Crime, Punishment, and Prevention

Post Reply New Topic

*chuckles* On this occasion I think you are wrong. On two counts.

Haha. Seriously, now, why don't you expand on your first reply?

Ok, we have the US on one hand who has that rule and then we have the UK that doesnt. Which country do you reckon is safer to live in?

Then there's Switzerland, too, where most households have automatic weapons, and there are extremely low levels of gun crime.

But going back to the US/UK thing, I'd say certain parts of the US are safer than the UK. Gun laws do vary between US states, but I understand in many areas you're less likely to get burgled than you are in the UK. But absolute safety isn't the only measure for quality of life, you know. For example, you could live here in the UK in certain areas and run a risk of being burgled once every few years, with a probability of being shot of once in every few ten thousand years. You could live in certain parts of the US and run the risk of being burgled once every hundred years, and shot once every thousand. In both cases the chances of being shot, for an individual, are negligible, though the overall gun crime in the US example will be an order of magnitude greater. Yet, in the UK example you're being burgled every few years. Now, I've made those figures up, but it demonstrates a point. So, which of those cases gives the best quality of life?

If you take reasonable legal security measures the chance of you getting burgled is very very low, and this doesnt involve a handgun. Its just that most people dont take them, because they choose not to. Really you have moved onto a moot point.

Not at all. I specifically tackled the question you put to me. As for your assertion that burglary can be prevented by non-violent means, that really is nonsense. People intent on theft will always go for the easiest option. There will always be people who take less security measures than others, and naturally those people will run a greater risk of being victims. Everyone could install an alarm system for example, yet the thieves would target those with the least effective system.

However, the thought of going into a house in the dead of night where the occupants were armed, and could legally kill you, I think would deter all but the most determined felon. And like I said, it's about quality of life. As it stands, now, our police force is just a branch of the Labour Party, bit like the Gestapo of Nazi Germany. They're not too interested in turning out to a burglary, only in dealing with political crimes. They've breached the contract that existed between them and the citizens of this country to serve and protect, and so it's about time we were able to do the job they're unwilling to.

1. Exactly, not everyone will buy a handgun, and even then people may not get trained to use it. So by your own arguement you are wrong.
2. No the burgulars would just wear body armour and take guns along themselves. The chance of someone actually shooting them back is slim anyway. As for the police, yes they are over PC and sometimes ineffective, but what you are suggesting is more or less anarchy.

And it's not like a lot of gun owners
don't end up having their own weapons
turned against them.

No, facism is wrong, being tough on crime is absolutely right. Be sceptical all you like, but those methods work. As for the phone tap methods, it's simple enough to come up with legislation keeping the techniques secret whilst still legalising the evidence.
It's still much harder for people who don't have criminal links to get hold of a firearm, let alone build one. British police officers have died before because criminals were armed and they weren't.

Don't you think that an innocent person's right to life is worth more than the freedom to privacy? Besides, the cameras would only be in place in public buildings/areas and those businesses which wish to install CCTV. It's not as if the cameras are peering into your home watching your every move. Prison suicides? Who cares, it's a self enforced death sentence. As for the innocents, well, with all the evidence, that should be EXTREMELY, and I cannot emphasise it enough, extremely unlikely to happen, and even after that, there's the chance of appeal every so often, plus the divide and conquer method in prisons. No gangs whatsoever. All criminals in individual cells, with the freedom to remain in their cell if they really wish to. However, that is not the only solution. Prisoners could be grouped according to psychological profile, crime, and social class.

Not moronic ideas, sensible law enforcement and civil protection methods.

That's one of the flaws of our police today, the politicalisation needs to be reversed. However, if guns are available to everyone, not everyone will buy them, either, and there are such things as sniper rifles. It's not as simple as "you have a gun, I have a gun", nowhere near. There's also the element of surprise. What are you going to do if someone creeps up and points a gun at you when your own is holstered? You'd be dead if you tried to do anything except comply in most cases.

