Slashdot Mirror
The London Riots and Facial Recognition Technology
nonprofiteer writes "A bunch of vigilantes are organizing a Google Group dedicated to using recently revealed facial recognition tools to identify looters in the London riots. While Vancouver discussed doing something similar after the Stanley Cup riots, the city never actually moved forward on it. Ring of Steel London, though, is far more likely to incorporate FRT into its investigative work."
A related article points out how development of face-recognition technology has been kept under wraps by some organizations, but we're getting to the point where it'll soon be ubiquitous.
Could we find a more loaded term than that? I don't think so. Heaven forbid some folks actually try to glom together and do good.
Reminds me: Somewhere on the internet is a description of how to build an anti-camera cap. Basically a baseball cap with a battery, and a row of powerful IR emitters along the rim. It utilizes that most security cameras can see into the IR, so the camera will gain down and leave the face in darkness, or at least distort it enough to nullify automated face recognition. Can be used during transport, where wearing a cap is not as suspicious as covering the face. ... Or will it soon be so that anyone not instantly recognized will automatically be a suspect? :-)
multiculturalism and tolerasty at its best.
Hi! :)
You seem to be trying to use a word that you don't really understand.
Would you like me to...
1. Find close matches in the dictionary, based on the first few letters...?
2. Find likely synonyms in a thesaurus, based on context...?
3. Fill in some garbage that means nothing but sounds good so people might not quite so easily cop to the fact that you're a functionally illiterate racist moron...?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Inflation is 4% for the rich, and 40% for the poor - might have a bearing on it. Plus the fact that the banks and insurance companies, utilities, etc are allowed to thieve from poor people while the government makes statements about "disapproving" but does not actually stop them, and the police keep being caught lying and cheating..
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
If only this technology were JUST going to be used on a bunch of minging neds and chavs, I'd have no problem with it.
But it'll be used for everyone all too soon.
Ah well, in the meantime, I'll be only too happy to watch a bunch of warbling brats get their arses handed to them by the cops.
[End Of Line]
Yes massive cost cutting and "positional asphyxia" over the years "Deaths in police custody since 1998: 333; officers convicted: none"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/03/deaths-police-custody-officers-convicted
http://cryptome.org/info/totten-protest/totten-protest-01.htm
The Darcus Howe interview with the BBC is very telling too.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I was just in the UK and in some of the suburbs in London there were signs up about SmartWater being used in the area. I think it was just being used to tag property but some of the other applications there seem interesting.
In a riot-like situation where there are too many people to feasibly make significant arrests it seems like it would be useful to have a way of "tagging" them and then pull them more of them in in the subsequent days.
A week ago I was also in Nottingham and walked past a police station was firebombed yesterday. When in Fulham I twice took my 9 month old baby to the swimming pool at Normand Park. I didn't perceive any sort of tension while I was there and it seems like the whole place just went mad between me getting on and off a plane back to Australia.
As a side thought - fighting the government (policy) is becoming increasingly difficult. The masses seems to be immobile and largely ignorant so political actions are close to impossible but at the same time the state is becoming ever more powerful in finding out who did things and how to prevent them in acting - and masses love such protection because we value our security so much. Yet the state is unable to control organized youths too much so far. It seems cameras and NSA like technology are not sufficient to contain mass rage.
They are poor. No doubt non-whites are overrepresented, but there's a fair share of whites too. It's not a race thing. From what I understand, it;s mostly a gang thing.
This is the reason more than all the other stupid shit I've heard bandied about.
The whole think has been in the making for years.
From the BBC
"He said youths aged from nine had been on the rampage through the city centre."
"When the BBC asked two youths why they were rioting, one responded: "Right, why are you going to miss the opportunity to get free stuff that's worth like loads of money?"
"The BBC's Chris Buckler watched police try to manage masked youths in Manchester
But they said it was not just about that, adding that it was in response to the government cuts."
