England's "Big Brother"

[JohnRich 4]

  Quote

"Never could any increase of comfort or security be a sufficient good to be bought at the price of liberty."
- Hilaire Belloc, English writer & M.P. (1870-1953)

Maybe he would have had a different opinion if he lived during a time of terrorist attacks and a booming illicit drug activity, especially if he had the means to combat these two evils.

Here's a quote from a fellow Brit for you, who meets your conditions:

"The number of firearms required to satisfy the crime market is minute, and these are supplied no matter what controls are instituted... There is no case, either in the history of this country or in the experience of other countries, in which controls can be shown to have restricted the flow of weapons to criminals or in any way reduced armed crime."
- Metropolitan Police Superintendent, Colin Greenwood, West Yorkshire, England, 1996.

[christelsabine 1]

I've seen post No. 11. this was just a superficial comment. w/o a specific meaning on guns. on the other hand, your replies in not only the present thread mainly are going into a certain direction, nearly always the same direction. guns.

as a licensed hunter, i own several of them. hand guns, shotguns etc. in my life, i keep this hidden. nothing to talk about.

but in my eyes, you have a special affinity to guns.
your problem, not mine.

you were asking: go back .... and "tell us" who it was turning....

who is "us"? you and the gun beside you?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[JohnRich 4]

  Quote

I've seen post No. 11. this was just a superficial comment. w/o a specific meaning on guns.

I'll leave that to the individual readers to decide if it was superficial. The statement was:

"Och, I reckon if we had better gun laws, and more citizens carrying assault weapons for self defence and sporting purposes, we probably wouldn't need as many security cameras..."

That sure sounds like a political statement against guns to me.

And regardless of whether or not you brand it "superficial", you still can't deny that it was someone else, not me, who first brought "guns" into this thread.

  Quote

but in my eyes, you have a special affinity to guns.
your problem, not mine.

I have a special affinity to lots of things, like family, friends and skydiving. They aren't "problems" at all.

  Quote

you were asking: go back .... and "tell us" who it was turning.... who is "us"? you and the gun beside you?

"Us" is the readers here, whom you tried to mislead, by claiming that it was I who started the "gun" topic within this thread.

[JohnRich 4]

From the news:

Clerk's gun trumps knife in robbery try

The unidentified man went into Forest Service Center... asking for change to use in a vending machine, Police Chief Bernard P. Nally said.

The clerk left the office to tend to a customer and when he returned the man asked for more change.

"After the attendant made change the second time the suspect produced a knife and pointed it at the attendant and said, 'Don't do anything stupid and give me all the money,'" Nally said. "About this time the attendant produced a handgun which he is lawfully licensed to do and ordered the suspect to leave the store, which he did."

Source

More guns, less crime.

[christelsabine 1]

OK, JohnRich, exactly what I said:

Clerks gun trumps knife in robbery try

this time, it's called: From the new, not: In the news....

are your kidding, or what???

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Kennedy 0]

  Quote

Let's think of an optimum:
No concealed hand-guns (legal or otherwise) = no shootings

So why do you want to increase the number of guns in circulation???

A greenie already pointed out your flawed logic, but I'll answer this as if it made sense.

Study after study have shown that law abiding citizens carrying concealed firearms have reduced crime rates here in the US. States with concealed carry laws have lower crime rates than non carry states. I want to increase guns in the hands of good people because it reduces crime.

---

You pass a law against assault, but people break it. So you target everyone with a new law against tools/weapons, but it only applies to people who don't break the law anyway. So how has this helped anything?

What you fail to realize is that the problem is not the tools in use, but the people using them. When you find something that stops them (the criminals) go with that. Obvoiusly passing another law isn't doing it for you.

Stop outlawing self defense, and your crime rates might drop.

---

According to the Home Office:

In 2002/03, the total number of 'Homicide' offences recorded by the police in England & Wales was 1,048.

The most recent census reports 52,041,916 people in England and Wales.

That's 2 murders per 100,000 population, and rising.

In 2002/03, 27% of the population were the victims of some type of crime. Last time I did the math, it was about 4% here in the US.

