Guns,guns, and more Guns
- Thread starter TRITON
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Lons
Established Member
I'm not going to get into further argument apart from saying read my posts again and read that article you've just posted properly.
I repeat, you stated violent crime I responded to that, correctly! The stats you've just posted relate to overall crime and I've said it several times already, that included all crime from anti social behaviour upwards.
In your own words. " I don't know why that's so hard to follow" I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as you're American.
EDIT: Just realised you've been reading THE SUN newspaper, good luck with that.
And to get back on to the original subject which was gun crime. this is from official stats not the sensationalist press. Do you need me to point out where the North East is? I'll narrow it down for you, the stats are 6 - 9 per 100,000 pop
Last edited:
Small points: it's Stephen Waldorf and the officers involved were found not guilty at trial, admittedly by jury direction from the judge.
Shameful episode though...
AlanY
Established Member
Should the State have the right to commit murder? No. But the police force should (and does) have the right to mitigate the risk of an officer getting hurt or killed in the line of duty. So, with a known violent offender it seems reasonable to me that the police act with considerable force to apprehend that person. Taser seems a good start. With a suspect known to carry illegal firearms with intent to use them, it seems reasonable that the police shoot that person at any sign of a weapon being drawn. All firearms use by the police is strictly reviewed (albeit by themselves. Oh, and the MSM, nowadays) and, where the (thankfully rare) tragic mistakes are made (as in the Stephen Waldorf case) the matter can end up with the police officers suspended and being tried in court.
Personally, I feel that the death of anyone willing to source and use illegal firearms is no loss to society. "You live by the sword, you die by the sword' is an appropriate old saying.
As for NATO trying to start a war in Ukraine... what nonsense. Nobody wants a war that does not involve oil or other significant natural resources. Neither of which Ukraine has an abundance of (they are apparently the worlds largest producer of sunflowers, though). But what Ukraine does have is an aggressive neighbour who has already annexed a large part of Ukraine. That annexation has gone largely ignored by the West (presumably because the aggressor, Russia, supplies a large part of the natural gas needs of countries like Germany, but I am guessing it is also because those European countries would be absolutely no match for the Russian military and have a high dependency on the USA for military support). But Russia is apparently getting ready for another assault on Ukraine with a massive militarisation of the Ukraine eastern border with Russia. Only Putin could provide a reason for this behaviour but, if you want to de-escalate the tensions in Ukraine, the best way would be to suggest that Putin scale back his military presence on that border. He will, of course, ignore you.
Just my tuppence worth.
What an interesting thread!
Lons
Established Member
That was shameful.
There are many example in the UK however where armed police stand off for hours, sometimes days rather than go in gung ho to kill the villain. We are fairly close to where the Roul Moat drama ended and the police laid for hours guns with trained on him while he lay in the open with a gun to his own head until he eventually killed himself. In some other countries he would have been shot on sight especially as just days before he'd shot a policeman in the face.
Peterm1000
Guest
DW - academics have a hard time comparing crime rates across the world unless they end in a defined result that is the same for everyone (i.e. you are either dead or you aren't). This is because some things are crimes in one country, but not in another. A couple of examples - jaywalking will get you fined in the US, but is legal in the UK. Some kinds of speech are considered 1st amendment rights in the US, but criminal in the UK. Assault requires a physical injury in the US, but in the UK it is just causing someone to fear that they are about to be attacked (so crazily you can assault someone without actually touching them in the UK). In the US some states consider assault a misdemeanour and do not include it in statistics. Some types of crime are peculiar to a particular country (the UK has the dubious honour of having the most acid attacks). If academics find this difficult, I am not sure why you would feel you can just google a few facts.
Here's a couple of academic articles that may interest you - I suspect both will be open to interpretation. However, as you alluded to, I think the majority of people in the US and the UK live in relatively crime free areas and where there is crime it tends not to cause them physical threat.
https://oxford.universitypressschol...90203542.001.0001/oso-9780190203542-chapter-9
https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf
selectortone
Still waking up not dead in the morning
It's always about oil, or in this case natural gas. Russia's biggest export is natural gas and the main pipeline to their biggest customers in Europe passes through Ukraine. Without gas exports Russia would be properly screwed. Putin will never sleep well in his bed while he thinks that pipeline is insecure.
It's the same reason Russia are in Syria. A pipeline from the Qatar gas fields in the Middle East to Southern Europe has been mooted for many years which would be a direct threat to Russia's monopoly. It would pass through Syria. Old laughing boy in the Kremlin can't have that.
