18 Aug 2007, 5:46 am
No, the paperwork remains, but less of it. With cameras everywhere, and even audio recorders on the officers, that should help alot.
No, because guns will remain hard to get ahold of except for law enforcement. The guns should have to be placed in storage before officers can go off duty. We don't have the same laws as the US, where if you want to get a gun, you can just go to a shop and ask for one, almost. Guns have to be smuggled or replicas have to be modified. Here, there are a whole load of checks required before you can get hold of a double barreled shotgun legally, which isn't allowed to be shortened.
It will help to restore public trust in the police, which will in turn make them more cooperative, and also deter some criminals who commit petty crimes/vandalism thinking that the police aren't going to do anything about it, due to all the red tape.
That's not true, a phone tap helps to place people, and if it indeed turns evidence against or in their favour, it should be used. If it affects national security by identifying government spies, then that is an exception.
It's not only partial justice for the victim(s), but it puts one less scumbag off the streets forever.
Yes, but convict labour, and more restrictions on the amounts of free roaming prisoners will help to get things under control. Permanently.
I only meant that it was important.
1. Right everyone is going to allow cameras on everything. I think that Big Brother idea is one heck of an erosion of civil liberties.
2. Guns can be smuggled into the country quite easily, so that problem isnt sold. Anyway, the knowledge to build a damn good gun is out there on the internet, and I doubt people wont make them.
3. Yeah, people really trust the media dont they. Again another moronic idea.
4. It affects national security because the methods would have to be revealed in court that are used for phone tapping. Terrorists armed with that knowledge could then bypass them, not to mention foriegn states.
5. Assuming that this "scumbag" isnt innocent. And also, some do not find death a punishment, or at least not as much as being incarcerated all their life. Hence all the prison suicides. In the US there is more crime than here, and more nasty crimes as well. Also there is at least one member of this forum who could be put to death under your regime, but I will not go there.
6. Right...
So then, do you fancy yourself living under some fascist dictatorship, Anubis. Or do you want to be the dictator?
No, facism is wrong, being tough on crime is absolutely right. Be sceptical all you like, but those methods work. As for the phone tap methods, it's simple enough to come up with legislation keeping the techniques secret whilst still legalising the evidence.
It's still much harder for people who don't have criminal links to get hold of a firearm, let alone build one. British police officers have died before because criminals were armed and they weren't.
Don't you think that an innocent person's right to life is worth more than the freedom to privacy? Besides, the cameras would only be in place in public buildings/areas and those businesses which wish to install CCTV. It's not as if the cameras are peering into your home watching your every move. Prison suicides? Who cares, it's a self enforced death sentence. As for the innocents, well, with all the evidence, that should be EXTREMELY, and I cannot emphasise it enough, extremely unlikely to happen, and even after that, there's the chance of appeal every so often, plus the divide and conquer method in prisons. No gangs whatsoever. All criminals in individual cells, with the freedom to remain in their cell if they really wish to. However, that is not the only solution. Prisoners could be grouped according to psychological profile, crime, and social class.
Not moronic ideas, sensible law enforcement and civil protection methods.
Being as tough as you want to be on crime will lead to a totallitarian state. Dont give me ifs and buts, thats where it ends. Now I have a book for you to go and read: 1984 by George Orwell. Then come back and see if you agree still.
18 Aug 2007, 6:12 am
18 Aug 2007, 6:26 am
TheMachine1
Veteran
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,011
Location: 9099 will be my last post...what the hell 9011 will be.
18 Aug 2007, 6:42 am
18 Aug 2007, 7:03 am
18 Aug 2007, 8:20 am
Anubis
Veteran
Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 137
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,911
Location: Mount Herculaneum/England
18 Aug 2007, 9:50 am
So yes, that argument is deeply flawed...
Well, sniper rifles aren't much good for holding the occupants of your average UK 3-bed semi at bay whilst you make off with the TV, you know, Anubis. They aren't especially easy to conceal, either, and tend to be rather heavy, so I really don't see your point.
As far as your argument about someone creeping up on me with a weapon goes, they currently already can with an illegal handgun which are widely available. Or, indeed, with a knife. If you have the right to carry a weapon and to use it I'm suggesting that not only would certain crimes be reduced, but that quality of life would be improved because individuals would feel in control of their own fate. This is especially true for older folk, and females, who are more vulnerable to violent attack, as well as those living in remoter communities. Currently, in many rural parts of the UK if you call the police, they'll not be able to attend for some time; the criminal fraternity know this, and take full advantage.
