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.'

97 of 799 comments (clear)

  1. Thank god in a contry by JamesP · · Score: 5, Insightful

    wthout those baaad baaad guns this would have never happened!

    Oh wait...

    --
    how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    1. Re:Thank god in a contry by Steve+Cox · · Score: 4, Informative

      In this particular case he didn't actually see a gun, he only thought it felt like a gun. Presumably there wasn't one involved because only a complete loon would chase after the muggers.

      The number of guns (and related crime) in the UK is steadily increasing year on year, however thankfully the numbers are still small. The lack of guns in the UK might go some way to explaining the fact that 'only' (ie still far too many) 46 gun related murders occured last year (that figure comes from the same report) in the whole of the UK.

      Steve.

    2. Re:Thank god in a contry by Azarael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That isn't bad, even in Canada where we are 100X less gun happy then in the US (I don't think I know any Canadians who own a pistol), there are close to 46 gun murders just in Toronto (100> murders altogether) per year. Law enforcement agencies seem to suggest that much of this is gang related though, I'm not sure how much of a problem that is in England.

    3. Re:Thank god in a contry by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is being murdered with a gun somehow worse than being murdered by having your brains smashed out of your skull with a blunt object? There are far more crimes committed with guns in the UK today than there were a century ago when anyone could buy a gun over the counter and anyone with ten shillings to spare could get a permit to carry one, no questions asked.

      The simple fact is that British people murder each other less than most other countries, regardless of what weapons are used. Guns are irrelevant.

    4. Re:Thank god in a contry by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 4, Insightful
      there were less people living here 100 years ago, and i would think the crime statistics figures from that period would have questionable reliability so you cant really make a sweeping statement like that. also different things were illegal then, so saying there are more crimes being comitted today might not be an indication of a more confident criminal, but perhaps there are more laws to break.

      plus, you can't hold up a bank with a blunt object, you cant kill people at (much of) a distance with a blunt object, and you cant take out a room full of unarmed people with a blunt object.

      if the american gun lobby is so sure that giving the general population guns will stop the government misbehaving, why isnt anyone storming the whitehouse with uzis, taking out the unelected emperor that stole control of their country 7 years ago?

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    5. Re:Thank god in a contry by Azarael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is why http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/12/26 /toronto-shooting-051226.html Convince me that this would have occurred if no guns were involved.

    6. Re:Thank god in a contry by operagost · · Score: 4, Insightful
      if the american gun lobby is so sure that giving the general population guns will stop the government misbehaving, why isnt anyone storming the whitehouse with uzis, taking out the unelected emperor that stole control of their country 7 years ago?
      Because the average gun-owning American is better informed and more level headed than the average Slashdot troll.
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    7. Re:Thank god in a contry by KarateExplosions · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hasn't anyone told you?

      The main purpose of having an iPod is so that you can display your hipster cred with the white earphones.

      If it was just about music and sound quality, cost, music format compatibility, and features, then there are other players that would win hands-down. But Apple has turned those white earphones into a symbol of "cool", and not displaying them negates at least half the reason so many people have them in the first place.

    8. Re:Thank god in a contry by glesga_kiss · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The simple fact is that British people murder each other less than most other countries, regardless of what weapons are used. Guns are irrelevant

      Nonsense. Guns make it so easy to kill that any retard can do it. That's the ultimate problem. It's the same interface as a camera; point and click.

      To murder someone with a knife or club you have to:

      1. Have big balls
      2. Get close
      3. Be strong enough to actually do damage
      4. Get covered in your victims blood(!)

      Compare that to shooting someone in the back from 10 foot away. Very easy in comparison. That's why people who cannot fight for themselves love guns. They are the pussies weapon of choice. Mine? Check my username... ;-)

      In terms of damage, dying from a knife wound is rare. You generally need multiple wounds or a lucky shot to a key artery or nerve. For a club you need to literally cave in some part of their body. A gunshot on the other hand will easilly pass through the rib cage into a vital organ. Or get one in the head to almost guarantee a kill.

      America's specific problem is the glorification of them in popular media. Guns are cool apparently. Hell, I'm mostly a pacifist but I'd love to fire off a few rounds on a range if I'm ever stateside. Thanks Hollywood!!

    9. Re:Thank god in a contry by glesga_kiss · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yeah, tell that to the elderly defending their homes from invasions. Tell that to the women protecting themselves from thugs and rapists. Tell that to the 12 year old that defended his entire family while three thugs beat on his dad while the wife and sister were tied up during a home invasion.