A high and rising violent crime rate, and a quarter of all subjects citizens victims of crime.

Boy, I'd feel real safe.

  Quote

Maybe, one day, I'll understand why an American would cherish the right to be able to own an automatic assult weapon? I doubt it: it's hardly for competing at Bisley, is it?

Well, if you mean full-automatic, there is no recognized "right to own" one. A person must go through an intensive background check and receive approval from the BATFE.

If you mean any black rifle that is not PC, then no, they are not for Bisley. They are for Camp Perry.
And hunting.
And self defense.
And enjoyment.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

John, why is it difficult for people to understand that we discuss other country's problem to avoid bringing those problems here?

Are they incapable of understanding, do you think, or is it that they have no cogent answers to the points we are making and thus must resort to say "no fair talking about us, you have problems too."

Talk about being back in "short pants."

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Lindsey 0]

I get pretty hot about guns too. I don't have one, don't know how to shoot one, and don't want one. I don't want one in my house. I'm glad I have the choice. The day may come when I feel differently about owning weapons. Who knows. And it'll really worry me deeply to one day be told by my government that I'm not allowed to own one if I want it. I don't think that our violent crime has gone down as a result of people being allowed to carry guns though. It may be a factor, but there have been a lot of other factors too that have likely influenced our crime rates.

And the fact that y'all lost the right to own guns in England and that y'all are being videoed everywhere you go (I was NOT aware of that before) makes me scared for what might happen here. That's why it's our business too to discuss what happens in your country.

Peace~
Lindsey

  Quote

It may sound illogical, but it's a fact. Gun crime has gone down in America every year for 10 years now, to lows which haven't been seen in 30 years.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[JohnRich 4]

  Quote

OK, JohnRich, exactly what I said:
Clerks gun trumps knife in robbery try
this time, it's called: From the new, not: In the news....
are your kidding, or what???

What exactly is your objection to the posting of news stories to make a point?

[JohnRich 4]

  Quote

John, why is it difficult for people to understand that we discuss other country's problem to avoid bringing those problems here?

Are they incapable of understanding, do you think, or is it that they have no cogent answers to the points we are making and thus must resort to say "no fair talking about us, you have problems too."

I think you nailed it with the second paragraph. Lacking any logical or factual rebuttal, they resort to other methods, such as attacking the person who posted the message, complaining about the nature of the topic, yada yada yada... And insults seem to count for more than logic. Go figure...

The bottom line is, when contemplating taking an action, it is useful to see how such actions have been implemented, and the results therefrom, in other places. That can be done at several levels, between cities, states, or nations. National policies of any nation are fair game for discussion, by anyone, and should not be restricted to only citizens from the nation in question.

But rather than acknowledge that fact, they prefer to have their fun by saying I've been caught "short in the pants" (whatever the heck that means).

I think anyone comparing these responses fairly and intellectually, will come down on my side of this issue. So let 'em have their fun. They're just demonstrating that they have no rebuttal.

[Kennedy 0]

I think "put him in shorts pants" is limey for back in diapers. Here in the states, we might say "you gave him whatfor," or that you "bitchslapped him."

I don't see it, for the post in reference.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[damion75 0]

  Quote

It's amazing how some people can ignore the facts, in order to selectively see what they want to see.

I agree with you John - totally! It is isn't it? so please try to read all of what I have written below - some rational thought went into it...

  Quote

Are they incapable of understanding, do you think, or is it that they have no cogent answers to the points we are making and thus must resort to say "no fair talking about us, you have problems too."

If I can try to answer this in a way that will make people read it calmly...

I think you HAVE partially hit the nail on the head - I truly don't understand what you think the problem is with these cameras (to get back on topic). The common phrase that Britain and America are 'two nations separated by a common language' also extends to our mindsets.

From my point of view (and I think, but since it worries you I will not say I know, a lot of others in Britain) the only people who will suffer as a result of CCTV are criminals - muggers, rapists, thieves etc. I guess, although I do not know that you will come back with some statement about personal freedom being at stake but I just can't see how that is a problem.

