:lol:
The streets and buildings had been evacuated hours before he was shot. When he did open up, he was shooting at nothing.
Someone just wanted to pull the trigger.
I doubt that the average ‘salt of the earth’ working man converted to a life of pointless violent crime just because he lost his job. Maybe it affected his kids if the industrial collapse denied them employment, which is quite possible if they grew up in despair and were fed by the “everyone has the right to paradise on earth” bullshit which passed and passes for elements of education.
You and I didn’t get that bullshit. Then again, I expect we both knew plenty of kids who, in the modern world, could well have been the knife criminals etc we’re talking about, but for whatever reason they weren’t then.
Violent crime is mostly a youth problem, here anyway, with youth running up to mid 20s.
The morons who do it aren’t necessarily druggies or unemployed. Just morons of a thuggish nature who enjoy hurting people or are willing to do it with little or no provocation.
I think a lot of it has to do with macho bullshit, execept where blokes I knew got off on bragging about how they’d kicked someone in the head now they’re bragging about stabbing him. Same personalities, same motivation, just a worse action.
Sure. The problem in Britain was the divide between the ‘Industrial-north’ and the prosperous ‘South’.
When society doesn’t allow opportunites for people to improve their lot in life, then they turn on that society.
I’m no sociologist, but I do understand the ‘Forming, storming, norming and performing’ type of theories. Council estates developing their own pecking orders. These in time become Chav estates with organized crime encouraging the dealers etc.
Add to that the permissiveness which emerged in the sixties and the resulting single-parent families, where mothers have a hard time controlling their adolescent sons who are looking for male role-models and usually find them among the teenage gangs.
I won’t comment further on that particular case as I don’t know enough about it.
However, and despite being more or less a civil libertarian involved in legal aid since the early 1970s when it was a guaranteed path to professional oblviion (whch seems to have worked out exactly that way in my case :D), and despite having contempt for renegade cops who act outside anything approximating the law, I have a lot of sympathy for cops who are judged after a difficult event by people who weren’t there and who weren’t operating under the pressures the police faced.
All police forces have a proportion of arseholes, just like every other occupation, but the bulk of them try to do a very difficult job well, and for the most part they do so most of the time.
In civilian life, cops are the only people the community expects to take the risk of being killed, or killing, as part of their job. We want them to deal with people we don’t want to or can’t deal with. If we were armed and confronted with someone a cop kills in an ‘us or them’ situation, I suspect most of us would shoot the other person. But the poor old cops are expected to refrain from shooting some nutcase rushing at them with a knife, axe, or sword because, according to the armchair experts who weren’t there, the cop should have used karate or shot the attacker in the leg or performed some other act of magic.
If I was the cop in that situation, about fifteen to ten feet on the gallop from me, the attacker is going to get shot, aimed at the centre of the body mass. I want to go home to my kids.
Actually, after reflecting upon being home with my kids, I might take my chances with tackling the armed offender unarmed. It’d be easier, and a lot quicker and less painful regardless of the result, than dealing with my feral fifteen year old daughter. 
Where someone is at risk of getting out into the community with their weapon, even if threatening nobody immediately, why not plug him if he’s going to the boundary? One thing is for sure. If we’ve had a bead on him in a nominally contained area and he gets out of it and hurts anyone, we are in more shit than a Werribee duck.
The cops are too often in a no win situation, and it’s made worse by the clowns in the force who examine every little action after the event without regard to the realities of cops who had to make split second decisions.
I’m not defending outright police murders like the Brazilian on the train in London, but even that one was probably done with the best of motives. Not that it excuses the perpetrators from facing the proper charges, which seems highly unlikely.
I see where you are coming from and I think that most civilized people would agree with you.
The problem, as I see it, and which concerns me, is that if the police are allowed to gun someone like said lawyer down for behaving like a bit of a pratt, then where does it end?
