Today's mass shooting in the US

[GGizmo]

Ok, now replay that same situation in your mind, but this time you AND the "bad guy" has a gun.

You're in a compromised position as you said yourself.

Do you really believe you're even going to manage to draw your gun and get it pointed in his direction before he notices and shoots you?

*Edit*

Look at the increasing rate of knife crime in the UK over recent years... Kids start carrying knives, so more kids start carrying knives to "protect themselves" from people carrying knives.

What is the end result? Many more people willing to use that knife they are now carrying.

Attempting to counter (or "neutralize") a weapon the "bad guy(s)" might be carrying by also carrying said weapon(s) is never the solution.

My opinion on the current situation is that the criminal has a gun and I don't. I'm a sitting duck.

If I had a gun the criminal wouldn't know. I would wait for an opportunity to shoot. It might not happen so would have the same result as currently would happen.

At the moment we have no chance against an armed criminal.

It was logical knife crime would erupt once handguns were banned. Only more people, kids, can get ahold of knives. Banning handguns as made society worse (all because the police didn't follow the proper procedures with Hamilton).

 

[Fubsy]

Only time I'd want a gun, would be when society collapses and it would be my only means of attempting to defend myself, my family and my property.

I like the idea that I don't want one because I don't think it's needed in a civilised society.

Then again, I don't live or work in a town/city any longer, so quite blissfully ignorant of all the problems I left behind.

 

[Felon]

The far more sensible and simpler solution (in the UK at least) is policing that actually works.

I think one of the main problems we have right now, is that the police basically don't exist - or it certainly doesn't seem like they do (unless you get caught by a speed camera..)

Criminals are getting bolder and bolder, because there are no consequences, or the consequences themselves are pathetic.

The utter state the country is in, it's like this across the board from policing to health care - it's no wonder people are coming up with crazy ideas.

 

[Richard_16v]

The far more sensible and simpler solution (in the UK at least) is policing that actually works.

I think one of the main problems we have right now, is that the police basically don't exist - or it certainly doesn't seem like they do (unless you get caught by a speed camera..)

Criminals are getting bolder and bolder, because there are no consequences, or the consequences themselves are pathetic.

The utter state the country is in, it's like this across the board from policing to health care - it's no wonder people are coming up with crazy ideas.

I agree, but I think it's the justice system more than the policing that needs to change.

Police arrest, courts release, criminals realise they get off Scott free.

Start giving tougher sentences and I'm sure it will motivate the police to catch new criminals rather than arresting the same ones for the 5th time in a month

 

[Fubsy]

I agree, but I think it's the justice system more than the policing that needs to change.

Police arrest, courts release, criminals realise they get off Scott free.

Start giving tougher sentences and I'm sure it will motivate the police to catch new criminals rather than arresting the same ones for the 5th time in a month

I agree, but I think it's the prison system more than the justice system that needs to change.

Re-offending rates are horrific. What's the point in going to the extent of putting someone away, at considerable cost, only for them to just come out and do it again.

 

[potatolord]

If I'm going into the main town centre via a train or bus I'm likely to come across sketchy situations. A lot of people I know walk around in pairs.

I can imagine it is worse for women, especially after night fall.

If your mother, sister or daughter had to walk home at night you wouldn't be concerned for their safety? Why can't they have at least a pepper spray?

If you go into any big city on foot at night it can be dangerous.

I forgot to answer your question. The last time I was involved in a confrontation was in my early 20s in Bolton. I was sitting in my car with the door open as it was hot. I just leaned down to pick up my cola drink and a guy appeared at the door, so I couldn't shut the door.

I was compromised because I was sitting down and he was standing up. Luckily I managed to talk my way out of the situation ( I'm not sure if I give him money or not) and got away unharmed and still had my car.

If I had a gun I would have at least pulled it out. If I had a spray I would have used it.

I had adrenaline. But I still had my wits about me as I was trying to figure out how to get out of the situation.

Fair play for answering my question so honestly- I rate you for that!

I've never been to Oldham, so i'll take your word for what it's like. Can't say it's on my visiting list now.

I live in roidsville central in the valleys, but haven't felt threatened. Maybe that's just me.

I expect my wife and kids to be careful, but the world is there and they have to live in it. If they needed a gun to go to the shops, i'd be movimg. And I don't want to live in a place where i am one twitchy, scared idiot away from death either.

That car thing's bad, but honestly- let it go. Replaying what ifs is not helpful, at all- you'll never know.

