Deadly attack in Belgium

[Ronja]

Re: how old the phenomenon that we call "gang culture" is: start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang#History and then continue with the references. Gangs in the UK (or in the US) most definitely did not start with "blacks".

[Clinton Huxley]

Rugged individualism has morphed into sort of a flaccid socialism.

Always happens in middle age.

[Coito ergo sum]

Rugged individualism has morphed into sort of a flaccid socialism.

Always happens in middle age.

I think America just has "Low T."

[MrJonno]

Rugged individualism has morphed into sort of a flaccid socialism.

Proud to be a weak individual in a strong society (well sometimes) who together can do great things. Alone just underweight gorilla with no claws and weak teeth

[Wumbologist]

My point is in regards to the cause of that crime rate. WHY it exists. It's a common error for people to assume that because we can have guns, and there's a high homicide rate, the two must be connected. The truth is a lot more complicated than that

But it certainly doesnt show that having guns makes anyone safer either

It wasn't intended to. The point is that guns are far from the only factor involved, and it's utterly nonsensical to think that you can tie differences in homicide rates between two nations to any individual factor and claim that it proves a point.

If one wants to show that having guns makes anyone safer, what they would need to refer to is the frequency of defensive gun use by law-abiding citizens in the US, the violent crime rates in areas with high rates of concealed carry vs areas with lower concealed carry, the rate of "hot" burglaries, etc.

[Tyrannical]

Re: how old the phenomenon that we call "gang culture" is: start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang#History and then continue with the references. Gangs in the UK (or in the US) most definitely did not start with "blacks".

Do you even read the links you post? Every ethnic group but Whites is vastly over represented.

Los Angeles County is considered the Gang Capital of America, with an estimated 120,000 (41,000 in the City) gang members[14] although Chicago actually has a higher rate of gang membership per capita than Los Angeles. Also, the state of Illinois has a higher rate of gang membership (8-11 gang members per 1,000 population) than California (5-7 gang members per 1,000 population).[15] There were at least 30,000 gangs and 800,000 gang members active across the USA in 2007.[16][17] About 900,000 gang members lived "within local communities across the country," and about 147,000 were in U.S. prisons or jails in 2009.[18] By 1999, Hispanics accounted for 47% of all gang members, Blacks 31%, Whites 13%, and Asians 6%

[Wumbologist]

Re: how old the phenomenon that we call "gang culture" is: start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang#History and then continue with the references. Gangs in the UK (or in the US) most definitely did not start with "blacks".

Do you even read the links you post? Every ethnic group but Whites is vastly over represented.

Los Angeles County is considered the Gang Capital of America, with an estimated 120,000 (41,000 in the City) gang members[14] although Chicago actually has a higher rate of gang membership per capita than Los Angeles. Also, the state of Illinois has a higher rate of gang membership (8-11 gang members per 1,000 population) than California (5-7 gang members per 1,000 population).[15] There were at least 30,000 gangs and 800,000 gang members active across the USA in 2007.[16][17] About 900,000 gang members lived "within local communities across the country," and about 147,000 were in U.S. prisons or jails in 2009.[18] By 1999, Hispanics accounted for 47% of all gang members, Blacks 31%, Whites 13%, and Asians 6%

Did you even read the post she posted?

Gangs in the UK (or in the US) most definitely did not start with "blacks".

There's no denying that US street gangs are predominantly black and hispanic these days, but this particular incarnation of US gang culture is a fairly recent development. In 1920s era Chicago, gangs would have been predominantly white. This proves nothing about any particular race, it's just a matter of which one is currently having their time in the sun.

[Ronja]

Tyrannical: the link was directed to the section "History" for a reason. Get it now? (references 4-12, e.g. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/225308/gang )

[MrJonno]

If one wants to show that having guns makes anyone safer, what they would need to refer to is the frequency of defensive gun use by law-abiding citizens in the US, the violent crime rates in areas with high rates of concealed carry vs areas with lower concealed carry, the rate of "hot" burglaries, etc.

With open borders the difference between local laws on guns or possessing anything between areas is pretty meaningless. I'm still trying to find out if any country actually collects statistics for 'hot' burgularies there is no such crime and therefore no statistics in the UK despite them being claimed all the time and I'm not sure there are any in the US either.

As for houses being robbed when empty major major problem in the UK , I have close to a 100% chance of being burgurled once in my life hasnt happened to me yet but has happened to around half of all people I know. Now an automatic remote sensing machine gun would almost certainly reduce home burgularies but might have some very negative effects on the postal service, door to door salesmen and local wildlife

[Wumbologist]

If one wants to show that having guns makes anyone safer, what they would need to refer to is the frequency of defensive gun use by law-abiding citizens in the US, the violent crime rates in areas with high rates of concealed carry vs areas with lower concealed carry, the rate of "hot" burglaries, etc.