The use of lethal force should be a last resort and the police be left with no choice. Otherwise, who’s next?
I understand that there are situations when one can not be certain as to whether a trigger is about to pulled or not, and in those circumstances I would support the police, but it has to be seen that they had no choice but to resort to lethal force, the uncertainty has to be obvious. In the above situation, the uncertainty was not obvious, and even though said lawyer was shooting wildly from his window, it wasn’t a high velocity weapon and there were no obvious targets for him, including police, who were in cover.
I have far more sympathy for the police who shot the Brazilian - not that I have anything against Brazilians, I might add. That was a cock up, but it must have taken some bottle for the police to pursue him, thinking that he was a bomber. In that situation, if he had been a bomber, they had to finish him.
Similar killings were carried out by the SAS in the Iranian Embassy and it was judged to be jutifiable homicide.
Is it that simple?
I’d expect that the problems we’re discussing occur all over the place, wherever there are pockets of severe poverty / disadvantage / whatever people want to call it.
Or is there a component of no-hopers breeding another generation of no-hopers who imbibe with their mother’s milk a resentment of the rest of society so that they can spend their lives being victims of society, ably aided by people like me who, with the best of intentions, reinforce that view and keep pulling their nuts out of the vice?
What is the difference between them and their siblings, in many cases I’ve seen, where one of them rejects that life and goes on to become someone who is everything they’re not?
I’d guess a lot of it is due to personal intelligence, grit and luck, but also to a fortunate combination of other influences such as teachers and others in the community.
Which (having innocently :lol: but conveniently offered those features) leads me to infer that it’s largely a matter of luck if somone manages to haul him or her self out of such situations.
That is where ‘society’ could change things.
Concentrating problem people in an area is going to cause problems.
We did it here, again with the best of intentions, in the 1950s - 70s when we took people out of slums; bulldozed the slums; and put the people in rather good high rise flats. Guess what became the new slums?
I’d be interested to see a comparison of figures of single mothers pre-war and, say, 1960s.
There is no shortage of personal accounts of people who grew up pre-war with just a mother, and others brought up by aunts and the like who turned out to be mum.
Given the boundless qualities of women as espoused by various feminist writers and activists for the past forty years, I don’t see why controlling and properly raising a mere adolescent boy should be beyond women, every one of whom if given the chance to penetrate the glass ceiling could bring peace and prosperity to the world in a moment. :rolleyes: Although Indira Ghandi, Golda Meir and a few others didn’t quite manage it when given the opportunity. :rolleyes:
I doubt that all gangs are made up of ‘fatherless’ boys.
I think the drift to a gang is a mixture of the necessity of survival in an area and the absence of anything better which can be achieved without making one a vulnerable outcast who becomes the prey of gangs.
That is largely the result of a failure in that community, and society at large, to generate a climate where academic and intellectual pursuits and achievements are regarded and rewarded as well as sporting or just local thug achievements.
As for the cure? I don’t know. But the current situation sure ain’t it.
I think we’re of one mind, but you’re better informed on the lawyer shooting than I.
I am, however, disappointed to find that you have nothing against Brazilians.
Given a choice, I’d be hard up against a Brazilian. ;):o
No, it’s just a part of it.
There are many factors which come together to form a certain synergy.
The same things occurred in London’s Docklands when goods began to be transported in containers.
What we are describing are large unskilled labour forces whose means of livelihood have been removed on account of changes in market forces or technology.
I’d expect that the problems we’re discussing occur all over the place, wherever there are pockets of severe poverty / disadvantage / whatever people want to call it.
Or is there a component of no-hopers breeding another generation of no-hopers who imbibe with their mother’s milk a resentment of the rest of society so that they can spend their lives being victims of society, ably aided by people like me who, with the best of intentions, reinforce that view and keep pulling their nuts out of the vice?
Yes, and no.
In Britain as in many places, there were generations of unskilled manual workers who sold their labour in labour intensive manufacturing.