 

[Richard_16v]

I agree, but I think it's the prison system more than the justice system that needs to change.

Re-offending rates are horrific. What's the point in going to the extent of putting someone away, at considerable cost, only for them to just come out and do it again.

Yeah, I think there has to be a massive reform of the prison system.

I don't know the answers, but I'd look to make it so horrible it is a deterrent rather than PS5 and pool all day that it appears to be now. I would look at capital punishment, not just for serious murderers etc, but a 3 strike and your out type policy

 

[Werewolf]

Yeah, I think there has to be a massive reform of the prison system.

I don't know the answers, but I'd look to make it so horrible it is a deterrent rather than PS5 and pool all day that it appears to be now. I would look at capital punishment, not just for serious murderers etc, but a 3 strike and your out type policy

Yes, because that's worked so well in the past, and works so well in America...

Meanwhile the likes of Sweden have prisons that actually attempt to not just put people behind bars but get them to a point where they are safe to release by doing things like getting them off drugs and teaching them skills etc, and oddly enough they have a lower reoffending rate.

IIRC the things that have actually shown to be effective at reducing reoffending rates have tended to be:
Actually catching criminals early/fast, not after they've committed hundreds of the same crime.
Getting those that are on drugs off them, as often the offending in those cases is to pay for the drugs (and by doing that you also remove a lot of more serious crime associated with it as there are fewer dealers etc).
Giving them some support when they leave prison so they're not immediately falling into the old lifestyle.

 

[Devilman]

Yeah, I think there has to be a massive reform of the prison system.

I don't know the answers, but I'd look to make it so horrible it is a deterrent rather than PS5 and pool all day that it appears to be now. I would look at capital punishment, not just for serious murderers etc, but a 3 strike and your out type policy

That's not exactly effective in the America though, is it?

Also "3 strikes and you're out" is a ridiculous policy that causes significantly more harm than good.

I can be fairly certain without having ever met you that you have, in your life, broken the law more than 3 times.

You may not have been caught for it so you don't consider it, but had you been caught, would you be happy to "go to the gallows" for 35mph in a 30 limit (for example)?

 

[wesimmo]

Yes, because that's worked so well in the past, and works so well in America...

Meanwhile the likes of Sweden have prisons that actually attempt to not just put people behind bars but get them to a point where they are safe to release by doing things like getting them off drugs and teaching them skills etc, and oddly enough they have a lower reoffending rate.

IIRC the things that have actually shown to be effective at reducing reoffending rates have tended to be:
Actually catching criminals early/fast, not after they've committed hundreds of the same crime.
Getting those that are on drugs off them, as often the offending in those cases is to pay for the drugs (and by doing that you also remove a lot of more serious crime associated with it as there are fewer dealers etc).
Giving them some support when they leave prison so they're not immediately falling into the old lifestyle.

Just this morning the BBC is reporting only 1 in 20 of crimes ever end up with someone being charged.

So it's largely irrelevant what sentence is given if they are found guilty, or that they have a luxurious life (they don't) in prison, as typically criminals don't consider the sentence should they be caught, the consideration is more weighted to whether they will get caught and charged.

'I told police who my burglar was - but they did nothing'

A woman who was burgled - and identified the offender from CCTV - says officers would not question him.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Werewolf]

Yup

The bigger consideration (if the criminals give it any thought) isn't "how long i'll get when caught", it's "will i get caught".

IIRC it's one of the reasons traditionally most professional criminals didn't go with guns, tried very hard not to kill innocent bystanders and wouldn't seriously hurt/kill a police officer.
They knew that those were the three things that would typically get a massive, all out response with a near certainty that the police would end up getting you (the hurting innocent bystanders tended to turn the locals against you, especially if it was a child*, and seriously hurting/killing a police officer meant that basically they would never stop looking for you).

I was just seeing a headline on the news "Research shows we need more police" and was like "really? it needed research to show that?", and a quote from one of the government idiots lying through his teeth "we've got more police than ever before", last I heard we were still below the 2010 numbers, and a lot of those were now doing jobs that used to be done by back office staff, and that's even before the whole population getting larger thing.


*As was seen a few years back when idiots who had been shooting airguns at the emergency services for ages had seen no one in the local community come forward to the police with a name, but when they killed a toddler whilst aiming at the fire service the locals started giving them up.

 

[Richard_16v]

That's not exactly effective in the America though, is it?

