• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Knife crime in the UK.

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
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

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,179
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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.
 
Last edited:

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
'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

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
626
Location
north of the Peoples Republic of Madison
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

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 
Last edited:

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America

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

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
[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

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
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.

 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

Beretta-m9

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
110
Location
usa
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.
 
Top