PhantomViper wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Violent crime is higher in the UK then the US.

That is an urban myth started by uninformed reporters (which seem to be all of them these days, really).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/24/blog-posting/social-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/

 surixurient wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Violent crime is higher in the UK then the US.

That is an urban myth started by uninformed reporters (which seem to be all of them these days, really).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/24/blog-posting/social-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/

Your link says that there is indeed more violent crime registered in the UK than in the US. They rated a claim false because it was not comparing apples to apples, when they changed the figures to represent apples and apples they still found the UK to have more violent crime but just not as extreme as the claims they were fact checking.

 Polonius wrote:

 surixurient wrote:
My opinion is to ratchet up stop-and-frisk and the crime rate will certainly drop. Everyone remotely resembling a suspicious person should be stopped, be they in a car or on foot. No respectable person should be living in these hell holes anyways, if you do, getting stopped is part of the deal, its all that is keeping you safe.

I'm pretty sure the closest Federal Judge to you just burst into flames.

You've also managed to make the most delusionally privileged post of the thread so far, so congratulations!

 surixurient wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Violent crime is higher in the UK then the US.

That is an urban myth started by uninformed reporters (which seem to be all of them these days, really).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/24/blog-posting/social-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/

Your link says that there is indeed more violent crime registered in the UK than in the US. They rated a claim false because it was not comparing apples to apples, when they changed the figures to represent apples and apples they still found the UK to have more violent crime but just not as extreme as the claims they were fact checking.

Our rough effort to equalize the definitions improved the quality of the comparison, but what we did is not enough to fix the comparison entirely, said James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University. "Once you get away from clearly defined terms like homicides, all kinds of problems come in," Fox said. "You have to take comparisons not just with a grain of salt but with the entire shaker."

For instance, the vast majority of violent crimes are aggravated assaults, and this is a category that isn’t as well defined as homicides, rapes and robberies. Many aggravated assaults don’t result in an injury, Fox said, and even police in the same country don’t always use the same standard in counting this particular crime.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by an arm of the United Nations most recently in 2005, shows the difference between reported crime and all crimes committed by conducting polls that ask people if they've been victims of specific crimes. Polling data showed that England and Wales had 2,600 cases of robbery per 100,000 population and 8,100 cases of "assaults and threats" per 100,000. While those figures are even higher than the meme suggested, the U.S levels are also much higher -- 1,100 cases of robbery and 8,300 cases of assaults and threats per 100,000. And the rate of sexual assault is actually about 50 percent higher in the United States than it is in England and Wales. So this data set doesn’t support the thrust of the meme, either.

 surixurient wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 surixurient wrote:
My opinion is to ratchet up stop-and-frisk and the crime rate will certainly drop. Everyone remotely resembling a suspicious person should be stopped, be they in a car or on foot. No respectable person should be living in these hell holes anyways, if you do, getting stopped is part of the deal, its all that is keeping you safe.

I'm pretty sure the closest Federal Judge to you just burst into flames.

You've also managed to make the most delusionally privileged post of the thread so far, so congratulations!

What is the crime rate in your neighborhood polonius? If you one day find yourself surrounded by crime you might become less dismissive of effective law enforcement. But how privileged-minded of you to deny a life-raft on behalf of the drowning. Your bleeding heart really touches me

 Kanluwen wrote:

 surixurient wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Violent crime is higher in the UK then the US.

That is an urban myth started by uninformed reporters (which seem to be all of them these days, really).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/24/blog-posting/social-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/

Your link says that there is indeed more violent crime registered in the UK than in the US. They rated a claim false because it was not comparing apples to apples, when they changed the figures to represent apples and apples they still found the UK to have more violent crime but just not as extreme as the claims they were fact checking.

Yeah, the link does say that.

However it also goes on to talk about how different crimes are categorized based on countries and how the "violent crimes" here in the US are primarily victim reported.

 Polonius wrote:

 surixurient wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 surixurient wrote:
My opinion is to ratchet up stop-and-frisk and the crime rate will certainly drop. Everyone remotely resembling a suspicious person should be stopped, be they in a car or on foot. No respectable person should be living in these hell holes anyways, if you do, getting stopped is part of the deal, its all that is keeping you safe.

I'm pretty sure the closest Federal Judge to you just burst into flames.

You've also managed to make the most delusionally privileged post of the thread so far, so congratulations!

What is the crime rate in your neighborhood polonius? If you one day find yourself surrounded by crime you might become less dismissive of effective law enforcement. But how privileged-minded of you to deny a life-raft on behalf of the drowning. Your bleeding heart really touches me

I was reacting to the idea that a person's class determines their civil rights, which is what your post suggests. "well, he looks poor and it's a bad neighborhood. Better frisk him!"

