Mugged by gang of boys

[*Bob*]

Couldn't we relax the guns laws in the UK, thus raising gun crime by 900%, and then allow the carrying of concealed weapons so as to see the benefit of the 5% improvement? Just thinking outside the box on this one.

[bigbadwolf]

I'll see you down the range eh *Bob*.

[*Bob*]

Over to you, Dom.

[Acid Casual]

God, here we go again!

Some poor soul gets mugged (sympathies to you BTW) and it rapidly degenerated at full speed into a slanging match.

Maybe I could helpfully suggest that those likely to be at risk (kids, ladies etc) take sensible precautions like walking home together in pairs instead of squabbling like a demented cyber-harpy?

I don't really care about the whys or where-forths. If has happened it is likely to do so again so why don't you all put your c0cks away and be helpful for once.

Over and out.

[Keef]

(kids, ladies etc)

The OP was with her other half, the guy on Whateley Rd, was early 20s male, and the guy on Bassano St was late 20s (and pretty big actually) male, so this group don't seem to just be toturing the weak so to speak.

[Acid Casual]

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> (kids, ladies etc)

>

> The OP was with her other half, the guy on

> Whateley Rd, was early 20s male, and the guy on

> Bassano St was late 20s (and pretty big actually)

> male, so this group don't seem to just be toturing

> the weak so to speak.

(Groan!)

But would you argue that it is NOT a sensible recommendation to make to kids or women that they might pair up on the way home as opposed to walk alone?

I'd have thought that would be precaution number one, no?

[Keef]

Wasn't disagreeing with your point, just trying to be informative like you said.

[Vince]

Just to clarify, when I said ED was better than Brixton or Peckham it was solely in the context of street crime. There are many reasons why those two neighbourhoods are great places to live, but this thread is about street muggings. I don't have the statistics to hand, but it is my perception that there is less street crime in ED than Brixton or Peckham.

Many thanks to Lizziedjango for apologising and making it clear that she wasn't accusing me of racism. That is very much appreciated.

But my main point in my post was to suggest that we should use this forum as a practical tool to help fight crime.

[Administrator]

Lounged (on request)

[Huguenot]

What Sherwick said, Domitianus.

Maybe I'm just confused, but if you make a point about concealed weapons reducing crime on a thread about local muggings, then I'm assuming that there's a relevance between this point and the thread?

Ergo that concealed weapons would reduce the likelihood of this crime happening?

[jimmy two times]

2 murders on Barry Road alone suggest that East Dulwich has more then it's fair share of crime. There is, and always has been, a dark underbelly to East Dulwich. It's naive to think otherwise.

[RosieH]

jimmytwotimes - am I mistaken in thinking that one of those crimes was gang related and the other domestic violence?

a coincidence of timing does not a dark underbelly make

[jimmy two times]

I think murder is as dark as it gets regardless of the motives involved.

[Sherwick]

I laugh in the face of fear, spank the dark underbelly of East Dulwich, and tweak the nose of the dreadful spindly killer fish.

[MrBen]

I indirectly know the couple mugged in Whatley road - it was on Friday night, 11.30pm, group of guys and at knife point. They took her handbag and then left them alone.

Like what Snorky said - the risk / reward just doesnt stack up unless these people are totally desperate. And the sheer gall of doing 3-4 muggings over a 3 night period within the same area +/- 500 yards tells you THEY are laughing in the face of the police.

We're a bunch of soft relatively wealthy namby just-out-the-pub targets....so what can you do?

[Brendan]

Well if the cops were doing their jobs and not spending their energy assaulting innocent members of the public and flexing their muscle trying to control the law abiding populace.

What the fuck do we employ them for again?

[*Bob*]

MrBen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We're a bunch of soft relatively wealthy namby

> just-out-the-pub targets....so what can you do?

Well, depending on who you listen to..

1. Be vigilant when you're out and about, don't be a hero if you get unlucky, and hope the police pick them up soon.

2. Stay and home and hide under a duvet.

3. Buy a gun and blow away anyone who looks at you in a funny way.

[Domitianus]

Sherwick Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you can't compare the US with the UK then

> what's the point of stating 'in areas of US

> allowing concealed carry of firearms, there has

> been noticable reduction in crimes of violence

> against the person.'.

