Slashdot Mirror
UK Street Crime Rise Blamed on iPods
CNET reports that the British Government today attributed the country's 22% rise in street crime to iPod robberies. This has hit CNET close to home. Guy Cocker, a CNET (Gamespot) journalist based in London, was mugged last week. The muggers held 'a semi-automatic weapon to the back of Cocker's head and told him, "we're taking all your stuff"'. CNET's solution to the problem is suggestions on how to conceal your iPod from attackers. These include 'The gaffer tape method,' 'The Coke can method,' and 'The Christopher Walken method.'
wthout those baaad baaad guns this would have never happened!
Oh wait...
how long until
ipod insurance. ;P
my pattent.
iGod!!
What a shame the UK disarmed their citizenry... In the US I'd be more concerned on how to conceal my M1911 not my iPOD.
Needs more bell...
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
So it's our jobs' fault for giving us money that can be stolen?
The fault of car makers that cars get stolen?
I'm a bit confused.
Really, now... is this the fault of the iPod and not the punk-ass thugs doing this crap?
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Replace the earplugs with ones with black cables.
a) Aluminium isn't magnetic, it wouldn't hold the can closed
b) Is it really that good an idea to have a magnet that close to your ipod?
You can learn a lot about a person if you just take the time to inject them with sodium pentathol
I was hoping it'd show you how to dance like a maniac then fly off into the sky :(
Pass Concealed Carry Laws. If muggers knew they could get a cap in their ass, they'd think twice before committing these dastardly deeds.
This is must be why this story is about crimes in the UK and no in the US.
How about walking around without listening to music the whole time?
Then no one would want to steal them anymore. Also, does anyone find it mildly amusing that the example they give of an Ipod theft involves a cellphone and not an Ipod.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
98,204 - 90,747 = 7,457 More
7,457 / 90,747 = 8.2% Rise from the original level
22%? WTF?
As far as I can tell, a big part of the reason for having an iPod is meant to be because it looks stylish. Basically, the whole point is for it to be seen. If you're going to start trying to disguise your iPod, wouldn't it be a better option to just get a cheaper and/or better music player from another company?
Don't take the above poster too seriously. He doesn't.
According to the article, the cause of street crime is 1) High tech gadgets like Ipods and phones. 2) Social conditions leading to poverty. shouldn't the criminals figure in these somewhere?
Summary:
TFA:
For all I know an opened glass coke bottle feels exactly like a semi-automatic weapon when it is pressed into the back of a persons head. The words felt like make all the difference.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Just don't wear those white earbuds and I probably ... I mean, they probably won't notice that you have iPods.
There should be a "-1:Groupthink"
Did this happen with the Sony Walkman in the 80s ? On the daily commute it seems everyone has an iPod - was it the same with the Walkman ?
Oh, this is the UK, where only criminals have firearms.
My bad.
What?
...give an iPod to everyone, so none would rob it.
Mr. Jobs won't be pissed off, I guess.
Seeing as how guns are banned there how could this have happened? Oh yea... gun control doesn't work. Moreover for the cops. "Halt! Or I shall be forced to say Halt again!"
robberies across the UK have risen 22 per cent in the last year, from 90,747 to 98,204
Wow... Some how a increase 7457 robberies over the previous year's 90747 total is 22 percent???
I guess the muggers have been stealing people's math skills too....
[For the numerically challenged, the stated figures represent less than a 10% increase, not a 22% increase.]
TFA misses out on the interesting bit of the article:
"His assailants held what felt like a semi-automatic weapon to the back of Cocker's head"
Wow, he can differentiate a semi-automatic from a nonautomatic from an automatic, just based on how it presses against the back of his head.
Note how the Slashdot summary changes things:
"The muggers held 'a semi-automatic weapon to the back of Cocker's head"
Why must everybody show off they're wearing an iPod? The white earbuds are a dead giveaway. Every mugger in the street will know you've got expensive gadgets on you. Just buy an extra headphone or other color earbuds and you wil stand stand out a lot less.
I've got an cowon Iaudio 5 which also uses white earbuds to imitate the iPod look. I'm not all too happy about that. If I were walking in a big city and ran the risk of being mugged, I would problably get myself some other earphones. Even if it were to not look like a simple iPod user.
If the "semi-automatic weapon" was pointed at the back of his head, how did he know it was a semi-automatic weapon?
I live in a large UK city, I've been in extremely dodgy circles in my time, and the only time I've seen a gun is on television or when I've been abroad.
Not that I don't believe there's gun crime in the UK, but I think the chances of him being mugged by somebody with a semi is far, far smaller than him just exaggerating for a good story.
Buy... the new iPod Invisa!
Really?
I live in London, and I can't remember hearing about anyone being shot for their iPod.
You hear plenty about gun crime, though...
All kids pretending they're bloody American 'ganstas' or whatever.
Information wants to be beer.
(Before anyone turns this into a matter of gun control alone, note that countries like Switzerland and Norway, with HUGE amounts of weapons in private ownership, including AG-3's in about 1/3'd of homes in Norway, have firearms related violence rates not much different from the UK - it's much more complicated than gun control or not)
This just in: Apple is coming out with a new ipod with a hidden switch blade built in. Oh wait, now you can't take your ipod on a plane with you.
Let me see if I've got this straight.
* People are walking around with expensive items clearly visible on their person.
* Other people are coming up to these people and stealing said items.
Surely these people wouldn't walk around with hundreds of pounds of cash clearly visible on their person; why would they think that walking around with expensive electronics would be any different?
Oh too bad, I was going to do this but the only drink I drink from cans is beer, not coke...
(damn publicity)
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
What a shame the UK disarmed their citizenry
Point 1: We were never armed to start with - this is largely an American idea "the right to bear arms" and is not seen in other parts of the world as a good thing.
Point 2: Technically we are subjects not citizens. (We have a monarch as head of state not a president)
spoonerize "magic trackpad"
The CNet story sounds somewhat similar to this story perhaps? Victim calls for longer sentences
I can't help thinking it may be linked to this massive effort in fighting terrorism. How can you put so many policemen on that and still have enough in the street really protecting the people?
Yeah, let's all fight fire with fire. Everyone knows it works!
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
I think gun control is an all or nothing deal.. either you do it perfectly, and it reduces crime, or you dont' do it, and upstanding citizens being able to shoot back reduces crime... the US half-ass approch is what doesn't work.
ian
"he hid it in the one place he knew he could hide somethin'"
I give up. Where??
Oh, the citizenry disarmed themselves.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Now there's an interesting question there - is the rise in iPod thefts due to the fact that iPods, associated with white earbuds, are more popular and hence worth stealing? Or is it simply because the white earbuds are more visible at night, thus making their owner a more obvious target?
Let others dicate how you spend your time. After all your enjoyment should not come at the expense of some loser whose only method to have stuff is to take from others.
Yup, whats next? Let the government take my rights too? Better yet, let the government take my gun and my iPod and give it to this deserving soul who lost life's lottery?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Do you blame car thefts on the awesomeness of a car? How about rape on the attractiveness of the victim? Why then would you blame ipods for getting stolen? Blame the criminals.
See in Scotland we dont have Ipods yet, but ukele and banjo crime has gone through the roof
Just take your Weapon of Choice along with you when you're walking around flashing your iPod to everyone acting like a pompous jackass.
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
What can you do to foil the 22 per cent rise in people out to steal your iPod?
What can be done for the 22 per cent so they do not even want to think about mugging anybody, but do something worthwhile instead?
Besides, if the guy actually had got shot in the head, would this still be about the iPod?
Is all this crime the result of shiny inanimate objects or really stupid policies?
One favorite paragraph:
It is not difficult to guess the reason for the senior policeman's anger. My wife had forced his men to record a crime that they had no intention whatever of even trying to solve (though, with due expedition, it was eminently soluble), and this record in turn meant the introduction of an unwanted breath of reality into the bogus statistics, the manufacture of which is now every British senior policeman's principal task--with the sole exception of enforcing the dictates of political correctness, thereby to head off the criticism levied at them for many decades by the liberal Left--not always without an element of justification. Proving their purity of heart is now more important to them than securing the safety of our streets: and thus Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
Also, nice to see that gun control laws work the way we Second Amendment supporters said they would.
The same survey also shows that murders are down 12% at 765, while attempted murders are up 25% at 922. So while the overall level murderous activity has gone up, people are getting worse at it.
Yeah I think its pretty obvious that the places where you could get your iPod jacked probably aren't the places you should be listening to music. If you are walking around London, for example, or any other city for that matter, you need to listen for traffic. Trains or planes are generally the best situation to use an iPod in when you are moving. Having said that though the main problem with the iPods is the distinctive white earphones + cable. If I see those I know that person has an iPod whether I can see it or not. Crime is so bad in my area of the UK I generally only leave the house with a credit card (which can be cancelled) and a lighter. (I'm a smoker)
Here are some of the recomendations from TFA:
If, after following all of the above guidelines, your iPod should happen to be stolen, contact the RIAA as quickly as possible and inform them of all the illegal music you have stored on it, then wait for them to subpeona your assailiant and recover your costs in an out of court settlement.
.. where, if yours isn't the fingerprint its used to, it explodes a la 'robbery ink' packages they put in the cash drawers ..
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
What are they going to blame for the crime wave next, fashionable clothing? Nice shoes? Just buy an ugly looking pair of headphones and put your iPod in your pocket on random, problem solved.