Bullshit, they're 9 FFS, they're nothing more than thugs
"One added: "How many people have they arrested really, though, 10? I'm not really bothered. I'll keep doing this every day until I get caught."
He said he might be shouted at or grounded when he returned home but he would "live with that".
He added that it would be his first offence "so I'm not really bothered"
If you want to stop it, do what you should of been doing for the last 20 years or so, and did to my generation.
When he gets home, give him a damn good thrashing and take him to the police station.
Fuck off you racist piece of shit. There is no such word as "tolerasty" except as invented by European neo-Nazis so that they can pretend to be smart while treating blacks, Jews, gays, Muslims, and virtually everyone else as sub-human vandals in their precious homogenous society. It is a portmanteau of tolerant and pederast, created with the intention of implying that tolerant people condone pedophilia.
What is happening in London has nothing to do with "your colored cousins". I won't even bother arguing why, because frankly, you're a monster of the same sort that murdered all those children in Norway, and as such are impervious to reason. I wish only that you die before you hurt anyone, and that no one follow you down that road of hatred that you're on.
I'm only even responding so that people see you for what you are, and know to distrust your every word.
I think that the idea that these fashions will catch on to stop day to day facial recognition quite reasonable. See: CV Dazzle
A better TV helps little if the viewer is color blind.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Then it's easy, round up all Facebook users and lock them away.
It's so win-win...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I just spent an evening embedded with indie journalists in Manchester. It's definitely at least two-thirds white.
And there's more to it than "mindless violence" too. The train station here, just a few hundred metres from one main flashpoint (Piccadilly Gardens), it fucking immaculate. I was in there at 5am this morning insisting that Network Rail put in an official statement to that effect. I hope they do.
They said themselves that last time there was disorder in Manchester (caused by a certain Scottish football team) Piccadilly Train Station was, to put it bluntly, completely ruined.
I saw all kinds of colours and themes of clothing; wierdos with cameras being ignored in favour of fasion shop windows. Most people stood around to bolster numbers, and those smashing windows are NOT those looting. The looters come after, and the are primarily white trash but I saw one Asian guy who was abusive to our photographers taking a whole glass shop counter in a van using a trolley.
"It's mine. You got a problem with that?"
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
You people without a perspective and treated as second class citizens do not accept the state as their institution. They perceive the state as their enemy. [..] People get even more suppressed (at least they feel that way) which can erupt at any time.
slightly off-topic. this msnbc blog entry shows some interesting insight in the dynamics of the group:
a Londoner when asked by a television reporter: Is rioting the correct way to express your discontent?
"Yes," said the young man. "You wouldn't be talking to me now if we didn't riot, would you?"
The TV reporter from Britain's ITV had no response. So the young man pressed his advantage. "Two months ago we marched to Scotland Yard, more than 2,000 of us, all blacks, and it was peaceful and calm and you know what? Not a word in the press. Last night a bit of rioting and looting and look around you."
So, LA: lots of rioting, stores got looted. London: lots of rioting, stores got looted. Remind me again what gun control has to do with this?
[FUCK BETA]
Some legitimate grievances, some cultural issues, and large numbers of unemployed young males, always a recipe for disaster.
[FUCK BETA]
If you can't see the obvious problem in your post, then you're retarded.
America has some of the most lax gun laws in the world.
America still managed to suffer far worse riots than the UK has.
As an aside, how many people did the rioters themselves shoot in those riots with legitimately owned guns? No? don't want to answer that? According to Wikipedia 53 people died. Thus far only one person has died in the UK and he was shot by a rival gang with an illegal firearm.
Oh, but because one guy defended one shop, it's worth opening the tide of higher murder rates, and greater burden on health care that accidental and intentional gun wounds cause.
Yeah, I think we'll pass thanks. That's a hell of a price to pay for one guy to be able to defend one shop.