So, Anubis, there really is no deep flaw to the position I've taken. Furthermore, if you want an example of well-armed citizens in a country with low rates of gun crime then look at Switzerland. You see, the flaw is in your position of taking the left-wing view that all guns are bad. Guns are only bad within a certain context. Now, to be honest, I wouldn't want to see our country armed like the US or Switzerland just yet. It really is a different context to that which exists in both those places, but whilst the police continue to act as Gordon Brown's Gestapo it seems very attractive to allow homeowners to keep certain types of weapon for protection, and for them to be able to use them lethally on intruders without fear of prosecution.
Left wing? No, I'd say that it was more right wing and against such a freedom. Mainly against the risk of weapons getting into the hands of criminals.
Thing is, the people of Switzerland are mostly well educated, peaceful, and all able bodied males who are not in the civil service or police are conscripted into the army, and given a free rifle for home defence. Just as well. Actually, the only reason that the crime rate has gone up is because of more immigration. People who have not been educated the Swiss way, and have disturbed the peace. But Switzerland, in comparison to the UK has much lower crime rates already. Unless all UK citizens were issued weapons with inbuilt markings unique to the owner, which could not be removed, then there could be problems. If Britain wanted anywhere near Swiss crime rates, with legal weapons, it would have to follow their example and raise education standards, discipline badly behaved louts, and crack down on gangs, and such, with many initiatives. For instance, you could place immigrants all over the country, away from each other and the potential collaboration and conflict. That, and teach them in traditional British values. As for the rest of the louts, well we all know what they need. Punishment and discipline.
Also, bring back the old drinking laws, ban people under 18 from getting ahold of booze at all. If you see them with alcohol, confiscate it, find out where they got it, and fine the shopowner. I.D should also have certification chips. There is also the issue of bad parenting, which is just as much to blame as a lack of discipline in schools.
I agree with my views still Hadron, you are placing tough law enforcement on par with totalitarianism. There need to be safeguards to ensure that the vast police resources cannot be used against the population by a loony government. Perhaps the Swiss way of arming the populace might just do the trick. Oh, and screw "he who is willing to sacrifice freedom for security will have neither", it really isn't a general rule. The way that the UK government- this is something I'm going to give Blair's government credit for, despise such an administration though I did, took on terrorism and prevented all the terrorist plots is comforting. All of the plots after 7/7 failed, including the Glasgow airport bombings.
Some people feel distrustful of the police in general because most British politicians today are clowns and not statesmen, and don't know how to tackle most problems.
18 Aug 2007, 10:56 am
So yes, that argument is deeply flawed...
Well, sniper rifles aren\'t much good for holding the occupants of your average UK 3-bed semi at bay whilst you make off with the TV, you know, Anubis. They aren\'t especially easy to conceal, either, and tend to be rather heavy, so I really don\'t see your point.
As far as your argument about someone creeping up on me with a weapon goes, they currently already can with an illegal handgun which are widely available. Or, indeed, with a knife. If you have the right to carry a weapon and to use it I\'m suggesting that not only would certain crimes be reduced, but that quality of life would be improved because individuals would feel in control of their own fate. This is especially true for older folk, and females, who are more vulnerable to violent attack, as well as those living in remoter communities. Currently, in many rural parts of the UK if you call the police, they\'ll not be able to attend for some time; the criminal fraternity know this, and take full advantage.
So, Anubis, there really is no deep flaw to the position I\'ve taken. Furthermore, if you want an example of well-armed citizens in a country with low rates of gun crime then look at Switzerland. You see, the flaw is in your position of taking the left-wing view that all guns are bad. Guns are only bad within a certain context. Now, to be honest, I wouldn\'t want to see our country armed like the US or Switzerland just yet. It really is a different context to that which exists in both those places, but whilst the police continue to act as Gordon Brown\'s Gestapo it seems very attractive to allow homeowners to keep certain types of weapon for protection, and for them to be able to use them lethally on intruders without fear of prosecution.
Left wing? No, I\'d say that it was more right wing and against such a freedom. Mainly against the risk of weapons getting into the hands of criminals.
Thing is, the people of Switzerland are mostly well educated, peaceful, and all able bodied males who are not in the civil service or police are conscripted into the army, and given a free rifle for home defence. Just as well. Actually, the only reason that the crime rate has gone up is because of more immigration. People who have not been educated the Swiss way, and have disturbed the peace. But Switzerland, in comparison to the UK has much lower crime rates already. Unless all UK citizens were issued weapons with inbuilt markings unique to the owner, which could not be removed, then there could be problems. If Britain wanted anywhere near Swiss crime rates, with legal weapons, it would have to follow their example and raise education standards, discipline badly behaved louts, and crack down on gangs, and such, with many initiatives. For instance, you could place immigrants all over the country, away from each other and the potential collaboration and conflict. That, and teach them in traditional British values. As for the rest of the louts, well we all know what they need. Punishment and discipline.
