the tree Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 And what to we have to show for it? An increase in stop-and-search and armed officers on the beat. Not that I have any magical solutions up my sleeves but I am very cynical that gun culture can be seriously tackled by introducing policemen with guns. As much of a cliché as it is, root causes need to be dealt with. I think that the media as a whole bears responsibility for growing gun culture, it's not just grime music but also news reports that trivialise deaths caused by warfare and childrens TV that simply wont approach the issue seriously (AFAIK Blue Peter has not yet acknowledged the existence of firearms in London, I might be wrong). What do you guys think are the causes and possible solutions? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/6363713.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 the link`s no good dude I`ll delete this when you correct it, no need to reply Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 I don't understand. That graph seems to show that it isn't a trend, it's just a coincidence. (Unless I'm missing something?) While taking steps to reduce gun violence is obviously a good idea (though I'm not really sure what those steps would be), it's also important not not blow things out of proportion and overreact. There's no way arming police is going to reduce violence, but then again, I don't know how you could expect police to go unarmed in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tree Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 I don't understand. That graph seems to show that it isn't a trend, it's just a coincidence. (Unless I'm missing something?)The graph shows gun-related homicides, not gun related homicides involving young people.While taking steps to reduce gun violence is obviously a good idea (though I'm not really sure what those steps would be), it's also important not not blow things out of proportion and overreact.The idea of there being a "gun culture" at all is a pretty big deal I think. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/6365187.stmClaudia Webbe, who is vice chair of the independent advisory group to the Metropolitan Police's Operation Trident, said youngsters want to be seen with weapons. "Guns have gone from the domain of the crack cocaine dealers to now being an everyday accessory, a fashionable accessory, that young people want to be seen with," she said. There's no way arming police is going to reduce violence, but then again, I don't know how you could expect police to go unarmed in the first place.I just do. The only times I've ever seen armed police officers (in this country) is in airports, major train stations and around government buildings. If I'm in a residential area where people do things like eat sleep and go to the shops, I do not expect to cross someone carrying a weapon, I don't think that is unreasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 The graph shows gun-related homicides, not gun related homicides involving young people. Ok. Are there statistics for that, then? The idea of there being a "gun culture" at all is a pretty big deal I think. I completely agree. I just don't know if a) it IS a "gun culture" (you're talking to an American, here), and b) whether that's the sort of problem that can be solved with reactionary measures. I just do. The only times I've ever seen armed police officers (in this country) is in airports, major train stations and around government buildings. If I'm in a residential area where people do things like eat sleep and go to the shops, I do not expect to cross someone carrying a weapon, I don't think that is unreasonable. Hey, I think it's great that you guys don't feel the need to have all your policemen packing heat. I really do. I'm just saying I don't understand it. Maybe it's just because I come from a country where there are so many more guns, but to me it seems a very unreasonable thing to ask of police officers not to be armed. It is, after all, their job to intentionally put themselves in harm's way in between armed bad guys and civilians, and it seems crazy to deny them the ability to defend themselves and others in that situation. On the other hand, apparently it works for you, I guess since there are just a lot fewer armed bad guys. It occurs to me that maybe there's a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy at work - armed policemen means more civilians feel the need to arm themselves for protection, and more criminals feel the need to match the firepower of both. That seems a reasonable enough theory to be wary of arming your cops, especially since it seems like the sort of thing that can't be reversed. (Of course, I'm sure there's much more to it than that - whole generations raised on gun-fetishist cowboy shows probably has something to do with why so many Americans are packing, as well...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tree Posted February 16, 2007 Author Share Posted February 16, 2007 Ok. Are there statistics for that, then?I haven't been able to find any hard statistics on gun related homicides involving young people. I have e-mailed crimestatistics.org.uk to see if they can tell me where I should be looking.Although it's really open to interpretation I have found this on the BBC news: In 2003, there were 31 youths aged under 20 charged with a gun-related murder in London. In 2006, interim figures showed that number had risen to 76, according to the Metropolitan Police. I completely agree. I just don't know if a) it IS a "gun culture" (you're talking to an American, here), and b) whether that's the sort of problem that can be solved with reactionary measures.The Metropolitan Police, Operation Trident (who's job it is to gun crime in black culture) and plenty of individuals and independent groups seem to think there is. It is a difficult thing to prove, I know.I'm not sure what you mean by "can be solved by reactionary measures", what other type of measures are there? It is, after all, their job to intentionally put themselves in harm's way in between armed bad guys and civilians, and it seems crazy to deny them the ability to defend themselves and others in that situation.If they are putting themselves in front of a guy with a knife or a glass bottle, then I see their body armour and truncheons as being more useful for defending themselves. Even against a gun, body armour provides more actual protection than another gun, doesn't it? (nearly all police are armoured whilst on duty, by the way.