Haiku for you!
...the iPod in Uranus method.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
As a Londoner I'm pretty sure there was no gun involved. This guy was the victim of the classic 'banana in the small of the back' scam as portrayed in so many movies. It can be scary if the guy looks mad enough. Happened to me once, 5 years ago and I never saw the gun - just a 6'4 crackhead. In the end I just walked away with half of me just waiting to be shot in the back. It didn't happen fortunately.
As someone else said, if you've got a real gun in London you're not jacking iPods with it - you're doing something a little larger in scope. However, I'm not sure that this isn't changing with some younger people - gun crime is certainly increasing.
spoonerize "magic trackpad"
The issue is really how the society feels about violence.
In a society where violence is abhorred, for instance a Buddhist one, you need do little more than wave a fist at someone to have your way by force.
In a society where violence is admired, such as Columbia, the US, Israel or Afghanistan, the slightest hint of an insult will bring automatic fire and RPG rounds in. Collateral damage makes things even more fun, so long as all the deaths are of sub-humans such as Lebanese women and children.
We need to question why violence is admired in some societies. For the Israelis, of course, it's a matter of religion. But why do the US like murdering people?
In France they just passed some legislation that would force criminals to target non-iPod music players at a rate that is the same as iPod's themselves. They will also force Apple to make open their "design standards and guidelines" to allow other manufacturers to create music players that are just as desireable to theives as iPod's are.
Blaming the rise in crime on CRIMINALS? A concept, I know...
How about locking said criminals in a BIG building with bars, instead of saying "don't do that again", and blaming the victim?
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
The Rudi Giuliani Method
Hire more cops. Let them kick the hell out of the thieves and get them off the street. Let the iPod users listen to music without fear.
an ill wind that blows no good
Well, I think that the perpetrator takes the blame. It's all very well and good to blame crime on social conditions, but that's never the whole story. People have free will, they can make their own decisions, and certainly in Britain it is perfectly possible to survive and be comfortable without going around mugging people. There are other options that don't require stealing. Mugging people might provide an easier income than a real job, and it will certainly provide more money than social security, but that doesn't excuse it. Bugger me if I'm ever going to feel sorry for a thief.
So yeah, I'm all for trying to eliminate poverty and poor education, but that alone will never prevent crime. You'll still need prisons and policemen and a proper justice system, and for that you need to make it quite clear that crime is the fault of the criminal, who has decided (for whatever reason) to go around stealing instead of earning a living.
And also, doesn't the statement that society causes crime lead to the conclusion that people don't really have the ability to make their own choices? Once we start believing that, are we really people any more? Or are we just dumbly reacting to our environment?
More cowbell?!!!
A bank was robbed in London. Police told the press that the probable cause of the crime was that money was kept there... A woman was raped in Central Park, New York. A representative of the police force told the press...
Internet Tough Guys Yeah!
So by finding one incident of murder in a Michigan newspaper, you can completely conclude that concealed guns make people less safe? Wow, your logic (or lack thereof) is astounding...
Wow, so CNet are advocating holding a iPod in place with a magnet?! Wonder how many people will complain after the HD in their iPod gets wiped or worse... Shocking advice from a tech site!!
Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
Crime because of iPods? Try lack of police and lax treatment of criminals. Looks like they need to buy some plungers and hire Giuliani..
If you're not getting lots of civilian complaints, you're not trying hard enough.
In the BBC story Home Secretary John Reid said: "This is largely driven by a rise in the numbers of young people carrying expensive goods, such as mobile phones and MP3 players" ie a lot wider scope than the Slashdot headline !
:-)
(But of course putting the word "iPod" in the title immediately makes the headline sexier
I dont have an ipod, so some of this may be wrong but....
Have Apple update their firmware so that a password is needed to
upload or download from the device. Store the password in their
itunes software. It will be transparent to the user, but hot
ipods will be stuck with their current song list.
Then no one will be anxious to buy used Ipods without some proof
that the seller has the password.
Even better, the ipods are probably serialized. Send the ipod
serial number silently along with the account information in
itunes. Then when your ipod gets stolen, you go to the apple
store with your "proof of purchase" and tell them that the
ipod has been stolen. Apple disables itunes for the device
and gives the police the contact information the new itunes
user was trying to use.
Why didn't they mention two most important steps you can take to prevent this kind of thing:
- Be aware of your surroundings at all times. Your music is great, but it should never make you oblivious, and it should never be high enough in volume that you can't hear people (or traffic) around you in a potentially unsafe situation. (i.e., not at home/office)
- Don't look like a victim. It's amazing how many would-be criminals are put off by the simple fact that someone's head is up and their eyes are alert. There are many easier-looking targets for them.
Those two simple things are the first things you will learn in any self-defense class.iRiver / iPod.
In the eyes of the Church Of Rockbox they are equal.
The assumption is that a revolver has a round barrel, and a semi-auto has a slide covering the barrel, thus creating more of a square contact patch with the back of the head.
The way your dad looked at it, this iPod-mini was your birthright. He'd be damned if any of the slopes were gonna get their greasy yellow hands on his boy's birthright. So he hid it in the one place he knew he could hide something: his ass. Five long years, he wore this iPod up his ass. Then when he died of dysentery, he gave me the iPod. I hid this uncomfortable piece of plastic and metal up my ass for two years. Then, after seven years, I was sent home to my family. And now, little man, I give the iPod to you.
c id=8719429
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=102262&
How could the mugger have a gun if it's been banned?
Hmm, come to think of it, it's a strange coincidence that crime has been rising steadily since the ban...
As we all know, Spider-Man would often fight crime by tossing a spider-shaped transmitter onto a criminal's clothing and following the signal back to the crook's lair. Could an iPod be rigged up similarly? Think of the possibilities of tracking a mugger back to his home, or, better yet, the den of thieves where he fences the purloined gadget.
This sig, aah-ah, is comin' like a ghost-sig...
He had an iTunes-compatible phone stolen. Not a big difference, but the summary still leads one to believe an iPod was what was stolen.
You also forget the culture around guns is different in many countries. I've grown up around shotguns and rifles ment for countryside sports, I've seen my fair share of animals with holes in them and so I know what a gun really does when you fire it. Hollywood and shooting at targets is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't show you how easily a gun really kills and what it can do to someone.
So to me a firearm is only ever pointed if you intend to use it, I'd never raise a gun loaded or not at someone unless I honestly ment to use it, I suspect most people in this country (unless complete idiots) would also feel the same way. Where as in America it seems to be more "hey lets go have a few beers, kill a deer and boast about it", more than "safety comes first, alchol and firearms dont mix".
I like muppets.
They've corrected the original article to read 8.2%. Someone should correct the slashdot article....
----- There are two kinds of people in this world, my friend; those with loaded guns, and those who dig.
Let's have a contest; I (with a gun) try to kill you from 20 meters distance, you (with the club) try to kill me at the same time. Survivor wins the argument. The keywords are "proximity" and "required force".
What a shame the UK disarmed their citizenry
Why is it a shame? How would being armed have helped in this case?
If an object such as an Ipod is so valuable that you need to be armed to protect it, then why would you flaunt it in an area where you are likely to be a victim of attempted theft ?
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
It's like saying digging with shovel creates large amount of treasure on treasure island. The problem's with the people on the street - finding that when presented with an oppertunity to steal from someone else - they will do. That's the level it needs to be addressed at - the people on the street level. To attempt to address this problem at the ipod level is just a waste of time and distracting. A more suitable headline might be British People - violent and prone to theft (disclaimer I am British)
"Superglue a small magnet to the inside of the upper lip of the can so that it's flush with the open top of the can."
... then fail to hear your songs as the magnet screws around with the iPod.
This is terrible. Clearly, iPods must be banned.
First let's toss the totally insane idea of a fully automatic weapon.
A revolver has a round barrel.
A semi-auto has a round barrel "encased" in a squarish slide.
It is quite easy to feel the dif.
Simple. The Good Guys are always fast enough to reach into their coats, pull out a gun, point it into the right direction, and shoot before the Bad Guys can even think to squeeze the trigger on an already aimed weapon.
Either that or hand the iPod over and then shoot the mugger in the back.
Wait, don't tell me people think either of these approaches are wrong....
Is there any actual evidence freely available firearms substantially reduces gun crime, or is it all hyperbole from the US pro-gun lobby?
Knife crime in the UK far outnumbers gun crime, but for some reason knife crime is apparently not interesting enough for the media.
Before anyone thinks that means the UK just have substituted knives for guns: In '98 there were 440 recorded homicides in the UK, compared to 17893 in the US.
NOTE: Before anyone tries to make this out to be a gun control only issue: Switzerland and Norway, both countries with significant number of privatly owned or controlled guns (part of hunting traditions and private control over military equipment for homeland defense, including hundreds of thousands of AG-3's in Norway) both see similar levels of homicides as what the UK has.
My source - the WHO report on violence and health. Take a look at page 337 onwards (the statistical annex).
Now, if the pro-gun argument is that having guns would somehow allow you to defend yourself and prevent thefts happening - well would you? If you had a gun at the back of your neck, you'd get out your gun and try to shoot first, despite the high probability that you'd end up dead?
In places where the laws have gone from can't-carry to can-carry, there's good evidence to chew on. When, in general, your average willing-to-use-violence street thug type doesn't know if an intended victim may or may not be carrying a deadly weapon, such crimes go down. States like Florida are good examples.