      Perhaps these may be a daily hazzard in the USA, I don't know, but I'd like to see you find an example that actually happened in the UK. You know, one where if an honest person had a gun the crime would not have happened. Oh, bear in mind that if we are in a situation where the honest person could have a gun, then the criminal almost certainally has one.

      Oh, and for each example you provide, I'll link to an example of a stupid fight over something pointless that had no fatalities. If both contenders had guns, one of them would almost definately be dead now. I'll start, 15 years ago I got attacked & robbed but there were no guns involved. Both of us are still alive, as are all of the bystanders (mostly children IIRC).

    10. Re:Thank god in a contry by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Because the average gun-owning American is better informed and more level headed than the average Slashdot troll.

      No, they are more easily controlled by their gov't, because as long as you give them their precious little guns, they will vote for you and not complain about anything else (mentioning God doesn't hurt either). One good troll deserves another.

      --
      If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    11. Re:Thank god in a contry by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      plus, you can't hold up a bank with a blunt object

      Really? I beg to differ. Have you ever been a bank teller? We were told to just give them the money regardless of what kind of weapon they had. Do you know how many banks are robbed with nothing more then a note saying "give me the money"?

      and you cant take out a room full of unarmed people with a blunt object.

      Seemed to work for the 9/11 hijackers. Granted, probably wouldn't work in the post 9/11 world, but the point is still valid. And what do you mean by "take out"? Kill or neturalize? Because if all you mean is "neturalize" then I can think of lots of convenance stores that get robbed by punks armed with nothing more then a knife. Yes, the people in the store could probably take him down. But is it worth getting cut for someone elses money?

      if the american gun lobby is so sure that giving the general population guns will stop the government misbehaving, why isnt anyone storming the whitehouse with uzis, taking out the unelected emperor that stole control of their country 7 years ago?

      Because half the population supports the "unelected emperor"?

      Hey, I'm not a big fan of guns either. I don't own one. But I don't see any harm in letting people own them either. Firearms have been a part of American history since the first Minuteman picked up his farmers musket and took aim at the Redcoats.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    12. Re:Thank god in a contry by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would rather...

      I highly doubt is the case ...

      Numbers aside...


      So basically your gut tells you that there is no way gun ownership could ever be a net benefit. You do indeed have the essential truthiness of the issue firmly in your grasp.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    13. Re:Thank god in a contry by Danse · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yes but it makes a barrier to entry for the mugging industry doesn't it? You have to have connections to be able to get a gun. So while organised crime will still be able to get guns, a low level street thug won't be able to until he is trusted. And mugging people is a lot harder when you don't have a gun. So instead of mugging people they go into selling crack or whatever, so they can get some connections so they can get a gun. But then once they have those connections they are making enough money off other crimes, they won't bother with mugging people.

      This is just retarded. Why wouldn't any street thug be able to get a gun? As long as there is money to be made, there will be someone looking to sell him a gun. Witness the war on drugs. Drugs are banned, but anyone can still get them anytime they want. If there is a demand, there will be a supply.

      It will also be easier to fight organised crime. Raid their social clubs or whatever, find some guns, put them all in jail for a long time for possession of illegal firearms. Then the gangsters will have to keep their guns stashed away, which means its less likely for there to be shoot outs in my neighbourhood.

      You watch too many movies. Just like with gun bans in many states, there are always exceptions for the rich. While many of them are vocally opposed to gun ownership, they can and do hire all the armed guards they want. Same thing would go for organized crime figures. They would have legal armed guards protecting them. They wouldn't have to carry a gun themselves.

      So let's review. Ban guns, and then only people willing to buy them illegally (also known as criminals) will have guns. It will have no discernible effect on the rich. The police still won't have the mandate or ability to protect the rest of us, and we can no longer own the most effective tools for home and self-defense. Sound wonderful.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    14. Re:Thank god in a contry by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "My point is that I don't think that any safety afforded by citizens being able to arm themselves is not worth it if tragedies like this are going to occur."

      Well, ok, if we took all the guns away...a psycho like this would figure out another way to inflict this type of violence. He could easily make a bomb and blow the bitch up...along with all the same bystanders this guy did with a gun....maybe more.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    15. Re:Thank god in a contry by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "There is still the issue of making sure that everyone is well informed about proper storage, handling, use and care for..."

      Hmm...when has this ever been the case...unless you want a carry conceal license, you never that I know of have had to show proficiency with a weapon.

      "still the cases of accidental discharge and unintentional shootings."

      Hey, accidents happen all the time, there are accidental stabbings, car accidents, etc. A gun is just a tool that can hurt you accidentally just like many other tools can...lots of shop teachers out there missing fingers you know...