Communities grew around these industries, and in many instances there was no incentive, or even means, to better oneself. Many fathers would tell their sons, for example, that ‘If the pit was good enough for me, it’s good enough for you.’ what else could they aspire to? The education system did not lend itself to their advancement.
What is the difference between them and their siblings, in many cases I’ve seen, where one of them rejects that life and goes on to become someone who is everything they’re not?
Inspiration, ability, spirit…etc.
I’d guess a lot of it is due to personal intelligence, grit and luck, but also to a fortunate combination of other influences such as teachers and others in the community.
Which (having innocently :lol: but conveniently offered those features) leads me to infer that it’s largely a matter of luck if somone manages to haul him or her self out of such situations.
Another synergy thing, which is probably different for each individual?
I was chatting with a general, whom I happen to know, on one occasion. He was asking me about myself and how I had managed to succeed after leaving the Army. I told him I got lucky. He told me we make our own luck. The truth is probably somewhere in between.
That is where ‘society’ could change things.
Concentrating problem people in an area is going to cause problems.
We did it here, again with the best of intentions, in the 1950s - 70s when we took people out of slums; bulldozed the slums; and put the people in rather good high rise flats. Guess what became the new slums?
Slums breeding slums?
Take people out of the gutter but not the gutter out of the people?
Environment is an important factor both the physical environment and the social environment. Very difficult for a young person to break away from the herd.
I doubt that all gangs are made up of ‘fatherless’ boys.
Me too, but there are many fatherless boys in gangs. many of them also beat up their mothers.
I think the drift to a gang is a mixture of the necessity of survival in an area and the absence of anything better which can be achieved without making one a vulnerable outcast who becomes the prey of gangs.
That is largely the result of a failure in that community, and society at large, to generate a climate where academic and intellectual pursuits and achievements are regarded and rewarded as well as sporting or just local thug achievements.
As for the cure? I don’t know. But the current situation sure ain’t it.
It’s the environment thingie again. People need to feel proud and be able identify with something which is better than what the gang offers.
Given the current global, economic climate and the unemployment which must result from it, things are likely to become worse before they improve - unless one is a drugs baron.
By the way, I appreciate that your questions are exploratory, and so I’m merely giving my opinion as I see it. 
As Australia have beaten England 28 - 14 in the Rugby, it’s as well we English don’t carry guns. :lol:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/english/7728562.stm
[QUOTE=herman2
As a Canadian, I may have a different outlook on the American freedoms to bear arms, but I personally advocate for a total pistol ban except for police or military use. What opinions do American WW2 buffs have and why do you feel this way?[/QUOTE]
I disagree. The pistol provides concealment and firepower. In this country the right of self defense is a respected part of our laws. I have personally used a handgun in a self defense action, and I didn’t even have to fire a shot. When the miscreant saw I was armed he left the area quickly!
Ya Ya, …as long as you Americans think with half a brain that concealed pistols are an ok thing to do, you will continue to have serious crime on your streets. Canada is one of the safest countries in the world because we think with a full brain and don’t allow handguns for personel use. Constitution rights to bear arms is in my opinion a really backward and stupid law that went out with the abolition of slavery laws.
Herman, this topic has been around in many circles, always the same opinions, and always the same answers. Unless it is your intention to stir the pot, this thread has long since run its course.
Unless you have something of substance to add here, your best bet is to refrain. Especially when you disparage anti slavery laws. Are you a pro slavery person? it sounds so from your last post. Do keep in mind that jibbering to incite is not a favored activity here.
As to your opinion about our rights in the U.S., it has been noted, and dismissed.