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 surixurient wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 surixurient wrote:
My opinion is to ratchet up stop-and-frisk and the crime rate will certainly drop. Everyone remotely resembling a suspicious person should be stopped, be they in a car or on foot. No respectable person should be living in these hell holes anyways, if you do, getting stopped is part of the deal, its all that is keeping you safe.

I'm pretty sure the closest Federal Judge to you just burst into flames.

You've also managed to make the most delusionally privileged post of the thread so far, so congratulations!

What is the crime rate in your neighborhood polonius? If you one day find yourself surrounded by crime you might become less dismissive of effective law enforcement. But how privileged-minded of you to deny a life-raft on behalf of the drowning. Your bleeding heart really touches me

I was reacting to the idea that a person's class determines their civil rights, which is what your post suggests. "well, he looks poor and it's a bad neighborhood. Better frisk him!"

Doesnt it though? What is the majority of the population in gun control areas? Which also happen to be high crime areas?

 Polonius wrote:

 surixurient wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 surixurient wrote:
My opinion is to ratchet up stop-and-frisk and the crime rate will certainly drop. Everyone remotely resembling a suspicious person should be stopped, be they in a car or on foot. No respectable person should be living in these hell holes anyways, if you do, getting stopped is part of the deal, its all that is keeping you safe.

I'm pretty sure the closest Federal Judge to you just burst into flames.

You've also managed to make the most delusionally privileged post of the thread so far, so congratulations!

What is the crime rate in your neighborhood polonius? If you one day find yourself surrounded by crime you might become less dismissive of effective law enforcement. But how privileged-minded of you to deny a life-raft on behalf of the drowning. Your bleeding heart really touches me

I was reacting to the idea that a person's class determines their civil rights, which is what your post suggests. "well, he looks poor and it's a bad neighborhood. Better frisk him!"

 surixurient wrote:
My opinion is to ratchet up stop-and-frisk and the crime rate will certainly drop. Everyone remotely resembling a suspicious person should be stopped, be they in a car or on foot. No respectable person should be living in these hell holes anyways, if you do, getting stopped is part of the deal, its all that is keeping you safe.

 surixurient wrote:
Stop and frisk is a proven crime reduction tactic.

And while ratcheting it up will have negative consequences, due to more innocent people being stopped, it will be all the more effective at stopping crime. Being stopped seems like a small price to pay for getting security after making the questionable life-choice to live among and behave as thugs and lowlifes. No one is forcing anyone to wear gang fashions and act like a caveman, that is a (bad) life-choice with the known side effect of looking like a criminal.

 Polonius wrote:

 whitedragon wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

Historically speaking, registration always leads to confiscation. Always.

My family's car is registered. Nobody has confiscated it.

Kan beat me to it.

There isn't a huge push to confiscate expensive sports cars across the nation the second they are purchased.

well, the argument is usually "nazi germany confiscated weapons."

Which puts the cart before the horse. Nazi Germany wasn't horrific and evil because they took people's weapons. They took people's weapons because they were horrific and evil.

 surixurient wrote:

So by all measures available, the UK has more crime than does the US, and it is not a myth. Being contested doesn't make something a myth, especially if there are no 'correct' numbers presented instead.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 surixurient wrote:
My opinion is to ratchet up stop-and-frisk and the crime rate will certainly drop. Everyone remotely resembling a suspicious person should be stopped, be they in a car or on foot. No respectable person should be living in these hell holes anyways, if you do, getting stopped is part of the deal, its all that is keeping you safe.

Um, no. The Fourth Amendment addresses this....

PhantomViper wrote:

 surixurient wrote:

So by all measures available, the UK has more crime than does the US, and it is not a myth. Being contested doesn't make something a myth, especially if there are no 'correct' numbers presented instead.

No, it really doesn't.

What was being reported was "violent crime" and what constitutes a "violent crime" varies from country to country. Even what type of crime is even supposed to belong in which category (robbery, assault, etc), also varies widely from country to country, so any comparison based on those variables is useless.

Now, if you wan't to compare general crime rates:

United States: 53.44 (crime index)
United Kingdom: 39.78 (crime index)

Values taken from: http://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp

PhantomViper wrote:

 surixurient wrote:

So by all measures available, the UK has more crime than does the US, and it is not a myth. Being contested doesn't make something a myth, especially if there are no 'correct' numbers presented instead.

No, it really doesn't.