      "if a case occurs where you are forced to defend yourself with a gun, you also run the risk of harming bystanders and damaging property. Let's face it, there are many people who are desperate enough that nothing will be a deterrent."

      I'd say you just made a very valid point for defending oneself with a gun. If you've got a very desperate person, that is not going to be deterred by anything, including the cops, which at best will still be 30-40 min away...you'd damned sure better have a gun and be a quicker better shot than he, just to have a chance at survival, otherwise, by your definition, you are toast. He IS likely to kill you...

      Cops aren't there in general to prevent crime, they are only there to invesigate it...if you don't want to be the chalk outline they are investigating, then you'd better be prepared to defend yourself, you family and property...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    16. Re:Thank god in a contry by RexRhino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, they are more easily controlled by their gov't, because as long as you give them their precious little guns, they will vote for you and not complain about anything else (mentioning God doesn't hurt either). One good troll deserves another.

      Can you tell me this party that you speak of? Cause I would like to vote for them! Both the Democrats and Republicans seem firmly commited to gun control.

    17. Re:Thank god in a contry by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, size isn't everything, but if you are 5'5" 140lb, then yes, you probably are a pussy. You need to either learn how to fight (martial arts?), or learn how to avoid fighting.

      Written like someone without a clue. I've trained in Kun-tow, Karate, Judo, Tae Kwon Do, boxing, and several styles of Kung-fu. My best instructor once said, "the bigger they are, the harder they hit." He's right of course. Body mass, strength, and the length of arms and legs makes a huge difference in a fight. My technique is much more sophisticated and practiced than some people who can probably wipe the floor with me because they have 60 pounds on me. The best fighter I ever sparred with was over seven feet tall and big into thai boxing. Getting close enough to hit him without being killed was almost impossible.

      The average person will not be able to win a fight against the average violent criminal. Most are men within a certain age range. Most have some familiarity with violence. Most people won't even be able to successfully run away from them. My father has a bad back these days. He will not win a fight or successfully run away from many people. My mother is an a wheelchair. By giving them each a firearm you make the average criminal too afraid to attack them, or even neighbors who may or may not have guns. Sorry, but learning to avoid being victimized is not an option for most people without access to appropriate weapons.

    18. Re:Thank god in a contry by Lars+T. · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thinking you invaded Iraq because they were responsible for 9/11 doesn't make you better informed.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    19. Re:Thank god in a contry by glesga_kiss · · Score: 2, Insightful
      UK Student dies in home invasion from gun shot to the head (Yes, I'm assuming you are from the UK)

      Thank you for proving my point. The incident you describe was in the USA. Either attacker or defender had a gun and as a direct result of that someone is dead. Exactly as I said.

      As I said, find me a situation in the UK where this happened. It just isn't a problem. Crime where the criminal has a firearm are extremely rare and heavily penalised by the court system.

      Now, if you want an example of a firearm being used to DEFEND, well, that would be harder as the UK has disarmed it's victims.

      "disarmed it's victims", love the language you are using. Did you get it off a pamphlet or do you do mislead people for a living? ;-) What is it you do, politics or marketing? :-)

      No, just an example where the defender would be better off if firearms were available. Remember, gun crime is rare in the UK. To find this example, you'd need to find a case where the attacker had a firearm and the defender would have had one if we had US-style gun ownership. Just meeting the former requirement will be tricky, gun crime is incredibly rare.

      I personally love the UK, but I have always (and will always) question the stripping of the peoples rights to defend themselves. Time and time again, I read articles about UK citizens being arrested for using whatever means it took to defend themselves while the criminal gets to sue them for loss of wages.

      We have the rights right now. You are hearing about the extreme cases. Like the valiant farmer who defended his castle and got time in jail over it. Of course, the pro-gun article you read would have omitted the fact that the person he shot in the back was running away as his shotgun had already done it's job and stopped the crime. The farmer decided in a fit of rage that he should execute the kid by shooting him in the back then letting him bleed to death overnight. There's a number of things wrong here; he wasn't threatened when he fired. He literally left him there to bleed to death. A shot in the air or a phone call to the police/ambulance would have kept that farmer out of jail. But frankly he was a dangerous murderer himself. He shot someone in cold blood and is paying for that crime. Once the details are known I fail to see the issue people have with this.

      As for criminals sueing; example please as I've not heard of it over here. Isn't it the USA that had the case of the burglar cutting himself on a knife an sueing?

      You question the need for guns. I understand, they are dangerous. But time and time again, they are used for defense (properly) and just the fact that criminals will ALWAYS have them (regardless of the law) shows the overwhelming need to let the citizens own them if they wish.