Also, bring back the old drinking laws, ban people under 18 from getting ahold of booze at all. If you see them with alcohol, confiscate it, find out where they got it, and fine the shopowner. I.D should also have certification chips. There is also the issue of bad parenting, which is just as much to blame as a lack of discipline in schools.
I agree with my views still Hadron, you are placing tough law enforcement on par with totalitarianism. There need to be safeguards to ensure that the vast police resources cannot be used against the population by a loony government. Perhaps the Swiss way of arming the populace might just do the trick. Oh, and screw "he who is willing to sacrifice freedom for security will have neither", it really isn\'t a general rule. The way that the UK government- this is something I\'m going to give Blair\'s government credit for, despise such an administration though I did, took on terrorism and prevented all the terrorist plots is comforting. All of the plots after 7/7 failed, including the Glasgow airport bombings.
Some people feel distrustful of the police in general because most British politicians today are clowns and not statesmen, and don\'t know how to tackle most problems.
im having trouble quoting things properly.
Also, asdafg
18 Aug 2007, 10:56 am
So yes, that argument is deeply flawed...
Well, sniper rifles aren\'t much good for holding the occupants of your average UK 3-bed semi at bay whilst you make off with the TV, you know, Anubis. They aren\'t especially easy to conceal, either, and tend to be rather heavy, so I really don\'t see your point.
As far as your argument about someone creeping up on me with a weapon goes, they currently already can with an illegal handgun which are widely available. Or, indeed, with a knife. If you have the right to carry a weapon and to use it I\'m suggesting that not only would certain crimes be reduced, but that quality of life would be improved because individuals would feel in control of their own fate. This is especially true for older folk, and females, who are more vulnerable to violent attack, as well as those living in remoter communities. Currently, in many rural parts of the UK if you call the police, they\'ll not be able to attend for some time; the criminal fraternity know this, and take full advantage.
So, Anubis, there really is no deep flaw to the position I\'ve taken. Furthermore, if you want an example of well-armed citizens in a country with low rates of gun crime then look at Switzerland. You see, the flaw is in your position of taking the left-wing view that all guns are bad. Guns are only bad within a certain context. Now, to be honest, I wouldn\'t want to see our country armed like the US or Switzerland just yet. It really is a different context to that which exists in both those places, but whilst the police continue to act as Gordon Brown\'s Gestapo it seems very attractive to allow homeowners to keep certain types of weapon for protection, and for them to be able to use them lethally on intruders without fear of prosecution.
Left wing? No, I\'d say that it was more right wing and against such a freedom. Mainly against the risk of weapons getting into the hands of criminals.
Thing is, the people of Switzerland are mostly well educated, peaceful, and all able bodied males who are not in the civil service or police are conscripted into the army, and given a free rifle for home defence. Just as well. Actually, the only reason that the crime rate has gone up is because of more immigration. People who have not been educated the Swiss way, and have disturbed the peace. But Switzerland, in comparison to the UK has much lower crime rates already. Unless all UK citizens were issued weapons with inbuilt markings unique to the owner, which could not be removed, then there could be problems. If Britain wanted anywhere near Swiss crime rates, with legal weapons, it would have to follow their example and raise education standards, discipline badly behaved louts, and crack down on gangs, and such, with many initiatives. For instance, you could place immigrants all over the country, away from each other and the potential collaboration and conflict. That, and teach them in traditional British values. As for the rest of the louts, well we all know what they need. Punishment and discipline.
Also, bring back the old drinking laws, ban people under 18 from getting ahold of booze at all. If you see them with alcohol, confiscate it, find out where they got it, and fine the shopowner. I.D should also have certification chips. There is also the issue of bad parenting, which is just as much to blame as a lack of discipline in schools.
I agree with my views still Hadron, you are placing tough law enforcement on par with totalitarianism. There need to be safeguards to ensure that the vast police resources cannot be used against the population by a loony government. Perhaps the Swiss way of arming the populace might just do the trick. Oh, and screw "he who is willing to sacrifice freedom for security will have neither", it really isn\'t a general rule. The way that the UK government- this is something I\'m going to give Blair\'s government credit for, despise such an administration though I did, took on terrorism and prevented all the terrorist plots is comforting. All of the plots after 7/7 failed, including the Glasgow airport bombings.