What was being reported was "violent crime" and what constitutes a "violent crime" varies from country to country. Even what type of crime is even supposed to belong in which category (robbery, assault, etc), also varies widely from country to country, so any comparison based on those variables is useless.

Now, if you wan't to compare general crime rates:

United States: 53.44 (crime index)
United Kingdom: 39.78 (crime index)

Values taken from: http://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp

 surixurient wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 surixurient wrote:
My opinion is to ratchet up stop-and-frisk and the crime rate will certainly drop. Everyone remotely resembling a suspicious person should be stopped, be they in a car or on foot. No respectable person should be living in these hell holes anyways, if you do, getting stopped is part of the deal, its all that is keeping you safe.

Um, no. The Fourth Amendment addresses this....

It don't see it as 'unreasonable' if its contributing (hard numbers can show its contribution) to the safety and well being of the thousands of lives living in the area. When the crime rate stops falling then the practice can be halted until crime rises to a certain threshold. That is what makes it reasonable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

 surixurient wrote:

So by all measures available, the UK has more crime than does the US, and it is not a myth. Being contested doesn't make something a myth, especially if there are no 'correct' numbers presented instead.

No, it really doesn't.

What was being reported was "violent crime" and what constitutes a "violent crime" varies from country to country. Even what type of crime is even supposed to belong in which category (robbery, assault, etc), also varies widely from country to country, so any comparison based on those variables is useless.

Now, if you wan't to compare general crime rates:

United States: 53.44 (crime index)
United Kingdom: 39.78 (crime index)

Values taken from: http://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp

I take it that the variables behind those indexes are not 'useless'?

What are they by the way?

 Polonius wrote:

 surixurient wrote:
My opinion is to ratchet up stop-and-frisk and the crime rate will certainly drop. Everyone remotely resembling a suspicious person should be stopped, be they in a car or on foot. No respectable person should be living in these hell holes anyways, if you do, getting stopped is part of the deal, its all that is keeping you safe.

I'm pretty sure the closest Federal Judge to you just burst into flames.

You've also managed to make the most delusionally privileged post of the thread so far, so congratulations!

 surixurient wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 surixurient wrote:
My opinion is to ratchet up stop-and-frisk and the crime rate will certainly drop. Everyone remotely resembling a suspicious person should be stopped, be they in a car or on foot. No respectable person should be living in these hell holes anyways, if you do, getting stopped is part of the deal, its all that is keeping you safe.

I'm pretty sure the closest Federal Judge to you just burst into flames.

You've also managed to make the most delusionally privileged post of the thread so far, so congratulations!

What is the crime rate in your neighborhood polonius? If you one day find yourself surrounded by crime you might become less dismissive of effective law enforcement. But how privileged-minded of you to deny a life-raft on behalf of the drowning. Your bleeding heart really touches me

It's a slipery slope. All governments when allowed to encroach on liberties/rights, continue encroaching. Those giving up liberty for the appearance of security generally lose both in the end....Patriot Act anyone? Whose gone flying recently in the US?

 surixurient wrote:

It's a slipery slope. All governments when allowed to encroach on liberties/rights, continue encroaching. Those giving up liberty for the appearance of security generally lose both in the end....Patriot Act anyone? Whose gone flying recently in the US?

I'm not as concerned with the crime prevention slope (i.e. not being killed by the barbarians at the gates we call 'urban' youth) as the myriad of other slopes we are sliding down, environmental and health behavioral restrictions (i.e. big-gulps and plastic bags), national debt-load, regulation and taxation of business, but that's for another thread I suppose.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 surixurient wrote:

It's a slipery slope. All governments when allowed to encroach on liberties/rights, continue encroaching. Those giving up liberty for the appearance of security generally lose both in the end....Patriot Act anyone? Whose gone flying recently in the US?

I'm not as concerned with the crime prevention slope (i.e. not being killed by the barbarians at the gates we call 'urban' youth) as the myriad of other slopes we are sliding down, environmental and health behavioral restrictions (i.e. big-gulps and plastic bags), national debt-load, regulation and taxation of business, but that's for another thread I suppose.

No, it dovetails nicely. All these things have occured "for the common good".

 Polonius wrote:


It's called compromise. I'm slightly sympathetic to gun owners anti-government paranoia due to the history of animosity, but lets get a grip, The american firearms industry is a large employer, people buy over a billion dollars in guns alone a year, let alone ammo, and we're both the largest importer and exporter of firearms. There isn't the money or political will to push confiscation through.

What registration allows, over time, is more secure legal weapons, and eventually more readily tracked illegal firearms.

