UK vs US Gun Control & Crime Statistics?
- Thread starter Joe Link
- Start date
- Status
nyggis
Member
When discussing with friends here in Sweden, we see the same long turn possibility. It´s sad to think about all the innocent people that will be hurt before the political majority will change their minds.
notorious
Member
Why not just drive a car through a crowded market place? We had that happen a few times with old people who forgot which pedal was gas and which was brake. Ended up going through a farmer's market on the street and killing 12.
Let's ban cars... and let's ban old people then.
If there is no cars there will be no traffic accidents, good point. Also old people can be dangerous too, especially in cars. By the way, we should ban people, exterminate them all. If there is no people we will not have murders anymore.
In reality, UK is becoming a melting pot for criminals around the globe. The lack of law enforcment and civil defense, has made England perhaps the one country in EUrope with the fastest increasing crime rates. Gun crimes in London are becoming more on par with that in American cities. And, if I am not mistaken, the penalty for murder 1 in UK I think is only like 35 years with chance of parole. England is really funky in how it deals with criminals. When a criminal is caught , the first thing you read in the newspaper is the poor life of the criminal and what made him turn to crime, you almost hear less about the poor victim he brutalized.
Unless England plans on building a guarded fence around the entire conutry, like East Germany back in the day, you will not stop smuggling of illegal guns, especially those coming from Eastern bloc. Criminals will have a hayday. I have even heard of more and more criminals from USA who are now settling in Europe and thriving in organized crime, because of the ease of their laws and the lack of defense from law enforcement. EUropean nations actually encourage crime and discourage self-defense.
Actually the average sentence for murder in the UK is about 15years. Yes thats right 15 years!
They refer to this as being "Life". Unfortunately they didn't specify the "Life" of what species of animal. I think 15 years is the average life span of a dog.
There have been occasions when sentences of 30 years have been passed but these are few and far between. Even then they come with a minimum recommendation of time to be served before parole which is normally around 22 years. These are for the most severe cases such as child murders.
British prisons are more like hotels now. They have carpeting, TV's in rooms, Playstations in some. There have been cases recently of drug dealers breaking INTO UK prisons to supply inmates and then leaving but NO prisoners tried to escape with them! (I'm not making this up just have a search on the net!)
The left wing government of the UK puts more priority on the welfare of the prisoner than it does on the victim. They still have this Dickensian image of UK criminals being driven to crime though poverty and lack of opportunity when the reality is that it is laziness, greed and basic dishonesty that drives them.
Go into their houses and you will see their children running around half naked, filthy and will probably have no blankets on their beds but their parents will have an endless supply of cigarettes, alcohol and the TV will be top of the range. Father will not be working. Not through misfortune but sheer idleness coupled with the fact that he can get quite a nice amount on welfare and his disability scams.
Britain is indeed the "Soft option", again thanks to the present Labour Government. I know Tony Blair played well in the States but the fact is the man was a smarmy, self serving, liar who should have been impeached after lying to the country over Iraqs capabilities and taking us to war on that lie.
He was the prime champion of one of the most catastrophic pieces of legislation ever to be brought into force in the UK: The Human Rights Act.
It all sounds noble enough but the result was that criminals and terrorists are able to operate almost at whim due to the insane convolutions of the Act preventing effective Law Enforcement. It has provided them with a shield whilst doing little or nothing for the normal citizen. It had initially come into force in Europe in 1948 after the atrocities of WW2. However British Law had been judged to be entirely sufficient without any additional tampering from Europe.
So why was it brought in? Well Teflon Tony was a Lawyer (a Lawyer and a Politician! The laws of nature shouldn't allow such a lifeform to be able to exist!). So is his wife Cherie
barf who was the power behind the throne.
Once brought into law Cherie immediately set up a practice specialising in cases under the Human Rights Act and made a fortune. Coincidence?
It is no coincidence that the UK has been chosen by Al Queda and the like as their base of operations in Europe. We allow individuals such as the Muslim Cleric Abu Hamza to preach their sermons of hate against the West, in the public street, and provided Police protection for him!
Our open border policy has allowed some of the vilest criminals in the European "common market" states (including Eastern Europe), the Middle East and Africa to enter the UK and they are operating without any form of surveillance or control. These are extremely dangerous individuals from nations where human life is cheap and their Police can be very brutal and will use firearms to enforce the law. They come into the UK and find a Police force that is unarmed, terrified of appearing racist and using force of any kind. Add the sort of legislation such as the Human Rights Act and they must think all their Christmas's have come at once.
