UK Mayhem Leaves Disarmed Citizens at the Mercy of Criminals

[D56]

Our great depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars, but we won't. We're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off..."

...so we will all contact each other on our £600 iPhones and try to fu** up every body else who is prepared to work for a decent living.

[2cha]

The "riots" were not political or social gripes, they were opportunist thieving cowards. One shot to the head of any one of these rats would of had them all them scarpering. We should be able to arm and protect ourselves in this country.

Just my 2p...

You really think it's that simple? I'm sure Kaddafi thought the same thing.

...so we will all contact each other on our £600 iPhones and try to fu** up every body else who is prepared to work for a decent living.

Again, you really think it's that simple? It's not 1955 anymore.

Whew. Hard to edit down 5 paragraphs of pedantic crap, but I think I hit my high points.

[bartvdb]

children are children (16 or so is still a child!) !talk to the partent's . what is wrong with education and common sence ? parent's give your kid's home arrest and take the internet and celphone away for a period of time . (if of course parent's have no education themselves ??????????) just my toughts . greeetzzzz

[D56]

You really think it's that simple? I'm sure Kaddafi thought the same thing.



Again, you really think it's that simple? It's not 1955 anymore.

Whew. Hard to edit down 5 paragraphs of pedantic crap, but I think I hit my high points.

Nah, still crap buddy.
Comparing these UK riots to what’s happening in Gadaffi’s Libya shows how ignorant you really are.
But I suppose you are thousands of miles away. :rolleyes:

Nothing is ever "that simple" but what pisses me off is people who try to over complicate things to reflect/portray their own invested interests or politics.

[ChrisR]

I think the issue of the riots is pretty complicated and the problem is being confused over here by different political parties all trying to score points off each other. To me it breaks down into a few main issues:

1. How to deal with the criminals and make sure that they do not get off lightly but instead serve a decent/fair amount of time in prison or doing some hard work for the community. In the main, the Courts seem to be handing out stiff punishments so that is being handled nicely.

2. Making sure that the police have the training, manpower and freedom to police the streets and actually keep the peace. If this happens again (heaven forbid!) we don't want to see lines of police all standing watching looters and not tackling them. They are going to appoint a new Met Chief soon so they will probably choose one that has a good record against gangs and street crime - so that looks positive.

3. Dealing with the reasons behind why we have so many feral youths in ghettos who feel that it is OK to rampage, vandalise and steal at will with little or no moral control. This is going to be much harder but we can't just forget this issue - otherwise we'll always be complaining about the criminal underclass and street gangs. so ...
- Parents have to be taught how to raise children properly and give them decent values ...
- ... and the message needs to be reinforced in school with teachers having the power to discipline unruly kids.
- Politicians need to lead from the top and they must come down hard on bank/corporate/political criminals and show that class and wealth don't insulate people from hard justice.
- Police need to break the gangs and the drug dealers and regain the streets ...
- ... and the Courts need to hand out sentences that mean what they say. If a crime carries a 5-year term then give the convict 5 full years ... don't let them off with 1 or 2 years that are then reduced to 6-months because he was a good boy. Reduced prison terms must be earned by hard work and showing true remorse.

By all means let's build community centers and support community outreach initiatives that help kids find something good to do with their time. But we have to also remember that money must be spent on people who have earned it - we can't just reward looters with a bunch of new facilities. Also, we have been quick to hand out "rights" to everyone - now every kid or criminal knows their rights like a high-street lawyer ... but we're very poor at balancing it with "responsibilities" so some sections of society feel they have all the good bits without puttign anything back. A better balance has to be made.

Just my 2c

[Jordan]

Chris, all of that is probably true. I won't pretend to know how or why things have gone poorly over on your side of the pond recently. But a part of me thinks that Heinlein had it right, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life". We have crime here... lots of it. We even have the occasional riot. However, the criminal opportunism here is always tempered by the fact that every business and home has the potential to be defended.

The nice thing about living amongst an armed populace is that I don't have to depend completely on the police, the courts, other people's parents, and the schools to fix society's problems for me. When those problems become my problems... I have the tools and the abilities necessary to solve them myself. Sorry for you knife knuts over in the UK... hopefully none of you have been hurt or suffered financially from the unruliness of your countrymen.

[ChrisR]

Heinlein had it right, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life". We have crime here... lots of it. We even have the occasional riot. However, the criminal opportunism here is always tempered by the fact that every business and home has the potential to be defended.

I think I'd go along with at least part of that. While I think gun control is necessary, I do think that it would be a good idea to allow citizens who can show that they are trustworthy to own handguns at home. We do already have the right to own rifles and shotguns but usually these are limited to farmers or hunters ... and home defense isn't considered a legitimate reason to have a firearm.

