Brett ([info]wakko) wrote,
@ 2007-08-14 15:17:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current location:@werk
Current mood: disgusted
Current music:Led Zepplin - Boogie with Stu

More reasons why I'm glad I don't live in the UK.
So, [info]junya posted this little morsel today.

Now, there's plenty of discussion fodder about this article. However, the part that I took particular exception with was this idiot Mom's statement:

Isobel Ball, 39, of Romford, Essex, contacted BladeRunner after her daughter Amy, 13, was mugged for her mobile on a school bus. She said: “I’ve been worried sick. Knife crime is a real problem facing the youth of today. She’ll have a stab-proof blazer for as long as she’s at school, or until the Government does something about the menace on our streets.”

Excuse me... what?!? Knife crime? Knife crime??

Pull the other one. You've got to be shitting me.

This really goes to show you how entrenched the idea of the nanny state is over there. They're divvying up crimes by weapon choice as if there is some functional way to differentiate those that commit "gun crime" with those who commit "knife crime" or "grand piano crime" or "high velocity alpaca crime".

Crime is crime is crime. You're just as dead if you're murdered with a knife as you are if you're murdered with a baseball bat. To subdivide crime is to give the criminal additional means for eluding the justice we're attempting to apply. (Whether that justice is truly just is secondary and tangental)

It also illustrates how focused they are on the inanmiate object used by a criminal, rather than the criminal themselves. As if the scumbag wouldn't BE a criminal if it weren't for those evil, nasty weapons. As if every person is capable of some Jekyll and Hyde routine if they pick up a "dangerous weapon", and therefore everyone is much better off letting the benevolent government take those away from everyone like they're removing a choking hazard from a toddler's playpen.

The reality is that such subdivisions are political rather than practical. They allow politicians to focus on the tools involved in the largest number of crimes and arrive at a convenient scapegoat. After all, it's easier to believe that it's the knives (or guns, or baseball bats, or pillows) that are The Real Problem rather than try to solve the truly difficult problem of tackling why your society's members are such bastards to each other.


Advertisement

(Post a new comment)


[info]haate
2007-08-14 11:16 pm UTC (link)
this is probably because I'm really fucking tired, but god damn "high velocity alpaca crime" is the funniest thing.

(Reply to this)

[info]templar46_2
2007-08-14 11:57 pm UTC (link)
they distinguish crime in the states too though... we too have "knife crime" not to mention gang-crime, sex-crime, assault-crimes, etc...

i'm always slightly torn on this sort of thing... on the one hand, yeah, if someone intends to do you harm, they're going to figure out a way to comit that crime whether they've got a weapon or not...

on the other hand, i've actually known idiots who picked up something like a knife, and decided that having it ment they not only could... but SHOULD go out and maybe use it on someone.

not to metion the fact that a guy without a weapon, is someone i have a much better shot at subduing or not being killed as quickly.

either way though... the real problem IS INDEED "why are our society's members such bastards to each other". i certainly agree with you there.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]wakko
2007-08-15 12:34 am UTC (link)
they distinguish crime in the states too though... we too have "knife crime" not to mention gang-crime, sex-crime, assault-crimes, etc...

Not really.

When they talk about "gun crime" and "knife crime", they're talking about "crime that was caused by the gun or knife", not "some guy committed a crime with a knife".

We don't have "sex crime" in the sense of "sex caused a crime", it's "a person committed a crime involving sex".

The big difference here being that they're literally blaming the object for causing the crime, not the criminal. Many of them truly believe that removing the object will remove the crime. It's insane.


on the other hand, i've actually known idiots who picked up something like a knife, and decided that having it ment they not only could... but SHOULD go out and maybe use it on someone.

I've known similar people myself.

The average is around 1-2% of the human population is criminally insane. There's nothing we can do about it other than figure out ways to identify them quickly, and remove them from the general population.

This, unfortunately, is another problem. Many people mis-identify these nutjobs as "the general populace", when they're really not even close.

The difficulty is maintaining freedom for the general populace, who can be responsible with dangerous things, and figuring out how to keep the nutjobs from taking advantage of the freedom and doing horrible things.


not to metion the fact that a guy without a weapon, is someone i have a much better shot at subduing or not being killed as quickly.

