Quote from Strelok

I'm glad you Britains have started calling muggings a standard procedure.

High school shootings in the US should be by now.

In England and Wales 2007 (the last year with published statistics) we had 49 firearm homicides. It's not easy to draw valid statistical observations from a sample size which is so small, but I'll try.

The US had 10,164. We're in luck. That's easily enough to be valid.

Now, it's very difficult to find the statistics for how many murders were prevented with firearms, but I've managed to find six examples of it happening. If you can find more then by all means let me know so we can get the records straight.

By my calculations, that's 1/1694 murders prevented by guns. A total of 0.0289 people would have been saved by Britons carrying guns. In terms of the 42 times higher murder rate in the first place (taking into account population) I'm not sure it's worth it.

At the moment the criminals carry knives at the most. They know that the people they're mugging don't have guns, and so they feel no need to carry a gun themselves. It's the most basic aspect of economic psychology. People respond to incentives. American criminals have an incentive to carry a gun, ie. if they don't they will be buried six feet under within an hour of starting up. British criminals have no incentive to carry a gun, and so they don't bother. As such, you have a much greater chance of defending yourself against an attacker.

Schwa made an excellent point with regard to relevance, and so I'll come back to cameras.

@ Cosmonaut : what are you trying to say? That cameras don't prevent crime? Granted, they won't shoot the criminal as soon as he tries to mug you, but a criminal is less likely to mug you at all in an area where there are six CCTV cameras watching him. Plus, if he does mug you, you have a massively improved chance of catching him so you have prevented all future muggings that he would have commited.

Quote from Ustartin

High school shootings in the US should be by now.

I know, because of course it's only us Americans doing mass shootings.

Quote from Strelok

I know, because of course it's only us Americans doing mass shootings.

Notice the distinct absence of them in Britain. What's that? Zero school shootings since guns were invented?

That's because wiggers are too stupid to plan anything.

Quote from Strelok

That's because wiggers are too stupid to plan anything.

I'm sorry, but was that an American trying to claim that his country is more intelligent than another? If I might, once again bring you back to statistics; this time the one that ranks your country bottom of the planet for intelect.

http://www.abytheliberal.com/internationalism/are-americans-stupid-statistics-and-research-data

Quote from Zed

I'm sorry, but was that an American trying to claim that his country is more intelligent than another? If I might, once again bring you back to statistics; this time the one that ranks your country bottom of the planet for intelect.

Yeah, not like the only thing you people complain about rather than trying to defend yourselves are "chavs."

Quote from Strelok

Yeah, not like the only thing you people complain about rather than trying to defend yourselves are "chavs."

And you think that blowing a guy's head off for calling you names in the street is an appropriate response? Anyway, complaining and defending against are not mutually exclusive. Chav-baiting is the third most popular sport in the country amongst the under 25s.

I've been foiled by time-zones. I'm going to have to leave you till tomorrow to construct your argument. Have a good night :)

Quote from Zed

And you think that blowing a guy's head off for calling you names in the street is an appropriate response? Anyway, complaining and defending against are not mutually exclusive. Chav-baiting is the third most popular sport in the country amongst the under 25s.

I've been foiled by time-zones. I'm going to have to leave you till tomorrow to construct your argument. Have a good night :)

calling you names =/= felony.

Is the decreased crime rate in the UK however due to Camera's or due to the ban on guns?

Because I will concede that decreased ownership of guns will lead to a decrease in violent gun related death. But, again using statistics, this is really a non relevant victory. The population of the US is estimated at around 300,000,000 so with the lives that could have been saved by gun prohibition you have saved .003% of American lives. Congratulations.

This is an insignificant number of people saved, making the ban on firearms an irrelevant point. All you have done to ban firearms is save a negligible (nearly non existent most would argue) amount of lives at the expense of a nation being able to defend itself from a tyrannical government. (I concede this point is not as viable as it may have been one or two centuries ago but it still is more viable than the negligible percentage of lives saved)

According to this website http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm .006% (rounding up) of all US citizens are a victim of a violent crime resulting in death.

And apparently in the UK there were 800 deaths due to violent crime. Which comes to about .0013% of all UK citizens, circa 2006.