This is a completely different issue from the gun law question - which we could fire up another thread for if you like! I am always game for a good friendly argument/heated discussion!!

If you want to have a go at an aspect of the UK which we would probably agree with you on, then have ago at our draconian traffic laws... most Brits hate them!!

  Quote

short pants

This quote was bunged in by an American (ChuckBrown) and to be honest I don't know whether he was having a go at me or you since I don't know what this means!
Edited to add: Having re-read it, I think it means that he is agreeing with me that the issues I commented are relevant to me, and that therefore my comments (which I thought both interesting and factual!) were relevant to those threads...

***************

Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus.

[juanesky 0]

As well as Brittons addressing UK as Great Britain to get an easy way out of a discussion. They should take it then on the same level with the US. State by state sounds fare no?

We are referring the the country as a whole, but what can we ignorants and uncultural americans know

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

  Quote

haha you actually made me laugh out loud at your comments Jamile , but to second third fourth whatever all the Brits comments on here, we really don't care about being filmed so why should you?

Speaking as a girl who has to travel through Wandsworth borough (featured in Johns original article) alone to and from work sometimes late at night via public transport, I openly welcome my every move being on film. So what if they catch me drunk and stupid from time to time? If people know they are being filmed the bigger deterent for doing something more serious as far as I'm concerned.

You and someone else said that you like the cameras because of the deterrent of being filmed making others not willing to harm you. Oh, you must mean like the same way that knowing they're filmed every time stops people from robbing banks.

The idea that a camera stands between you and getting robbed, raped or killed is laughable. If a person wants to harm you, he will. What if he's wearing a hood to disguise himself, so he won't worry about eventually getting caught because his likeness was recorded.

Some people who want to break the law simply say "What the fuck" to the notion of getting caught, and those are the ones against whom your surveillance society is useless.

And as far as why we Americans care? It's because people here will see your country's example (particularly leftists) and will push for it to be instituted here. It's harder to argue for shit like that here if it isn't in use elsewhere. As soon as some other society starts doing something intrusive and/or abusive, it's easier for proponents of it in this society to say, "See? See? They're doing it -- what's your big objection?!"

My big objection is that I'm not a criminal, so the government shouldn't have the power to fuckin' watch me like a hawk at all times as though I were. There are some things that should not be sacrificed on the altar of promised government-provided safety, and privacy is one of them.

The government is never going to make you safer, but you'll still lose the rights you cede to it, regardless.
-
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[damion75 0]

  Quote

As well as Brittons addressing UK as Great Britain to get an easy way out of a discussion. They should take it then on the same level with the US. State by state sounds fare no?

We are referring the the country as a whole, but what can we ignorants and uncultural americans know

Hmmm - again, I think that we are going off topic here... I have no idea what the CCTV situation is in Northern Ireland. But this thread didn't start as a comparison with the US anyway so your interruption does seem somewhat irrelevant...?

***************

Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

  Quote

  Quote

Here in the U.S., 38 states now issue concealed handgun licenses.

And crime has gone down every year for 10 years.

Now that's a strange way of looking at it. Charlton Heston was laughed out of the Oxford Union a few years back advocating thinking like that.

Let's think of an optimum:
No concealed hand-guns (legal or otherwise) = no shootings

So why do you want to increase the number of guns in circulation???

Well, would that it were that simple.
See, the problem is that the guns already are out there. Criminals have them. No one has an accounting of who has which.

And the most problematic aspect of your statement "No concealed hand-guns (legal or otherwise) = no shootings" is that parenthetical part. Obviously it's easy to get rid of the LEGAL guns -- since law abiding people, by their nature, obey the laws when the laws say you can't have guns. (i.e. they don't go out to the streetcorner to buy a black-market gun from a smuggler. Those inclined toward criminal behavior, on the other hand, do.

So as has been stated mannnny times before, the laws that say "no guns" end up taking guns away only from those who were never a problem with them (for the most part) in the first place.

It's folly to pretend, as you seem to above, that with the stroke of a pen in a statute book we would simply have no guns whatsoever. Do you have a practical plan to implement that would eradicate all the currently existing guns? Thought not.