I will make sure that I ask your opinion on what I can say before I post anything. I will behonoured to pm you for your permission to seek permission to post a post. If I even think about posting a post, I shall seek your permission to even think.I am not pro-slavery. I meant to say that the right to bear arms law is a law that should have been abolished when they abolished slavery, meaning the law has been in place too long and that a constitutional change is advocated to ban the right to bear arms. As to your objection to my opinion, it has also been noted and I thank you for your response. If the subject has run its course then maybe you should seek remedies to lock it so its done with.My response was intended to the previous response and was subjective to the prior comment only and not meant to be for you or anyone else. However, if you assume I am stirring the pot, then you are entitled to your opinion but I was not. I was responding to the preceeding post about some guy who thinks its cool to walk around with a handgun. It is my opinion that my opinion is related and relevant to that specific post.
My post stands, perhaps you should focus your efforts at home where I’m sure you will find many things to “fix” .Then you will have something better to do than worry about the rights of people in other countries. He has the uninfringeable right to think its cool. Whatever rights you may have, the right to judge the U.S.and to pontificate on how our rights, and laws should be structured in order to suit you, is not among them. And just so we are clear, if you dont like our ways, we dont care. Stay in Canada.
Because of this right then the US must be the safest place in the world? The threat of instant retaliation if a criminal pulls a gun on anyone must mean that criminals no longer use guns.
The Second Amendment confirming the right to bear arms was in 1791.
America abolished slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865.
When America abolished slavery, it had just endured the cataclysmic Civil War in which many militia units (being relevant to the reference to militia in the Second Amendment) fought and was facing post-war and frontier conditions, including the absence of anything resembling modern police forces, which reasonably required some citizens to have access to firearms for self-defence. These circumstances militated against any tampering with the Second Amendment right to bear arms when slavery was abolished.
I’ve never looked into it, but I suspect that fairly recent events such as massacres of schoolchilren and other innocents by nuts with guns which encourage many of us outside America, and some people in America, to believe that we’re better off by limiting guns in the community were not an issue in America in 1865.
In the quoted instance, support for this sentiment might extend beyond America’s borders.
I suppose if RAPE was in the American Constitution, then that would make it right as well?..oh brother…
A Right to Bear Arms?
Maclean’s reported the following in the July 7 ’08 edition (“Lawless, but Gunless,” p. 58):
A. One-third of Canadians own a gun or guns; 90% of Americans do.
B. Canada has 60 gun murders for every million people annually; the US has 340.
C. Canada annually has 190 total murders per 1 million population; the US has 570.
Of the 190 people per million who are murdered in Canada, 60 die by bullet, 130 by some other means (knife, mostly, one imagines). That’s 31.5% by guns.
Of the 570 people per million murdered in the US, 340 die by bullet, 230 by some other means. That’s 59.6% by gun.
The murder rate overall in the US is 900% of Canada’s.
The appalling statistic here is that in Canada, annually, ca. 4750 and in the US, ca. 145,000 people are violently killed, by our own citizens, by and large. We fight wars abroad to combat terrorism’s threat; is that ironical when we look at the threat from within?
Gun murders in the US account for 60% of such events and in Canada only 32%. Obviously, people don’t murder someone because they have a gun available; it’s more likely that they decide to murder someone and then decide on the means. In Canada, murderers more often resort to knives, clubs or cars, possibly because handguns just aren’t as readily available here. Or does the possession of a handgun actually increase the likelihood that a person will contemplate murder as a way out of a dilemma?
It could be argued that in the heat of the moment, the clean, arms-length death that can be delivered with a gun increases the likelihood of a murder being committed. An angry person might be deterred by the messy nature of hand-to-hand killing, but might not be if a handgun, say, were available and the murder could be done without looking the victim so intimately in the eye.
Also, the “right to bear arms” may contribute to an overall cultural climate in which the use of guns seems to be legitimized, and by extension, the use of violence of all kinds to settle quarrels. Is that what’s behind the enormous difference between the murder rates in the two countries, so similar in so many other ways?