In places where the laws have gone from might-be-carrying to only-criminals-can-be-carrying (or worse, only-criminals-can-even-possess-them-at-all) such crimes go up.
But I agree with the other comments that find it silly to blame the iPods. You have to blame the people willing to steal anything for the act of stealing. Before it was iPods, it was just cash. iPod lust is just another facet of the growing culture of entitlement. Fix that, and you fix, well, a whole lot of things - including much of what fuels many sorts of violence and the need to defend against it.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
[FABIAN]
Whose mp3 player is this?
[BUTCH]
It's an iPod, baby.
[FABIAN]
Whose iPod is this?
[BUTCH]
Zed's.
[FABIAN]
Who's Zed?
[BUTCH]
Zed's dead, baby, Zed's dead
Personally I prefer the 'Chuck Norris Method': Roundhouse kick in the face!
There is a pernicious meme that life is a zero-sum game and that if you got wealthy that it must have caused someone else's suffering. That's the root of this kind of thinking.
I think the point the OP is trying to make is that gun ownership has essentially the effect of mutually assured destruction between countries with nukes.
If the muggers KNOW there is a high degree of probability that their victim might be packing, they are probably less likely to attempt the attack in the first place if the tables are turned on them. That, and would you rather have a weapon in that situation than not?
I do not own a gun, but I have thought about getting one. I live in a fairly rural area. It would be a trivial matter for a thug to break into my house and rob me at gunpoint (or try and kill me). There are only two state troopers on duty across three counties in the wee hours of the morning and there are only two or three sherrifs/deputies within a rather large radius of coverage. How long do you think it will take for them to get to my house? Too bloody long to matter.
The flipside of this argument is a highly populous area. Look what happened in LA and New Orleans when law and order broke down. A gun might have been nice to have for protection in those situations as well.
I just got an email from an Asperger group I am a part of here in Philly (my son has Asperger syndrome, which is a slight form of autism) in which they blame ipods and cell phone batteries for the the current rise in these problems. http://www.cellular-news.com/story/18342.php Ipods are evil I tell ya! Where is my 8-track player??!
Thankfully, someone finally speaks the truth. The Brits suck at crime, commiting it, stopping it, or figuring out the why of it. Americans have always been more likely to kill you. Look at the crime rate for Ma, an A- according to the Brady campaign, and then (comparing population too) Vermont where you do not even need a permit. The reason? Criminals commit crimes, not inanimate objects. I wonder what kind of feel good useless law will come from this.
They key to this problem is the mugger can pick out the people with iPods from across the street, because of the super-visible white earbuds. He *knows* this guy has at least one thing valuable, so the mugging risk is worth it.
If the person has a cord going from a set of *black* earbuds to a device in their pocket, it could be an iPod, or a $4.95 FM radio - so he's less likely to take his chances.
Buy a set of decent black or grey earbuds and ditch the trendy iPod ones. It's like wearing a bullseye on your jacket.
Hyperbole time:
If you walk through the toughest part of town sporting a prominent gold watch, wearing an fine suit, talking on a diamond encrusted cellphone, and fanning yourself with a filled money clip, then perhaps you could be said to have been "asking for it." It's not like you forced the mugger to come after you, but it IS your fault for walking around saying, "Look at me! I've got MONEY! In easily portable and transferrable form!"
You can worry about "blame" all you want. Meanwhile, I'll be lowering my profile and quietly be thankful for obstinate idiots for drawing all the attention. You don't get mugged if you don't look like you're worth the effort.
A little common sense is in order here. Hide your $300 toy.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Get a Coke can, drink the contents, rinse out the can. Carefully cut the lid section off the can. Superglue a small magnet to the inside of the upper lip of the can so that it's flush with the open top of the can. Place the iPod inside and put the lid on the can. If you've cut the can correctly, the magnet should hold the lid tightly shut. Unless your mugger is exceptionally thirsty, they're unlikely to steal your Coke. Anti-mugger rating: 9/10
Unless they see the freakin headphone cables sticking out of the coke can.
Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean a whole lot, but I'm just curious, given this particular situation what exactly would having a gun tucked away in your belt do for you? Your assailant is behind you. Their "gun" is supposedly already pointed at your head. They're going to spot you trying to turn hero on them. Do you think you'll just get lucky?
I don't have any real personal stake in the issue, since I don't carry a gun and never will, and the statistics bear out my opinion that you are more likely a magnet for trouble if you do. But it's fascinating to me how people manufacture this tough-guy image of themselves carrying a gun and don't ever seem to go to the trouble of actually thinking through what good it does them.
which is why crimes committed witha firearm continue to rise in the UK.
hmmm...
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I thought all those cameras where supposed to prevent this type of crime, not increase it.
A pro-gun dept tag on /.? From Timothy?
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
From the wiki:
There has always been a distinction in English law between the subjects of the monarch and aliens
Bloody 'ell, it seems like David Icke was right!
spoonerize "magic trackpad"
I prefer my right to not allow some drunk jackass to have a gun in my vicininty. If the government wants to put me in prison or kill me, having a handgun will not change that. Poland had an entire army, and Germany still walked all over it. If guns made countries safer, the US would be the safest country in the western world, as it is, it isn't anywhere near the top of that list.
For nearly a thousand years London has been a wretched hive of scum and villainy; it's only been in the last hundred years or so that a wealthy-looking unarmed person could walk the streets with an expectation of being left unmolested. Thank god it's returning to its historical status quo.
So I tape my mp3 player to my chest with gaffer tape. If they really wants it bad enough, he can grope me to get it.
He gets an mp3 player, and I get groped. It is a win-win situation.
How 'bout they just take my mp3 player. I'll give them my headphones too.
v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
If the muggers KNOW there is a high degree of probability that their victim might be packing, they are probably less likely to attempt the attack in the first place
Pfft, whatever. If you're a total loser at mugging you'd never give the muggee a chance to even consider pulling a weapon. Shot them/club them in the back of the head, take the iPod. What's so hard about that?
Also, nice to see that gun control laws work the way we Second Amendment supporters said they would.
Eh? If the person being mugged had a gun, how would it have helped when someone had what he thought was a gun pressed to the back of his head?
Gun control laws seem to be working pretty well in the UK. It just isn't a gun owning culture, and even when you could own a handgun, almost nobody wanted one (even the police don't want them except for specially trained officers). If they were available, I just don't think we would get any of the benefits for law abiding citizens. If almost nobody owns them they don't offer much for deterrent or protection.
Yes some criminals have guns, but not many. Gun crime is low, and the murder rate is lower than the US although I believe that other violent crimes apart from rape are higher. It may be connected, that fights/assaults happen but they don't escalate to killings as often without the weapons, although I think that would be impossible to prove.
I don't think the same laws would work in the US, the culture is different and the guns are out there. If I lived in the US again I'd want a gun.
The Walkman was once the rage and before the cheap knock offs came, a walk man was $120 or $150 for the super fancy walkman that was the size of a boxed tape - no one attributed a rise in crime to those.
When the portable CD players came out, people paid $250 for them and walked around with them as well - no one attributed a rise in crime to those either.
Before Ipods there were GameBoys, MP3 players, Cell Phones, you name it.
I think you'd have better luck linking crime to unemployment than to Ipods.
www.wildpad.com
I would have thought that the Christopher Walken Method would be more along the lines of this:
1) Engage mugger in frighteningly insane stare
2) Calmly tell mugger that it would be a bad idea to steal your iPod as it would result in their eyeballs being extracted and eaten
3) Watch mugger back off, turn round and run away
Walken scares the hell out of me. Half the time I don't think he even acts, it looks more like the director just lets him out of a padded van and shouts action.
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel."
...2005 is projected to be a busy hurricane season for the US.
A laptop and a spare battery?
Complete mini system with speakers?
Regular old discman, and about 100 CDs
..........FULL STOP.
And not an automatic? Or a revolver? Or a whiteboard marker? A tech writer, and he still plays fast and loose with details to make everything sound extra scary (not that being mugged isn't scary enough!).
My parents lived in abject poverty too. Your parents probably did commit a lot of petty crime, they just wouldn't mention it because they don't believe they did anything wrong. My family was involved in bootlegging of alcohol (In their country it was illegal), they never mention it, they were just trying to feed their kids.
After I myself was the "would-be" victim of a mugging.
If you have the opportunity, you knock that mugger to the ground - throw a trashcan, use a chair, jump on him/her, kick them in the gonads (men - upwards strike, women - straight kick to the lower gut) - and then you proceed to kick and claw on that arsehole while hollering,
"I'm being attacked and mugged! Help! Police! I'm being assaulted!"
Can't knock'em to the ground? Jump on them. You have teeth, and nails. Bite and grab and rip like they're paper.
They have a weapon? Most violent criminals with weapons will freak out and lose it as soon as their intended victim turns "psycho", i.e. bites and scratches like a wolverine.
Not in a public place? I don't like to say it, but you may have to kill the motherfucker. If you're unarmed, then just tear out a major artery, and if you're armed then throw away your weapon then tear out a major artery.
I'm sorry if this stuff offends, but when it comes to criminal behavior, there is no law.
Let me repeat that for the few people in the back who didn't hear me,
When you're defending yourself againt criminal behavior, there is no law .
The law comes afterwards, when you've called the police and reported an "attempted mugging".
I know. I've been under assault twice now for just my wallet, and I've damn near taken a poor stupid bastard's head off.