Oh, and for what it's worth you can have guns here. Just not things like automatic rifles and easily concealed pistols. You can have things like shotguns, and hunting rifles, but, well, even having them legal has led to questionable benefits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings
Criminals will find weapons regardless, but much better that the chavs are busy with knives against which there is at least some ability to defend or run from or at worst passing round the odd, knackered old fire arm with limited ammunition than all armed up with well maintained fully automatic weapons, and as much ammunition as they'd ever want to buy.
No, you can keep your guns. With nearly 5 times our murder rate per head of population, most of which are a result of firearms incidents. As for Russia, well, their murder rate makes America's look good- at around 10 times our murder rate per head of population.
Perhaps you should take lessons from us instead? no? the NRA and tea party nut jobs wont let you? That's a shame.
Why the hell would the Guardian (world-reknowned for voluntarily reporting from a neutral point of view) and the BBC (legally bound to do the same thing) want to skew statistics against the same race that makes up most of their staffers? You are seriously fucking trolling, I'm pretty damned sure the stills of crowds here in Manchester will prove you wrong.
Now why is this upload. taking so long? And before you ask, no I don't upload to that free-for-all Flickr or anything else like that, I upload to big three: BBC, ITN and Sky. And I give them time to publish before I even think about sharing them elsewhere, too. It's called getting paid for hard work, which these kids deserve a chance to do.
I've taught dozens of these same kids (I counted scores of Hi! Rachel's from the crowds last night) to shoot an SLR or a DVCam in safe environments like Moss Side, and Hulme. I've only ever had one camera stolen, a Nikon D40, and guess who stole it? A white smackhead. And we all know what I think of those. I'd sooner lock THOSE up than these "mindless thugs" and "different gangs" you're all getting worried about.
It's only the selfish and greedy who need fear this crowd, no matter what colour they are.
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
"Seriously officer, this guy had a knife and he forced me to steal this big screen TV that is in my living room. I was going to return it after the riots were over!"
Mod parent up. When people are out of "civilised" ways to put across their message, they resort to violence. This isn't violence with a direct aim - e.g. as the violence by the US in the Middle East is subjugation of strategically important areas - this is violence as a way of saying "I'm fed up and someone to take notice!" If you loved your society, you wouldn't destroy it. If, as a young man (or teen, it seems), you do not feel a sense of belonging and love and support - if you are not given the opportunity to contribute - then why would you value what is around you?
The looters coming in after the riots are being emphasised because it's pretty hard to argue about the social plight of someone who runs off with a 42 inch TV "because I can". There is a massive PR exercise to paint this as merely thieves thieving. There's also a PC exercise to avoid pointing out the cultural make-up of rioters - predominantly black in some areas, white in others - because people are so afraid of thinking they're implying "black people are criminals!" rather than "youths in black communities in central London are alienated and have no voice, no meaningful representation and no opportunity to do anything about it". We have moved on from overt police racism of the '80s (and well done to the police for doing that) but we have not moved on from the power dominance of a single culture in Britain.
Unfortunately, in any class struggle (sorry, Torys, that's exactly what it is!), these sorts of organic riots tend to result in more oppression. It may do something to raise awareness, but absent an organised army it is only joint peaceful action which tends to effect change. In particular, had the unions not been so far up New Labour's arse over the last decade that the wider working population would be forgiven for remembering who they were created to serve, they would have opposed changing market and labour conditions.
In short, it still takes a village to raise a child. Even the most stable and loving family (which, as anyone knows, inner London is full of) can only do so much. When the average boy turns 16 - and we're not talking about the geniuses of the world, but the majority of average ability - society has the choice to lift him up or to leave him to fend on his own. Where resources exceed demand, he might be able to do the latter. Where they do not, what should he endure? And, if you have not helped him, what gives you the right to tell him what is right and wrong? Even if you think you have some natural superiority, what makes you think the young man will listen?