The political alternative to registration is going to be the slow death of where you can actually carry or use a firearm.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Polonius wrote:


It's called compromise. I'm slightly sympathetic to gun owners anti-government paranoia due to the history of animosity, but lets get a grip, The american firearms industry is a large employer, people buy over a billion dollars in guns alone a year, let alone ammo, and we're both the largest importer and exporter of firearms. There isn't the money or political will to push confiscation through.

What registration allows, over time, is more secure legal weapons, and eventually more readily tracked illegal firearms.

The political alternative to registration is going to be the slow death of where you can actually carry or use a firearm.

Vehicles get repo'd and the majority of the time, the repo man has to get that information from the DMV, so in that sense, they DO get confiscated.

Personally, I would not be opposed to a law stating that I had to register my firearms with the Manufacturer which made it. However, I do have the same, deep seated reservations that many others do about a government registration.

 whitedragon wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Polonius wrote:


It's called compromise. I'm slightly sympathetic to gun owners anti-government paranoia due to the history of animosity, but lets get a grip, The american firearms industry is a large employer, people buy over a billion dollars in guns alone a year, let alone ammo, and we're both the largest importer and exporter of firearms. There isn't the money or political will to push confiscation through.

What registration allows, over time, is more secure legal weapons, and eventually more readily tracked illegal firearms.

The political alternative to registration is going to be the slow death of where you can actually carry or use a firearm.

Vehicles get repo'd and the majority of the time, the repo man has to get that information from the DMV, so in that sense, they DO get confiscated.

Personally, I would not be opposed to a law stating that I had to register my firearms with the Manufacturer which made it. However, I do have the same, deep seated reservations that many others do about a government registration.

And what are you implying, that repo of a car because you didn't pay your bill is the same thing as the government targetting you for owning a registered firearm?

 cincydooley wrote:
You know, not to mention the fact that the stop-and-frisk practices in NYC have been found to be blantantly racist and that a large number of the cops obligated to force it due to mandated numbers hate it.

I'm far from a bleeing heart, but seriously. Stop and frisk infringes upon a ton of rights and basically encourages racism. I am not a fan (but then again, I'm not much of Bloomberg fan anyways).

 Alfndrate wrote:

 whitedragon wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Polonius wrote:


It's called compromise. I'm slightly sympathetic to gun owners anti-government paranoia due to the history of animosity, but lets get a grip, The american firearms industry is a large employer, people buy over a billion dollars in guns alone a year, let alone ammo, and we're both the largest importer and exporter of firearms. There isn't the money or political will to push confiscation through.

What registration allows, over time, is more secure legal weapons, and eventually more readily tracked illegal firearms.

The political alternative to registration is going to be the slow death of where you can actually carry or use a firearm.

Vehicles get repo'd and the majority of the time, the repo man has to get that information from the DMV, so in that sense, they DO get confiscated.

Personally, I would not be opposed to a law stating that I had to register my firearms with the Manufacturer which made it. However, I do have the same, deep seated reservations that many others do about a government registration.

And what are you implying, that repo of a car because you didn't pay your bill is the same thing as the government targetting you for owning a registered firearm?

I can't wait to bring this to the gun culture:

 surixurient wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
You know, not to mention the fact that the stop-and-frisk practices in NYC have been found to be blantantly racist and that a large number of the cops obligated to force it due to mandated numbers hate it.

I'm far from a bleeing heart, but seriously. Stop and frisk infringes upon a ton of rights and basically encourages racism. I am not a fan (but then again, I'm not much of Bloomberg fan anyways).

Are you a fan of rampant violence? You don't have to be a fan of anything, what matters is being able to see common sense and then go with it, fan or not.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

That sounds suspiciously like the common sense gun laws which aren't.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

It's a slipery slope. All governments when allowed to encroach on liberties/rights, continue encroaching. Those giving up liberty for the appearance of security generally lose both in the end....Patriot Act anyone? Whose gone flying recently in the US?

 dogma wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

That sounds suspiciously like the common sense gun laws which aren't.

Generally speaking someone who is arguing from "common sense" is trying to cloak their opinion in seemingly neutral terminology. Double points if that person claims to be "no-nonsense".

 Spacemanvic wrote:

It's a slipery slope. All governments when allowed to encroach on liberties/rights, continue encroaching. Those giving up liberty for the appearance of security generally lose both in the end....Patriot Act anyone? Whose gone flying recently in the US?

Per that argument we were all doomed to slavery as soon as the Constitution was signed.

 surixurient wrote:

What is the crime rate in your neighborhood polonius? If you one day find yourself surrounded by crime you might become less dismissive of effective law enforcement. But how privileged-minded of you to deny a life-raft on behalf of the drowning. Your bleeding heart really touches me