Also "3 strikes and you're out" is a ridiculous policy that causes significantly more harm than good.

I can be fairly certain without having ever met you that you have, in your life, broken the law more than 3 times.

You may not have been caught for it so you don't consider it, but had you been caught, would you be happy to "go to the gallows" for 35mph in a 30 limit (for example)?

Are minor road traffic offences classed as crimes? I certainly don't consider them as such.

Illegally streaming, speeding and then getting sent to the gallows for not paying a parking ticket isn't what I meant.

But sexual assault, armed robbery, serious aggravated assault etc are another matter, and it's clear there are certain types of people that will never be reformed so keep going round in circles doesn't exactly work.

If reeducation works then great, if additional support works then great, but if not after several attempts then we should consider alternative options

 

[VincentHanna]

I was just seeing a headline on the news "Research shows we need more police" and was like "really? it needed research to show that?", and a quote from one of the government idiots lying through his teeth "we've got more police than ever before", last I heard we were still below the 2010 numbers, and a lot of those were now doing jobs that used to be done by back office staff, and that's even before the whole population getting larger thing.

Yep, It's right there in the article:

While the Home Office says there are now 149,500 police officers in England and Wales - the highest number on record - the think tank says recruitment has fallen behind the 9.1% increase in population since the start of the previous decade.
According to Crest, there are now just 3.88 officers for every 1,000 people - down from 4.42 in 2010.

They want us to forget they got rid of loads of police officers during 'austerity' when Theresa May was Home Secretary.

 

[IronWarrior]

Are minor road traffic offences classed as crimes? I certainly don't consider them as such.

Illegally streaming, speeding and then getting sent to the gallows for not paying a parking ticket isn't what I meant.

But sexual assault, armed robbery, serious aggravated assault etc are another matter, and it's clear there are certain types of people that will never be reformed so keep going round in circles doesn't exactly work.

If reeducation works then great, if additional support works then great, but if not after several attempts then we should consider alternative options

Murdering people for their crimes doesn't make the next person, think and stop from comitting the same crime, capitial punishment is just revenge and miscarriages of justices are too far common, sending one innocent to death is one too much.

USA does have some good alternative options, like forced military conscription, cilvl service like forrest fire fighting and other civil jobs. Nothing wrong with making people work.

 

[Richard_16v]

Murdering people for their crimes doesn't make the next person, think and stop from comitting the same crime, capitial punishment is just revenge and miscarriages of justices are too far common, sending one innocent to death is one too much.

USA does have some good alternative options, like forced military conscription, cilvl service like forrest fire fighting and other civil jobs. Nothing wrong with making people work.

Maybe not, but society is getting to the point where something needs to be done.

Forced labour is something I would support too, just anything to make your punishment an actual punishment

 

[Mr Badger]

Maybe not, but society is getting to the point where something needs to be done.

Forced labour is something I would support too, just anything to make your punishment an actual punishment

The main punishment is the deprivation of liberty. Brutalising people who are in the care of the state does not seem to lead to good outcomes (unless your aim is to produce fitter/harder criminals). People have already mentioned the US model to you. Tough sentences, horrible prison conditions, the death penalty etc. should deter people from committing crimes, yes? Strange then how the US has an absolutely massive prison population as well as a legendarily high murder rate.

I'm not saying that every criminal can be saved and that they just need a hug. But it seems pretty obvious that trying to get them equipped to participate in civilised society on release is a better way forward than just dumping them back into their old situation (only worse because they now have a prison record and a massive chip on their shoulder about how they have been treated) where they will just repeat the same mistakes. Quite possibly ******* up the lives of some innocent people along the way.

 

[Angilion]

Maybe not, but society is getting to the point where something needs to be done.

Forced labour is something I would support too, just anything to make your punishment an actual punishment

What makes you think that would work when it has never worked before? It's not like it hasn't been tried. Many times. With a 100% failure rate.

There is one possible case where it might be considered to have worked in a sense, maybe, temporarily. That's El Salvador. A brutal dictatorship in which an unknown number of innocent people have died. Unknown because nobody is bothering to count. But it has greatly reduced the gang problem they had. Maybe you'd consider it a price worth paying. Unless you ended up tortured or killed by mistake, of course. Which could happen. It does happen in El Salvador. And El Salavdor is by far the best case scenario for your proposed approach, the only even partially successful outcome.