Some people feel distrustful of the police in general because most British politicians today are clowns and not statesmen, and don\'t know how to tackle most problems.
im having trouble quoting things properly.
Also, asdafg
18 Aug 2007, 10:57 am
[quote=\"Anubis\"][quote=\"ascan\"][quote=\"Anubis\"]...However, if guns are available to everyone, not everyone will buy them, either, and there are such things as sniper rifles [...] It\\\'s not as simple as \"you have a gun, I have a gun\", nowhere near. There\\\'s also the element of surprise. What are you going to do if someone creeps up and points a gun at you when your own is holstered? You\\\'d be dead if you tried to do anything except comply in most cases.
So yes, that argument is deeply flawed...[/quote]
Well, sniper rifles aren\\\'t much good for holding the occupants of your average UK 3-bed semi at bay whilst you make off with the TV, you know, Anubis. They aren\\\'t especially easy to conceal, either, and tend to be rather heavy, so I really don\\\'t see your point.
As far as your argument about someone creeping up on me with a weapon goes, they currently already can with an illegal handgun which are widely available. Or, indeed, with a knife. If you have the right to carry a weapon and to use it I\\\'m suggesting that not only would certain crimes be reduced, but that quality of life would be improved because individuals would feel in control of their own fate. This is especially true for older folk, and females, who are more vulnerable to violent attack, as well as those living in remoter communities. Currently, in many rural parts of the UK if you call the police, they\\\'ll not be able to attend for some time; the criminal fraternity know this, and take full advantage.
So, Anubis, there really is no deep flaw to the position I\\\'ve taken. Furthermore, if you want an example of well-armed citizens in a country with low rates of gun crime then look at Switzerland. You see, the flaw is in your position of taking the left-wing view that all guns are bad. Guns are only bad within a certain context. Now, to be honest, I wouldn\\\'t want to see our country armed like the US or Switzerland just yet. It really is a different context to that which exists in both those places, but whilst the police continue to act as Gordon Brown\\\'s Gestapo it seems very attractive to allow homeowners to keep certain types of weapon for protection, and for them to be able to use them lethally on intruders without fear of prosecution.[/quote]
Left wing? No, I\\\'d say that it was more right wing and against such a freedom. Mainly against the risk of weapons getting into the hands of criminals.
Thing is, the people of Switzerland are mostly well educated, peaceful, and all able bodied males who are not in the civil service or police are conscripted into the army, and given a free rifle for home defence. Just as well. Actually, the only reason that the crime rate has gone up is because of more immigration. People who have not been educated the Swiss way, and have disturbed the peace. But Switzerland, in comparison to the UK has much lower crime rates already. Unless all UK citizens were issued weapons with inbuilt markings unique to the owner, which could not be removed, then there could be problems. If Britain wanted anywhere near Swiss crime rates, with legal weapons, it would have to follow their example and raise education standards, discipline badly behaved louts, and crack down on gangs, and such, with many initiatives. For instance, you could place immigrants all over the country, away from each other and the potential collaboration and conflict. That, and teach them in traditional British values. As for the rest of the louts, well we all know what they need. Punishment and discipline.
Also, bring back the old drinking laws, ban people under 18 from getting ahold of booze at all. If you see them with alcohol, confiscate it, find out where they got it, and fine the shopowner. I.D should also have certification chips. There is also the issue of bad parenting, which is just as much to blame as a lack of discipline in schools.
I agree with my views still Hadron, you are placing tough law enforcement on par with totalitarianism. There need to be safeguards to ensure that the vast police resources cannot be used against the population by a loony government. Perhaps the Swiss way of arming the populace might just do the trick. Oh, and screw \"he who is willing to sacrifice freedom for security will have neither\", it really isn\\\'t a general rule. The way that the UK government- this is something I\\\'m going to give Blair\\\'s government credit for, despise such an administration though I did, took on terrorism and prevented all the terrorist plots is comforting. All of the plots after 7/7 failed, including the Glasgow airport bombings.
Some people feel distrustful of the police in general because most British politicians today are clowns and not statesmen, and don\\\'t know how to tackle most problems.[/quote]
sorry double post - my machive in as acting up
18 Aug 2007, 12:41 pm
18 Aug 2007, 1:07 pm
18 Aug 2007, 1:14 pm
18 Aug 2007, 1:14 pm
18 Aug 2007, 1:29 pm
18 Aug 2007, 1:48 pm