When it comes to crime that effects you personally, you are the law until the police arrive. The bleeding body of the would-be assailant is just another report to file for the police.
Te Quiero, Puta!
I'm a Texas Certified Concealed Handgun License instructor.
Concealed Handgun License Courses in Plano, Texas
This sort of thing rarely ever happened in the UK a decade ago, and is a direct result of Blair's New Labour government letting hundreds of thousands of economic have-nots into the country legally and illegally. Often they do not share our sense of right and wrong, come from violent cultures, and rather than find a job they sap our benefits, supplemented with drug crime and robbery proceeds. If this crap is allowed to go on there'll be civil war, guns or not.
Eh? If the person being mugged had a gun, how would it have helped when someone had what he thought was a gun pressed to the back of his head?
My point is that criminals don't obey gun control laws so all such laws do is make the criminals reasonably certain that their law-abiding victims are unarmed. In this particular situation being armed wouldn't have helped the victim much, but perhaps the criminal would have been less brazen if he was uncertain of that?
Alternatively the Brits could try novel approaches like long jail sentances for armed criminals. But when the state isn't doing its job then having something like the Second Amendment is really, really useful. And since making the state do its job is easier said than done...
Also, note the linked-to article's point as to why British crime statistics are bogus.
Currently (10am @ GMT -4) on the main page of Slashdot you can read this blurb:
9 282165,00.htm
"CNET reports that the British Government today attributed the country's 22% rise in street crime to iPod robberies. This has hit CNET close to home. Guy Cocker, a CNET (Gamespot) journalist based in London, was mugged last week. The muggers held 'a semi-automatic weapon to the back of Cocker's head and told him, "we're taking all your stuff"'. CNET's solution to the problem is suggestions on how to conceal your iPod from attackers. These include 'The gaffer tape method,' 'The Coke can method,' and 'The Christopher Walken method.'"
This links to the original story on CNET here:
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/digitalmusic/0,39029432,4
The introduction to this is incorrect based on the CNET story that is attributed. Here is why:
"CNET reports that the British Government today attributed the country's 22% rise in street crime..."
The article actually says:
The papers this morning would seem to agree with Cocker. "Rise in crime blamed on iPods", yells the front page of London's Metro. "Muggers targeting iPod users," says ITV. This is the reaction to the government's revelation that robberies across the UK have risen 8 per cent in the last year, from 90,747 to 98,204. The Home Secretary, John Reid, attributes this to the irresistible lure of "young people carrying expensive goods, such as mobile phones and MP3 players". A separate British Crime Survey, however, suggests robbery has risen by 22 per cent, to 311,000.
The tagline says:
"...CNET (Gamespot) journalist based in London, was mugged last week. The muggers held 'a semi-automatic weapon to the back of Cocker's head..."
The actual article says:
"...Crave, was mugged ten minutes away from the CNET offices here in central London. His assailants held what _felt like_ a semi-automatic weapon to the back of Cocker's head..."
[Note: emphasis is mine]
The introductory blurb attributes a percentage to the wrong group and states it as if it were fact. The introductory blurb statues that a semi-automatic weapon was used in Central London?! This is _not_ a common occurrence in London. So uncommon in fact I highly doubt this claim.
"Cocker told us, "I chased them -- two of them threw me against a wall and took everything. It's lucky I didn't have my usual stash of gadgets on me -- my iPod, my Archos AV500 or my laptop. Mugging in London is out of control. I had my Motorola L6 grabbed right out of my hand".
He _chased_ them. Two guys with a "semi-automatic" weapon. Wow! That does not seem like the smartest move. And, it just seems odd. Would you chase someone if they had a semi-automatic weapon? In addition, he didn't even have an iPod on him, but the whole thing implies this starts because his iPod was stolen!
This is a clear-cut example of how information gets massively and quickly distorted in the media. To the author, please resubmit your introductory blurb to clarify this story. Thank you.
It's in that place where I put that thing that time.
The quote from John Reid is 'This is largely driven by a rise in the numbers of young people carrying expensive goods' and 'Whilst that is the reason, it is not an excuse' Sounds like /. is submitting articles from the Sun/Daily mirror?
You know ... the one line in the posted article ... ... ... ... could have been a finger for all he really knows. Not to minimize his ordeal but ... I think the omition of that one word in the SD story was a nice way to get things noticed.
The muggers held 'a semi-automatic weapon to the back of Cocker's head and told him...
VS:
The ACTUAL line in the article
His assailants held what "felt" like a semi-automatic weapon to the back of Cocker's head and told him...
Make things awfully different
Typical Slashdot (or insert just about any other news agencey name here) Sensationalism, who knows what the guy actually had to the back of his head
I don't think he was saying "don't listen because of thieves", I think he meant "give your ears a break once in a while". Personally I'm sick of having to avoid people, when I'm on my bike or in my car, who can't go two feet without pumping music into their heads. It becomes a safety issue when they can't hear me say "on your left!", "WATCH OUT!", or hear my car horn. Evolution in action I guess.
You can't use the Dirty Harry method.
I'm Swiss.
The reason for the vast amount of guns in homes over here is simple: All males are forced to do military service, and they get to store the weapon at home. That means to things:
Hence, we do not have too much trouble with these gun, despite the fact that almost everyone has one.
Nevertheless, a huge amount of crimes involving guns are committed with guns given out by the military. Most of these are a result of trouble in relationships, and a lot of these crimes would not be committed or would not end deadly were it not for the fact that everyone has a gun and ammo at home.
You might also note that a significant percentage of UK "gun crimes" involve shotguns and are not the "mudered by a stranger with a sidearm" stereotype.
Luck has nothing to do with it. All it takes is practice.
I would have been skeptical too, but I watched a demo using revolvers loaded with Simunition. The cartridge is loaded with a paintball pellet, and the only propellent is a primer. Muzzle velocity is a couple of hundred feet/sec -- it will sting, but not do any damage unless you are hit in the eye.
The "robber" was EXPECTING the "victim" to resist, but the "victim" drew a handgun from a concealed holster and shot the "robber" six times before the "robber" could react.
And that was despite being face-to-face where the "robber" could see exactly what was happened. If the robber is behind you, it actually makes it easier: he can't see what you are doing and you don't have to aim at that range. If he has friends, you just make sure that the one with the gun is disabled. The rest will run away screeming like little girls.
The key is to take advantage of the assailant's reaction time: the amount of time it takes him to recognize what is happening and do something in response. With practice, almost anyone can disable an attacker within that interval of time -- but only if they aren't deprived of the most effective tool to do so.
C'mon, this is slashdot, how many of you have been here for more than a year? You should know this stuff by now!
When an article says "blamed on iPods", you can pretty much bet that it wasn't blamed on iPods but the other headline is "better" as it gets more page views. Those that do actually RTFA will actually learn in this case that the increase is the rise in simply the value of what we carry. This article stems from a report in UK news this morning. Here's what was really said:
Do you see iPod in there? No? Didn't think so. :-) In other (made-up) news, an increase in car ownership has led to an increase in car crime. Jings crivens, jesus save us!! Next we'll be saying that pocket watches are bad because the likes of Bill Sikes steal them. Might as well ban books while we are at it.
WRT comparing UK and USA gun laws, don't bother. It's apples and oranages. Gun control does not work in the US as the people just love firearms and the criminals already have them. It works in the UK because we don't get a stiffy over gun metal and none of the criminals have them. If the criminals all had guns and the people didn't, then we could start comparing. But the simple fact is that most people in the UK will never even see a gun on these shores outside of .22s at village fairs. They just aren't an issue to us right now. Whether that changes in future is a different question altogether; it depends on the numbers being smuggled in verses the numbers being thrown in lakes or breaking down.
It sure is a good thing that the UK has over 4 MILLION CCTV CAMERAS WATCHING THE PEOPLE. All those ipod owners can rest easy knowing that in having given up their essential liberties they are now safe and protected from such criminals.
:(
Right?
Right?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Ah, so... 2.95 feet per metric, eh? Good to know.
Fighting fire with fire does work. It's called a backfire, and is used to deprive the main fire of suitable fuel.
That's what continues to irritate me about these discussions -- it's about environment and culture, not about individual gun ownership. Yes, if someone sticks a gun to the back of your head, you have no opportunity to draw your own weapon. On the other hand, the three or four people that see the whole thing and are usually too scared to interfere could instead pull their guns out and contain the criminals until the police arrive.
If that scenario were likely, it would be a powerful deterrent to many "common" criminals. By makin it very risky to commit such crimes, the benefit -- that is, the motivation to commit the crime -- erodes. That leads, in theory, to lower crime. Of course, it's not as easy as "give everyone a gun": people need to be properly trained, required to maintain their training, and a host of other logistical difficulties.
It also wouldn't eliminate the most violent breed of criminal, of course. However, reduction in "routine" crime does free up resources to pursue more dangerous criminals. When did we all become such pansies that we choose to rely solely on the police for protection instead of protecting ourselves and each other?
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
Whatever the influence of iPods on UK street crime, the back of Cocker's head has to be commended for being able to determine whether a gun is semi-automatic or not, especially given the duress he felt he was under at the time.
On a more serious note, no one in their right mind would use a real gun to steal an iPod in the UK. The sentences for gun crime in the UK are disproportionate - ten year sentences are not uncommon - to the financial gain involved in the theft of an iPod. That's not to say the back of Cocker's head was mistaken, or that the inside of his head was functioning when he handed over the iPod--pistol-whipping hurts whether the firearm is real or fake, automatic or otherwise.