      No, it's not "overwhelming" by any means. Guns facilitate crime. Robbery with a gun is easier than robbery with a knife or a bat. Guns make kidnapping childs-play. Guns turn silly arguments into fatal incidents.

      The negatives of a gun-owning citizenry vastly outweigh the benefits.

    20. Re:Thank god in a contry by glesga_kiss · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Or female. Or disabled. Or have a disease like MS.

      How many disabled or MS suffering gun carriers do you know? Can they hold and fire the weapon safely?

      And I love how in your world the bad parts are clearly marked and the criminals never walk out of their little criminal ghetto.

      Avoiding crime is a piece of piss. It's all about not putting yourself in high risk sitations. Walking alone at night being one of them; hell it's been that way for hundreds of years in our society. The way you walk is important. Walk tall, don't appear to be an easy target. Don't look at the ground as if you are embarased. Bullies pick on the weak, they always have.

      I live in Glasgow where we do tend to have a lot of pointless fights. Fortunately we don't have firearms, so deaths are actually rare. However, using these techniques I have successfully avoided problems for fifteen years. This involves weekly walks home in the early hours through the city centre which is fairly high risk if you are on your own.

      Oddly enough, 33% of UK muders were caused by knives. I guess they aren't all that rare.

      100% of lottery winners are humans. I guess winning the lottery isn't all that rare. Nice logic mate.

  2. Oh I see by Carthag · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Oh I see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      > So it's our jobs' fault for giving us money that can be stolen?

      No, no! I't Jobs's, Steve Job's, fault for giving us iPods.

    2. Re:Oh I see by carpe_noctem · · Score: 4, Funny

      If only these poor, confused youths knew that you can just get iPods for free, we wouldn't be in this situation!

      --
      "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
  3. Blaming the iPod? by blcamp · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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
    1. Re:Blaming the iPod? by MrSquirrel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Charles Bronson will take out that trash (if only he were still alive). If you've never seen the Death Wish series, do yourself a favor and watch them. Then go out and kick some scum-bag butt. Or at least think about it, because it's the thought that counts.

      These criminals aren't too bright (then again, what criminals are). If I was going to rob someone using a gun (weapon charges tacked on to robbery in the states make it a much bigger offense - not too sure what the UK is like regarding that) I would be sure to get something a little more valuable than their iPod.

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
    2. Re:Blaming the iPod? by phlegmofdiscontent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's kind of like blaming a rape victim for wearing a low-cut blouse....

    3. Re:Blaming the iPod? by BenjyD · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think it's mainly confusion on the part of Labour - they just don't seem to know what to do about crime. One set of reforms boosts the importance of probation and attempts to replace long prison terms with better handling of offenders once they leave prison on licence, then the next reforms reverse that. None of it seems to be based on evidence or research, they're just guessing and reacting to whatever the tabloids say.

      My favourite quote that sums up Labour is "Labour see a problem and a headline, and they address the headline".

    4. Re:Blaming the iPod? by DRM_is_Stupid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The story bases its claim on one guy, John Reid, who started associating the rise in mugging with the rise in the number of people who carry expensive goods, such as mp3 players. (In a sense, he is equally blaming all MP3 players and mobile phones, etc, btw.) And John Reid just happens to be a member of the ruling Labour Party. The 22% rise in crimes couldn't possibly be the fault of the government now, could it? I mean, the gov't couldn't possibly be at fault for not being successful at hunting down these criminals who are in theory selling these stolen goods. Nor could it be the government's fault for not reducing poverty and unemployment levels in the UK to reduce overall crime. Or anything else the gov't could have done to prevent a 22% increase. No, it's the fault of those people who own expensive electronic gadgetry. Of course (expensive electronic gadgetry) gets replaced with (iPod). Those damned iPod owners for making the world a worse place.

    5. Re:Blaming the iPod? by Mr2001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a difference between assigning blame and looking for causes. Some of us Americans seem obsessed with finding one, and only one, person at fault for any misfortune, but that's not how the world works.

      If you're walking down a dark alley and you get mugged, of course it's the mugger's fault - but it is really a good idea to go walking down dark alleys? If you were the victim, would you say "Gosh, I had no idea it might be unsafe to walk there" and then go on to walk down the same alley the next day? I hope you'd be smarter than that. Obviously the fact that you were careless doesn't excuse the mugger, but it's stupid to be so careless and you may have a hard time finding sympathy.

      Same goes for a woman in revealing clothing in a seedy part of town: ideally you should be free to go wherever you want without fear of attack, but we live in the real world, and the fact is that certain actions will put you at more risk than others. Anyone who chooses to put themselves at risk is partially responsible for the consequences.