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 usually, dealing with problems at the social root is more expensive than prevention methods in the end result. I agree that the "gun culture" mentality is a social problem that should be fixed, but that doesn't mean you don't hold criminals responsible for their actions. If a teen brings a gun to school, you don't arrest the media, you arrest the kid. I am proud to say, that we still live in a society where people are responsible for their own actions. the excuse, "X made me do it" is being used more and more in society, and frankly that makes me sick. Yes, we, as a society, should work on fixing problems with social causes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't treat people as capable of making their own decisions. For example, there are plenty of poor people who go out and get jobs and work really hard to become successful. So, why should we blame society, when another poor person joins a gang and winds up shooting a cop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saryctos Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 well, it doesn't appear that guns are a big problem... http://www.channel4.com/news/2004/12/week_3/13_knife.html 272 people were stabbed to death last year, that's compared to 80 people who were shot dead. So stabbing deaths outnumber gun deaths by more than three-to-one. Fatal stabbings have increased by 35 per cent in the last five years. And, campaigners claim, a young person dies in a knife attack every two weeks. yes I know 2004 =/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5032686.stm has a nice graph on the bottom http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm the bottom chart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 I really don't regard the rise in gun related crimes in the UK as a 'gun' culture, but more a shift in 'gang' culture i.e guns have become more readily available, but that doesn't mean it's comparable to the culture in the States...e.g licensing of guns et.c I agree with The Tree, the type of violence we have in the UK is hooliganism, pub brawls et.c and yes there are much better and alternative methods of protection for the police rather than resorting to guns (off the top of my head) bean bag guns et.c that is to incapacitate but not kill, whether the assailant is armed or not. Hostage situations are clearly different, but they are very few and far between in the UK, as in most countries. Tackling such a problem from the source is difficult...preventing gun export is virtually impossible, you can take measures but it's about as easy as preventing drugs coming into the country. There needs to be change on a social level, but personally I wouldn't have a clue how to go about this, (I'd be a politician if I did) but this is where the problem lies IMO. So I personally don't see the police as 'packing heat' as a solution at all, in fact it would probably incite even more violence, with regards to the situation in the UK at present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcol Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 The fashionably modern term "gun culture" is a politically useful term coined for the convenience of short tabloid headlines. I dont see why it is any more heinous than knife culture, drug culture or mugging culture, except perhaps as a headline threat to state security, and a smokescreen from behind which further restrictions on the freedoms of the law-abiding majority can be launched. Politicians dont have the stomach, money, willpower or wit to tackle the underlying reasons for the proliferation of the criminal underclasses that merely use the gun as the top level weapon for resolving turf wars. Rename prohibition as "machine gun culture", perhaps, and we see nothing changes, and it probably never will. A criminal psychopath will always act true to his nature. The rest of us will just have to learn to duck more quickly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitchenman Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 And what to we have to show for it? An increase in stop-and-search and armed officers on the beat. Not that I have any magical solutions up my sleeves but I am very cynical that gun culture can be seriously tackled by introducing policemen with guns. As much of a cliché as it is, root causes need to be dealt with. I think that the media as a whole bears responsibility for growing gun culture, it's not just grime music but also news reports that trivialise deaths caused by warfare and childrens TV that simply wont approach the issue seriously (AFAIK Blue Peter has not yet acknowledged the existence of firearms in London, I might be wrong). What do you guys think are the causes and possible solutions? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/6363713.stm I think the answer is very easy to explain, the solution, well...lol Before I post this I would like to say, I am not racist in anyway; nor do I hold any prejudices against any race. If you look at all the teenagers that have been gunned dead, the area's in which they have been killed, and the community's where they originate from, you will find out that they're most likely of Asian or African descendant. Basically, there ancestors are coming into this country, giving birth to children, and then not bringing them up right, thus leading to a bad community of wild, uncontrollable and pschycologically damaged youths. People need to realise that the people who are giving Britain a bad name, their ancestors do not originate from Britain. I place the blame on their ancestors for making terrible communities in which innocent people have to live in today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 the excuse, "X made me do it" is being used more and more in society, and frankly that makes me sick. I disagree. I'd say that kind of thinking hit its apex with the Twinkie defense, and is very much in decline, except in the form of persistent straw men and conservative mythology. Complaining about that is like complaing about "political correctness." You're like 15 years behind the times, dude. Yes, we, as a society, should work on fixing problems with social causes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't treat people as capable of making their own decisions. Which is why we do... For example, there are plenty of poor people who go out and get jobs and work really hard to become successful. So, why should we blame society, when another poor person joins a gang and winds up shooting a cop? I'd say there's plenty of blame to go around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 I disagree. I'd say that kind of thinking hit its apex with the Twinkie defense, and is very much in decline, except in the form of persistent straw men and conservative mythology. Complaining