Not even 1865…how about 1955 ? In the 50’s it was much easier in America to obtain a gun, almost all stores had them, there were NO waiting periods and we didn’t have nut bags shooting up schools or stores…so what has changed from 1950’s America to today? I have my suspicions…
Oh, I don’t know Mike. I didn’t have to go far in the internet to find numerous reports of school shootings by nutbags:
Re:University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Saturday, May 15, 1954
The Phi Delta Theta house held a carnival at their fraternity house Friday night, presumably to celebrate the end of the school year. As any frat party goes, the beverage of choice was beer, and lots of it. Putnam Davis Jr., William Joyner and Allen Long were still drinking beer on Saturday morning, around 7 a.m., when Putnam pulled out a gun and started shooting at his roommates. Putnam had obtained the gun from the car of a former roommate. The entry goes on to say that “during the exchange of gunfire in the dorm room,” Putnam is killed while William and Allen are wounded. What is not clear in the entry is who Putnam was exchanging gunfire with; did William or Allen have a gun in the room as well, did another fraternity brother have a gun and respond to Putnam’s shootings, or did the police show up and have to kill Putnam? None of those questions are answered in the entry. For statistical purposes, I’m putting Putnam as the instigator of this school shooting, since he shot first.
Source: Reference.com - List of School-Related Acts
Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pennsylvania
Tuesday, January 11, 1955
Five years ago Bob Bechtel’s mother requested that her son be hospitalized for psychotic episodes. After being released from the hospital, Bob, then 22, enrolled at Swarthmore College. While at Swarthmore, he lived in Wharton Hall and his classmates taunted, bullied, hazed and degraded him. Today he had finally had enough. He drove to his home in Pottstown, ate a piece of his mother’s coconut cake, picked up his .22-caliber rifle and returned to the college. It was in the evening by the time he returned and he began firing upon his classmates. The first bullet struck Francis Holmes Strozier in the head and killed him. Bob fired a few more rounds, realized what he had done and then dropped the rifle to the ground. At his trial two factors swayed the judge to find him not guilty by reason of insanity: the previous hospitalization and a letter from Francis’s mother expressing sympathy and forgiveness. He was sent to Farview State Hospital in Waymart. Four years and eight months later, Bob was released. He enrolled in Susquehanna University and pursued a psychology degree. He got his doctorate at the University of Kansas and began teaching. He is currently a professor of environmental psychology at the University of Arizona. When his daughter Carrah turned 19 he told her, his colleagues and his students, what he had done at Swarthmore. Macky Alston, a filmmaker, produced a documentary, The Killer Within, based on Bob’s actions. However, Bob and school officials at Swarthmore say the documentary doesn’t portray Bob or Francis properly.
Source: Philadelphia Inquirer - '55 School Killer: A Life Taken, Lived (published April 13, 2007)
Maryland Park Junior High School, Maryland Park, Maryland
Friday, May 4, 1956
Billy Ray Prevatte was kicked out of the public schools of North Carolina for pulling a knife on a teacher. His troublesome ways didn’t stay in North Carolina when he enrolled in Maryland Park Junior High School. It is unclear whether Billy Ray was expelled or suspended from school that pushed him over the edge. The fifteen-year-old walked the three miles to his home in Carmody Hills, got a .22-caliber rifle and brought it back to school, intending to kill the principal, Mr. Hrezo. However, Mr. Hrezo was substituting for Mr. Peters’ gym class in the school’s annex and not in his office when Billy Ray returned. So, Billy Ray settled on his favorite teacher, Mr. Cameron, shooting him in the head and chest. Mr. Cameron taught English. He also wounded the gym teacher, F. Daniel Wagner, and the shop teacher, Mr. Hicks, during the shooting. (Previous entry had identified the third teacher as Mr. Thomas, but that has been found to be incorrect.) Mr. Wagner was in the principal’s office on the phone trying to find out why the bus was late in picking up the ball team when Billy Ray came in. Billy Ray served time in a juvenile facility until he was 21.
…and the list goes on…