Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries

Post Reply New Topic

Quite true. Washington D.C. has banned guns, yet also has the highest crime rate of any city in the country. What does this show? That gun bans do not prevent crime, quite the opposite actually...

It's not the guns that make the crime folks, it's the people who wield them. Crime can just as easily be committed with an ice pick or knife or anything.... even with your bare hands you can kill someone if you know how and are strong enough.

Exactly but it takes more will and skill to kill with a knife. That is why murder rates are less here. I would rather be attacked ten times with someone with a knife than once with a gun because it is so much easier to kill with a gun. It makes no sense to crack down on or ban guns in one state when there are so many guns going around the US. That is only going to help the criminals.

I just went shopping for a gun today.

I dont know who the razz was too. Im not really a passionate anti-gun person. I just have my suspicions that it might lead to more deaths here if we were to adopt it. Im curious why you want guns to protect yourselves, are you worried some street punk might jump in your house and make you his biaatch? Id rather put up with the worry that i might have to defend myself by hand now and again (even though i seriously doubt here is more violent than the usa) than knowing every nutter and his dog has a gun in my area.

Last edited by eamonn on 24 Sep 2005, 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

What was interesting though is that Northern Ireland had the fewest reported assaults. Maybe it's because they are ran by the paramilitaries with their guns and people are too scared to report these crimes to the police. Are people here suggesting we should go down the route of the north of Ireland?

The very real fear of witness intimidation (scared of being shot to death so refusing to report and testify to crimes) and mobs running the streets is what is probably keeping the figures for the USA down so low. Would you report being assaulted to the police if you stayed in Compton or the Bronx etc, knowing it would almost certainly result in your death?

Just curious, ascan, are you from California as well? California (especially the coast and the Bay Area) are extremely left-wing liberal...

No. I'm from the UK. The "problem" in urban parts of Scotland is the same as in any urban part of the UK:



Of course, those figures don't really prove much; comparing data from a country with a population of 5m to that with one of 50m to one like the US with nearly 300m is slightly flawed, to say the least. And, to all intents and purposes Scotland and England are the same country.

I think the basic premise that we trade the right to carry firearms, for the protection offered by an effective system of Law enforcement is sound when looked at in isolation. But in the bigger picture, the state needs reminding, now and then, who's the boss, and what it's responsibilities are. Unfortunately, once you've traded away your right to carry arms, you've lost your bargaining power; from then on you rely on the goodwill of those in power to protect you.

That's why we're doomed to serfdom here in the UK, and before long will probably be ruled from Bradford by a bunch of Islamic extremists, who will no doubt have the word "Socialist", or a derivative, somewhere in their political party title.



Yes. The only way to be free is to be more powerful, and more violent than the opposition.

That's reality: accept it, and give yourself a chance; or deny it, and accept the inevitability of your demise.

I have Cerebral Palsy, so I'd really rather not have to fight them off by hand. I'd imagine that people in my situation or worse who live over there are in quite a perdicament with your gun laws the way they are.

America – lots of guns – lots of murders
Scotland – very few guns – very few murders

Which is safer?

People just don’t go out and randomly kill people. They use violence to get what they want, i.e. in a mugging. IT is far safer just to give them whatever they want rather than to fight them. Attacking them is just more likely to get you killed. So how would a gun help?

Saying that we should allow everyone to carry a gun is like saying that we should allow all countries to have nuclear weapons. If we all have them then no one will attack anyone coz they know they will be attacked. But the problem comes when they get in to the hands of a county like North Korea who might decide to press the button any time.

Safety isn't the only measure of quality of life.

I'd rather have a gun, and be able to take control over my own destiny, than allow the state and criminal fraternity to exert that control over me. It maybe safer to give in to muggers, and corrupt politician, but like I've said, the idea of serfdom doesn't sit too easily with some of us.

Oh, I forgot, there's Switzerland — look it up!

