Knife crime in the UK.

[Captain Nemo]

The folowing link is interesting. Since the UK passed it's virtual ban on private citizen possession of all but shotguns the use of knives in violent attacks is estimated to have risen 38%. In the article replace the word knives with guns and it looks like the UK has taken a step back in time. And the wheel goes 'round and 'round. I wonder when the politicians and so called crime "experts" are going to finally realize that control of the implement of crime is ineffectual. Realize that crime is generally caused by a complex combination of socio-economic conditions. Of course addressing that problem comes with a high price tag whereas controlling the weapon is relatively inexpensive and allows them to crow that they are proactive in crime reduction. Politicians are a wierd lot.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/lessons-uk-over-tackling-knife-crime-3701377

 

[Doug Huffman]

I wonder when the politicians and so called crime "experts" are going to finally realize that control of the implement of crime is ineffectual. Realize that crime is generally caused by a complex combination of socio-economic conditions. Of course addressing that problem comes with a high price tag whereas controlling the weapon is relatively inexpensive and allows them to crow that they are proactive in crime reduction. Politicians are a wierd lot.

'Drugs' too? "Complex combination of socio-economic conditions" sounds really familiar from that controversy.

Social unrest and/or 'crime' in the UK/former colonies correlates as well with the liberalization and non-enforcement of drug laws. Drugs are a fast slide to Third World darkness.

 

[Brass Magnet]

'Drugs' too? "Complex combination of socio-economic conditions" sounds really familiar from that controversy.

Social unrest and/or 'crime' in the UK/former colonies correlates as well with the liberalization and non-enforcement of drug laws. Drugs are a fast slide to Third World darkness.

Hmmm.... Let me change this around a bit.

Social unrest and/or 'crime' in the UK/former colonies correlates as well with the liberalization and non-enforcement of Alcohol laws. Alcohol is a fast slide to Third World darkness.

Prohibition doesn't work. 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'

It doesn't work with alcohol, it doesn't work with drugs, and it certainly doesn't work with guns.

The greater the number of laws and enactments, the more thieves and robbers there will be. Therefore the Sage says: "So long as I do nothing, the people will work out their own reformation. So long as I love calm, the people will right themselves. If only I keep from meddling, the people will grow rich. If only I am free from desire, the people will come naturally back to simplicity." - Lao Tzu

 

[GlockRDH]

The problem with comparing prohibition (of alcohol) to current drug laws is that prohibition took away something that was already fully integrated into society and had its ties to the existing ethnic groups present. Current drug laws arent trying to do that.

 

[Brass Magnet]

The problem with comparing prohibition (of alcohol) to current drug laws is that prohibition took away something that was already fully integrated into society and had its ties to the existing ethnic groups present. Current drug laws arent trying to do that.

History has proven otherwise. Marijuana, for instance, has direct ties to Mexican immigrants and the original prohibition of such was basically a Jim Crow law against them.

Many drugs that are now illegal were fully integrated into society and had been for thousands of years in various ethnic groups, not that there weren't problems with it at all in the U.S. but most of the problems were caused by disingenuous snake oil salesman who were slipping many opiates and addictive substances into their cure all remedies and tonics. That aside, people didn’t feel the need to outlaw them until a huge smear campaign by the federal government.

Prohibition has direct ties to gun control as well. Prohibition of alcohol caused an increase in organized crime such as the world had never seen (until the prohibition of drugs). When they passed the gun control act, they figured out a way to usurp power by using the commerce clause. You needed a stamp to possess a machine gun but they wouldn’t issue the stamps. After seeing that they could get away with it they used the exact same model with marijuana.

Ask yourself why they needed an amendment to prohibit alcohol but didn’t to prohibit drugs. Hmmmm.

Prohibition isn't the answer, it's a lot of the problem. Try comparing crime rates in Juarez and Amsterdam. Lao-Tzu was right in this case.

 

[Daylen]

Ask yourself why they needed an amendment to prohibit alcohol but didn’t to prohibit drugs. Hmmmm.

