Who is to blame for Britain's knife-crime epidemic?

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant

 

No, those figures are on reported crime and are factually correct.

I take your answer to mean that you cannot refute them, that being the case and as you seem to want to argue this in a metaphysical sense rather than a factual one, I'm done with you.

You're "Done with me"?

You appear to have difficulty discerning Fact from Perceived Fact.

An Actual Fact is something that is happening - if those articles you posted declared that they had found every case of crime, then that would be Fact.

But they didn't.

As such, it's Perceived Fact, and you've fallen folly to the very thing you've been denouncing all along, albeit from the other way round.

So, if you want to have a discussion based on Reason Seeing as your 'evidence' is questionable, then i'll be more than happy to accomodate you.

So long as you lose that rather antagonistic mannerism you seem to be displaying.

reply to post by Anti-Tyrant


And yet more semantics in place of any evidence.

These are facts.

They are the result of reported crimes - they are not my or anyone else's perceptions.

They are the result of counting all reported crime and measuring that against reported crime from previous years - you know, statistics.

And these statistics show that while violent crime has fallen, people perceptionof the risk of being a victim of violent crime has increased.

If you don't know what the words mean, look them up - like I said, I'm done because your argument has very little to do with the subject matter of this thread.

Really?

I was landing blame at the feet of the establishment and their arrogance in the face of over-population in prisons and the public domain, but of course - you in your infinte wisdom can overcome anything i say with a mere word.

Good for you.

reply to post by Anti-Tyrant


When you replied to my posts, you started banging on about population increase being to blame.

If you have evidence to show that the establishment and prison over-crowding are to blame, then by all means share this information.

Until such time as you can, your words are merely empty rhetoric.

There is a very definite touch of aggression in your words, Budski - the kind of Aggression a person exhibits when he can't understand for the life of them why someone would disagree with them.

Again, if you missed my point;

Those statistics - the ones on reported crimes, do not represent the true state of criminal activity in England.

For that to happen, you'd need to have a camera in pretty much every single place a person can go to.

Only by recording EVERY Crime can those statistics be perceived as fact.

Do you deny this?

Why is it nessecary you look upon my words as empty rhetoric?

I have explained why i do not consider the statistics you have provided to be a truly valid source of information.

reply to post by Anti-Tyrant


Complete rubbish - that is why it is called reported crime, and as such is factual in what it represents.

No-one ever said it was ALL crimes being committed.

Your argument makes no sense, nor does your attempt to twist words.

Like I said,I'm done - and no more pissy u2u's please.

reply to post by budski


Yep, you said you were done, and i u2u'd you saying

"You're "Done with me" are you?"

"Mate, you're the one who decided to end the discussion from your side - what was that saying?

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the frying pan?"

Sorry if i hit a nerve, but that's exactly what i was trying to do.

My only remaining question is thus;

Why is it so nessecary for you to denoune my words as empty rhetoric, when all i've really done is attack your source?

I don't act like i hold all the answers, do I?

I actually find it quite disturbing that you would treat someone like this, when that someone is making a point of ignoring a specific source of information because of it's questionable nature.

Have you ever considered what your opinion would be if you didn't have those sources?

reply to post by Anti-Tyrant


Please refer to my previous answer.

I have nothing more to add unless you can provide evidence to back up your assertions.

reply to post by budski


I see.

Well, i'm afraid my point was purely speculative, perhaps i should have stated so numerous times until i'd driven it into your skull.

I made a mistake in assuming that you were purposefully ignoring my point, when in reality i just failed to make it known that i was speaking from a speculative basis.

No hard feelings.



I'm still wondering why you had to dismiss my line of reasoning so quickly, though.

I mean, even if the statistics show that knife-crime isn't in "epidemic" quantities right now as the OP's title suggests, it will be once over-population takes hold.

reply to post by Anti-Tyrant


Sorry, I didn't realsie I was dealing with a seer.

When does your crystal ball say this will happen?

Pure unadulterated nonsense with no foundation in fact or truth.

OK, I think that there is one points missing from this discussion--at least for Americans. The second amendment states, "A well-regulated militia being necessary. . ." How do you propose to have a well-regulated militia without an armed citizenry? When the state comes to take your property, are you going to club them to death? When the state decides that they know what is best for you, are you going to just lie down and take it?

Most of you would say no, or else you wouldn't be here. We have forgotten a vital element of a democracy/republic: the government should fear its people. If the government has no reason to fear the people, then we are sheep, sitting ducks, etc. We have no recourse against the tyranny that befalls us.

You may not like guns and you may not like the results of them sometimes; however, I do believe that if the media reported the positive outcomes from legal gun use more often, we would not have this problem.

reply to post by budski


It's cute that you'd call me a seer.

Still i'll admit your attitude is pretty unadulterated itself.

reply to post by scarlett1125


Yes, but this isn't about the 2nd amendment or the NRA's interpretation of it.

The British have NEVER had the right to bear arms enshrined in law, and yet we managed to have a revolution, behead the king and then restore the monarchy when we got sick of cromwell and his lot.

We also have many rights not only in UK law, but also in european law - it may be a perceptual difference, I don't know, but generally people in the UK don't view the state as the same threat US citizens seem to.

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
Well alot of this knife crime seems to be gang realted mainly with the newly arrived immigrants from lawless countries like Somalia Mozambique Iraq and the lower class of the British indigenious population. Gun crime seems to mainly revolve around the illegal drug industry

Erm. You are talking bollocks! Back up that statement please! The easiest way to do that would be to find info on all the kids that have been killed by knife in England in the last six months, then look to see where they were born and then come back to me and let me know what percentage of those kids who died and those charged for the murder were born in England. I would hazard a guess, you would be looking at 95% upwards. Don't just guess about something so important and so incendiary, it makes you appear to have an agenda.

reply to post by scarlett1125


To answer the OPs initial question, maybe the thugs who are committing crimes with knives are the ones to blame.

Or is it too quaint of an idea to actually blame the people who commit the crimes? If so, please forgive me, as I did not attend a snooty Ivy League-like college.

Or maybe it's just these thugs are bitter and cling to their knives...

[edit on 27-5-2008 by jamie83]