about that is like complaing about "political correctness." You're like 15 years behind the times, dude. Speaking of persistent straw men, there's the progressive version right there. Problems exist in spite of huge advancements, therefore that must automatically mean that we haven't "progressed" far enough to the left. Everyone who disagress is "15 years behind the times". Because, don't you know, every sane and intelligent person on the planet has agreed on the issue of gun control for 15 years now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Speaking of persistent straw men, there's the progressive version right there. Problems exist in spite of huge advancements, therefore that must automatically mean that we haven't "progressed" far enough to the left. Everyone who disagress is "15 years behind the times". Because, don't you know, every sane and intelligent person on the planet has agreed on the issue of gun control for 15 years now.... I don't understand what you're talking about. Who's moving to the left? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Sorry, I don't understand your question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Hehe. Ok, what's the progressive version of persistent straw men? Were you saying that I was demonstrating it somehow? How? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Oh. Well, the "15 years behind the times" comment is an example of what I consider to be one of the main flaws of progressive reasoning -- the idea that forward momentum in a specific ideological direction is both sensible and necessary. Like saying "why do we still have biggotry in the year 2007". To oversimplify for a moment, conservatives focus on personal responsibility and find annoyance in their perception that liberals want to reject personal responsibility and blame outside influences for people's problems, using it as an excuse to build a socialist system. (That's the "conservative mythology" bit you mentioned earlier, which I agree is a straw man.) To continue the oversimplification, liberals focus on finding "root causes", and find annoyance in their perception that conservatives want to reject any notion that circumstance plays a role in events and basically kick people while their down. But in fact this is just another ideological straw man, and it is no more accurate than the first example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Aha! Now I understand. And I agree, actually, but you misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't calling him "behind the times" in that he was idealogically backward. I was calling him "behind the times" because he was complaining about a growing idealogical phenomenon that, IMO, has been shrinking for some time now, and which nobody takes seriously any more except as something to complain about! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 I take it seriously. And don't you think we should focus on whether or not the problem actually exists, and our own personal opinions on it, rather than what "nobody thinks anymore"? I think people should post their own opinions, rather than trying to speak for the majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Aha! Now I understand. And I agree, actually, but you misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't calling him "behind the times" in that he was idealogically backward. I was calling him "behind the times" because he was complaining about a growing idealogical phenomenon that, IMO, has been shrinking for some time now, and which nobody takes seriously any more except as something to complain about! I haven't seen any evidence that this phenomenon is on the decline... of course, the doesn't mean it isn't, so I'd happily change my position if you found some. I think people should post their own opinions, rather than trying to speak for the majority. I should rephrase my statement then. I don't like the "blame everything on society" defense, because it appears to me too overused, and as a way to shift the weight of responsibility to someone else. As a result, you expect someone else to deal with your problems instead of trying to fix them on your own, which, in my opinion, is a hell of a lot more effective than waiting for charity. On the other hand, I'll admit, that I've never really been in this situation in a life-altering way, and that it only appears to me that it is on the rise. Therefore, this opinion isn't set in stone. Also, I've been listening to some conservative talk radio lately, which may be influencing my opinions somewhat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gypsy Cake Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 Gun crime is a problem. It always seems a distant phenomenon but that doesn't mean it's not our problem. I think if it's up to anyone to sort out then it's up to us because it's hard for the people in the situation to see the altercation. Although I'm not sure if armed police is a good idea; I think there's a slight misunderstanding as to what it may entail. The policemen you see in airports carry big guns; this would not necessarily be the case on the streets. The guns would probably be handguns and inconspicuous. I do however feel that the use of armed police may simply increase the acceptance of guns in the affected communities and therefore have an undesired affect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 It always seems a distant phenomenon but that doesn't mean it's not our problem. So true! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 hmm thats interesting, in the US it is considered very very unusual and in most circumstances uncessesary for officer to be carrying a rifle. even in our airports and places where the national guard has been stationed are limited to the use of handguns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 We have armed police. I have armed friends. Is that scary? Not to me. Perhaps because I own guns too... Perhaps it just hasn't happened to me, and I've always been around people who treat guns responsibly, but living in what's reputed to be a country of gun nuts and being a gun owner myself, I have never in my life feared gun violence. The situation would be different if I lived in, say, Detroit. In the city I live in, the total number of homicides per year averages around two. The only one to garner national attention was JonBenet Ramsey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gypsy Cake Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 bascule, why do you think that the people in your city are more responsible? why has places like detroit developed badly in terms of gun crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now