      And the same goes for people who walk around flashing their expensive gagdets. Sad but true.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
  4. Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Replace the earplugs with ones with black cables.

  5. Magnets?? by Alicat1194 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From TFA 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.

    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
    1. Re:Magnets?? by RedOregon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      On the off chance you're not just trolling or have lived in a cave for the past few decades...

      http://coke.fluidvision.net/manufacturing.htm/

      --
      Skivvy Niner? Email me!
      HEY! Look left just ONE MORE TIME!
    2. Re:Magnets?? by CXI · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is an article from the UK. They have steel cans in Europe, which confused the hell out of me when I first drank from one. They are heavier so I kept thinking there was soda left in it!

    3. Re:Magnets?? by bodger_uk · · Score: 2, Informative

      As I sit here, reading this, I am drinking a nice cold can of coke. On the side of said can is a nice circular symbol with alu in the middle of it.

      It is quite some time since the UK had steel cans. Can't speak for the rest of Europe however...

    4. Re:Magnets?? by The+Dobber · · Score: 2, Funny


      And you wonder why people have laughed at you for demonstrating your ability to crush beer cans?

    5. Re:Magnets?? by csteinle · · Score: 4, Informative

      While continental Europe tends to still have steel cans, they are almost always aluminium in the UK.

  6. the "Christopher Walken" method? by Paperghost · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was hoping it'd show you how to dance like a maniac then fly off into the sky :(

    1. Re:the "Christopher Walken" method? by GogglesPisano · · Score: 2, Funny

      At first I thought it meant that you should conceal your iPod within a Cowbell.

      "Guess what? I got a fever. And the only prescription...is more cowbell!"

  7. Here's a thought by DrXym · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about walking around without listening to music the whole time?

  8. 22%?? by Proud+like+a+god · · Score: 4, Insightful

    98,204 - 90,747 = 7,457 More

    7,457 / 90,747 = 8.2% Rise from the original level

    22%? WTF?

    1. Re:22%?? by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Funny

      They must have stolen his calculator too.

    2. Re:22%?? by tgd · · Score: 5, Funny

      Probably a metric conversion error. 7,457 metric crimes committed... thats 22,000 foot crimes.

  9. Defeating the object of an iPod? by fuyu-no-neko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  10. So who is to blame by Chrisq · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:So who is to blame by theStorminMormon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Poverty does correlate to higher crime rates. So do a lot of things - like lack of education. Poverty and education do not steal iPods, however.

      The GPs point was that even if you have a situation that may be favorable for increasing crime rates, the crimes are still committed by PEOPLE. If you have a libertarian bent, or if you belief in human autonomy at all, then in any given crime you blame the criminal FIRST.

      There's a belief out there that those with a more liberal bent tend to eclipse personal responsibility and act as though being poor somehow makes you less responsible for your own actions - less human. The response from those with a more conservative bent (e.g. me) is that if you're poor you have more to gain and less to lose from crime, but this means you have incentive to commit a crime. Having incentive to commit a crime is not the same as being forced to commit a crime. And so I, and many others, would consider the mugger to be responsible for the mugging.

      So poverty - which creates incentive - really should be listed as a separate issue then the personal responsibility of those who commit the crimes.

      -stormin

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    2. Re:So who is to blame by vidarh · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Well, I'm not "liberal" (whether under the European or US definition - here in Europe "liberals" are far from left wing).

      But that's beside the point - no, you are not being "forced" to commit crimes. However poverty breeds desperation, and desperate people do desperate things.

      That does not mean that they are not responsible. However it's just downright stupid to point the finger at the choices of individual criminals for the crime rates, which is what I responded to. The criminals are responsible for their individual crimes, not "street crime" in general.

      Society is responsible for the conditions that drive these people to make these choices, and poverty is the largest single driver for this kind of low level crime.

      If you want to discuss a single crime, then sure, we can discuss the choices of that criminal. But as long as the issue is street crime in general, the criminals individual choices are not relevant.

    3. Re:So who is to blame by BenjyD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your comment sounds dangerously logical and as such has no place in a discussion of British criminal system policy.

  11. Weapon? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Summary:

    The muggers held 'a semi-automatic weapon to the back of Cocker's head

    TFA:

    His assailants held what felt like a semi-automatic weapon to the back of Cocker's head

    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.

    1. Re:Weapon? by aallmighty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In what way did it feel semi-automatic???