The point about surrendering our sovereign right to self-defense in return for protection from the state is a very valid one. I think I made it once somewhere else, probably in my Journal.

It is interesting to note that the first course of action for any Liberal Administration is to strip grassroots resistance of its ability to mount a counter attack against a repressive regime, even though that self-same Administration may not be characterised as 'repressive' itself.

These days, the only people who are allowed guns are criminals and a specialist few SO20 armed response police officers. Oh, and of course, the Army and other (by definition) 'Armed Forces'.

Unfortunately the contract or agreement outlined above has broken because the government is not fulfililng it's part of the contract to adequately see that justice is done. This means that if somebody does defend themselves, it is regarded as a greater crime than the original assault and it is highly likely that the person acting in self-defence will receive a far more punitive sentence than the original aggressor who would, in many circumstances, be treated extremely leniently and kindly.

Apparently, 'Law' and 'Justice' are not about personal revenge and these are noble sentiments, indeed. However these worthy-sounding espousals of progressive endeavour are usually uttered by those who are, through a combination of social and economic advantage, at some considerable remove from the full impact of casual street crime.

It is also worth remembering that a handful of 'high' gun-related crimes perpetrated by ostensibly legal gun owners, received extensive and prolonged publicity in some sections of the press. Some of the crimes were 'anomalous' and/or 'emotional' ones (here I am thinking of the 'Dunblane Massacre', or the 'Hungerford Killings', for those in the UK), then there have been crimes of - arguably ambiguous - self-defence, which have tended to be wheeled out by the liberal anti-gun lobby to further their own arguments. This is largely a matter of some influential sections of the media dictating policy and mandating governmental 'reform' of gun ownership laws.

I am not necessarily advocating a return to widespread gun ownership, since that implies a bargain of individual responsibility that is unlikely to be met: Yes, you can have a gun but if you use it to murder somebody or otherwise in the pursuit of criminal activity, you will pay a penalty that is consonant with such an outrage.

As a nation, it would seem that we do not want Capital Punishment, therefore it may not always be possible to ensure that the sentence matches the crime. I am not keen on reintroducing the death penalty as I regard it as barbaric, extremely fallible, open to misuse and it would tend to be 'extended' to cover more and more situations.

That latter part is the bit that would not be enforced, therefore at the moment, having widespread gun ownership could create more problems than it solves, which means that those who operate outside the law anyway can continue to get guns and we will just have to behave like good little sheep, unless we acquire amazing martial arts fighting prowess, or something.

Well as i said, i dont believe your poor areas and town centre's are any less violent than ours (probably more-so) so i dont think guns solve that problem long term. In saying that, maybe it is more thug on thug there. Here all too many of the attacks are on people who dont belong to a gang including OAP's. Though i believe that law enforcement should get tougher on street crime and stop taking it so lightly here. Otherwise in a few years time i will probably be in favour of gun ownership despite the obvious toll it would take on deaths.

You dont need amazing martial arts fighting prowess to stand up to thugs, just what is lacking these days, two good arms and legs and a little bottle and knowing how to weigh up a situation. If you mean however that this prowess is to clear the streets of crime and tackle known dangerous criminals then that wouldnt be a good idea for any wannabe hero to try whether you stay in a country with lax gun laws or not. If i had a gun i wouldnt have such a bad back that i acquired during an operation to protect my property so it is tempting.

In poor to middle class neighborhoods it can take two HOURS for the police to show up. if they show up at all.

The rich liberals who advocate gun bans live in gated communities where respose time is minutes.

And people ask me why I'll NEVER give up my gun! Add it up.

Police do NOT keep you safe, they show up, take data, pictures and corpses. And maybe they catch people, later, after the fact.

If you are dead and buried thats cold comfort........

They ban guns, I'll still have a gun. Better to be tried by 12 than carried by six

Tak.

The funny thing is we have far less murders/accidental killings here despite not having guns. Strange as that might seem it's true.