[Jordan]

I think I'd go along with at least part of that. While I think gun control is necessary, I do think that it would be a good idea to allow citizens who can show that they are trustworthy to own handguns at home. We do already have the right to own rifles and shotguns but usually these are limited to farmers or hunters ... and home defense isn't considered a legitimate reason to have a firearm.

I, in turn, can go with part of that... all except the part about thinking that gun control is necessary. If I lived in a place where home defense and self defense weren't considered valid reasons to own a weapon... I'd move. Whatever financial or logistical problems there might be, I'd get right out of there. I suppose you can put it down to a difference in philosophies. I think that when a government takes the right of a citizen to defend him/herself... that indicates that the government fears more for itself than the lives of the people it serves. To me, that is absolutely terrifying.

[ChrisR]

Yes, it is a different philosophy over here ... most people are happy not owning a gun and I'd go as far as to say that most people feel that guns are dangerous and are associated more with criminals than with good. That makes universal gun ownership a hard prospect to sell politically ... so it won't happen any time soon. Most criminals also don't have guns so there is a balance of sorts and gun crime is fairly rare and usually limited to drug-dealers shooting each other, not innocent civilians.

Having unrestricted gun ownership would worry me though. Primarily because I think that it would lead to a situation where the criminals routinely armed themselves and there were too few civilians or LEOs with weapons to actually do anything to match them. Home owners might buy a gun but there is no great love for guns here and very little infrastructure where people can learn how to shoot safely and correctly ... which would be a recipe for all kinds of accidents. If responsible gun ownership came with an obligation to join a gun club/range and do some basic training then it would instill a sense of responsibility in owners and actually give them the skills to use their weapons efficiently and licensing would restrict the quantity of guns in the hands of criminals or irresponsible 'Billy the Kid' wannabees. :)

[2cha]

Nah, still crap buddy.
Comparing these UK riots to what’s happening in Gadaffi’s Libya shows how ignorant you really are.
But I suppose you are thousands of miles away. :rolleyes:

Nothing is ever "that simple" but what pisses me off is people who try to over complicate things to reflect/portray their own invested interests or politics.

A. I'm not ignorant, and I didn't compare problems, I compared solutions. I'll spell it out in even more simple language: I was comparing your solution to large numbers of disengaged youth to Gaddafi's solution.

B. I get just as pissed off by people who undercomplicate complicated issues, from a narrow and uninformed viewpoint, no matter where they live.

[Jordan]

Yes, it is a different philosophy over here ... most people are happy not owning a gun and I'd go as far as to say that most people feel that guns are dangerous and are associated more with criminals than with good. That makes universal gun ownership a hard prospect to sell politically ... so it won't happen any time soon. Most criminals also don't have guns so there is a balance of sorts and gun crime is fairly rare and usually limited to drug-dealers shooting each other, not innocent civilians.

Having unrestricted gun ownership would worry me though. Primarily because I think that it would lead to a situation where the criminals routinely armed themselves and there were too few civilians or LEOs with weapons to actually do anything to match them. Home owners might buy a gun but there is no great love for guns here and very little infrastructure where people can learn how to shoot safely and correctly ... which would be a recipe for all kinds of accidents. If responsible gun ownership came with an obligation to join a gun club/range and do some basic training then it would instill a sense of responsibility in owners and actually give them the skills to use their weapons efficiently and licensing would restrict the quantity of guns in the hands of criminals or irresponsible 'Billy the Kid' wannabees. :)

Different countries, different mindsets. I like to think that variety is the spice of life though, so more power to ya. I suppose history will ultimately judge whether too much or too little gun control is the way to go. In the meantime... I sincerely hope that the unrest in your country resolves itself with no more loss of life, limb or property.

[Wolfie677]

Got into a bit of a tiff with some Brits over the pond on a FB forum I tend to stalk. They all maintained that their gun laws were the best in the world and made their country safer until I began to sling documented statistics their way that said otherwise.

Things got interesting however when a bloke by the name of Mike Forester who claims to be a "crime analyst" in the U.K. got on and challenged me saying that there had been a 50% decrease in crime since 1995.

...Right.

So I asked for documentation and he kindly provided me with the recent BCS Survey
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publicatio ... iew=Binary. He went on to state that BCS only studies crime where there is a victim and that according to this there has been a decrease of 50% in overall crime in the UK while violent crime has risen slightly since the gun ban. However, he went on to tell me that he believes that this is due to "more reporting of alcohol related violence at home".