In 2005 we lost a female Police Officer named Sharon Beshenivsky. She responded to an armed robbery in Bradford, Yorkshire. Both officers were unarmed and the initial call was to a "personal attack alarm", a call we get many times a week all over the UK. As they arrived the robbers came out into the street and opened fire on them killing her and wounding the other female officer. One of the gunmen was a Somalian national. Somalia is a country where life is held very cheaply and extreme violence is a way of life. The Police in the UK pose very little threat as opposition.
Law enforcement in Britain at the moment is an absolute shambles. The Government will not back the Police. The Police will not back their officers on the street and the courts will not back society.
You are safer in new York than on the streets of London. That is a fact.
They refer to this as being "Life". Unfortunately they didn't specify the "Life" of what species of animal. I think 15 years is the average life span of a dog.
There have been occasions when sentences of 30 years have been passed but these are few and far between. Even then they come with a minimum recommendation of time to be served before parole which is normally around 22 years. These are for the most severe cases such as child murders.
British prisons are more like hotels now. They have carpeting, TV's in rooms, Playstations in some. There have been cases recently of drug dealers breaking INTO UK prisons to supply inmates and then leaving but NO prisoners tried to escape with them! (I'm not making this up just have a search on the net!)
The left wing government of the UK puts more priority on the welfare of the prisoner than it does on the victim. They still have this Dickensian image of UK criminals being driven to crime though poverty and lack of opportunity when the reality is that it is laziness, greed and basic dishonesty that drives them.
Go into their houses and you will see their children running around half naked, filthy and will probably have no blankets on their beds but their parents will have an endless supply of cigarettes, alcohol and the TV will be top of the range. Father will not be working. Not through misfortune but sheer idleness coupled with the fact that he can get quite a nice amount on welfare and his disability scams.
Britain is indeed the "Soft option", again thanks to the present Labour Government. I know Tony Blair played well in the States but the fact is the man was a smarmy, self serving, liar who should have been impeached after lying to the country over Iraqs capabilities and taking us to war on that lie.
He was the prime champion of one of the most catastrophic pieces of legislation ever to be brought into force in the UK: The Human Rights Act.
It all sounds noble enough but the result was that criminals and terrorists are able to operate almost at whim due to the insane convolutions of the Act preventing effective Law Enforcement. It has provided them with a shield whilst doing little or nothing for the normal citizen. It had initially come into force in Europe in 1948 after the atrocities of WW2. However British Law had been judged to be entirely sufficient without any additional tampering from Europe.
So why was it brought in? Well Teflon Tony was a Lawyer (a Lawyer and a Politician! The laws of nature shouldn't allow such a lifeform to be able to exist!). So is his wife Cherie
barf who was the power behind the throne.Once brought into law Cherie immediately set up a practice specialising in cases under the Human Rights Act and made a fortune. Coincidence?
It is no coincidence that the UK has been chosen by Al Queda and the like as their base of operations in Europe. We allow individuals such as the Muslim Cleric Abu Hamza to preach their sermons of hate against the West, in the public street, and provided Police protection for him!
Our open border policy has allowed some of the vilest criminals in the European "common market" states (including Eastern Europe), the Middle East and Africa to enter the UK and they are operating without any form of surveillance or control. These are extremely dangerous individuals from nations where human life is cheap and their Police can be very brutal and will use firearms to enforce the law. They come into the UK and find a Police force that is unarmed, terrified of appearing racist and using force of any kind. Add the sort of legislation such as the Human Rights Act and they must think all their Christmas's have come at once.
In 2005 we lost a female Police Officer named Sharon Beshenivsky. She responded to an armed robbery in Bradford, Yorkshire. Both officers were unarmed and the initial call was to a "personal attack alarm", a call we get many times a week all over the UK. As they arrived the robbers came out into the street and opened fire on them killing her and wounding the other female officer. One of the gunmen was a Somalian national. Somalia is a country where life is held very cheaply and extreme violence is a way of life. The Police in the UK pose very little threat as opposition.
Law enforcement in Britain at the moment is an absolute shambles. The Government will not back the Police. The Police will not back their officers on the street and the courts will not back society.