Better than that, why not actually go there and see for yourself. Oh wait, I did, and there were plenty of black and asian faces in the sea of people helping to clean up the streets after the rioting.
Go crawl back under your rock.
Indeed, but anyone who can afford to buy £100 trainers and a blackberry isn't actually poor.
That leaves them just feckless.
no taxation without representation!
And plenty of white faces in the riots. Nobody here on the ground can think that these are predominantly racial riots, but the white supremacists do seem to be trying to turn them into race riots.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
It's not a justification. It's an explanation. I don't say I think it's the right thing to do, nor do I say that I think they're justified. I explain why it is happening.
Btw, while we're at "seeing always the same", I always get to see the same reasoning why these people are "bad" and how they could better their lives. Short answer: They can't. Long answer... well, let's see. Allow me to hold this conversation that I held many times before. Often enough that I can probably also play your part.
"They needn't riot. They could get a job and work their way up"
No. First of all, would you give them a job? You're looking at someone from a bad neighborhood, loaded with prejudice and a general resentment against it. Immediately he's seen as lazy, not dependable and probably more interested in stealing your goods rather than selling them. In an economy where jobs are rare, these are the ones that can't get one. No matter how minimum the wage.
"Then they should go and learn something to be more qualified"
I don't know about your country, in mine, learning as an adult costs money. And they don't have money to spare.
"Then they should have learned something while they were still in school"
Have you ever been in a school in such a ghetto? Be glad if you speak their language, they won't speak yours. You're looking at classes where the mob rules. Try learning something and you won't really have a life worth living. Not only inside, but also outside your school. If you get out alive and with all your teeth, you really have a career going. As a boxer, not as a scientist, though.
"They already get everything for free, why are they complaining?"
Would that satisfy you? Knowing that you have to live from handouts because you're unable to afford your own life? Personally, it would frustrate me greatly. Also, look at what they get. A flat, usually too small for the amount of people cooped up in it, in a neighborhood where you better don't own anything worth being stolen, an education in schools where... see above and health care where you better don't have a job because you'd miss quite a few days of work for waiting alone. What people miss is that they see "oh, free", and consider the quality level equal to what they are paying for. Hint: It's not. Not by a longshot.
It is actually someone else's fault that they can't get out of this ghetto. It's insanely hard to claw your way out of this hell, and I dare say facing the same level of hardships, most people would do exactly the same.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
He said he might be shouted at or grounded when he returned home but he would "live with that".
If that's the interview I think it is, he actually said that because it would be a first offence he would only get an ASBO but could live with that. He might be in for a surprise, because the magistrates courts that have heard the cases so far have referred many of them up to the crown court, even in the case of guilty pleas, because the crown court can hand out much longer custodial sentences than the magistrates court can.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Why on earth would your beliefs be in any way relevant? Are you aware that the machine in front of you allows you to search for information so that you can test your beliefs. Shocking, eh?
The key point of the definition is that a vigilante takes extra-legal action; a vigilante is one who acts outside of the existing legal framework. Publishing the identity of the looters is not operating outside of the law. In fact it actually supports the official effort to identify looters from video shot during the riots. Only acting on the identities to go and mete out some kind of illegal retribution would be vigilante action, and as there is no suggestion that they will do so the use of the word is loaded as the GP originally stated.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
In fairness, most of those deaths are not suspicious. You'd expect some deaths in police custody just from random natural causes, and when you factor in the fact that people in police custody are more likely than the population at large to be long-term drug or alcohol abusers (and so are likely to have increased mortality) the numbers are not particularly surprising. Yes, some of the deaths are suspicious but only a very small proportion of them. If you read the Guardian article you'll see that only 13 officers have been recommended for prosecution; since they usually work in pairs or teams that means something like 6 cases, not 333. Even if you take in the cases that were suspicious but the CPS couldn't get enough evidence you are still way below the 333 cited.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
I wouldn't say it's because of race, but I do think there's more too it than that. We have some equally poor Kosovan communities around here but they would never dream of this and are appalled by it. That's not to say it's racial, but I don't think it's merely because of poverty either.