So yes, that argument is deeply flawed.

You're a lot less likely to get held up at gunpoint in the UK than you are in the US, though the same can't be said for having a brick thrown at you by a mindless yob. I think both countries are about even on the account of the mindless teenager problem.

Ever thought the liberal party might be creating an appetite for a police state?
1. Disarm the honest citizens. Dull their knives.
2. turn the criminals back out into the streets
3. Let the Muslims take over sections of towns
4. When the Muslims start trying to take over, bring in permanent martial law and massacre them.
5. The martial law doesn't end....

I'm not sure it works like that. Currently, burglary is something that can be undertaken with little planning, and little chance of being caught. If the offender is caught, the punishment is usually insignificant anyway, and to even have a chance of prosecution the culprits need to be caught in the act, as it were. If home owners are armed, it's a whole different ball game psychologically. If you break into another's house, you've gone from the current situation of a very slim chance of having your liberty curtailed for a few months, to the very real chance of meeting a violent death, or maybe receiving a permanent and crippling injury. I suggest that's a major deterrent. As for body armour, it doesn't totally obviate the risks described, neither does going about the theft armed. However, I accept you do have a point and that it needs to be considered.

And no, I'm not suggesting anarchy. I'm suggesting what should be the default position in any country that claims its citizens are free. In such a country individuals should be able to defend themselves, their family and property. Here in the UK we gradually abdicated responsibilty for that during the last century in favour of the police doing the job. Currently they don't. So, why the hell shouldn't we redress the balance?

Well, sniper rifles aren't much good for holding the occupants of your average UK 3-bed semi at bay whilst you make off with the TV, you know, Anubis. They aren't especially easy to conceal, either, and tend to be rather heavy, so I really don't see your point.

As far as your argument about someone creeping up on me with a weapon goes, they currently already can with an illegal handgun which are widely available. Or, indeed, with a knife. If you have the right to carry a weapon and to use it I'm suggesting that not only would certain crimes be reduced, but that quality of life would be improved because individuals would feel in control of their own fate. This is especially true for older folk, and females, who are more vulnerable to violent attack, as well as those living in remoter communities. Currently, in many rural parts of the UK if you call the police, they'll not be able to attend for some time; the criminal fraternity know this, and take full advantage.

So, Anubis, there really is no deep flaw to the position I've taken. Furthermore, if you want an example of well-armed citizens in a country with low rates of gun crime then look at Switzerland. You see, the flaw is in your position of taking the left-wing view that all guns are bad. Guns are only bad within a certain context. Now, to be honest, I wouldn't want to see our country armed like the US or Switzerland just yet. It really is a different context to that which exists in both those places, but whilst the police continue to act as Gordon Brown's Gestapo it seems very attractive to allow homeowners to keep certain types of weapon for protection, and for them to be able to use them lethally on intruders without fear of prosecution.

This is some of what the UK government's been doing the last ten years. Except, the martial law bit will be to shoot white British folk when they take a stand against state oppression and the gradual transition to an Islamic theocracy. My advice to you Yanks is to resist that at all costs. Once they deny you the right to carry weapons you're but a slave.

Well, there isn't as much 2nd amendment as there was in the 60s and earlier. My dad grew up in a rural community where it was fine to tote a hunting rifle on your back walking down the street. Do that now? Well, you won't get a friendly reaction.

If someone wanted to prevent their house being burgled, you can make your house almost fort knox today perfectly legally. All you need is a couple of streaming hidden cameras and the police can catch a burgular most of the time, they dont normally wear masks. I agree with you that the punishments are too light (and need more rehabilitation on top), but the death penalty issued randomly is going way way too far. As for it being a major detterent, I wouldnt say that was true, you still get stacks of break ins in america, for the simple reason almost no one is actually going to shoot to kill, and a junkie isnt going to give a toss about the risks.

Legally we can defend ourselves with reasonable force. But freedom to execute someone who is breaking in to your house, that is effectively a license to kill anyone in your house. Think about it.