I went on to retort that his BCS report covers all "victim"crime. This means that if your house gets tagged with spray paint it goes on this survey the same if you get stabby stabbied by the bad guys. So could very well mean that less people got vandalized and cars got robbed since 1995 and they are claiming a 50% reduction.

In short, I'm not buying it.

I'll keep my Glock. They can keep their cricket bats. Best of luck to ya mates.

[jossta]

now we have a situation where the only people who have handguns are violent criminals

This is what I keep telling people who are against owning guns.

[Blerv]

People are fragile. Good people typically assume bad things (or people) won't happen to them. Bad people are far better at doing bad things than we are at stopping or anticipating them.

When it comes down to it, intent is the final equalizer. If you want to do heinous crimes it doesn't come down to the tool but rather the mindset.

The only thing that keeps civilization as a whole from being paranoid shut-ins is the fact that "civilization" means that 99.whatever percent of people are law-abiding citizens rather than mouth-foaming psychopaths. It's basic statistics just like driving a car or flying a plane w/o dying (granted, these stats vary).

In the instance of the UK riots avoidance is the best route. Once part of society has become feral it's ideal to avoid them completely. If the police are unable to contain the situation than it's a failure of of government for not having adequate means.

However, once they decide to go through your living room make sure you have a screwdriver, tire iron, or something of that nature ready. Look what Sampson did with a donkey's jawbone. :p

[D56]

A. I'm not ignorant, and I didn't compare problems, I compared solutions. I'll spell it out in even more simple language: I was comparing your solution to large numbers of disengaged youth to Gaddafi's solution.

B. I get just as pissed off by people who undercomplicate complicated issues, from a narrow and uninformed viewpoint, no matter where they live.

You're not really saying anything are you?

[Blerv]

You're not really saying anything are you?

I think he's hinting that making an example by murdering a rioter in mobster fashion (eg: bullet to the head with a white flower) isn't the best solution.

Maybe using a samurai sword would work better?

[wrdwrght]

You're not really saying anything are you?

Funny (not ha ha) how goading always pushes our discussion into the political realm that this forum is supposed to avoid, says one also guilty of goading...

[angusW]

I think it's high time that NATO got involved and made the British government step down. If they don't, then start bombing England and then the rioters can be installed as the new government and take over the Embassy in Washington [/sarcasm] :)

It's very unfortunate that it took 4 days before the police got involved in stopping the riots. I know it seemed like there was a lot going against the police from doing anything but it almost seems like it was done intentionally. That way there will be a knee jerk reaction with people in the U.K. demanding more police. More surveillance. More authoritative dismantling of human rights "for the sake of safety from these hooligans". I'm not saying that is why it was done but there are a lot of cases around the world in the past where there were a lot of rioters causing damage while the police stood by. Then the other extreme where a peaceful demonstration gets rubber bullets and broken arms and noses.

I read where a top police "official" said it was not a good idea for the people in the area where the rioters were to protect themselves with any type of weapon. I guess he believes you are suppose to curl up in the fetal position and just take it. There's a reason why God gave the creatures of the earth claws and sharp teeth. I don't think he was going for the mall ninja look. I believe it was more for self defence yet for some reason, in some countries like mine, you cannot prepare to defend yourself. I read where homes and small businesses that were a couple hundred years old were destroyed but these people would be considered naughty if they tried to defend themselves and their property. I also read where white people were car jacked then humiliated by being forced to take their clothes off in the street. Fact is, the rioters are poor but they are also thugs and a lot of people in the western world are gelded for believing that preparing to defend yourself is a bad thing to do.

One thing about firearms is they are not "bad" or "good". They are neutral. When I hear someone say "Gun control is good because there is a lot of gun crime" then I know they really haven't looked into gun owner ship for sport and most importantly for protection and how gun control really works as far as violent crime is deterred. We have only to look at America for a lot of data on firearm ownership. An excellent sample is Kennesa Georgia. Made the top 10 list as one of the best towns for families to live by Family Circle magazine in 2007 as it has less than half the crime rate of the U.S. average and also has an interesting by-law. The head of each household must maintain a firearm and ammo.

In the end it's not the police fault for the actions or in-actions that were taken. It's the criminals that sit at 10 Downing St. I feel really bad for those people that had their lives destroyed and in a way I also feel a bit bad for the rioters themselves. The youngest ones have lousy parents and the older ones have lives that are going nowhere. They think the bling they stole is the purpose in life. It was a very sad week for the U.K.

[D56]

:)

[angusW]

One thing for sure. Good thing people in the U.K. have been disarmed and all the criminals handed in their firearms :)

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/ ... TE=DEFAULT