  Quote

Let's face it, armed robberies in the UK aren't that common; wish the same could be said in the US Murder rates are a lot lower here as well. Our police aren't armed (except for specialist units) - and they don't need to be.

Your armed robbery rate and murder rate are both on the rise, and have been steadily since, oh, around about the time they passed that "no one can have any guns" law back in '97. Your statements are false. Part of the problem just may be that criminals are emboldened when they can get handguns but they know that honest people cannot.

  Quote

Crime may have been coming down in the US because of that action, but it's still damn serious when it happens. Sure I might get mugged in London (although that's unlikely), but I'll be alive afterwards...

A study I read about found that a person is SIX TIMES more likely to be mugged in London than in New York City. John, help me out here were a link to that study or a story about it, please. In a place where guns are scarce (debatable as that is in London nowadays), criminals might well choose to threaten use of a knife. Knife wounds are significantly less survivable than gunshot wounds.

  Quote

Maybe, one day, I'll understand why an American would cherish the right to be able to own an automatic assult weapon? I doubt it: it's hardly for competing at Bisley, is it?

You don't have much in the way of facts there, do you? What is this about "automatic assault weapon"? We haven't been talking about that, and we haven't had those available since 1934. We're not talking particularly about weapons of war, but about personal defense weapons, and common handguns aptly fit in that category.
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

  Quote

"Never could any increase of comfort or security be a sufficient good to be bought at the price of liberty."
- Hilaire Belloc, English writer & M.P. (1870-1953)


Maybe he would have had a different opinion if he lived during a time of terrorist attacks and a booming illicit drug activity, especially if he had the means to combat these two evils.

So far, nothing has cured society of "these two evils," so I can't quite see your point. Everything attempted thus far has proved to be futile, as far as combating illicit drug trade and terrorism. Have either of these things been ground to a halt -- or even stymied whatsoever? Of course not. So if you're using "combating these two evils" as a rationale for the intrusiveness of modern government surveillance and infringements on individual rights, I have to wonder what your criterion for determining success is. Surely you're not saying that using the aforementioned infringements we now stand atop a pile of drug dealers and terrorists with our fists raised in victory.

All I see is that even despite the efforts of all goverments, including all this surveillance, nothing has stopped evil from being perpetrated in the world -- and of course nothing will. The best we can really hope for is to remain vigilant and to strike evildoers in defense, either by bombing strongholds of terrorists, or on a street-level by using defensive weapons (including handguns) against the common mugger. But it is asinine to forego the ability to do so (i.e. surrendering guns or banning defensive weapons) on the assumption that society at large is somehow taking care of the problem for us. For every claim that "the police are there to protect us so we shouldn't prepare to do the job ourselves," there is a person who has actually been victimized, disproving the notion that the police can and will keep us safe.
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

  Quote

I take your point: we'll keep it to Great Britain then, as that excludes Belfast which is an oddity for well known reasons...

I still think it's ridiculous to think that you can curb gun crime by having more guns. Similarly, if police carry guns then criminals are also more likely to carry and use them. I'm sure you can make interesting comparisons between Belfast and Great Britain to see how different things can be.

The problem for the US appears to be that it has already gone too far down one line: US police officers probably do need guns now because they don't know what they'll meet up with.

Fortunately we haven't got to that situation in Great Britain, and hopefully we never will.

Are you actually unaware that many police units in the U.K. now DO carry guns? I have a newspaper clipping at home from Newsday (Long Island, NY) quoting a London police chief as saying, "We have to police the real world," in a story about London police now carrying guns (as opposed to keeping guns in the trunks of cars, as previously). The story appeared in the paper in 1995! LOTS of your police now carry guns.

By the way, it's not necessarily about "curbing gun crime" that we argue to allow carry of concealed weapons. It's to enable those who wish to protect themselves against violent criminals to have the means to do so. Crime tends to go down as a collateral benefit. Besides, how would allowing honest non-criminal citizens to get licensed to carry a gun do much to increase gun crime if at all? We're not talking about giving gun-carrying amnesty to street criminals. Over here, the population of civilians who get permits to carry concealed firearms have criminal arrest rates that are lower than that of the overall population at large!