    2. Re:Weapon? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Informative
      This has always bugged me a bit too... What's not semi-automatic about a double action revolver? It fires pretty much as fast as you can pull the trigger with no extra steps between shots.
      "semi-automatic" generally implies that some portion of the energy used to fire the previous round was used to 1) bring the current round into firing position, and 2) cock the hammer. With a DA revolver it's still you doing all that work, though through a mechanical contrivance that integrates it fairly seamlessly into the process of firing (i.e. pulling the trigger). The difference between the two has been blurred slightly of late by semi-auto pistols like the Glock, which use a spring loaded striker that's drawn back and released by the trigger pull, instead of a traditional hammer.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  12. I have a solution by Bin+Naden · · Score: 2, Funny

    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"
  13. This guy is amazing by kripkenstein · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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"

  14. Re:Bloody Bad Math! by Proud+like+a+god · · Score: 3, Informative

    I posted the fact that it's about 8% above, and found a BBC article that explains it's a 22% rise in robberies to 311,000, involving a 10% rise in gunpoint robberies and with street robberies and muggings jumping by 8%.

  15. Re:The Solution by Null537 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yeah, but the story in the US would be titled something like "City crime rate increasing for 10th straight year; homicide biggest crime increase"

  16. Re:How About the "Stick a Gun in Their Face" Metho by vidarh · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Yes, it is the UK, where practically noone ever get hurt by guns. Go read the WHO's World report on violence and death and compare the per capita firearms related violence in the UK compared to the US.

    (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)

  17. Re:The Solution by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 2, Informative

    If muggers knew they could get a cap in their ass, they'd think twice before committing these dastardly deeds.

    No they wouldn't. You see, over here (UK) we have a bill called the Human Rights Act. What it boils down to is that if you commit a crime then you can avoid jail because it's dangerous and infringes on your Human Rights.

    This also means that you could sue the police for shooting you.

  18. a light touch with the clue stick by ElephanTS · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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"
    1. Re:a light touch with the clue stick by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      this is largely an American idea "the right to bear arms"

      Actually, it's an idea from the English common law, which was preserved in America while England abandoned the traditional rights of Englishmen. Before the suppression of the Jacobites, there wasn't much dispute in Britain that free men are entitled to posess arms for their own defense.

      In America, we wrote it into our bill of rights, because having just overthrown our king about a decade earlier, we decided that placing a monopoly on armaments in the hands of government was a very dangerous idea.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:a light touch with the clue stick by russ1337 · · Score: 3, Funny

      having just overthrown our king about a decade earlier,

      Sounds like the work of terrorists....

    3. Re:a light touch with the clue stick by Fred_A · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't know about you but I'm all for the right of people to bear quarterstaffs.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    4. Re:a light touch with the clue stick by QuantumPion · · Score: 4, Informative
      1) Guns as personal protection

      What happens in a fist/knife fight? You can fight, or you can run (well, most of the time). What happens in a gun fight? You let the bullets fly. Shooting first is best, as every cowboy western duel has taught us. Guns are almost a 100% guarantee that more situations will come down to an actual fight, and that more people will be hurt. If they have the drop on you, you're equally SOL if you have a knife at your throat or a gun at your head. Yes, some hardened criminals have guns around here as well - but they're usually after bigger fish than the few dollars in your pocket. Your average street thug or wacko doesn't have a gun - and if they do they're very much so wanted by the police. "Shots fired" actually get real attention here, and with modern communication you can expect the cops to arrive in a timely fashion.

      What happens in a fist/knife fight when it is a 300 lb rapist versus a 100 lb girl? Guns are equalizers, they give anyone, man, woman, elderly, the ability to defend themselves. An armed society is a polite society. Anyone who has a concealed carry permit can tell you that being armed increases ones awareness to not get in such a situation where you might have to defend yourself. Most criminals don't have a death wish and don't want to get shot. Over 4 million times per year, armed citizens use their weapons to defend themselves from criminals. In the vast majority of these cases, the criminal flees once they see their target is armed.

      The world has moved on since the Dark Ages. Your (or any other witnesses) cell phone is a more powerful tool than the gun in almost every situation. There are really extremely few situations where you would have time to pull out a gun, and where the gun would be more efficient than the police. Either you have no time at all and would be shot, or you have run off, barricaded or hidden yourself somewhere and the police will arrive in time. It was a different time when you could be all alone on the farm in the countryside, and noone would help if you screamed off the top of your lungs.