>

> This implies that it would have the same effect in

> the UK. But as you just stated, one shouldn't do

> that.

>

> In fact, even if your'e correct that introducing

> handguns led to a reduction in crimes of violence

> in the USA, indtroducing handguns in the UK could

> lead to the opposite because it is 'a culturally

> ethnically and geographically different region'.

>

> Ergo, there was no reason for your initial post.

You completely miss my point. Let me reiterate it. Legislation permitting concealed carry of firearms in the US showed that it contributed to reduction in crimes against the person in the areas where it had been introduced - therefore these analyses compared like with like, a necessity for assessing the impact of a change in one variable. Hugenot's post seemed to imply that since the US generally has a significantly overall higher level of crime than the UK, the findings in the US, ON THIS SPECIFIC POINT OF CONCEALED CARRY, were meaningless. In other words his statement was a complete non sequitor in terms of the validity of the US studies on the impact of concealed carry legislation. He introduced a global (and I mean that in the sense of grand scale, not geographically global) comparison that had no relevance to and simply confused the issue of the studies in question. This is the point I was making. I am amazed that people cannot grasp such a simple element of research methodolgy.

IF the US studies are accurate (and that can be debated by looking at them in detail if people want to do so) then this might at least hint at the POSSIBILITY that such trends MIGHT be reproducible in other places. Pointing out differences in overall crime levels between the US and the UK completely misses the point as these are subject to a whole range of variables. What is useful to look at is whether there are specific, isolatable factors that have been shown to reduce crime levels WHATEVER THOSE LEVELS MAY BE. We look at a controlled sociological phenomenon (or as controlled as it can be), assess its validity and THEN we can debate whether there might be principles that can be generalised from it into other contexts.

Let me give an analogy. If I was to suggest that the provision of free condoms might be a way of controlling the spread of AIDS in the developing world, I might point out studies in the US that pointed to a reduction in the spread of AIDS when similar condom provision was made available in parts of the US. It would be utterly irrelevant to that point if someone came along and pointed out that the US has a less than 1% incidence of HIV infection amongst its population, whereas some African countries have around 14% of the adult population infected.

The point would be WHATEVER the overall infection rate might be, did the provision of condoms reduce the rate of infection? Differences in overall infection rates TO BEGIN WITH are irrelevant - it is the CHANGE as a result of the measure that is introduced that is meaningful.

Same with my allusion to concealed carry legislation. The "reason for" my "initial post" was to stimulate informed discussion and I pointed out that I was not championing any particular case. I am sorry the discussion turned out to be less than informed.

This sort of thread is the very reason I stopped posting on EDF a while back. It is pointless as people simply misconstrue what others say and the whole matter becomes silly. My contribution to this thread is ended. The studies can be looked at on Wikipaedia if anyone is interested. Search for "concealed carry".

[*Bob*]

WELL what you THINK about it?

Do you HAVE an opinion, or are you cimply PRESENTING this particular nugget from a PARTICULAR study and asking for other people's thoughts?

[KalamityKel]

Dom I've missed you! x

[Huguenot]

Treat me gently Dom, I'm clearly not up to scratch today ;-)

So do you think that the US evidence suggests that carrying concealed guns in the UK would reduce street robbery?

[Brendan]

It will certainly make chucking out time on the high streets of our provincial towns interesting.

[Huguenot]

I can see the 'research' point about condoms, but a more direct analogy would be free distributiuon of condoms if it was the prevalence of condoms causing the HIV in the first place. (I'm not the Pope, it's a debating point).

I think Dom is suggesting the the prevalence of gun crime in the US is unrelated to the distribution of guns in the US, which is making me scratch my head with some confusion. No guns, no gun crime.

[Brendan]

I?m suggesting that Bolton town centre at 3am on a Saturday + guns, will send the rating for Booze Britain through the roof.

[archic]

Having weapons to defend ourselves is surely not the right way forward. Look at the U.S mess...

Let's tackle the problem at the root rather than trying to patch things up:

Where are the parents, what the f.. are they doing with their kids? Should we fine the parents to make them more responsible?