Hide it in your Oakland Raiders Starter parka.... muggers don't seem to care about those anymore.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
That bloody Pete Doherty! He and a barely-disguised Kate Moss willl roll you for drugs money just like that mate!
Very insighful sir! Your logic and reasoning are top notch, but let me propose a different contest. You and I both buy homes in the ghetto. We then put large plasma TVs in the front windows and otherwise make it obvious that we have a lot of expensive stuff in the house. I'll protect my house with a shotgun and you can protect yours with a phone that can be used to call the police. We'll see who survives longer (or who survives at all).
From TFA, "They then took his Motorola L6 Slvr (iTunes compatible). Cocker told us, "I chased them -- two of them threw me against a wall and took everything. It's lucky I didn't have my usual stash of gadgets on me -- my iPod, my Archos AV500 or my laptop." We have learned these facts, to wit: 1. They stole his iTunes compatible phone. Yawn. 2. He did not even have his actual iPod with him at the time. 3. HE CHASED THEM DOWN and got more stuff stolen. Suddenly the article is not so compelling.
The bit about restructuring society so these things don't happen made me laugh. I live in a fairly nice neighborhood where people leave their front doors unlocked and garage doors open all day. Sometimes somebody will steal something but it's so rare it's not an issue for most people around here.
Fifteen years ago, a neighbor murdered his wife during a divorce proceeding. Hard to see how you restructure rage and jealousy out of society. Around the same time there was a 5 year old kid who was uncontrollable. The kid had a sibling who was fine but this kid was trouble at any gathering. You could feel sympathy for the parents because you could see them doing what any of us would have done and nothing worked with this kid. At 20, he's in jail for invading someone's home and pistol whipping the occupant. He had a sidekick, also from this neighborhood, who isn't very bright. He's in jail as well.
I just don't see how anyone could have done anything for that pair - some genetic combinations just don't work very well. They'll spring up in both bad and good neighborhoods. No matter how you structure a society, there'll be people that are not a good fit for that society.
When I walk around during my lunch, it amazes me how people are just oblivious to their surroundings. They walk around with their MP3 players cranked up all the way, or they're blabbing away on their cell phones, or they're playing games on their PSP or DS, or they're reading a book. These are the same people that almost get hit by a car while crossing the street, or bump into other people, or get mugged. Countless times, I'm walking behind someone and I think how easy it would be to jack their stuff forcefully or just grab n' dash. Listen up people.. we live in fucked up times. You should assume that people are out to get you and your stuff. And sometimes it's not about thievery and greed. There are people that mug or steal just for kicks or just to be assholes. So be aware of your surroundings and be more discreet about the electronic gadgets you carry around with you.
What is wrong with an oppressed, unemployed and starving person who comes across someone displaying a token of obvious wealth simply taking it? The iPod is probably worth more in a pawn shop than this person normally sees in a month of panhandling. If they take a wallet as well, they are likely to be able to rip off some merchants until the credit card gets canceled. Which if you are kind, you will wait a couple of days to report. After all, you aren't going to lose anything on it - just the merchants.
It isn't like these people were ever going to be able to go out an buy and iPod so we can't count this as a lost sales opportunity. Besides, they are helping the local economy by trading with local merchants after exchanging the iPod for cash at the pawn shop.
What about the victim? Well, you have insurance, right? If you are silly enough to put up a struggle, remember that to you it is an iPod and to them it is eating for the next week. Who is more motivated here? So you better not put up a fight because they will win. They likely as not have nothing to lose other than maybe a few years more of living as an oppressed, unemployed starving street person. You, on the other hand have everything to lose.
Crime is crime, period. Teaching people to disrespect some laws teaches people to disrespect all laws in general. Besides, as some have correctly pointed out, this is how people have always lived. The rich are there to support the poor, voluntarily or involuntarily.
It's nice to see tha gun control has been so successful in the UK. Keep up the good work!
Syncerus
"Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
-
Here's how it would've worked if the person being mugged had a gun. Upon having a gun pressed upon his back and being asked for his iPod, he would've said, "Sure, here you go." Then when the mugger turned around and ran, the man would've turned around, pulled out his gun, shot the mugger, and then walked over and taken back his iPod. Clear enough?
Of course, in such a situation, the mugger would've also been aware that it's possible that his target could also have a gun, thus lowering the likelyhood that the mugger would've tried to mug him in the first place.
You yourself didn't actually do that did you? The US has significantly higher number of firearms related deaths according to the paper you just pointed at. Even in proportion to its higher population. Firearm-related deaths (Table A.10) United Kingdom 1999 No. 197 Rate 0.3 United States of America 1998 No. 30419 Rate 11.3
Let me lay out the logic of the other side here:
Strategy = "give over your money and stuff to mugger-with-gun"
Result Odds
loss of $ 100%
loss of life <<1%
Strategy = "have gunfight with mugger-with-gun"
Result Odds
loss of $ same as next result
loss of life for average person = 50%, for trained person =~=10%
Now it doesn't even start to matter if you can take that last percentage down to 5% or even 1% (btw, what makes you think that the average mugger-with-gun won't have some gun-and-reflex training?). To see that let's boil the issure down to its essential simplistic question: "Is your life worth the contents of your pockets?"
Even if we weight the value of the life and the pocket-contents with the various probablities, none of the probablities are even in the right order of magnitude to start making my pocket-contents worth my life. If one values life at like 10,000 times the value of the pocket-contents (which seems a rather low value to place on life), then one needs a 0.01% chance of death to start evening up the risk*what-is-risked numbers.
(C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.
I don't quite get it - people don't usually wave their iPods around like in the ads (or do they in the UK?). In any case 'hiding' one in a Coke can would be just as effective as putting them into your pocket (only less convenient). A would-be robber would either see the white cable and the earbuds or simply realize by the appearance and behaviour the other guy that he's dealing with an oh-too-rich yuppie.
In case this article was supposed to be a joke or something (considering the gaffer tape and C. Walken method) - sorry, I don't get that either...
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
Or, if you're a former marine, you pull a knife in the face of four assailents, two of which are armed with firearms. You kill one of your assailents, hospitalize another of them, and force the other two to flee on foot be arrested later. Happened in Athens, GA, wish I still had a link tot he news story. It incredible what can happen when a situation involves a trained and ready individual and a group who thought that a show of force would be all it took.
Or increasing the chance the bugger would shoot him after getting the ipod?
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
If you're honestly interested you may want to check out the PDF at gunfacts.info
Yes the site is biased, but at the same time all the facts they list are cited and most of them come from government studies.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
The UK outlawed guns and made defending yourself practically illegal, and the criminals have had free reign since. Noticed this criminal had a gun.
Because most muggers aren't looking to get anything other than the loot. They don't want a fight, they don't want to kill you, they want you to give them teh stuff and they want to run. An FBI study I read once found that of violent felons in jail, ~60% said they specificaly would avoid targets they knew to be armed (gun, knife etc) and 40% said they avoided targets they thought might be armed.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Well, the only proper solution, according to modern liberal thinking, is simply that nobody should have nice things right?
"Actually, it's a 'buck and a quarter' quarterstaff, but I'm not telling *him* that.
- Daffy Duck, "Robin Hood Duck"
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
Yes, but to quote Eddie Izzard,
"They say, 'guns don't kill people. People kill people,' but the gun certainly helps.... It wouldn't do much good to point your finger and yell, 'bang!...' I doubt that would kill anyone...."
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Actualy, from the USDOJ crime statistics. You are more likely to get hurt doing a violent crime (including mugging and robbery) complying or passively resisting than you are trying to defend yourself or actively resisting.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
1) Stay the fuck off the sidewalk when you're on your bike. It's there for pedestrians, not vehicles of ANY kind...
... you would have those "problems".
and...
2) STOP at the intersections, and stay STOPPED and OUT OF THE CROSSWALK when you have the red light and the pedestrians have the little green walking guy in *their* signal. You know... keep your car where it's supposed to be when it's supposed to be there, and respect and follow those pesky little things like right-of-way and traffic laws...
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
"UK Street Crime Rise Blamed on iPods". How can inanimate objects be blamed for a crime? Shouldn't the crime rise be blamed on the criminals who commit the crimes?
I should have addressed this in my original post, but...
The "statistics" that you are citing only imply a correlation, not a causation. If those statistics "proved" that carrying or possessing a gun is a magnet for trouble, then those same statistics provided even stronger "proof" that renting a house/apartment (instead of owning it) is a magnet for trouble.
Having read the source of your "statistics", my opinion is that people tend to buy or carry a gun when they feel they will potentially be a victim of a violent crime. While that fear may be irrational for some, there are many people for which it is reasonable, due to where they live or where they work. As a result, it's not surprising (to me) that people in a high-crime area would be more likely to own/possess a gun.
This is old news. People have been painting their headphones black, or buying a new set in black for years now, specifically to avoid being mugged for their Ipod.
l acing_ip.php
Example article from 2005: http://www.subtraction.com/archives/2005/0405_rep
It's interesting, but as you say, the site is biased. Yes, the figures are backed up with actual research but are they cherry picking? theey debunk a lot of statistics that aren't in their favour. Are the ones in their favour accurate? It's also a little US centric. Gun ownership is so common in the US that any form of gun control at this stage would be worse than useless. This doesn't in any way suggest that relaxing gun laws in the UK would be effective.