      There are a few problems with relying on the government to protect you. Firstly, the average response time for a 911 call can be 5 minutes or higher. A criminal can mug you, rape you, or break into your house in far less time. If someone attacks you on the street, you won't have time to call 911 and wait for help. The idea that you could run and barricade yourself until the police come to rescue you is both rediculous and dangerous. There have been many cases where someone heard an attacker breaking into their house, they called the police, but they never came. Most famously, in 1981, this happened to three women who were brutally and repeatadly raped in their Washington D.C. home because the police never came. They sued the city, but the courts ruled that the police are not required nor responsible to respond or help any invididual, their duty is only to protect the public at large, meaning to catch and punish the criminal after they already robbed/raped/killed you.

      Do you own a fire extinguisher in your home? I assume you do, because it is a tool that can be used to save your life and your property. You could just rely on 911 and call them for even small fires that you could put out yourself. But then again, a small fire could grow and burn your entire house down before the firefighters arrive.

      2) Guns protecting "the people" from the government Sure, a bunch of guys with handguns could be the core of an army in 1776 or thereabouts. Maybe even well into the 19th century. Look around, there's fighter jets, bombers, tanks, artillery, mechanised infantry, machine guns, destroyers and battleships. Hundreds of thousands of men like that died on a single day in WWI, they'd last even shorter today. The closest thing they could mount to a defense would be trying to lead a guerilla war, but they couldn't hold any ground. Any armed revolution that wa

  19. Re:How About the "Stick a Gun in Their Face" Metho by RockModeNick · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  20. It'll turn out to be bogus by igb · · Score: 2, Interesting
    just as the `mobile phone theft' epidemic was bogus. Reports of the theft of phones rose. But thefts of phones as reported via the British Crime Survey (which interviews a large number of people and asks them what crimes they've experienced) showed essentially no such rise. Conclusion? People who had lost their phone (often not insured, and if you're a child, liable to piss off your parents) or wanted a new one (clearly not insured) were reporting them stolen. Result? A massive rise in reported crime. But when you interview people in a survey, who at that point have no incentive to over-report, the `crime' goes away. It's like the purported rate of burglary (as seen through reported crime) doesn't match the surveyed results: because the police are unlikely to turn up and do a forensic job over the tidy break in that did no damage and just took some consumer durables, it's safe to report even if it didn't happen. Insurance fraud is the crime that even the middle-classes think is victimless.

    ian

  21. The one place... by countach · · Score: 4, Funny

    "he hid it in the one place he knew he could hide somethin'"

    I give up. Where??

  22. Attractiveness or visibility? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Attractiveness or visibility? by glesga_kiss · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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?

      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.

  23. Like blaming the victim... by SpiralSpirit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  24. Ipod ppffft by Soupy69 · · Score: 5, Funny

    See in Scotland we dont have Ipods yet, but ukele and banjo crime has gone through the roof

    1. Re:Ipod ppffft by Sentry21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I had to listen to bagpipe music all the time, I'd probably buy a gun too.

  25. Blaming the iPods is easier than blaming the pols by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  26. Summary of recomendations by DigitAl56K · · Score: 5, Funny

    Here are some of the recomendations from TFA:

    1. Don't wear earbuds, headphones, or use any attachment that might make sound incase a mugger in close proximity detects it
    2. Avoid dressing in black and dancing like a zombie in public
    3. Be prepared to one-up your semi-automatic carrying attacker at all times
    4. Wear not one, but an array of bullet proof iPods to form a bullet proof iPod vest
    5. Ensure that, for your own safety, your government is monitoring your phone calls. In a post-911 world we must all take additional steps to ensure the iTerrorist threat is neutralized

    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.

  27. Re:The Solution by Bogtha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is must be why this story is about crimes in the UK and no in the US.

    Yeah, because letting people run around with guns really solved the USA's violent crime problem, didn't it?

    --
    Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  28. a Londoner writes ... by ElephanTS · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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"
    1. Re:a Londoner writes ... by bigbird · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was mugged in London a few years ago by a bunch of teenagers. They had a gun and a knife - they showed them to me. It may have been a fake gun but it looked real then. The knife was sharp enough to cut my lip when they held it to my face.

      A word of advice too - Cocker says he chased his muggers after they took his mobile. Never never ever do this. Just be thankful you are alive and uninjured (if that's the case). Chasing muggers is a really stupid thing to do.

    2. Re:a Londoner writes ... by Lehk228 · · Score: 2, Funny

      i agree on not chasing muggers, it's difficult to aim while running.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  29. Re:Oh, what a wonderful idea. by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 :: faster than paper
  30. Missed the obvious by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
  31. Re:Society Causes Crime!!!!! by vadim_t · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  32. Re:The Solution by moofbong · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Crime is much more complicated than whether or not the citizenry is armed. There are many countries with near prohibitions on guns that have high crime, and many countries with lots of guns that have low crime, and vice versa. Allowing responsible citizens to be armed, however, never really increases gun crime, so there is little reason to prevent it. As the saying goes, if you put a bunch of guns in the middle of a town with low crime, you will get low crime. Guns don't magically make people into criminals. They do, however, put law-abiding citizens on a level playing field with criminals. And that, I think, is the best we can expect to do.

