? Am I to sit down in front of an armed robber or a murderer that he shouldn't kill me because he can be rehabilitated? Am I to hopelessly until after I'm stabbed for the police to respond?

I agree with your long term objectives. But pragmatism dictates that in the short term... in the here and now, good men must not die at the hands of criminals, nor be terrorised by them.

We stand for parity in the amount of firepower, and legal standing, between victim and criminal.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by NatureBoy
 


You see I'd rather have a gun and be able to defend myself, my family and my neighbours against one of these yob gangs with knives.

I know that I am responsible, I know that I am sane and stable, I know that my accuracy is dead on. And that is why I can't ever accept a ban on firearms... because I know that there are others like me who stand helpless, needlessly.

If you want to keep guns out of the hands of yobs, make a law specifically outlawing anyone with a criminal record from owning guns. Mind you, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. If it did, why are there still about 120 fatal shootings a year in the UK?

It really is as simple as : Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


While it's impossible to completely remove anything from the market the availability of guns in the uk has gone right down with the ban. Anyone seen with a gun will get swat teamed, long sentences for possession of a firearm and harsh prison terms for people pretending to have a gun (armed robbery, etc) have created a situation where even most criminals won't use a gun.

Your solution 'guns all round' is quiet the reverse, the police can't respond to every sighting of a gun -it's probably legal. Stolen and unregistered guns flood the market and everyone has access to firearms. The criminals knows that the odds are high that someone will have a gun so they MUST have a gun, weather they're drug dealers, pimps, robbers or gangsters all criminals know in their line of work they will come up against guns at sometime.

The rapid police response to gun crime in the uk means that if a criminal does use a gun in a crime he will be likely to be arrested and charged with serious crimes - a criminal when considering how to commit a crime in the uk would be more likely to think 'well, i won't need a gun and it's not worth the extra hassle,,,;'

A crazy person who has become convinced the world is out to get him, etc and decides to get revenge at the world can't just go and steal someones guns and start blowing people away in a busy mall nor can he hide himself away with a good line of sight and take out whichever politically offensive target he chooses -be it John Lennon, MLK or JFK.

If you're scared of knife gangs don't go into the park after dark, get a taxi home, etc - it's not mad max yet, roaming gangs of hooded chavs don't really roam the streets stabbing old ladies -the daily mail just needs to sell more papers.

If you really need a gun to feel safe then you're probably the paranoid delusional type who really shouldn't own guns in the first place.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by NatureBoy
 


The solution is not to blanket ban guns. That clearly doesn't work, considering the easy availability of guns in the market at the moment.
If every criminal wanted one, they could easily get one (£400 for a handgun).
An increase in the number of guns in law abiding hands has no effect on the availability of guns on the black market. As long as guns are stored in proper gun safes, the hassle of breaking into a house and cutting through a secure safe without alerting anyone is ridiculous compared to how easy it is to get one on the black market.

My solution is not a "guns all around" one... that is what you are trying to mischaracterise it as. My solution is one where only certain members of society get guns (ie the law abiding).

Your attitude is defeatist. You suggest that because the gangs have knives at the moment, it is preferable to keep it that way rather than "force" them into having guns. You know what- I think you're wrong. I don't think criminals are more likely to get a gun. The statistics show that in fact, criminals will be scared of even attempting to rob someone at gunpoint... because if you can disarm your victim, the victim's neighbour is still there standing behind you with a handgun to your head.

Your argument about criminal characterisation is interesting... I've never heard it before. However ultimately it is entirely moot. If a gun is seen at the scene of a crime, the chances of the armed response unit arriving before the crime is over are negligible. Remember that recent post office double-murder? Where were the armed police then? What do you think- that the police can travel faster than a speeding bullet? Ridiculous concept... I mean, when have you ever heard of the armed police preventing an armed crime? All they can do is arrive on the scene and examine the body of the victim while clutching their MP5s.

Your next point is even more risible. Instead of being able to walk when I want in freedom, I'm to avoid certain areas and not venture out at night? Like I said before, I don't dispute the fact that crime is relatively low. However I dispute your logic that its better to be unarmed because the chances are that you will never need a gun.

'Tis better to have and not need than need and not have.

Try and paint me as a gun nut all you want... all you're achieving is an open display of hoplophobia and retarded sexual and emotional maturity. (Thank Freud for that one
)



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


It's not a case of have and don't need rather than not have and need.

If you have a gun criminals WILL have guns so it's a case of HAVE and NEED or NOT HAVE and DON'T NEED.

You talk of a black market, i suppose you know that most of the guns in this market are guns originally intended to be sold in gunshops which were either stolen, brought via fraudulent paperwork or second hand unregistered sale. These guns would not be on the black market if their wasn't a legal market. I can attest to this, in england it is very hard to buy a gun on the black market -far easier to get say a kilo of heroin than it is to get a small firearm.

I can agree that the police can't stop all gun crime, however when they pull someone over and arrest them for having a gun in the trunk and that person goes to jail for a long time that stops not just that one gun from being used in a shooting but also sends a message to all his friends, don't mess with guns. If it becomes common knowledge that even being in the same house as a gun can get you in trouble people will try to steer clear of them.

It's not a magic wand, it takes time to filter out all the old guns and for people to find ways of living without guns but banning guns does work.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


Times change, you're a fan of this little ditty..

England, you have been here too long,
And the songs you sing are the songs you sung
On a braver day. Now they are wrong.

Replace the word England with America, guns or rednecks


Once upon a time life in the wild west was hard and injuns came attacking so everyone needed a gun, well we solved that little problem with a genoside and those songs you sing, those hero's poems -they aren't your's anymore -times have changed, change with the times or go the way of the empire.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by NatureBoy
we solved that little problem with a genoside


Maybe you should round up all the "yobs" and gas'em?

If it solved the problem with the "injuns" it just might solve yours.

Genocide is clearly a much better alternative than people protecting themselves. As long as you're not on the receiving end of said genocide.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


er,i was joking - my point being that just killing the bad guys isn't always the most moral of solutions, it wasn't then and it isn't now.

We need to reduce the amount of guns in the world, we need to stop selling AKs in africa and the middle east, we need to get guns out of the modern world. If someone really wants to kill they should have to be close enough to see what happens.



new topics




 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join