It does confirm one of my suspicions though - that concealed carry decreases crime. Personally, I think the most effective means of crime prevention would be to make carrying a firearm mandatory...
As a guess, DRM survives but looses his plasma TV, while Pete looses his plasma TV and is killed in the following shoot-out, since the robbers use AK-47s. Three other bystanders are also killed by stray bullets and shotgun blasts, and one child is killed by the police who turn up later and shoot at anything that moves.
Alternatively, both DRM and Pete move to England, where they both make it obvious they have a lot of expensive stuff in their houses, and as a result are not invited to join the local golf club.
And people only say a curt "Good Morning" to them when they meet them in the street.
After 6 months of this DRM goes off to borrow Pete's shotgun, and they both do the decent thing.
I thought it would be pretty sweet if Apple offered an iPod disabler. Since my music collection is mostly Wayne Newton (kidding) a thief is most likely going to need to hook it up to iTunes eventually. I'd gladly pay some money to Apple after my iPod got stolen to make sure the thing turned into a paper weight when someone tried to use it. If iPods got the reputation of being unable to be used after being stolen, black market value would drop and maybe eventually so would theft.
Solving newly introduced problems is left as an exercise for the reader.
Cheers.
You must not be a Britisher. From my experience they tend towards the more pretentious "whilst."
Nah, giving everyone guns won't help much. The criminals always have the initiative. They'll just take your gun from you or shoot you if you try to pull it out. It'll make things a bit more dangerous for the criminals in that there will be armed bystanders around, but then they'll just need multiple people to cover the bystanders in those situations.
I think you really just need to change the things that drive people to commit crime.
"If the government wants to put me in prison or kill me, having a handgun will not change that. "
Exactly. We've developed past the point where we can let everyone run around with guns. There wasn't the variety of guns available we have today, when the 2nd Ammendment was enacted.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
But, you make the false assumption that the criminals with the AK-47's won't shoot the unarmed homeowner, they often do.
You'are also assuming just because the criminals have AK-47's, that the home owner is out gunned...he too can have those or better weapons.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The average slashdotter that has no respect for IP laws expects others to respect their property. Very, very funny.
If you've read enough threads about IP issues here that you have an idea of what "average slashdotters" believe, and yet you still think illegal copying is equivalent to theft of physical goods, there's no hope for meaningful debate with you...
0 1 - just my two bits
I've seen cars with signs that say "This car has no stereo or other valuables inside." Maybe you just need to wear a cardboard sign that says "I have no Ipod".
Or, one that said "I'm from America, so I'm carrying a pistol, too."
The real question is why should British people have to conceal their possessions? Why should they have to live in constant fear of attack? What is the point of having a police force if they're not going to do their jobs and keep the streets safe for citizens? What's the point of spending billions of pounds on a big brother video surveillance system such as the one which blankets London if it doesn't make the streets safer?
What's WRONG with Britain?
Accidental deaths incorporates what exactly? As a conservative estimate, Murder-suicide deaths due to firearms in the US in 2005 accounted for 92% of 1200 (1104) deaths in 2005 (Violence Policy Center www.vpc.org).
It's a fact that following tighter gun controls in the UK, gun related deaths fell by 20% (UK Home Office, Criminal Statistics England & Wales, 1998; 3.10. Mar 2000), and that in Australia, where gun control laws are strict, people are 5 times less likely to die from a gunshot than an American. (Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, 2 Jun 1999)
It is not that people in Australia get into less fights or assaults. Bar fights and other grievances happen just as often in Australia as they do in the United States. However, with an increased likelihood of a gun being involved in disputes, a person is five times more likely to die as a result of the fight in the United States than in Australia. As mentioned above, it is much more difficult to stab or beat someone to death compared to firing a handgun, and is more easily prevented by bystanders.
It's perfectly reasonable to assume that provisioning yourself with weapons is the best way to defend yourself against attack, however:
= guns are far more likely to be used for suicide than in self defence.
No chance to defend - The reason for this is that responsible gun owners would not normally store guns within easy reach, whereas attackers will not give notice of impending attacks. Hence it is unlikely that guns can be used to prevent the majority of home invasions.
Availability - Lots of things can be used to commit suicide, granted. However, they are less intuitive and spontaneous than using an available gun, and generally require information gathering. If you're on a diet, a great way to NOT succeed would be to keep Coke in the fridge and chocolate on the shelf. Likewise, the availability of a gun in the home increases the chance of a suicide.
Another issue is that type of guns available in the States has no real restriction : large high calibre and semi-auto weapons are available, whereas these guns are not the defence weapon of choice for the home owner, and are far more likely to be used in a crime.
Further, the swimming pool question raised above is also one of policy. Quoting Australia again, since the introduction of compulsory pool fencing, pool deaths have averaged 60 per year over 1996-2001, and allowing for the greater population in the States, then that would be equivalent to 200 deaths : hence policy is the issue.
http://www.answers.com/defiantly
And there's no way to do it perfectly as long as guns are available somewhere, so most gun-control is half-assed, which just makes things worse.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Isn't it great how the total banning of all guns in England have eliminated gun related crime. Let's not forget the added benefit of it being illegal to use force to prevent a mugging. The proliferation of CCTV to monitor everything in public has turned England into a paradise.
-- Will program for bandwidth
I was editing my post and accidentally hit submit, so the firs para is missing a statement. Here it is in full (missing sentences in bold):
This is the type of naive thinking indicative of your overall approach to arguing. First of all, poverty IS a long-term phenomena. If you go into a store to buy lunch today and realize you left your wallet at home, are you in a state of poverty until you go back and get the wallet? I would hope you agree that that is silly. It would be a logically consistent definition, but utterly useless for the discussion we're having. Furthermore, poverty is about more than just the possession of goods and cash (just visit any farmer who owns a few thousand acres, lots of farm equipment, etc, but is still struggling to make ends meet). A good working definition of poverty would be something like: chronic lack of economic power relative to societal norms If that is the definition of poverty, it would be very counter-intuitive for common theft to ever elevate anyone from poverty. Indeed, if it worked at all you'd expect to find people who'd used theft to go from poverty to middle or even upper class lifestyles. At least in America, this would seem to be the exception.
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
Well it's all quite simple if we just make up a set of statistics to support our argument. Thanks! I gotta go put together some statistics to show that I've increased my productivity by 3300% before my upcoming review.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Jails are at the fullest in all of UK's history.
The UK is the European country with more people incarcerated, by any measurement you care to take (relative terms, absolute terms, you name it).
So in synthesis, you are believing all the propagand thrown at you. Most crime is between gangs of bored youths or criminals, the enormous majority of the population that is not looking for trouble never finds it.
As for your definition of "justice" you clearly missed 2 or 3 hundred years of human development. Lets hope that while you are in Dubai nobody acuses you falsely of a robbery, then you will know how fair the justice system in those countries is and wyou would wish that sentences could some how be reversed (as thery are in civilized countries, because human falibility is acknowledged. In Muslim countris they chop hand, etc because they believe the justice is given from god, thus there can be no mistakes by defintion. If you are happy with that, all the power to you. I frankly prefer a system that recognizes it is not perfect).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Some criminals don't obey gun control laws, true. But that's a very small 'some'; a tiny tiny proportion of them here in the UK. You certainly can't imply that every criminal you meet will have a gun. Whether that's because they can't get them, can't easily get them, don't want to risk carrying them, don't want to risk using them, or whatever, in general you won't be up against a firearm.
The gun control argument already has too many oversimplifications; please don't make it worse :)
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Next it will be Macbooks and then iMacs taken right from fanboi homes. Don't worry about the fanbois, they're usually rich and stupid enough to buy the stolen products from Apple again (and having them stolen again too).
Seriously, the crime statistics in England are a testimate to the civility and self-control and strong moral character of the British people.
... What is amazing is that it isn't even higher! Given that you get less time for violent crimes there than you would insulting a horse or given a traffic camera the middle finger.
Because you can basicly rob and violently assault anyone you want there, and the only one who faces any kind of real punishment is the victim if they defend themself.
As long as a violent criminal makes sure they don't say anything politically incorrect (in that case they can be charged with a hate crime, which really does seem to get punished), you don't have anything to worry about!
Sure, crime might be up in the U.K.
I would like to point out that if BOTH the major parties would respect ALL of the people's constitutionally protected rights then perhaps some of us wouldn't feel the need to stock up for Civil War 2.
Rather than have a serious discussion about the causes of crime, or perhaps use our pulpit to motivate for long-term (long-term = communist) solutions we can just do a tounge in cheek article about hiding things. Because we all know that people would rather invest their time in hiding goods and watching over their shoulders all the time than consider real long-term solutions to crime.
I also find the "semi-automatic weapon" claim a little weak since as he said he chased after them and never positively identified the gun, if there was one.
Could you say more about the controls on the AG-3's in Norway? My understanding of the situation in Switzerland -- from a Swiss exchange student in high school -- is that not only are the military rifles not concealable, but the ammunition is kept in sealed boxes that are inspected yearly. My friend claimed that the penalties for breaking the seals (if Switzerland isn't being invaded) are extremely harsh.
In short, my friend's impression, as someone who grew up in Switzerland and lived for several years in the US, was that there was *much more* gun control in Switzerland than in the US. He thought it was hilarious that people bring up Switzerland in this context -- the `Americans are morons' flavor of hilarious. So I'm not particularly impressed by an appeal to Switzerland as an anti-gun-control argument.
if he can tell the feel of a semi auto gun just by having it placed to the back of his head.
how is this news? nerd gets robbed by tough guys....nothing to see here, move along.