With open borders the difference between local laws on guns or possessing anything between areas is pretty meaningless.

To the criminal, yes. Not so much to the law-abiding citizen, and the criminal is aware of that. Given two areas that are similar in all ways, except that in one, concealed carry is forbidden, and in the other it is permitted, where do you think a criminal will be more likely to operate, given a choice?

I'm still trying to find out if any country actually collects statistics for 'hot' burgularies there is no such crime and therefore no statistics in the UK despite them being claimed all the time and I'm not sure there are any in the US either.

What I do know is that in the US, burglars will typically go to great lengths to avoid breaking into an occupied home, especially in areas where gun ownership is more prevalent.

As for houses being robbed when empty major major problem in the UK , I have close to a 100% chance of being burgurled once in my life hasnt happened to me yet but has happened to around half of all people I know. Now an automatic remote sensing machine gun would almost certainly reduce home burgularies but might have some very negative effects on the postal service, door to door salesmen and local wildlife

I don't worry so much about my home being broken into when I'm away, that's what insurance is for. I suppose the one major concern is that the cat might get out, but other than that, loss of material possessions is a much less serious concern than the risk to mine and my family's safety posed by an intruder in the home.

[Seth]

It's highly unlikely. Even here in the US with legal concealed carry in most states, incidents like this are rarely interrupted or stopped by law-abiding gun owners. It's hypothetically possible, sure. However, in practical terms, even the most gun-friendly states typically have concealed carry rates in the low single digit percent of the population. The odds of a concealed carrier happening to be around when something like this are incredibly low. Add in the fact that most of these sort of incidents happen in places where legal carry is prohibited, and it becomes even less likely. And even if you do happen to have a concealed carrier in the right place at the right time, they're at a disadvantage in a chaotic situation like this, as they have to be mindful of bystanders whereas the maniac does not. Yes, a law-abiding gun owner COULD theoretically stop an incident like this... but the odds are too negligible to take seriously.

That is a good antidote to the Tom Clancy fantasy that Seth was expounding (it was in the context of a "wild west" fantasy that I made the Wyatt Earp comment, not to insult gun owners per se, but to attack the fantasy). For a wide variety of reasons, it is unlikely that having whatever number of gun-owning civilans around would have made a difference in this (and many other) situations.

However unlikely it may be, it's the right of EVERY citizen to carry defensive arms to provide for their own safety (which is the most important consideration) and since it has been proven that allowing lawful concealed carry not only does not result in more danger to the public, but far LESS danger, there is no reason not to allow it, as 40 states now do. And what we know of nearly every such incident as that in Belgium is that where the public is forbidden to carry arms, nobody but the killer has any arms, and therefore no chance to put a stop to the attack or protect their own lives at need. That much is certain, and that is utterly immoral and violative of fundamental human rights.

I guess you can say that for the US, but it is the height of arrogance to project those views onto the rest of the world.

Well, not to delve too deeply into Godwinland, but I don't find it in the least bit arrogant to say that regimes, like Hitler's, that disarm their citizenry and then oppress and kill them (like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and a host of other despots and dictators have done throughout history) are violating the fundamental human rights of their citizens. The UK is no different except that it has not yet reached the point of murderous despotism.

Human rights are human rights, and they are universal, whether the UN thinks so or not. The right to be armed for effective self-defense is, as our Founders acknowledged, a right that is not granted by government, but is inherent in our humanity and exists in large part as a bulwark against tyrannical government as well as criminal predation.

So I do not find it arrogant to project that view on the rest of the world, I find it arrogant and despotic to argue that the right to keep and bear arms is NOT an individual, universal, natural human right belonging to each person on earth, without exception (subject to forfeit upon bad behavior of course...since I know someone will inevitably toss out that canard).

Arguing that people do NOT have that right is the height of arrogance and disdain and disrespect. One is permitted to made the decision for oneself not to be armed, but to impose that decision, by any means including the law, upon another is to say that the other person's right to effective self defense is less important than one's own fears or political concerns about one's neighbor being armed. MrJonno is a perfect example of the immoral and unethical disdain and disrespect of the rights of others expressed by hoplophobes worldwide. It matters nothing to him how carefully vetted or well-qualified his neighbor might be with firearms, nor how grievous and immediate her need to protect herself against a known or unknown physical threat. His disrespect and arrogant disdain for other person's safety has him advocating that his neighbor be gunned down by the police for daring to have a gun because her violent ex-husband is threatening to kill her and the police will do nothing to stop him.