I think there's a strong cultural element here too. Certainly there has been some evidence for this in the past- Somali populations in Bristol, and Nigerian populations in Birmingham most certainly brought with them some of the gang culture of their homelands when they immigrated into this country.
It's a tough problem to solve because culture does correlate so closely with race a lot of the time and so gets hijacked by the far right and turns into an attack on race, and so attempts to suggest cultural change for immigrants brings down cries of racism, and complaints about how we're trying to dilute their cultural identity. So what's the solution?
The worst part is that part of some cultural attitudes even seem to be at the root of the poverty. The Polish communities in the UK have no inherent advantage and in fact have had much less time to establish than many other groups (often they have as big, if not bigger language barrier), and yet they seem to be integrating very well- most have jobs, and their work ethic in general is excellent. I had a young Polish guy knock on my door the other day trying to sell paintings he'd done of the countryside around our area and I bought one because they were great. It's precisely that type of cultural attitude that matters- he may not be able to find a job, so what does he do? well, he makes one for himself. It may not pay much at all, but at least he's doing something- importantly, at least it means he's maintained a strong degree of self-respect, which is precisely what the rioters have lost.
I'm not sure what the solution is, you have to be careful not to conflate race and culture despite the close correlation, but if you recognise it as a cultural problem then you run the risk of being called racist by people who prefer to just try and cover over the problems,than discuss and deal with them. Even if you can debate it with people who accept it as a possible cultural problem, then you run into a further issue, and that's whether it's more important to allow people to maintain their cultural identity even if it runs counter to the values of the country that person, or group of people has immigrated into, or whether you avoid cultural conflict at the cost of forcing people to accept cultural change.
People like you have been excusing this behaviour for years blaming it on social ills and lack of this that or the other. Bollocks! Most if not all of the rioters have far more material wealth than a number of east european states yet you don't find mass rioting there. The problem is lazy feckless children brought up by lazy feckless parents with a liberal education system that doesnt' teach them any discipline or respect. And no , teachers shouldn't have the "earn" respect from a teenager, they should be given it automatically.
"Unfortunately, in any class struggle"
Oh grow up student boy and smell the coffee of reality. Class has nothing to do with it - most of the properties looted and burnt were owned and run by working class people. If there was any class in volved it was the workshy violent underclass.
In any other country a lot of those rioters would have been shot dead already , its only in namby pamby liberal britain run by hand wringing excuse everything muppets like you where we let them burn the place down.
> When people are out of "civilised" ways to put across their message, they resort to violence
It's 2011. There are a gazillion ways to put across your message, completely for free. You're using one of them right now.
no taxation without representation!
I've no mod points, but as someone who has lived all over London (New Cross, Waterloo, Hampstead and now Enfield) I couldn't agree more. This is not about police brutality, over use of stop and search tactics or lack of opportunity. This is about feckless scum who want a new pair of trainers. If this was about a lack of opportunity, then why have huge numbers of Eastern Europeans managed to find jobs in London over the past decade? And it isn't about them taking jobs at lower wages than British born people, as many of the immigrants have gone from planning on being here for a few years before returning home to having established careers and businesses that are so successful that they now plan on staying here permanently.
That's an indictment of the press, nothing more.
I live in Clapham Junction about 100m from the center of the riots there. I was down there there watching. Most of the kids (and they were kids) were having a great time, throwing bottle and having a laugh - I didn't see anyone I'd describe as angry.
All night people were wandering up my street stashing loot in rubbish bins, then coming back later to collect and load into cars that were doing the rounds. Nice cars, bit boy-racerish for me but not cheap. The ones that were seen "stealing milk and baby clothes" were no more significant than the ones stealing shampoo - there are cases of it on my street - and I suspect they were just a little late to the party. A friends sister saw her neighbours kids walking home with a TV each - a 2 bedroom house on that street will go for £400,000.