    The real secret to fighting crime is to catch criminals and make sure that they stay in jail until they are no longer a threat to society. This novel concept appears to be diminishing as time goes on. I recall that Britain just passed a law that allows burgulars to essentially get the first one free. That makes utterly no sense and will serve only to increase the rate of burglary in the UK.

    --

    ~moofbong

    If 'con' is the opposite of 'pro', what is the opposite of 'progress'?

  33. Problem alreadys exists not ipos caused. by DanielSchuller · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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)

  34. Probability IS what it's all about. by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Probability IS what it's all about. by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A good point, although not all muggers will be deterred - after all, muggers often use knives here, even though their victim could have one too. So maybe some are deterred, but you have to factor that against those who have now gone from using knives to using guns (and hence greater risk of death), or possibly those who shoot first rather than take the risk.

      Do you have a source for those rates? How is the murder rate affected?

      Another point is that if guns are already banned in the US, there are still plenty of guns in circulation. The point about the UK is trying to keep the number of guns available low in the first place, so the figures don't quite apply to over here. Sure, professional criminals may still be able to get them, but the point is to reduce the chances of petty thieves and random yobs getting hold of them.

    2. Re:Probability IS what it's all about. by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're pretty much correct - these are cultural issues. It's silly to blame either inanimate object (the gun or the iPod) for what people choose to do.

      In the US, you used to be able to mail-order a handgun, sending no more than a check in the mail. You could walk into a hardware store and purchase a high-powered, repeating rifle or a handgun just like you would any other tool. But the crime rate (in the classic Hollywood sense of bad guys running around spraying lead) was well lower, per capita and by any other measure. Why? Cultural reasons, mostly having to do with the lessening of accountability across the board (both in terms of needing to work, and in terms of paying the price for being a criminal).

      It's become unfashionable to hold people responsible for their actions, and hence we get discussion threads proposing which color iPod earbuds you should go to so as to not provoke criminals. Incredible.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  35. Step 1 - Ditch the goddamned white earbuds by brunes69 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  36. Re:The Solution by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Thanks for the link, I've been looking for a source like that. I think you'll find it interesting to know that the country with the second most firearms per capita is Finland, yet our firearm related murders per capita is smaller than that of countries like Canada and the Netherlands, and nowhere even close to the rate of the US. So obviously the problem lies elsewhere than in the number of weapons. My guess would be the harsher penalties in the US, if you know your going to be locked up for a long time or even put to death, then it's better to leave less evidence and witnesses to make your chances of evading capture better.

  37. Cut from the movie by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2, Funny
    I just wish the iPod Nano had come out before your dad was captured.
    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  38. Re:How About the "Stick a Gun in Their Face" Metho by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  39. Re:a touch light with the clue stick by ElephanTS · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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"
  40. Re:Rights? What Rights? by dave420 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  41. Re:The Solution by goldspider · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because NOT letting people run around with guns really solved Washington DC's and Chicago's violent crime problem, didn't it?

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  42. Restructuring society by jmichaelg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  43. Re:Thank god in a country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  44. Speaking as one of 'them'... by Fluffy+the+attack+ki · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Speaking as one of 'them'... by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

      Man, this makes me laugh every time I see this tired old argument.

      And I do not say this to mock you. Truly. The concept of keeping the citizenry armed, to keep the government in check.. that's beautiful. I love it.

      But do you honestly think that if "they" want to come get you, that your guns are going to stop them?

      Do you know what kind of shit they can deploy? You wouldn't even see them coming! What's your Glock going to do against a sonic array? Or chemical attack?

      You want to keep guns and shoot them as a hobby, fine, go for it. But don't pretend they give you any extra insurance or autonomy whatsoever against the United States Government; that is a laughable, delusional fiction.

      (By the way, your Constitution was written at a time when people had to deal with bears on their property, ferfuxsake! It was a fact of life at the time, the need to own a gun. Not so much now. Crime's at an all-time low.)

      --
      If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    2. Re:Speaking as one of 'them'... by Qacker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Look at Iraq and how hard the people there with simple small arms are making it for the USA army.

      --
      Learn lisp today!
  45. Some piece of information on the refered username by dark-br · · Score: 3, Informative

    Glesga Kiss is a Glasgow slang for headbutt, also known as glasgow kiss ;)