So, your arrogance-meter is pointing the wrong direction. It's not arrogant to wish for and project personal freedom and liberty on all persons in the world, and the best way for them to achieve and protect those liberties is for them to be armed so they can prevent others who would oppress them, try to harm them, or try to disarm them from doing so, by force of arms if necessary.

At the risk of offending my many US friends, I will say that that is a general tendency which seems far too common, and is one of the reasons why the US is regarded as arrogant and overbearing. Tend your own garden, and don't set the agenda for the rest of the world...

I refuse to apologize for advocating liberty and freedom for all people, including those in the UK whose right to keep and bear arms, which was supposed to be secured by UK law long, long ago, are being oppressed, endangered and enslaved by their own government and their arrogant, disdainful neighbors.

You get to make the choice for yourself whether to keep and bear arms. You don't get to make that choice for another law-abiding adult, ever. To do so is immoral, unethical, arrogant, disdainful and dangerous.

[Seth]

My point is in regards to the cause of that crime rate. WHY it exists. It's a common error for people to assume that because we can have guns, and there's a high homicide rate, the two must be connected. The truth is a lot more complicated than that

But it certainly doesnt show that having guns makes anyone safer either

It wasn't intended to. The point is that guns are far from the only factor involved, and it's utterly nonsensical to think that you can tie differences in homicide rates between two nations to any individual factor and claim that it proves a point.

If one wants to show that having guns makes anyone safer, what they would need to refer to is the frequency of defensive gun use by law-abiding citizens in the US, the violent crime rates in areas with high rates of concealed carry vs areas with lower concealed carry, the rate of "hot" burglaries, etc.

And that research has been done by Lott et al and the facts prove that where more law-abiding citizens are authorized to carry concealed firearms, there is less crime, particularly violent street crime.

But again, the statistical argument is a bogus one because the personal, individual constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms for self defense is not subject to infringement based on statistics. It wouldn't matter if the violent crime rate remained the same or went up with more guns in society because the ONLY issue under consideration is whether each and every particular law-abiding adult individual in society is able, at need or at desire, to carry arms for their personal defense against the eventuality, no matter how remote, that they will be victimized by a violent criminal. When government disarms law-abiding citizens, it is say to them that their individual right to self-defense is not fundamental and is in fact subject to a statistical analysis and decision by government as to the social or political propriety of an armed citizenry, and that the individual who is denied defensive arms in the face of a criminal attack has no rights at all, and their death will be marked down as an acceptable casualty and loss to society in pursuit of a "greater" abstract agenda of a disarmed citizenry.

That's immoral, unethical, and a violation of the fundamental human rights of every citizen who is denied their right to keep and bear arms and is subsequently victimized.

This is why participating in the statistical debate is both pointless and harmful for gun advocates. It is a derail and diversion from the actual argument and truths involved. It reduces government-disarmed citizens to the status of numbers on a government spreadsheet that they use to allocate police-state resources in a vain and despotic attempt to do for citizens what citizens have both a right and a duty to do for themselves.

Sir Robert Peel, the founder of the London Metropolitan Police, said it well when he said, "Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence." and "The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it."

[Seth]

Rugged individualism has morphed into sort of a flaccid socialism.

Proud to be a weak individual in a strong society (well sometimes) who together can do great things. Alone just underweight gorilla with no claws and weak teeth

That's exactly why you need the "Great Equalizer" as Samuel Colt put it. It's better than dentures and Lee Press-On Nails.

[Seth]

@ Wumbo, don't disagree - you can always find anecdotes that belie the average. That doesn't invalidate the national statistics, just means that ON AVERAGE you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the US than the UK

I'm not even sure the US statistics are reported accurately. I've heard that some US cities don't report as murders people that die after the scene of the crime.

Depends on the cause of death and how long after the incident death occurs. The old rule was "a year and a day." But it's not a firm rule, and there have been people charged with murder many years or decades after their victim dies if the death can be directly attributed to the attack, such as a coma victim. There is no statute of limitations on murder.

[Seth]

Well, I wouldn't trust most of the UK proletariat with a spoon but I'm not sure Merkins can be trusted either. From the Grauniad:-

In 2010 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,996 murders in the US. Of those, 8,775 were caused by firearms

.

UK gets about 6-700 murders a year, for comparison.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... e-us-state

The UK also has a much smaller population, so absolute numbers are relatively meaningless. 13,000 murders in a nation of 300 million is pretty low, all things considered.