Yes, there's undoubtedly some alienation but there bigger problem is the unwarranted sense of entitlement - "I deserve a TV", "I'm getting my taxes back". As a genuine guardian reading, hand-wringing socialist leftie I didn't see a great deal of urban alienation on display, but I did see a great deal of self-absorbed greed.
Nevertheless there is a significant number of people in this country who feel they have no voice - and that's not just those who resort to violence, but the hard working, law abiding too. Look at the way Blair ignored 1.5 million people turning up on his doorstep to protest going to war in Iraq. Look at the way there were thousands of students protesting tuition fees peacefully yet the media was dominated by the handful who decided to break things. If the people in power constantly refuse to acknowledge the voice of the masses (and people feel they have no real representation at the polls, when every party seems to have the same approach of empowering the powerful and taxing the poor and even the party they supported can volte face on their promises) then this is always going to be the end result sooner or later.
It doesn't legitimise their actions in any way, but it damn well helps to explain them. I see politician after politician on the news this week saying they can't understand why people would react this way - THAT is scary, it should be blindinly obvious why people are reacting this way and the politicians should be talking about how they deal with the factors that cause this reaction, not trying to blame it all on mindless yobs.
"America still managed to suffer far worse riots than the UK has."
ONLY in DISARMED areas. There are two Americas, reasonable as the US is vastly larger than the UK. There is a generally peaceful part, and there is the violent part you read about in the news. The culture and demographics of these areas differ. Many of the lowest-crime areas of the US are heavily armed.
The reason the LA riots weren't replicated in the Southern US is we would have cut the rioters to ribbons. The "goblins" (to use a fine Jeff Cooper phrase) tend to prey on each other instead. We have the right to kill in self-defense. We use it. You don't. When a thug breaks into a home in the US, their death at the hands of a homeowner is usually met with approval as it should be.
"Criminals will find weapons regardless, but much better that the chavs are busy with knives against which there is at least some ability to defend or run from or at worst passing round the odd, knackered old fire arm with limited ammunition than all armed up with well maintained fully automatic weapons, and as much ammunition as they'd ever want to buy."
You are confused about the real situation.
The US "chav" equivalent are poorly armed, and good citizens much better equipped. The riotous sort sell their weapons for drugs or can't afford them in the first place. The good citizens often have a military background and plan accordingly.
Trash, be they "chavs" or (insert epithet I'd get a troll mod for using) are merely a mob of beasts. In cases where the general public approve, massive force can be used against such people. We should remember that mobs can be destroyed by force, and get over the idea that mobs whose goal is mindless attack on the rest of us deserve mercy. What they deserve is ball ammo in the face.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
So just to be clear, your logic is that since the system works for some people, the system must be working for everyone? That's a nice piece of reasoning there, for a total idiot.
People steal for one of two major reasons. Either they do it for the feeling of empowerment, or they do it because they want or need something. Society tells these underprivileged that if they don't have a new pair of trainers, they are lower than squashed snake shit. Given the opportunity to make themselves a member of society that someone will take seriously because their kicks aren't falling apart, they take it. As long as our society is a corporate one whose messages are based primarily around making you feel inadequate if you are a has-not, people will steal to make themselves feel better, and not just to feed their families. As a retailer who is stolen from, you have to suck it up and accept responsibility for helping to create this culture of conspicuous consumption.
Or in short, businesses that sell shit that we don't need help create riots and indeed, help create looters themselves.
Seriously though, because "many" immigrants have made it there, you think that there's opportunity for everyone? That's just beyond dumb.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
who are these people? I mean, white? black? muslim?
It's not race, it's social class. They are all the people who are old enough to have been seriously pissed off by the police, the system, and each other, and young enough to not realise that breaking everything within reach doesn't really help.