The muggers could act in groups which makes it impossible for the victim to shoot all attackers before one of them pulls the trigger.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Yes. It's called Switzerland.
1. All Swiss males are required to serve in the military.
2. All Swiss military personnel are required to keep their personal weapons and ammunition in their home, ready for immediate use.
3. Switzerland has some of the lowest crime rates in the world, and nearly half of those crimes are committed by foreign visitors.
Indeed, what about police? Can they be blamed?
I understand that this article is talking about the UK, but I am going to reply to your comment from the US perspective anyway.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no Constitutional requirement to prevent crime of any type. They investigate crime and apprehend suspected criminals, only. ACLU press release concerning one case related to this. There are several other cases on this topic also.
A cop standing on a street corner watching a mugging in progress has no legal requirement to stop the crime in progress. He should, however, watch carefully in order to make a proper identification to assist in apprehending the alleged perpetrator after the crime occurs.
Don't you just love how things work in the US?
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
I would say that the UK has closer cultural links with the US than either Switzerland or Norway.
Besides, both those countries have much higher suicide rates; often with legal guns and equally tragic and difficult to understand for surviving relatives.
Hmm, I wonder where the gang-bangers in DC get their guns. Because in Virginia (right freakin' next to DC) they're really strict about their gun laws, aren't they?
I don't think they even let you fire your gun wildly in the air when you're driving. Sheesh, talk about the crazy VA liberals.
I propose a new law banning the sale, private ownership and carrying of all portable music players. We will call it "Guy's Law" in memory of Cocker.
That's right... It's the iPod's fault that street crime is rising. Heaven forbid that we actually point the finger of blame at the home office who can't seem to sing the same song about their policies for two years running. Gods forbid that we blame the criminals who do the mugging... No, let's just blame the victims for having nice things.
I guess this is the same as all those whores in skirts who get raped. They were just asking for it, right?
My point is that criminals don't obey gun control laws
Then why aren't those anecdotes in the article about shootings? Most criminals in the UK don't have guns. The point isn't to stop every criminal having one, but to reduce the number significantly and it does seem to work in the UK.
so all such laws do is make the criminals reasonably certain that their law-abiding victims are unarmed. In this particular situation being armed wouldn't have helped the victim much, but perhaps the criminal would have been less brazen if he was uncertain of that?
You seem to have missed my point about UK (lack of) gun culture. The attitude to guns is very, very different to the US. The public were very much behind the handgun ban, partly because almost no members of the public owned them when they could. The deterrent factor is only going to work if 1) the criminal is rational and 2) there is a good chance the potential victim actually will have a gun. Without that it doesn't help.
Most violence in the UK is done my young men attacking other young men. Some of it is muggings, and some gangs, but a lot is drunk guys on a Friday or Saturday night (some places the police just turn up every weekend because they know there will be trouble). The thought that these guys could be carrying is pretty scary since they wouldn't be deterred by the possibility of someone else being armed since they a drunk and looking for trouble.
Alternatively the Brits could try novel approaches like long jail sentences for armed criminals.
Aboslutely. I would also like to see something like the three strikes system.
Also, note the linked-to article's point as to why British crime statistics are bogus.
It said why the author thought they were bogus, but I didn't see actual proof. While I don't completely believe the statistics provided by the government there are other sources, and I don't think the police are hiding bodies to fix the murder rate.
I'm not necessarily opposed to citizens being armed, but I really don't see it helping at all in the UK at the moment. Most of the people who would get guns would be young men who think they are cool, and most likely to do something stupid with them.
The only way I could see it working is with some sort of big public eduction campaign to get "normal" people not to be afraid of guns and regard them as a tool they should get trained with and carry, rather than some evil scary thing or cool fashion accessory. Politically though that would be suicide, relaxing gun controls and encouraging even responsible ownership would so unpopular.
The quote missed out the words "what felt like" before the description of the "weapon".
How, exactly, does the feel of an automatic gun (as applied to the back of one's head) differ from that of a pointed stick?
Here in the UK, we are in the midst of a fear-of-crime epidemic, NOT a crime epidemic
A
Time is life: speed saves it. LJK Setright
People hold up banks all the time by just PRETENDING they have a gun. You don't need a gun (nor does every bank robber use a gun) to hold up a bank.
You need a gun to take hostages, but bank robbers are generally just in it for the money.
And people take out rooms full of people wil blunt objects all the time - all it takes is a few more people. Hence the rise of gangs.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And at the same time, it convinces definitely that if criminals want to commit crimes, they have to use guns since most people have them. That's hardly good. I've been robbed in Portugal. How? Threatened with a mere (compared to a gun) butterfly knife. If everyone and their dog had a gun, do you think that would happen? No, I'd be threatened with a gun. By the way, how often does the scenario you presented happen in, say, the USA? Are criminals so stupid to not even try to threaten people who are alone? And even if they are, that doesn't solve anything about the other problems of guns.
A theory confirmed how many times in practice?
What about the fact that if everyone has a gun, they're much more likely to be tempted to use it in any stressful or intense situation? And don't tell me humans are responsible enough because on those contexts they aren't. So don't come talking about "backfires" when the problem is much larger than that.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
By the way, the thought of being threatened with a gun and then have 3 or 4 more people toting guns around me (even if they're friendly) doesn't make me feel particularly well, even if it's better than the alternative. But I think we should aim for an higher level of peace. Many countries do it so don't tell me it's not possible.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Further, I'd say the "is it really a good idea" question would apply even more to their described Christopher Walken method.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Definately usually makes things worse, and tightening control in areas where guns are presently widely available makes things worse every time.
I thought those were banned in the UK.
Oh ya, that law only applies to honest citizens, that no longer can defend themselves. Way to go UK government!
( yes i know its OT. so sue me )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Yes, but that's just stupid.
A single data point is not proof! Switzerland also has considerably lower littering rates, and better language abilities. Is this also down to their firearms policy?
Could the low crime rate actually be down to Switzerlands extremly high wealth and social policy meaning that the poor don't need to resort to a life of crime? Could the low crime rate mean that there hasn't been a perceived need for firearms controls? Could it be that universal firearms ownership reduces crime, whereas the level of ownership in the US doesn't?
The crime rate in Japan is even lower and they have strict gun controls. The gun crime rate in the US with lower restrictions is very high. Finland has high gun ownership and a large homicide rate. Why aren't they using all their guns to prevent these murders?
Quite frankly, looking at both sides of the argument, it seems that gun ownership is just a distraction. Legally available guns neither cause nor prevent a significant number of crimes.
The iStun is an instant stun gun to ward against unknowing attackers. Simply plug it into the dock port of your iPod Nano, iPod, or iPod Mini, and BOOM! you have a weapon against criminals who would seek to steal your Apple products. The iStun features an oscillator designed to impair any muscle movement in your attacker, as well as an integrated module for playing AM/FM radio. With a maximum voltage of 450V and enough current to spare*, it makes the perfect iPod accessory!
*Rated current 15mA at 450V for 6 seconds. Note: Using iStun will lower your iPod's battery life. Learn more about extending iPod's battery life here.The Coke can method
Get a Coke can, drink the contents, rinse out the can. Carefully cut the lid section off the can. Superglue a small magnet to the inside of the upper lip of the can so that it's flush with the open top of the can. Place the iPod inside and put the lid on the can. If you've cut the can correctly, the magnet should hold the lid tightly shut. Unless your mugger is exceptionally thirsty, they're unlikely to steal your Coke. Anti-mugger rating: 9/10
I don't know about the UK, but here in the US we haven't developed magnets that'll attract aluminum. Have the CNET guys been watching too much James Bond or do they still make Coke cans out of ferrous metal over there?
"Bother," said Pooh, as lightning knocked out hi%#&(F*@NO CARRIER
Glesga Kiss is a Glasgow slang for headbutt, also known as glasgow kiss ;)
Given that the only two countries in the world that mandate gun ownership have some of the loswest crime rates in the world, not counting suicide bombings, i would say yes there is. There is also Kennesaw, Georgia.
If you try to hide your iPod, you will stick out like a sore thumb. These people will be drawn to you because you are trying to hide something. The same thing goes for not using your ear buds.
Stop being such snivelling wimps and live up to your potential that God gave you.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
The UK crime wave of muggings is all about African immigrants, not iPods. Did you know London is less than 50% White?
It's a fact that following tighter gun controls in the UK, gun related deaths fell by 20% So after banning guns, 80% of gun deaths still kept happening? Wow. Sounds like an effective strategy...
Good point. You could argue, though, that it was very effective for the 20% now not dead that would have been previously. 100s of people saved counts for something. But if you look at the general scheme of things, in countries with tighter gun laws there is generally less overall murders, and definitely less involving guns. Look at the stats on Japan, Germany, Australia, UK etc and compare. Just fact: less murders, less other gun-related deaths. Sure, you could argue that the higher numbers in the states are not the product of guns but poor drug policies and/or other reasons... and you could very well be right. However the isolated facts remain: those countries with stable governments and tighter gun laws have less murders, and less gun related deaths.
Having "solved" the "gun problem" by disarming law abiding citizens, the UK Home Office moves on to pointy kitchen knives.
Classic.