  Quote

Edit: It's probably safer 'cause "big brother" is watching over here and, curiously enough, people don't care because they know that they can walk around without having to worry about a gun being thrust in their face nor have to carry a gun to combat a potential threat.

You must be kidding. You think the cameras and the gun ban have resulted in criminals being unwilling to a) victimize you or b) carry and use guns? Don't you read your country's own newspapers, or BBC online?

Besides, is it a comfort that the criminal might not use a gun, but instead might use a knife? Knife wounds are less survivable than gunshot wounds. That is medical fact.
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Skyrad 0]

'If you want to have a go at an aspect of the UK which we would probably agree with you on, then have ago at our draconian traffic laws... most Brits hate them!! '

Don't forget the licencing hours legislation Frank

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[skydyvr 0]

  Quote

'If you want to have a go at an aspect of the UK which we would probably agree with you on, then have ago at our draconian traffic laws... most Brits hate them!!

I'd rather hear more about your views on the original topic. How can you not care if you are being watched and filmed virtually everywhere you go? Don't you fear abuse by the watchers? Who's watching the watchers?

Do you really want video of you picking your nose viewed and laughed at by a bunch of low-paid government stooges?

. . =(_8^(1)

[Skyrad 0]

What do you mean by abused? I don't care if they want to have a giggle at my expense either what the hell do I care. In Swansea the entire town centre is covered and you can be tracked throughout down everysingle road. It has lead to a reduction in crime and allows police to get to where they are needed quickly provides evidence to get convictions and allows attackers to be followed without alerting them. How cool is that

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/wales/1502034.stm
www.saferswansea.org.uk/policenews.htm
Funny thing is, over here the only people that complain are left wing socialist types!

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Lindsey 0]

heh heh heh....this reminds me of some old Star Trek episode somehow....lol.

Peace~
Lindsey

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[skydyvr 0]

  Quote

What do you mean by abused?

The more power and control government holds over the people, the more potential there is for abuse.

. . =(_8^(1)

[pajarito 0]

That's why we declared, fought for, and gained our independence from England.......Bong!.......

[JohnRich 4]

  Quote

I truly don't understand what you think the problem is with these cameras (to get back on topic).

From the original news article:

...concerns are mounting that Britain is taking surveillance too far. With some observers predicting the country will have more surveillance cameras than people within a decade, civil liberty groups foresee a bleak, Orwellian future, where privacy is a thing of the past.

"At this rate, we will soon be strapping a camera on everyone's shoulder," says Mark Littlewood, campaign director for Liberty, a London-based human rights group.

Britain has certainly gone farther down the Big Brother route than any other country, according to Urban Eye, a research project comparing surveillance regimes in Europe.

...critics warn that CCTV poses a threat to the innocent. Tapes from surveillance cameras, which are usually kept for a month before being erased, often find their way into the wrong hands. Clips of people driving badly or behaving foolishly are a staple on British TV. Footage of a man trying to commit suicide was broadcast without his consent.

The invasion of privacy sometimes ruins lives. In Manchester, a TV show broadcast a CCTV still of a man accused of using a stolen bank card. It later turned out that the camera operator had submitted the wrong photo, but the apology came too late. The man lost his job and eventually suffered a nervous breakdown.

Studies have also shown that CCTV operators are not always as benign as the public might hope. Stores have used surveillance technology to analyze customers' buying habits or to remove teenage boys and other "undesirables" from the premises, even if they had done nothing wrong.

Some operators have targeted ethnic minorities, researchers say. Others have spent a disproportionate amount of time tracking attractive, young women.

At the Wandsworth control center, the potential for abuse is plain to see. Some of the cameras can pan across windows and peer into private apartments. The only protection residents have from snooping is a promise from the Wandsworth council that its operators will never focus on homes.

...Civil liberties groups warn that when everyone is watching everyone else, trust breaks down.

* * *