It's always all about oil and gas.
Last edited:
You're posting results that include weapons according to those chart titles. I'm including all violent crime, which includes aggravated assault and robbery and rape regardless of weapons. The sun and statistas London rates match, 9.5 or so per thousand. I have no clue why you keep posting firearm and weapons only charts for total violent crime. How are you not following this? You're totally fascinated with substituting firearms charts and information for all violent crime. You really need to get a clue about it.I'm not going to get into further argument apart from saying read my posts again and read that article you've just posted properly.
I repeat, you stated violent crime I responded to that, correctly! The stats you've just posted relate to overall crime and I've said it several times already, that included all crime from anti social behaviour upwards.
In your own words. " I don't know why that's so hard to follow" I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as you're American.
EDIT: Just realised you've been reading THE SUN newspaper, good luck with that.
And to get back on to the original subject which was gun crime. this is from official stats not the sensationalist press. Do you need me to point out where the North East is? I'll narrow it down for you, the stats are 6 - 9 per 100,000 pop
View attachment 108676
That's the nature of armchair expert-ing, right? It's easy to criticize, but awfully difficult to come up with a solution that's better in practice. This is the bernie sanders type principle- ignore reality, criticize, and at all costs, don't actually do anything because that would blow up the illusion.
Peterm1000
Guest
Exactly - it's almost impossible know. However, you have to hope that people armed with guns to control the populace are given enough training that they respond in an appropriate way.
Training in UK police has come a long way since the 1980's.
But the crux of the matter remains the same. You, as a firearms officer, have to make a judgement call of huge importance, weighing up many factors, and you probably will have just a second or two to do it. Add to that an element of fear. Fear that if you get it wrong then you or a colleague won't be going home in one piece at the end of the shift. Or fear that somebody else will get hurt and bloodsucking lawyers will try to shove you through the mangle ( US = wringer ) for years to come, with all the stress that entails. Or fear that you might harm an innocent person by an honest mistake, which could be somebody else's mistake not yours.
But the crux of the matter remains the same. You, as a firearms officer, have to make a judgement call of huge importance, weighing up many factors, and you probably will have just a second or two to do it. Add to that an element of fear. Fear that if you get it wrong then you or a colleague won't be going home in one piece at the end of the shift. Or fear that somebody else will get hurt and bloodsucking lawyers will try to shove you through the mangle ( US = wringer ) for years to come, with all the stress that entails. Or fear that you might harm an innocent person by an honest mistake, which could be somebody else's mistake not yours.
Possibly because this thread is titled "Guns, guns and more guns" - so if you're talking about crime that doesn't include guns, then you're off topic
Cheers, Vann.
I get that part, but if I post "violent crime rate", the first response is "US crimes don't count violent crimes the same way". I dig up local data here, point toward the rate provided for London for "violent crime" (the categories are more or less the same, except assault without injury is included in our total rates).
This kind of proves my point that overall violent crime rates are about the same, which is the statement that seems to have set Lons off. That London and Pittsburgh have similar overall violent crime rates. It's hard to tell because our aggravated assault status here involves more than just punching someone, and violent crime that doesn't result in injury makes up almost 2/3rds of the total violent crime (so our "really violent" crime makes up about half of the london crime rate).
And the response to that is only guns. It may be the case that violent crime is higher in general in N.E. England, but firearms related crime is lower on average there.
Not sure why these things are so hard to follow.
The murder rate in my county is about 6 times as high as london. That's not unexpected, but I don't know the nature of such a thing there. Here, a large portion of the "murdering" is avoidable, probably 2/3rds to 3/4ths, but maybe it is in london, too. That is, it's tied to young males doing illegal things in geographic hot spots (those would be places to avoid living, which isn't difficult here because the cost of living and housing isn't that high in the safer areas). Most of it appears to occur at night, too. That was my point.
I don't know the nature of the other violent crimes as I've not been involved in them and literally haven't ever seen them - I'd guess their rates are also higher, and mix late night and alcohol and arguments over girls or illicit business and they probably go up. Overall violent crime appears to be lower in my county than some areas of NE England even though firearms related crime is many times higher.