Same as why no amendment was used for any of the other illegal restrictions. They realized it was easier and better to not change the constitution, just the interpretation of it. If they followed the law then many more people would be familiar with how things work, which would make limiting freedom far more difficult.

 

[since9]

[Prohibition isn't the answer, it's a lot of the problem. Try comparing crime rates in Juarez and Amsterdam.

Your statement is a false attribution (fallacy). Crime rates differ between Juarez and Amsterdam for many reasons, and drug laws are among the least of the reasons. The most significant reason is that Holland will absolutely not tolerate organized crime, and will squash it if they have to mobilize the military to do it. Once Mexico allowed the Mexican drug cartels to rise to power (turning a blind eye didn't work very well) the cartels began influencing the government, and if a person can't be bought, they're simply killed.

Out of about 30 illicit drugs, both Mexico and Holland have banned the same 28.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Your statement is a false attribution (fallacy). Crime rates differ between Juarez and Amsterdam for many reasons, and drug laws are among the least of the reasons. The most significant reason is that Holland will absolutely not tolerate organized crime, and will squash it if they have to mobilize the military to do it. Once Mexico allowed the Mexican drug cartels to rise to power (turning a blind eye didn't work very well) the cartels began influencing the government, and if a person can't be bought, they're simply killed.

Out of about 30 illicit drugs, both Mexico and Holland have banned the same 28.

Nice! Take one line out of a multi-faceted post and use your own fallacy to try to prove me wrong? LOL :lol:

The funniest part is that it seems to me that we agree that biggest reason Amsterdam and Mexico differ is because of the drug cartels/organized crime. Furthermore, your post is as bigger false attribution than mine; if mine even is one, since out of the definitions for a false attribution in your link (irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated) I can't see one that fits. It's nice of you to tell me; seemingly unequivocally, what Holland will or will not do. That sure sounds "unqualified".


In case someone missed it, my actual arguement, as outlined in my FULL post, is this: Prohibition = increase in organized crime. History has proven that prohibition makes organized crime exceedingly profitable; therefore increasing its prevalence.


So a government has two choices to lower crime rates in assosiation with drugs:

1. Fight organized crime with an iron fist.
2. Stop prohibition.


Obviously there are varying degrees of both of these options.

 

[since9]

The funniest part is that it seems to me that we agree that biggest reason Amsterdam and Mexico differ is because of the drug cartels/organized crime.

Not in the least, as the same or similar cartels are trying to get their hooks into populations all over the world.

The biggest reason Amsterdam and Mexico differ are their governments. Amsterdam's remained strong, while Mexico's went soft.

I find the rest of your post extremely well-written, but continuing in the same logically fallacious idea I'd pointed out earlier, so I'll not further waste my time attempting to reason with someone for whom an idea eclipses reason.

 

[Brass Magnet]

I find the rest of your post extremely well-written, but continuing in the same logically fallacious idea I'd pointed out earlier, so I'll not further waste my time attempting to reason with someone for whom an idea eclipses reason.

Nice try but putting up a strawman in the face of a supposed false attribution isn't winning your side of the argument. If I've got you wrong and instead, you are just cruising around and labeling logical fallacies where you think you've found one, without a dog in the fight, then that's just trolling, and I'll ignore it.

Props on the insult though. Thinly veiled; yet to the point.

 

[since9]

Props on the insult though. Thinly veiled; yet to the point.

Lol, I appreciate the nod, but I didn't intend it as an insult. Nor as a straw man attack.

You and I simply disagree. I don't believe legalizing a criminal action is the way to reduce crime.

 

[Beretta-m9]

Lol, I appreciate the nod, but I didn't intend it as an insult. Nor as a straw man attack.

You and I simply disagree. I don't believe legalizing a criminal action is the way to reduce crime.

how could it not, if you take something illegal like pot for example and make it legal do explain how crime towards that substnce won't drop, I am all ears on this one.