Why is crime so high in England?

[Beanz]

This thread is about crime in ENGLAND not the welfare system in America. In England Crime is not caused by welfare, a lot of it is caused by a minority of drug dependent individuals who rob to feed their habit, Working lads who think after 8 pints that they are the new Mike Tyson and need to prove it and young people without a job and nobody to look up to or guide them who fill there day being anti social twats.

[Beanz]

If you want to discuss welfare etc and it's impact on society you could do worse than heading on over to Dia bando's excellent http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...7-society.htmlthread and making your point there.

[TitoFan]

This thread is about crime in ENGLAND not the welfare system in America.

Thread drift.




But no... I cannot truly weigh in on crime in England as I've only been there once and that was a long time ago. However... regardless of the crime rate, and how it's defined, one thing is for certain and that is that there are a heck of a lot less shooting sprees in England (probably none) than in the U.S. Obviously, the 180-degree difference in the availability of firearms must be the biggest factor.

[IamInuit]

This thread is about crime in ENGLAND not the welfare system in America.

Thread drift.




But no... I cannot truly weigh in on crime in England as I've only been there once and that was a long time ago. However... regardless of the crime rate, and how it's defined, one thing is for certain and that is that there are a heck of a lot less shooting sprees in England (probably none) than in the U.S. Obviously, the 180-degree difference in the availability of firearms must be the biggest factor.

Toronto had 34 murders last year by gun. Across the street in Chicago they went over 500

Canada had about 150 murders last year and below the 48th parallel it was close to 15,000

The gun lobby is trying to equate England's assault rate by bottles and pots and pans as a direct result of the gun ban. That is not a slippery slope. Its a total mountain cave in using flawed logic.

[El Kabong]

Toronto had 34 murders last year by gun. Across the street in Chicago they went over 500

Canada had about 150 murders last year and below the 48th parallel it was close to 15,000

The gun lobby is trying to equate England's assault rate by bottles and pots and pans as a direct result of the gun ban. That is not a slippery slope. Its a total mountain cave in using flawed logic.

Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US.....FACT

Also Obama & the liberals want to ban Assault Rifles & more people have been murdered with hands & feet than Assault Rifles......FACT

But hey owning a gun is only my RIGHT and after all what does that mean nobody cares about the Constitution anymore, they want FDR's "Bill of Rights" with their "living wage" & "healthcare"

[IamInuit]

Toronto had 34 murders last year by gun. Across the street in Chicago they went over 500

Canada had about 150 murders last year and below the 48th parallel it was close to 15,000

The gun lobby is trying to equate England's assault rate by bottles and pots and pans as a direct result of the gun ban. That is not a slippery slope. Its a total mountain cave in using flawed logic.

Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US.....FACT

Also Obama & the liberals want to ban Assault Rifles & more people have been murdered with hands & feet than Assault Rifles......FACT

But hey owning a gun is only my RIGHT and after all what does that mean nobody cares about the Constitution anymore, they want FDR's "Bill of Rights" with their "living wage" & "healthcare"

That Is right but just a little drive down the road they have almost no gun laws FACT

Those unrestricted guns end up in Chicago killing people Fact

Your second amendment rights written in an era of single shot muskets and a 5 minute reload does not supersede the right to life of 20 children. 95% of all your ubiquitous never ending mass shootings are done with assault rifles.

[El Kabong]

That Is right but just a little drive down the road they have almost no gun laws FACT

Those unrestricted guns end up in Chicago killing people Fact

Your second amendment rights written in an era of single shot muskets and a 5 minute reload does not supersede the right to life of 20 children. 95% of all your ubiquitous never ending mass shootings are done with assault rifles.

Criminals don't care about laws ergo gun control ONLY disarms law abiding citizens. Gun control doesn't solve anything, it only creates unarmed victims.

Yes IN SPITE OF STRICT GUN CONTROL LAWS

Haha oh that is precious Iaminuit #1 you couldn't be more wrong about mass killings being done with assault rifles and #2 so free speech should ONLY apply to actual spoken word & books then? And illegal search and seizure shouldn't apply to cars? Religions established POST 1789 (or1791 if you want to go by the date of ratification) don't qualify for the Freedom of Religion? Do you see where the logic is flawed there All the military had at the time were muskets too so I would suggest either the Armed Forces go back to muskets or you quit bitching about my right to bear arms.

[El Kabong]

According to the FBI in 2005 there were 445 murders by rifles (not specifically Assault Rifles, just rifles in general) & in 2011 there were 323 murders by rifles (again in general)...but what is really interesting is that according to the very same FBI "blunt objects" were used in 618 murders in 2005 & 496 murders in 2011.


445 is LESS than 618

323 is LESS than 496

How long before this sinks in?

[IamInuit]

That Is right but just a little drive down the road they have almost no gun laws FACT

Those unrestricted guns end up in Chicago killing people Fact

Your second amendment rights written in an era of single shot muskets and a 5 minute reload does not supersede the right to life of 20 children. 95% of all your ubiquitous never ending mass shootings are done with assault rifles.

Criminals don't care about laws ergo gun control ONLY disarms law abiding citizens. Gun control doesn't solve anything, it only creates unarmed victims.

Of-course they don't. Why would they? Why are they so available to these criminals? There is already 1 gun per person pretty much or close to 300 million weapons and yet guns still fly off the shelves. How many do you need a billion? Perhaps arming those infants would have saved the day. Its like the mental illness argument. Well if mental illness is such a problem then how do these mental people freely access guns and 10 thousand rounds of ammunition at the click of a mouse? Like I said earlier slippery slope. Same with the cultural argument about being unemployed etc etc. Well if that's true then why again make guns so available to these down and out people?

Yes IN SPITE OF STRICT GUN CONTROL LAWS

Haha oh that is precious Iaminuit #1 you couldn't be more wrong about mass killings being done with assault rifles and #2 so free speech should ONLY apply to actual spoken word & books then? And illegal search and seizure shouldn't apply to cars? Religions established POST 1789 (or1791 if you want to go by the date of ratification) don't qualify for the Freedom of Religion? Do you see where the logic is flawed there All the military had at the time were muskets too so I would suggest either the Armed Forces go back to muskets or you quit bitching about my right to bear arms.

Whats precious about it? Produce the evidence to dispute it. I can wait. While I wait I will go gather some.

Whats free speech have to do with anything I said? I said an individuals right to a weapon does not trump life itself.

I'm an atheist and could give two shits about any religious text.

I can bitch about your antiquated right to hold arms all I want. I live in a free country with free speech and where I don't have to be worried about being shot by my neighbour because my lawnmower blew a little grass onto his yard.

You paranoid Tea baggers and this devil from inside mentality are just fucked up and the writers of this constitution would have never imagined its application or use today They wouldn't have even considered people killing each other at this rate. I suppose the right then would apply to each other and not some Government who tried to rule with an iron fist

That is it for me on this topic. Lets just say we are diametrically opposed on this issue because I'm not going to get in some forum war with a guy I could probably shoot the shit with over a beer on the same topic w/o incident.