This should not be a surprise and perhaps is a cognitive surprise for some - that murders will be high but the general overall crime rate including all violent crimes (which are pretty much any assault or personal - non-property - robbery, and on up) aren't any higher here. Maybe the strangeness to someone from England is that we're used to the murder news, but robbery or assaults, etc, being on the uptick would be noticed because they're far more common than murders. There's also a double standard -if the violent crimes are in a bad area, nobody seems to notice too much outside of those geographies. If there is any significant violent crime in "safe" areas (affluent city areas or suburban areas), the reaction from residents is swift. Property crimes in safe areas aren't tolerated here, either. In 15 years, there have been two burglaries in a 400 house neighborhood (both when no residents were home, and one clearly from someone who understood what was where in a house - the other wasn't as clear). Most of the residents here think that's completely intolerable. Coming from a rural area (where robbery is common - it's easier to get away with it when a house is remote - I kind of think that's a pretty good statistic.
If there was ever a fight in the street here, there would be 30 calls to the police at once.
I have no solution to the murders given the number of guns already here, and given what the motivation is behind most of them (males under 30 and usually at night). I do think it's a shame that the bulk of the murders are those and nobody seems to care, but the sensational type (job site, etc), are used as scare stories for folks because then they suddenly think "oh, that could be me".
What's brought up in the news? probably something that makes up about 1/20th of the actual shooting deaths. The rest? Nobody seems to notice. I don't think that's OK, but I don't have a good answer because they tend to occur in areas where people won't talk to police. And that (refusing to talk to police, even when you've seen something, maybe a uniquely american thing).
Another illustration here - as it seems to offended folks that I said "it's pretty easy to avoid".
Look at this interactive map. I know you don't know anything about pittsburgh aside from steel.
https://newsinteractive.post-gazette.com/homicide/
In the city (mostly inside the rivers), the affluent neighborhoods are squirrel hill, shadyside, and the north part of greenfield and most of bloomfield (these are not all affluent). Notice the number of murders. There are several hundred thousand people living in these areas.
Now, look outside of the rivers, north and south. I live north of the city in the glenshaw/Ross/Mcandless type area. this area probably has a population of another 350K people. Notice the number of murders (zero). To the south - mt lebanon, dormont (dormont is not affluent by any means, but neither is millvale or etna - the latter are the opposite - they're old industrial neighborhoods, but they are wonderfully safe even if they're not attractive). Zero.
Not just zero in some of them, but zero so far in total in all of them.
There will be a murder here or there in these neighborhoods - when there is one, it's a huge story. Probably just like it would be in london, and it involves someone going bonkers (mental illness, etc, whatever else, or the horrid shooting of the synagogue in pittsburgh several years ago. Those things will never be forgotten. It's just not expected, and it's not expected because it's not common. The gun violence in the chosen areas that I"m bringing up is lower than the whole of england on average.
And I'm sure that you can tell me that you can do this same exercise in england - it requires knowing where there is some safety, and then if you're not of means, you can filter down by price until you can find tolerable cost areas that are still safe.
in all of the areas dotted by cursors, you would never walk around day or night and feel safe - people here don't, either. This dynamic probably has a whole lot to do why people in other countries get all fired up about news stories, but those of us here don't have as much of a reaction other than single instance horror. It's not relatable.
What do we have in the suburbs? houses, shopping and deer. If you want to see deer, we have a big problem with those. Otherwise, people are way too nosey here for you to set yourself up some kind of little criminal outpost and not get ratted out.
Look at this interactive map. I know you don't know anything about pittsburgh aside from steel.
https://newsinteractive.post-gazette.com/homicide/
In the city (mostly inside the rivers), the affluent neighborhoods are squirrel hill, shadyside, and the north part of greenfield and most of bloomfield (these are not all affluent). Notice the number of murders. There are several hundred thousand people living in these areas.
Now, look outside of the rivers, north and south. I live north of the city in the glenshaw/Ross/Mcandless type area. this area probably has a population of another 350K people. Notice the number of murders (zero). To the south - mt lebanon, dormont (dormont is not affluent by any means, but neither is millvale or etna - the latter are the opposite - they're old industrial neighborhoods, but they are wonderfully safe even if they're not attractive). Zero.
Not just zero in some of them, but zero so far in total in all of them.
There will be a murder here or there in these neighborhoods - when there is one, it's a huge story. Probably just like it would be in london, and it involves someone going bonkers (mental illness, etc, whatever else, or the horrid shooting of the synagogue in pittsburgh several years ago. Those things will never be forgotten. It's just not expected, and it's not expected because it's not common. The gun violence in the chosen areas that I"m bringing up is lower than the whole of england on average.