You are safer in new York than on the streets of London. That is a fact.
Shung
Member
Bo Nidle.
let me tell you how much I respect you for doing such a job in such conditions..!
as for Human Rights collateral damages, we are on same boat in Switzerland (see my previous post.. maximum jail time is 15 years, and if you kill someone one day before you are 18, you will be totally free 3 years later..)
let me tell you how much I respect you for doing such a job in such conditions..!
as for Human Rights collateral damages, we are on same boat in Switzerland (see my previous post.. maximum jail time is 15 years, and if you kill someone one day before you are 18, you will be totally free 3 years later..)
notorious
Member
Bo Nidle... we are still hiring here for most departments. Maybe you might consider relocating to the colonies, mate.
TooTaxed
Member
I participated in a study of prison inmates convicted for crimes involving guns. Found that, in selecting potential victims, they avoid ones they suspect may be armed, and choose victims they don't expect to be armed. They want to "do their thing" quickly, quietly, and safely, and get away before someone armed shows up. Armed victims are likely to fire their weapons and draw attention, hold them for police, or even shoot them.
They also support stricter gun laws, because it doesn't affect them, and provides many more unarmed potential victims!
They also support stricter gun laws, because it doesn't affect them, and provides many more unarmed potential victims!
notorious
Member
Too logical. The politicians will never buy it.
TooTaxed
Member
NOTORIOUS, you are sooo right!
The California anti-gun politicians who set up our study refused to advertise the results when they didn't support their position...the study was essentially buried.:banghead:
The California anti-gun politicians who set up our study refused to advertise the results when they didn't support their position...the study was essentially buried.:banghead:
Shung
Member
couldnt you just publish it on the internet ??? of course, indicating by who it was set up, and why it wasnt advertised.
nyggis
Member
Bo_Nidle
Welcome to HighRoad!
I´m glad to see examples of enlightened Europeans! Gives me a little hope. Thanks for your interesting post!
Welcome to HighRoad!
I´m glad to see examples of enlightened Europeans! Gives me a little hope. Thanks for your interesting post!
TooTaxed
Member
SHUNG, Ask And Ye Shall Receive!
Just tried to attach a copy of my file note from our early 2000's study, but got a message: "unable to download...improper file type." Will have to research to see how I can publish it.
In the meantime, here's a link to an in-depth interview study of 1,874 imprisoned convicts in ten Federal penetentiaries commissioned by the National Institute of Justice, performed by two of the most anti-gun professors of their day, Professors James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, of SADRI, University of Massachusetts. The purpose was to determine what restrictive gun legislation should be enacted to reduce crime.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=117
Incidently, this site has a wealth of published articles regarding any aspect of gun ownership and restrictions, both American and international, you may wish to research. Well worth brousing!
Just tried to attach a copy of my file note from our early 2000's study, but got a message: "unable to download...improper file type." Will have to research to see how I can publish it.
In the meantime, here's a link to an in-depth interview study of 1,874 imprisoned convicts in ten Federal penetentiaries commissioned by the National Institute of Justice, performed by two of the most anti-gun professors of their day, Professors James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, of SADRI, University of Massachusetts. The purpose was to determine what restrictive gun legislation should be enacted to reduce crime.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=117
Incidently, this site has a wealth of published articles regarding any aspect of gun ownership and restrictions, both American and international, you may wish to research. Well worth brousing!
Shung
Member
Looking forward to read you study !!!
maybe you just use "megaupload" or a similar service
In the meantime, I am reading this.. Thx !
maybe you just use "megaupload" or a similar service
In the meantime, I am reading this.. Thx !
notorious
Member
I heard about those studies commissioned by various anti groups and when they didn't get the results they wanted, they just walked away from it and went on with the same rhetoric they now know to be false.
TooTaxed
Member
NOTORIOUS, you are correct! If you brouse the NRA-ILA article archives, you will notice that the NRA did not fund any studies that I have run across...they quote studies financed by the Brady Group, Handgun Control, and other anti-gun organizations...who didn't get what they wanted from their studies, and don't publicize those results...other than bits and pieces they can state out of context. The NRA gained access to the complete studies through the Freedom of Information Act and gleefully uses their data!
(As I do also, if you notice the link below my signature!)
(As I do also, if you notice the link below my signature!
)- Status
Similar threads
- Locked