Which may seem like far less, but is only a difference of .0047% The amount of lives you've saved by denying your country the ability to defend itself from it's government, mob rule, and possible zombie invasions and putting up security cameras is entirely negligible. And I am willing to bet extremely disproportionate to the cost in taxes in putting up the security camera's and enforcing the no gun laws.

So please do not tell me that by banning guns you've saved the world, because you really haven't done anything worth mentioning. It's an entirely negligible amount of crime prevented, statistically.

Even if you prevented all of homicides by neglecting people the ability to use their hands, feets, pillows, and office supplies it would be a negligible victory for the whole saving people's lives thing. But a great victory for a commandeering dictatorial government. You are on the wrong side of the hill, there are no real benefits either way you go.

-----

Now that I have that out of the way (which took me forever, by the way, it's impossible to find statistics about the UK, which makes me suspicious also)

Because I still do not see statistics that state that the cameras prevent crime, and I see no logical reason that they should do so.

I have often come to this observation over here, and it has rekindled my faith in humanity, that crime is so exceedingly easy to pull off that the fact the world has not descended into chaos as a positive aspect of humanity, as many people just do not choose to do something so easy to get away with, and that is crime.

As an example I'd like to describe a situation: Near my house there are some woods. I live in a neighborhood near the woods. I could leave my house and go into the woods, carrying a backpack under my jacket with an extra set of clothes. In the woods I would change, leaving my back pack there. Then, taking a tire iron, I could run through my neighborhood and break several windows and several cars before an appropriate response is mounted (people waking up). Once I've had my fun I run into the woods, change, and walk to a friends house, leaving no evidence at the scene of the crime with no way to link me to the crime, unless someone suspected me of doing it, in which case I could say I was going to a friends house.

Now with camera's what would be changed? Nothing much. Most camera's are of such low quality as to be able to identify mostly just build, race and sex (Evidence of this? My friends bike was stolen from the school, 40 feet away from it in broad day light and in the security tapes he could not identify the thief at all). Barring this all I would have to do is wear a mask and my identity is pretty much concealed. There is no way for them to trace me if I am not under suspect for carrying out past crimes.

All I have to do to avoid being caught is, in essence, wear a mask. (Yes it's more complicated than that and it probably does lead to a minimal increase in the amount of perpetrators captured and a minimal decrease in crime committed, but I am sure these are also negligible. However I am too tired of the internet to look up any more statistics and will save it for a later post.)

I realize that is not a strong argument so I propose another one.

The cost of setting up, maintaining, peopleling, and storing the information from the camera's in taxes and other forms of revenue is, I bet, far disproportionate to the amount of crime and property loss prevented. In light of this (ignoring the slippery slope argument) the installation of camera's does not make sense logically. Regardless of whether they prevent crime or not.

0.003 % is 9000 people. A small percentage doesn't equal an insignificant number.

also, your last argument. Seriously? Not everything is profit oriented. If cameras increase the safety of the people, they should obviously be put up. Regardless of whether or not the state makes money of them. It's kind of the point of taxes and a welfare society.

Other than that, I think it must be realised that there are other factors than cameras and guns that affect crime rate, such as poverty, so to only compare crime rate in the UK and US and then whether or not the countries have cameras/guns is way too superficial.

Quote from alive

0.003 % is 9000 people. A small percentage doesn't equal an insignificant number.

also, your last argument. Seriously? Not everything is profit oriented. If cameras increase the safety of the people, they should obviously be put up. Regardless of whether or not the state makes money of them. It's kind of the point of taxes and a welfare society.

Other than that, I think it must be realised that there are other factors than cameras and guns that affect crime rate, such as poverty, so to only compare crime rate in the UK and US and then whether or not the countries have cameras/guns is way too superficial.

A small percentage is an insignificant number relative to the population.

So yes, it is insignificant.

My last argument is not that it makes profit, it's that it's not economically feasible or logical. If you prevent $100,000 in property loss through a $1,000,000 you've just lost $900,000. Logically it is a waste of money, and other alternatives should be searched for. Because to protect $100,000 you shouldn't need to spend more than $100,000 otherwise there is no purpose.

Also, the money invested in the security cameras I bet could be better spent on other programs to reduce not only crime (through education and what not) but to save a higher percentage of lives relative to the population by diverting the funding to health care and medical research.

In the effort to save lives and reduce crimes having security camera's is by far the most illogical and worthless approach.

Quote from Strelok

calling you names =/= felony.