And I'm sure that you can tell me that you can do this same exercise in england - it requires knowing where there is some safety, and then if you're not of means, you can filter down by price until you can find tolerable cost areas that are still safe.
in all of the areas dotted by cursors, you would never walk around day or night and feel safe - people here don't, either. This dynamic probably has a whole lot to do why people in other countries get all fired up about news stories, but those of us here don't have as much of a reaction other than single instance horror. It's not relatable.
What do we have in the suburbs? houses, shopping and deer. If you want to see deer, we have a big problem with those. Otherwise, people are way too nosey here for you to set yourself up some kind of little criminal outpost and not get ratted out.
Peterm1000
Guest
DW...
I agree with some of what you are saying, but other things are just misguided.
Number 1 - Pittsburgh - home of the Steelers and isn't it where the Deer Hunter is set? I'm afraid that's the limit of my knowledge.
Number 2 - I am sure crime is very regionalised in the US and the UK. For certain demographics, it just doesn't exist. For others, it is part of daily life.
Number 3 - Academics who have spent years and years studying crime statistics avoid comparing violent crime between countries. That does not seem to have stopped you.
Number 4 - The UK police tend not to shoot as many people "by accident". That's no doubt because most of them don't carry guns. Those that do carry guns have an enormous amount of training (as explained in one of the posts above).
Number 5 - The thread is called "guns, guns, guns" on a forum mostly frequented by people from the UK and outside the US, there is a much more prevalent feeling that only those who have been properly trained and vetted should be allowed to own firearms. You are unlikely to get much support for guns here...
I agree with some of what you are saying, but other things are just misguided.
Number 1 - Pittsburgh - home of the Steelers and isn't it where the Deer Hunter is set? I'm afraid that's the limit of my knowledge.
Number 2 - I am sure crime is very regionalised in the US and the UK. For certain demographics, it just doesn't exist. For others, it is part of daily life.
Number 3 - Academics who have spent years and years studying crime statistics avoid comparing violent crime between countries. That does not seem to have stopped you.
Number 4 - The UK police tend not to shoot as many people "by accident". That's no doubt because most of them don't carry guns. Those that do carry guns have an enormous amount of training (as explained in one of the posts above).
Number 5 - The thread is called "guns, guns, guns" on a forum mostly frequented by people from the UK and outside the US, there is a much more prevalent feeling that only those who have been properly trained and vetted should be allowed to own firearms. You are unlikely to get much support for guns here...
Trainee neophyte
Established Member
I think that reality is 180°to your succinct summation of western propaganda talking points. It's hard to be sure, but it looks like a NATO (for want of a better label) inspired push to force Russia to respond militarily. Lots of moving parts, and lots of accidentally forgetting to report things by western media.
Ukraine declares war on russia: Ukraine declared war on Russia. – Investment Watch
Report Ukrainian heavy weapons as Russian - who can tell the difference, anyway? MoA - CNN - Ukrainian Trains With Heavy Weapons Going East Are 'Russian Aggression'
https://news.antiwar.com/2021/04/12...raine-use-us-supplied-weapons-against-russia/Other weird happenings: Operation Silence: Belarus coup plotters caught in the act
And the whole point of all this is stopping Nordstream 2, because it allows Germany freedom from USA: US warns Nord Stream pipeline is 'Russian geopolitical project'
The ground will be dry enough for tanks after Easter (May 2nd), so look for either an evil Russian invasion, or a Ukrainian attempt to make Russia attack, but sold as Russian aggression, or something else altogether. The Russians have a habit of coming up with a third, unexpected option when forced into a corner with binary choices.
Now, back to being rude about gun statistics.
I don't disagree with what you said for the most part, except that the violent crime definitions in pittsburgh and london are pretty much the same. If there are academic cases where you can't do a global survey because there are incongruities, that's different. It looks like the murder rate in my county is about 6 times london. The rate for all of the other violent crimes is about the same.
As far as the daily part of life thing - few can make the argument in this region that they can't avoid violent crime unless they insist they won't move. Many of the safe areas are former industry or tool and die and they don't look great, and perhaps the restaurants are fast food instead of sit down, and the stores are small discount minimum selection and you have to drive 10 minutes to better, but they are safe, inexpensive and for the entire 21 years I've been here, the towns have been the same. What you can't do is move to one of those areas and have bad behavior - you can't stand in the street and make noise at night or mill around on corners at 1 am. The residents and police won't tolerate it, even though the area is low income.
But it's not relevant to anyone who is thinking they can't move to the US or take a job in the US because it's too dangerous.
