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
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.
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.
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?
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
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"
(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)
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"
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.
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.
Up his ass.
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.
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"
I would reword the grandparent as:
When walking through dodgy parts of town, best to keep your wits about you.
Pumping loud music through your ears when you should be using your senses for protection and information is idiotic at best.
liqbase
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...
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".
Of course criminals should take the blame. But we also have to look a bit beyond that if we want to solve the problem. What I'm saying that given the question "what causes crime?" the answer "criminals" is completely useless because it's a tautology.
Yes, if somebody mugs me, I definitely want the bastard in jail, but simply catching people and throwing them into a cell doesn't solve the original problem.
Example: Let's suppose this guy was a heroin addict. In a moment of desperation he decided to mug me because that was the quickest way he could find to get the cash to get more heroin. Would he still have done that if he could get his drug cheaply (the war on drugs drastically inflates price)? Or take the requirement to pass a drug test to get a job. If you have an addicted person that needs money for rehabilitation and you close the legal ways for them to earn it, what options do they have left?
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If I had to listen to bagpipe music all the time, I'd probably buy a gun too.
Neither. This all stems from a report from the UK government about street crime. Nowhere is "iPod" mentioned. It does mention an increase in high-value items being an invitation for muggers, specifically "mp3 players and mobile phones". Any talk of iPods is just bad journalism or Apple astro-turfing.
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.
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.