I know. That does not contradict what I wrote. All males are forced to do military service by law. Obviously, there are exceptions, for example if you're physically or psychologically incapable of doing it. Which more and more people are (or claim to be).
By "actual evidence", I meant proper evidence, not vague anecdotal evidence. Some of the countries with even lower crime rates have essentially banned firearms.
It's all nonsense, of course. Gun ownership laws have little or nothing to do with any crime rate. I loved an earlier post when someone claimed Americans needed the threat of deadly force to be polite! Americans will claim anything to keep their guns.
The point is in fact the reverse of what the pro-gun lobby say it is. You have a high crime rate in your country if your citizens have a high percentage of criminals, and a low one if your citizens are law-abiding. The Japanese and Swiss are law abiding, so they have low crime rates. Gun ownership is irrelevant.
The Americans are generally pretty criminal, so they have a high crime rate. Giving them guns means they kill each other. Give them cheque-books and they will defraud each other.
What this shows is that the Japanese and Swiss are mature and trustworthy enough to be allowed dangerous things like guns. The average American can't be trusted with a pointed stick, and they should be shunned by the rest of the world until they grow up a bit. As a country, I put a lot of it down to the fact that they have little history, and lie about what little they do have. They really are a lot like three-year olds in a grown-up world.
I was going to suggest that Americans could help themselves by banning guns in their country, but it would be much better for the rest of the world to encourage American weapons ownership. The less Americans there are around the better for the rest of us, and it doesn't really matter who kills them.
Think about it for a minute. Done? Ok, then. Hopefully you realize, now, that many of your objections are focused on the way things are in the US today -- which pretty much everyone agrees isn't great -- rather than how they could be, which is what we're talking about.
Here's a perfect example: it doesn't happen today, because despite statistics and media attention, there aren't that many people who carry weapons. However, in concealed-carry states, that type of scenario does happen. It usually makes the local news, but "man with gun scares off would-be attacker" doesn't tend to make national headlines. And no, it doesn't happen often: but, if people were properly trained and armed, it might.
Yep, that's true. And since criminals are part of "everybody", they will have been trained to use it. Everything is a tradeoff. The idea isn't to eliminate crime, it's to control and contain. Gun training teaches you in a very visceral way exactly how dangerous and lethal a firearm can be -- most criminals are not violent sociopaths, despite the media circus. Your argument ends up a straw man, for the same reason as the argument against stronger ATM security -- now, people just have to guess/observe your PIN: if you make fingerprint scanners, people will just cut off your finger or threaten you. That argument falls apart because the willingness to steal some money is much more common than the willingness to hurt someone to steal money. And, it's higher risk to use threats to get someone to cooperate. That's why there are fewer muggings than other kinds of theft.
The idea is that a well-trained, armed citizenry is -- to a large extent -- its own police force. You get the same advantages (and the same disadvantages) as having a large number of armed police mingling with the public, which is what so many gun-control advocates cite as the solution to crime.
My point isn't "we should all have guns": it's that an armed populace isn't automatically an unsafe situation, and that trusting only the police to have weapons -- and thus the ability to protect us -- is just plain stupid.
Yep, that will happen more often. Good training mitigates that significantly, but can't stop it. So, there will be people who snap (just like now), and those people are more likely to use a gun when they do. It's a tradeoff. However, I think a lot of people inflate this in their mind: I carry a fairly large (legal length for concealment) knife. There are times when I've been extremely angry or in an intense situation -- but the knife stays in my pocket. The vast majority people are capable of exercising enough self-control to avoid using a knife/gun in anger in the majority of situations. Yes, tradgedies would occur (they do now), and the rate would probably go up -- but it would still be an edge case.
This has been answered so many times! Go do your research, there are plenty of references in this /. story thread alone to get you started. The trend is that places that allow concealed ca
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
You are seriously overestimating what even an Uzi can do if you think you can go into a bar and kill more than a handful of people before you are gunned down (if they also had guns).
More than likley the uzi would hit one guy, the recoil would send it into the ceiling, and a nearby patron would deck you over the head with a chair. Sorry to burst your hollywood inspired fantasy of what an Uzi can actually do.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Of course, I guess if it's an automatic pistol, the barrel enclosure might be distinguished from the barrel of a revolver, but still that takes some lucidity in a tense moment to put all that together.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
Well, it was a guess. If you're interested, the longer version had both DRM and Pete waking up and coming downstairs....
.38 in the lung...
DRM (unarmed) walks into the room and shouts "Hey, what are you doin..". He then gets pistol-whipped unconscious and suffers a depressed skull fracture, but the criminals are not stupid enough to draw attention to themselves by letting off a round. Why bother? Noone goes out with the intention of killing a stranger, though they would be happy to do so if that would benefit them. They ship the TV out of the window and disappear into the night.
Pete is initially quite lucky. He comes down with his shotgun (He would have liked a bigger weapon, but the original post did specify a shotgun, and it's ok for short range work.) He suprises the robbers, and gets off a round before they are ready for him. He hits one, left low on the chest. The robber's kevlar jacket (he came prepared) deflects much of the blast, but enough pellets get under the edge of it to give him a bad wound to the abdomen, and down he goes. The shotgun turns out to be useful after all!
Pete is also lucky to duck back into the hall as the rest of the robbers let fly a hail of bullets at the door he came through, and, unusually, the hall wall is concrete and fairly bullet-proof. He fires the shotgun again unsighted through the remains of the door in the general direction of the robbers, and scores a direct hit on the plasma TV (I said he lost it, not that it was stolen!).
The robbers have now got out through the windows - we are on the ground floor. They have pulled out their wounded colleague Mario, who is the brother of one of them and the cousin of another. So now it's personal. Mario crawls to the car, while the rest run round the side of the building and one of them empties the rest of his magazine at some movement behind a likely looking window. That actually turns out to be the next apartment, and the shots kill the two old occupants who were trying to hide in the wardrobe.
One of the gang shouts that the police will be here soon, and the gang pause, but that shout has given Pete a rough target position and he fires again through his window. He's shooting from the floor, the shot goes high, through the next block window, and into the back of a young mother who is trying to get her baby out of his cot. (The press will later make much of her heroic 'defence' of her children, though at the time she thought the shots were a block away). Again, we are lucky it was a shotgun - an AP round would have killed the baby as well.
Now the gang have the broken window as a target. Two more members empty their magazines into it, and then run for the car. Funnily enough, Pete is not hit directly by any of the rounds (he was on the ground) but has a neck artery cut by a ricochet, and dies waiting for the ambulance.
Quiet descends after the car screams away, with just a single baby wailing from the opposite block. Noone in the neighborhood wants to put their head out of the window. Then slowly the chaos begins to grow - a screaming aunt and husband in the opposite block, Pete's wife (did I mention he was married?) having hysterics upstairs, two boys arguing with each other about what they saw...
After ten minutes (which seems like an age), a squad car rounds the corner at the top of the drive and squeals to a stop by the front of the apartments. The officers get out slowly, but jump into the doorway when a girl from the second floor yells that there's a gang fight in the block. The police kick in the door (it was actually unlocked), and cover the corridor of the block from which all the screaming is coming (and which is, of course, not Pete's block at all). One of the two boys who have been arguing (and who is a bit annoyed at the second floor girl who first talked to the police) opens the door of his apartment to tell them that they are in the wrong place and receives a
I think you get the picture. I suppose the primary point I want to make is that those
They might die laughing.
I can't page through another 6 levels of gun-ranting, penis-deprived raves about how the UK would be just fine if they allowed all the naffies and biddies to carry AKs, all right? Why do I think of the handkerchief-headed guy on Monty Python with a submachine gun? What about the original story about iPods? Are THEY the cause of crime? God knows, I'm assaulted every other day with a 30 GB video iPod. There's a guy down the street and-- Well, the truth is, the original story is bullcrap. What the cops actually said was, teenagers have a lot of expensive cell phones and mp3 players in their pockets, and people are robbing them. But C/Net is the anti-iPod net, and every possible bit of anti-Apple and anti-iPod propaganda possible. Gee, I guess you'll have to buy the next "iPod killer," which will have an AK-47 attached (oh, when will Apple FINALLY put a firearm on their crappy iPod?), and you will be able to phone the cops, shoot the robber, and continue to listen to the latest pop hit as you wait for the the coroner. It was only an accident, in a way, that the gun nuts spotted a story about the gun dystopia in the UK, where the subjects of the crown are deprived of their right to carry mortars and tactical nukes, and thus they live in a hellhole of sick violence and crimes against property.
What is the race of the majority of muggers in the UK?
I might... then again I might also buy car insurance if it wasn't required. I'm helpful like that.
Actualy, they will threaten you with deadly force because most people confronted with deadly force will give in. Which are you more likely to give in too. The guy that steps in front of you and says "gimme your wallet" or the guy that steps in front of you brandishing a knife or gun and says "gimme your wallet".
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
No, becuase the US has several regions (DC, Chicago, parts of California) where people aren't allowed to have guns. Switzerland, on the other hand, is far more armed than the US and is considerably safer.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
By 'Small arms' do you mean IEDs made with Iranian semtex and/or spare artillary shells or are you referring to RPGs?
Do you know where I could stock up on a RPG-7 launcher and maybe a few dozen shells before the UN World Gubbment takes over?
Oh, wait - I forgot. All the marginally effective stuff is illegal for civilians to own. Hell, most civilian rounds won't even cut proper body armor.