So mostly 16 to 21 and from the kind of areas where the police victimise innocent people and threaten the victims of crime.
I know, I lived a short walk away from where the police started all this.
No, it doesn't help to explain them at all. Did 1.5 million people riot in London just because they were ignored? Nope. Because these were ordinary, civilized, and decent people.
The truth is, these rioters are hopeless waste-of-spaces that have no respect for anything or anyone, and are just looting and vandalizing for no reason other than "it's a bit of a laugh" or "I can get away with it, so why not". These really are the type of scum that you wouldn't piss on if they were on fire.
Just some people who have had their pockets turned out by the police twice a week for as long as they can remember. Just some people who have been threatened with violence from the police whenever they dared answer back. The same people who saw the police kill two innocent people and totally get away with it in recent history.
These people have been trained by the police to hate the police. They saw the latest police shotting as an execution and it made them angry as hell. Once the first two police cars were burnt out the rest realised the police were powerless so they went on a looting spree.
The fact that you got modded down for that shows the child like mentality of the moderators on here. Teenagers don't get irony and of course they're never to blame either - its always someone else fault.
Yeah because of course our cops do that don't they, they open up on crowds. Oh wait no they don't, in fact they've not to this point even deployed baton rounds, or water cannons.
It's only a matter of time. Wish I were wrong, don't think I am. Time will tell.
I'm fucking glad we don't have your retarded gun nuttery, because for all the benefits you think it gives you, all you've really got to show for it are a whole bunch of pretty fucking embrassing crime statistics.
First of all, our retarded gun nuttery is your retarded gun nuttery, because we inherited it from you. You have simply outlawed it, with the effect that only criminals have guns. Second, gun crime has been waning in the USA in spite of generally permissive firearms laws. The only kind of gun crime which is actually on the rise in the USA is suicide. Suicide is on the rise pretty much everywhere, and we just happen to have guns to do it with. Aside from making things messier, this is really not a problem. So while gun suicide is on the rise, gun deaths are falling overall, suggesting that we have a handle on the problem.
But keep telling yourself your country is perfect, and you're so incredibly free, and that Britain is so much worse.
Nah, the USA and Britain are just two sides on the same die. On the other hand, your culture is provably less free than ours. I mean fuck, the truth is not a defense in a libel case? How are you not seriously more fucked up than the USA?
Anyway, one more thing upon which time will tell; your country is totally played out. You're out of natural resources and useful allies. All there is left is to fight each other for the scraps. Without projecting imperialism as the USA is doing you have no future except as just another soon-to-be-homogenized member of the EU. That's a good thing for the world but not for your quality of life.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Nope. It's that if the system was as broken as you claim, it wouldn't work for anyone.
If I have a USB drive[1] that doesn't work in any computer, what do you conclude? If it works in some computers but not others, what do you conclude then?
[1] like this one, if it makes it any easier.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Difference is, we don't need guns to defend our homes, because when the sort of criminals who resort to crimes like burglary don't have guns, why would we need them? Or what, do you also believe burglars in the US don't have guns, when they know home owners do?
Guns give an individual of any strength or gender at least an equal chance against criminals, typically stronger, younger, and more numerous males who have spent their whole lives learning to take and administer beatings. Unless you are trained you will lose against a street thug in physical combat--and even if you are you will lose against two of them. On the other hand, burglary is a very unprofitable crime so the average burglar is not armed since guns cost hundreds of dollars. Forfeiting your right to a gun means you are trusting your life to the grace of criminals (who are practical enough to retain all their rights).