But calling names is 99% of what a chav does. Occaisionally when drunk he will start a fight but he invariably loses. The rest of the time is spent reproducing. It is very rare for a chav to extend beyond anti-social behaviour.

Is the decreased crime rate in the UK ho

wever due to Camera's or due to the ban on guns?

Because I will concede that decreased ownership of guns will lead to a decrease in violent gun related death. But, again using statistics, this is really a non relevant victory. The population of the US is estimated at around 300,000,000 so with the lives that could have been saved by gun prohibition you have saved .003% of American lives. Congratulations.

This is an insignificant number of people saved, making the ban on firearms an irrelevant point. All you have done to ban firearms is save a negligible (nearly non existent most would argue) amount of lives at the expense of a nation being able to defend itself from a tyrannical government. (I concede this point is not as viable as it may have been one or two centuries ago but it still is more viable than the negligible percentage of lives saved)

According to this website http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm .006% (rounding up) of all US citizens are a victim of a violent crime resulting in death.

And apparently in the UK there were 800 deaths due to violent crime. Which comes to about .0013% of all UK citizens, circa 2006.

Which may seem like far less, but is only a difference of .0047% The amount of lives you've saved by denying your country the ability to defend itself from it's government, mob rule, and possible zombie invasions and putting up security cameras is entirely negligible. And I am willing to bet extremely disproportionate to the cost in taxes in putting up the security camera's and enforcing the no gun laws. [/QUOTE]

The no gun laws more or less take care of themselves. We appreciate that we don't need them and don't want them. The only people who have guns are hitmen and the occaisional thug who just thinks it looks cool. We have some shotguns under licence for keeping away birds and foxes but besides that there's next to nothing that needs enforcing.

Now then, I'll ignore the zombie invasions comment because you're not a true Englishman if you don't keep a machete handy and know how to lop off a head at a moments notice. We also have quite an impressive collection of axes, etc. left over from fighting the French for five hundred years solid. At least we won't run out of ammo.

Mob rule is defended against by the government and her majesty's armed forces, capable of fielding just over one million men if the reserves are called up, and a quarter of a million of the best trained men in the world (don't deny it; our guys train yours) are on call for mobilisation within 48 hours at any one time. I think we're safe.

For defence against the government, note the million men refered to in the above paragraph. Do you honestly think that we could defend ourselves against them if we all had pistols? That's allowing for the notion that they might actually try to impose martial law, which is absurd itself.

So please do not tell me that by banning

guns you've saved the world, because you really haven't done anything worth mentioning. It's an entirely negligible amount of crime prevented, statistically. [/QUOTE]

But a very real ammount of crime if you're one of those nine thousand. We don't claim we've saved the world. We've saved ourselves. The rest of the world can **** itself if it so wishes.

Even if you prevented all of homicides b

y neglecting people the ability to use their hands, feets, pillows, and office supplies it would be a negligible victory for the whole saving people's lives thing. But a great victory for a commandeering dictatorial government. You are on the wrong side of the hill, there are no real benefits either way you go.

The thing is, hands, feet, etc. have

a secondary use which is beneficial. A gun is an instrument of death and nothing more (allowing for modern art, of course, but that can always use replicas and we'll still confiscate the ammo).

Now that I have that out of the way (whi

ch took me forever, by the way, it's impossible to find statistics about the UK, which makes me suspicious also) Try using google.co.uk instead of .com. Then you can search pages from the UK only.
Because I still do not see statistics that state that the cameras prevent crime, and I see no logical reason that they should do so.

I have often come to this observation over here, and it has rekindled my faith in humanity, that crime is so exceedingly easy to pull off that the fact the world has not descended into chaos as a positive aspect of humanity, as many people just do not choose to do something so easy to get away with, and that is crime.

As an example I'd like to describe a situation: Near my house there are some woods. I live in a neighborhood near the woods. I could leave my house and go into the woods, carrying a backpack under my jacket with an extra set of clothes. In the woods I would change, leaving my back pack there. Then, taking a tire iron, I could run through my neighborhood and break several windows and several cars before an appropriate response is mounted (people waking up). Once I've had my fun I run into the woods, change, and walk to a friends house, leaving no evidence at the scene of the crime with no way to link me to the crime, unless someone suspected me of doing it, in which case I could say I was going to a friends house.