Recall earlier on I mentioned that it's fairly easy (at least statistically) to avoid getting shot. That was met with disagreement, which to anyone with experience here, is kind of dumb. You can believe what you want. if it can't be absorbed from the chart that I showed, that you can stay out of areas where people shoot other people, then it can't really be shown any better. Any possible place that someone would work here will not be anywhere in the donut where there are shootings, and if there are minor exceptions (a few old steel mills), you will be on the premises of a giant operation for work and not out and about in the town at night.
The unfortunate reality in bad areas is that if you get stopped by the police, you had better cooperate. The instances where someone cooperates and things go drastically wrong, I'm sure they exist, but they are extremely rare. If you have a warrant for your arrest and a prior record, don't walk away, even if it's just to not get tased. Who would want that in the first place? You can be mad, but showing how mad you are to the police to show them you're right ....not a great place to do it. It's like trying to win an argument with a driver over pedestrian rights while you're walking. You might be dead right about the rules.
My other point was simple - please don't come to the US feeling like you'll need a gun for protection. The odds are against you if you think that's a good solution. Use a map like the one I showed, pick where to live and if you want to have a gun for target shooting, by all means. In my opinion, outside of that, keep it locked up in a safe. When I was still hunting, if someone had robbed my house (which is unlikely enough to not worry about it), I guess I would've thought "well, gosh - it's hard to get the guns out now in time....but do I really want to escalate anything to that level rather than going out the window. No".
As far as the daily part of life thing - few can make the argument in this region that they can't avoid violent crime unless they insist they won't move. Many of the safe areas are former industry or tool and die and they don't look great, and perhaps the restaurants are fast food instead of sit down, and the stores are small discount minimum selection and you have to drive 10 minutes to better, but they are safe, inexpensive and for the entire 21 years I've been here, the towns have been the same. What you can't do is move to one of those areas and have bad behavior - you can't stand in the street and make noise at night or mill around on corners at 1 am. The residents and police won't tolerate it, even though the area is low income.
But it's not relevant to anyone who is thinking they can't move to the US or take a job in the US because it's too dangerous.
Recall earlier on I mentioned that it's fairly easy (at least statistically) to avoid getting shot. That was met with disagreement, which to anyone with experience here, is kind of dumb. You can believe what you want. if it can't be absorbed from the chart that I showed, that you can stay out of areas where people shoot other people, then it can't really be shown any better. Any possible place that someone would work here will not be anywhere in the donut where there are shootings, and if there are minor exceptions (a few old steel mills), you will be on the premises of a giant operation for work and not out and about in the town at night.
The unfortunate reality in bad areas is that if you get stopped by the police, you had better cooperate. The instances where someone cooperates and things go drastically wrong, I'm sure they exist, but they are extremely rare. If you have a warrant for your arrest and a prior record, don't walk away, even if it's just to not get tased. Who would want that in the first place? You can be mad, but showing how mad you are to the police to show them you're right ....not a great place to do it. It's like trying to win an argument with a driver over pedestrian rights while you're walking. You might be dead right about the rules.
My other point was simple - please don't come to the US feeling like you'll need a gun for protection. The odds are against you if you think that's a good solution. Use a map like the one I showed, pick where to live and if you want to have a gun for target shooting, by all means. In my opinion, outside of that, keep it locked up in a safe. When I was still hunting, if someone had robbed my house (which is unlikely enough to not worry about it), I guess I would've thought "well, gosh - it's hard to get the guns out now in time....but do I really want to escalate anything to that level rather than going out the window. No".
Lons
Established Member
I give up
I said I'd give you the benefit of the doubt because you're American. The continuous flood of long essays says rather a lot about you unfortunately. Anyway you have the stage to yourself sir, it appears that you rather enjoy centre stage reading your own cr*p. Have you ever thought of a career as a politician.
I give up
I said I'd give you the benefit of the doubt because you're American. The continuous flood of long essays says rather a lot about you unfortunately. Anyway you have the stage to yourself sir, it appears that you rather enjoy centre stage reading your own cr*p. Have you ever thought of a career as a politician.
Aren't you the guy who supposed something above about having no friends?
I remember when 50 caliber rifles became available and kind of stylish. I'm not sure that one has ever been used in a crime, but it makes for good fantasy news stories. I would have to guess that most of the guns used in murders are junk cheap stuff. You won't hear someone mention jennings or makarov or some such thing on the news because it doesn't get the same fear as "assault rifle!!!!" or other scary terms. It looks like about 89% of gun crimes are committed with hand guns.
Similar threads