Violence just perpetuates the hate used to drive these types of conflicts. Protesting only works when you actually protest for something and not just against something. You need more than empty slogans and rhetoric if you expect to really change anything. Look at the protests in the Egypt, the protesters were more than willing to organize to storm the barricades but once they achieved their goal of removing the person they felt was responsible for their misery they have reverted to fighting and arguing amongst themselves and have not accomplished anything to improve their society. The downtrodden masses in London or in any other country never accept that they themselves are partly responsible for their situation. Personal responsibility and the willingness to improve your own life plays a big part on the quality of life. The organized marches in DC during the fight for minority rights are a good example of how to achieve positive results using public protests. Throughout the country protesters and their supports were attacked violently and yet they still continued on with their cause until they were either killed, beaten down, or arrested. At the same time the leaders of these protests displayed both intelligence and competence that heled to demolish the stereotypes of that era. The protesters in the 60's knew exactly what they were protesting for which was equal protection and rights under the law and they achieved that goal without resorting to mindless violence. Had they done so they would have failed in their quest. Of course racial discrimination did not end overnight and it is still an ongoing struggle today but who could have even entertained the idea in the 1960's that the US would elect a black president? None of these efforts used to achieve this goal resulted from the type of violence and anarchy sweeping England or other countries today. The rioters in England have focused the public's attention on the violence instead of the underlying reasons they use to justify their violence.
"Guns give an individual of any strength or gender at least an equal chance against criminals"
This fallacy assumes that the criminal doesn't get the jump on you, which, when they're the ones knowing they're going to commit the crime, means they have the initiative.
This is why, despite your theory, it doesn't work out this way in practice. It's also a problem that a criminal will commonly be more willing to shoot a person, than a non-criminal be willing to shoot someone, even if they are a criminal.
"Unless you are trained you will lose against a street thug in physical combat--and even if you are you will lose against two of them."
With guns, you'll lose against whoever raises their fire arm and shoots you before you even have a chance to reach for yours. I don't see how this is a better scenario.
"Forfeiting your right to a gun means you are trusting your life to the grace of criminals (who are practical enough to retain all their rights)."
Fighting for a right to have guns, means you are putting more guns into the hands of criminals than they could possibly obtain. It means more people capable of killing having the means to do so.
This is once again illustrated by America's high level of gun crime, and this is the fundamental point those of you arguing against me fail to address.
If guns help to protect you, and to make the world a safer place, why has America got orders of magnitude more murders, more gun homicide? and more gun massacres (particularly ones where the perp shoots himself at the end, and isn't in fact stopped by some heroic citizen shooting him)?
I am never amazed at the sense of helplessness I get from Europeans. They expect the government to do everything for and when it doesn't, for some reason petty theft is "justified". Pathetic.
Gandhi said "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." These current groups of thieves and thugs aren't noble citizens rising up against their oppressors. They are violent, thieving thugs with no concept of passive resistance -- no concept of the better good.
Poor you say? Look at these people
http://catchalooter.tumblr.com/
They are very well dressed. They are very well fed. These are not helpless Somalis trying to get their food aid. These people would be upper middle class in 75% of the countries on Earth but are so consumed by jealousy and helplessness that they have turned to selfish destruction.
Many of you, who are paralyzed by the thought of another citizen owning a gun, try to draw comparisons to the LA riots in 1992. Do you not remember Korea Town? Lack of gun control works. The LA riots were not brought under control by the police. It was private individuals, with their private guns, that laid down the law and stopped the anarchy.
The British people are helpless and dependent. From yesterday's Guardian:
"Scotland Yard’s 6,000 street officers were hopelessly outmanoeuvred" by " boys and girls, most no older than 15, and some apparently as young as eight". One resident: “Where are the police? Why are they not here? People are frightened.”
Americans in the 1992 riots were in no such mood:
"We are glad the National Guard is here. They're good backup."
Many years ago a historian (please enlighten me to the name if you can remember) did a study on the rise and fall of civilizations. He identified a phase immediately before collapse: Dependence
You don't need guns to defend yourself, you American twatburger, you just need community spirit, as happened in many areas of London last night. If you come across a couple of hundred Sikhs ready to fight back, you'd have to be fucking stupid to try any looting in their area.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it