Now with camera's what would be changed? Nothing much. Most camera's are of such low quality as to be able to identify mostly just build, race and sex (Evidence of this? My friends bike was stolen from the school, 40 feet away from it in broad day light and in the security tapes he could not identify the thief at all). Barring this all I would have to do is wear a mask and my identity is pretty much concealed. There is no way for them to trace me if I am not under suspect for carrying out past crimes.

All I have to do to avoid being caught is, in essence, wear a mask. (Yes it's more complicated than that and it probably does lead to a minimal increase in the amount of perpetrators captured and a minimal decrease in crime committed, but I am sure these are also negligible. However I am too tired of the internet to look up any more statistics and will save it for a later post.)
[/QUOTE]

It's an interesting argument, certainly, but people do nothing without incentives. If you got some sort of immense pleasure out of inflicting that kind of damage then I'm sure you would. Fortunately there are not many sadists in the world. When people are deciding whether or not to commit a crime they will weigh up a number of factors (probably subconciously and very quickly. They wouldn't write it down or anything) such as the benefit to them of doing it, the chance of getting caught, the implications of getting caught, the opportunity cost (what they could be doing instead) and there will also be a slight moral pull for most people. It's an evolved thing, beneficial to the species as a whole. In the vast majority of cases people decide it's not worth it. What the cameras do is increase the figure under "probability of getting caught". Even if they don't help that much, there will be a psychological feeling that they will, and this will make our potential criminal think he has a greater chance of being caught than he does. The same effect is incurred from watching the TV programme CSI; in reality the police will almost never do a DNA test until it's crucial because the damn things cost thousands a pop.

A small percentage is an insignificant n

umber relative to the population.

So yes, it is insignificant.

My last argument is not that it makes profit, it's that it's not economically feasible or logical. If you prevent $100,000 in property loss through a $1,000,000 you've just lost $900,000. Logically it is a waste of money, and other alternatives should be searched for. Because to protect $100,000 you shouldn't need to spend more than $100,000 otherwise there is no purpose.

Also, the money invested in the security cameras I bet could be better spent on other programs to reduce not only crime (through education and what not) but to save a higher percentage of lives relative to the population by diverting the funding to health care and medical research.

In the effort to save lives and reduce crimes having security camera's is by far the most illogical and worthless approach.[/QUOTE]

Education won't help. Your education system is hugely more expensive then anywhere elses, even per capita, and a fat lot of good it's done you.

In the short term, diverting to healthcare and medical research possibly. I will grant you that one, however for healthcare you must invest a certain ammount of money on each person you save. Cameras have a high initial cost but a negligable maintainance cost. Once you have the cameras in place they will keep on saving lives, wheras a drug will only save one person per dose.

Quote from Zed

For defence against the government, note the million men refered to in the above paragraph. Do you honestly think that we could defend ourselves against them if we all had pistols? That's allowing for the notion that they might actually try to impose martial law, which is absurd itself.

In the case, the very real possibility that your government turns corrupt and caves to commercial or purely personal interests, that martial law is declared, and someone rises to dictatorial power you would have a much better chance of the 60 or so million of you defending yourselves from the army if you were all armed with guns, than if you did not.

[Also, another simple fact is that there are sixty times as many people in the UK as there are trained soldiers. The rules of sheer numbers would precipitate a victory for the people, if they possessed guns and if their liberties were ever threatened collectively.

However it is more likely that the threat to liberty will be subversive as in the slippery slope argument with gun control and camera laws, rather than overt.]

And in the case, again, of a dictator rising to power (which could happen in ways not so blatantly obvious, as per the slippery slope argument) by removing guns already you have removed the way of obvious resistance and decreased the job of the new dictatorship in controlling it's people. Because it is easier to control someone if they have no chance of fighting back.

I think that the amount of lives saved by banning guns is a negligible percentage compared to the amount it increases unnecessarily government control over the people.

Because, again, a simple matter is that preventing .005% of deaths, (Probably around .01% of preventable deaths or something, I don't feel like looking up statistics, because even on google.co.uk they are ridiculously difficult to find) is worthless in terms of lives saved and property protected.

But a very real ammount of crime if you're one of those nine thousand. We don't claim we've saved the world. We've saved ourselves. The rest of the world can **** itself if it so wishes.