Not actually true. According to Gary Kleck's research into the matter, you're actually significantly more likely to be injured or killed by confronting a criminal hand-to-hand. The only reliable options for dealing with a criminal and getting away without harm are avoidance (running to safety) and using a firearm to deal with the threat at a distance.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]templar46_2
2007-08-15 01:02 am UTC (link)
hrm... well maybe i misread it, and put different emphasis on the quote. It sounded to me like "people who commit crimes with knives" and not "knives that commit crime, which just happen to be wielded by people"...

"Many people mis-identify these nutjobs as "the general populace", when they're really not even close."

i'm not sure i believe that. But that's just the paranoid misanthropic in me... deep down i'm fairly sure that the line between "it CAN occur to someone" and them actually acting on it... is very very thin. It's been my experiance that disgustingly few people are law abiding only because they're afraid of being caught... if people thought, even for a second, that they'd be able to get away with it... there would be no order. Fortunately i've gone out of my way to surround myself with people who don't commit crimes because it's the right thing to do, and not purely out of fear of the consequences.

"Not actually true. According to Gary Kleck's research into the matter, you're actually significantly more likely to be injured or killed by confronting a criminal hand-to-hand."

i'm not sure i buy that one either. now... there's a whole world of difference to between "confronting a criminal" and "trying not to get stabbed/shot". Obviously it's a dangerous thing to confront anyone in the process of a crime, as they've already demonstrated they don't mind breaking one law... what's breaking one more (and you while they're at it)? But in a life-or-death situation, i'd rather attempt to defend myself from a guy trying to punch me, than trying to outrun a maniac with a gun, or try to keep a guy's knife out of my eyes.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]templar46_2
2007-08-15 01:04 am UTC (link)
need to work on my syntax there...

it's been my experiance that disgustingly few people are law abiding only because they're afraid of being caught...

that should be: "it's been my experiance that disgustingly few people are genuinely law abiding and most are only (mostly) so because they're afraid of being caught..."

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]wakko
2007-08-15 05:18 am UTC (link)
i'm not sure i believe that. But that's just the paranoid misanthropic in me...

You don't have to take my word for it, there is plenty of freely accessible data that you can look at to find out what the reality is.

i'm not sure i buy that one either.

If you'd like to read the research, Gary Kleck has published his studies in a couple of different books.

At first it sounds kind of counter-intuitive, until you really look at both the crime statistics and the criminal psychology.

There's a great study that was done by the DOJ that asked convicted felons a variety of questions. One of the questions asked was the things that concerned them most when committing a crime. The majority of them (over 75%) said that they were more concerned about being confronted by armed citizens than they were of even the police.

When you get right down to it, criminals want victims. They want easy prey. For the ones that aren't simply psychotic killers, they just want your stuff and want to be able to get away without any resistance. So, any sort of confrontation or resistance, especially by someone capable of defending themselves with force, is enough to make them think twice about actually committing the crime.

This is exactly why women are the targets of somewhere around 90% of all personal crimes. They are perceived as weaker and less able to put up a fight.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]templar46_2
2007-08-15 04:14 pm UTC (link)
i don't think you're catching the difference i mean... i'm speaking purely on a "life or death" unavoidable, i MUST defend myself because i have absolutely no other option, scenario...

i'm saying i'd rather be punched in the head repeatedly, and kicked until all my ribs broken and ruined....

... than be stabbed in the FACE with a KNIFE! (or shot... actually maybe i'd rather be shot over anything else... but the odds of death seem larger there)

"data that you can look at to find out what the reality is."

pfft... i'm keeping away lions right now this minute... see... no lions! (and pffft... i reject your "reality" and substitute my own!)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]wakko
2007-08-15 06:15 pm UTC (link)
Sure, I understand what you're saying.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]turtle_avenger
2007-08-15 01:27 am UTC (link)
Wouldn't we all feel safer if we could just blame an inanimate object for our problems?

It's so easy to just throw out that horrible nasty piece of metal.

Man, then we wouldn't have to deal with human evil. No more bad guys!

(Reply to this)

[info]maclean
2007-08-15 03:49 pm UTC (link)
We actually don't distinguish by weapon type as much as people believe. We distinguish by type of assault.

At any rate, if this disgusts you take a look at what happens to anyone over there that actually defends themselves.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]wakko
2007-08-15 05:49 pm UTC (link)
I've seen it. It's awful that criminals get more rights than victims over there.

It just boggles my mind every time I see how entrenched these insane ideas are.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…