Bringing back slavery (which you suggested as a less extreme option) could be considered an option, but is it really a good option? Even if you don't consider slavery unethical, it hasn't worked well in the past as a deterrent. It works very well for people who own a business that profits from slavery, of course. They get state-supplied slave labour, so they don't have to pay any wages.

The most effective known option is pretty much the opposite of what you suggest. It does nothing to slake the bloodlust of people who are into that sort of thing, but it does reduce crime. It's cheaper too, unless you're just having death camps and no appeal.

 

[Richard_16v]

What makes you think that would work when it has never worked before? It's not like it hasn't been tried. Many times. With a 100% failure rate.

There is one possible case where it might be considered to have worked in a sense, maybe, temporarily. That's El Salvador. A brutal dictatorship in which an unknown number of innocent people have died. Unknown because nobody is bothering to count. But it has greatly reduced the gang problem they had. Maybe you'd consider it a price worth paying. Unless you ended up tortured or killed by mistake, of course. Which could happen. It does happen in El Salvador. And El Salavdor is by far the best case scenario for your proposed approach, the only even partially successful outcome.

Bringing back slavery (which you suggested as a less extreme option) could be considered an option, but is it really a good option? Even if you don't consider slavery unethical, it hasn't worked well in the past as a deterrent. It works very well for people who own a business that profits from slavery, of course. They get state-supplied slave labour, so they don't have to pay any wages.

The most effective known option is pretty much the opposite of what you suggest. It does nothing to slake the bloodlust of people who are into that sort of thing, but it does reduce crime. It's cheaper too, unless you're just having death camps and no appeal.

I would question if reeducation works for all, some me people are just evil and there is no fixing that.

I suppose like most things in life, there is no one size fits all, and there isn't one right answer

 

[potatolord]

The main punishment is the deprivation of liberty. Brutalising people who are in the care of the state does not seem to lead to good outcomes (unless your aim is to produce fitter/harder criminals). People have already mentioned the US model to you. Tough sentences, horrible prison conditions, the death penalty etc. should deter people from committing crimes, yes? Strange then how the US has an absolutely massive prison population as well as a legendarily high murder rate.

I'm not saying that every criminal can be saved and that they just need a hug. But it seems pretty obvious that trying to get them equipped to participate in civilised society on release is a better way forward than just dumping them back into their old situation (only worse because they now have a prison record and a massive chip on their shoulder about how they have been treated) where they will just repeat the same mistakes. Quite possibly ******* up the lives of some innocent people along the way.

It's very difficult to tell if crime is reduced by increasing sentencing. It's all a bit chicken and egg- a country with a high crime rate and high sentence lengths is such a mess of factors that it's hard to convincly argue a case either way.

Even a comparison of homicide within a single country (e.g. by US state), taking into account things like demographics, firearm legislation, sentencing regime etc is a massive job.

Personally, i'm in favour of sentencing repeat offenders to increasing terms.

I'm even more in favour of increasing police numbers and giving them sufficient time to do their job properly. It seems that UK policing spends too much time cleaning up the mess left by poorly-funded mental health sevices. I'd guess other police forces face similar issues.

 

[Angilion]

I would question if reeducation works for all, some me people are just evil and there is no fixing that.

I suppose like most things in life, there is no one size fits all, and there isn't one right answer

If there's one approach that works for almost all (or even most) and one approach that works for no-one or almost no-one, it makes sense to choose the first approach as the default. Not slavery and torture. Bear in mind that your initial suggestion was execution for stealing a pasty from Greggs. Even the USA only went as far as life in prison for that sort of thing. That's not hyperbole - that's exactly what happens with "three strikes and you're out". Although in the USA it wouldn't be Gregg's, obviously. But people in the USA have been jailed for life for stealing a slice of pizza. Under your suggestion, they'd be killed here. You dialed it back to slavery and torture as a more "moderate" approach. For everyone. One size fits all.

For the tiny minority who genuinely can't be rehabilitated, secure hospital-prisons can be used. Because they're clearly seriously and dangerously mentally ill. Even most bona fide sociopaths are capable of living within society if they want to.

[..]
I'm even more in favour of increasing police numbers and giving them sufficient time to do their job properly. It seems that UK policing spends too much time cleaning up the mess left by poorly-funded mental health sevices. I'd guess other police forces face similar issues.

I agree. Firstly because the most effective deterrent to crime is the perceived chance of being caught and secondly because police are the wrong tool for the mental health job.