You've done absolutely nothing in terms of your country or the world. This is honestly not the answer I was expecting from someone who is generally completely logical and relies on statistics. Logically the amount of death and property loss prevented is negligible, emotions and individual loss do not factor in to statistics.

The thing is, hands, feet, etc. have a secondary use which is beneficial. A gun is an instrument of death and nothing more (allowing for modern art, of course, but that can always use replicas and we'll still confiscate the ammo).

A gun can be used to hunt, as a sport, and to protect oneself from people who wish to do you harm. Including the government. It gives people freedom to defend themselves from a dictator (why do you think we provide arms aid to countries defending themselves from an uprising dictator? Because if they all had guns they could prevent the unwanted dictator from taking control)

A gun has more beneficial uses than a coat hanger, a baseball bat, a long strip of wood, a rock found in a pond, or even a stripped screw. Yet all of these can be used effectively for murder. Should we ban these too? To prevent all forms of man on man violence? Where do the dangers end?

In my personal opinion it is worth sacrificing the negligible .005% of lives for the sake of having a contingency plan in the case of corrupt government or mob rule.

It's an interesting argument, certainly, but people do nothing without incentives. If you got some sort of immense pleasure out of inflicting that kind of damage then I'm sure you would. Fortunately there are not many sadists in the world. When people are deciding whether or not to commit a crime they will weigh up a number of factors (probably subconciously and very quickly. They wouldn't write it down or anything) such as the benefit to them of doing it, the chance of getting caught, the implications of getting caught, the opportunity cost (what they could be doing instead) and there will also be a slight moral pull for most people. It's an evolved thing, beneficial to the species as a whole. In the vast majority of cases people decide it's not worth it. What the cameras do is increase the figure under "probability of getting caught". Even if they don't help that much, there will be a psychological feeling that they will, and this will make our potential criminal think he has a greater chance of being caught than he does. The same effect is incurred from watching the TV programme CSI; in reality the police will almost never do a DNA test until it's crucial because the damn things cost thousands a pop.

This all really comes down to the slippery slope argument, which it doesn't seem like anyone can agree on.

I think it's unnecessary government control. People need to be protected to a certain extent, but when is a certain extent too far? When would you stop?

Education won't help. Your education system is hugely more expensive then anywhere elses, even per capita, and a fat lot of good it's done you.

Where there is education there are jobs, where there are jobs there is money, where there is money there are middle class families, where there are middle class families there is less crime.

There are more crimes in the 'ghetto's and poorer districts of towns then there are in the suburbs. More education would lead to more suburbs and less 'ghettos'

In the short term, diverting to healthcare and medical research possibly. I will grant you that one, however for healthcare you must invest a certain ammount of money on each person you save. Cameras have a high initial cost but a negligable maintainance cost. Once you have the cameras in place they will keep on saving lives, wheras a drug will only save one person per dose.

Medical research has a relatively low initial cost and the benefits of the knowledge keep on giving indefinitely. It is far more cost effective than the camera system.

And in the camera system you may like to believe that it will only cost a lot of money initially but here I think you are wrong. Assuming your government stays with the camera's they already have installed they still need to pay for maintenence, cleaning, repairs and replacements. They have to pay for the camera's to be operated (in electricity and man power), they have to pay for the information to be stored, they have to pay and pay. And if your government is like I think it is (and it is) you'll be updating your camera system every couple of years.

Oh, the quality on these cameras are no good, we should switch to HD Cameras (more storage space necessary and new installations and more expensive)

Oh, we've just come out with technology that lets you recognize and distinguish between voices. Now we need cameras with this and higher quality microphones.

Oh, well sometimes we can't tell who the person is because of what they're wearing, how about some thermal imaging?

The list of improvements goes on indefinitely with negligible benefit.

Whereas in the case of medical research, or improved medical care, the benefits would be enormous (I'm willing to say upwards of 10% of all preventable deaths) compared to the benefits of the camera's.

And while the improvements for hospitals and research are indefinte, their benefits are vastly superior to the benefit of life and property saved by your cameras.

Also, if you invest a certain amount of capita in a certain product, say miracle pill, the more people buy the pill the more money is invested, therefore the pill price goes down as people continue to buy it. So while the dosages of new medicine may be costly in the beginning they will go down.

Whereas the price of higher tech cameras, man power (increasing minimum wage) and storage will only go up.