Banning weapons in the USA

What do you get if you combine an American movie with a European score and add some guns?!


the_good_the_bad_and_the_ugly.png


Brilliant!
 
gwb-trading said:
It appears you have been missing the news out of Bradford in the 2006-2015 time frame. The reason to use armored cars is because they protect against more than guns. For example it stops scenarios common in Bradford where the perps throw a large rock through the window, injuring the driver and stopping the car. The robbers would then drag the occupants out of the car, using weapons to injury them while robbing them. Many times the car was jacked also.

Of course most cars in Bradford are jacked at gunpoint - making your comment about being shot absurd. (Google Bradford UK car jackings) This continues to be a problem 2015 - Woman carjacked at gunpoint - http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/12893945.Inquiry_continues_after_car_jacking/?ref=mr

This is why armored cars used as limos are common in bad areas in the U.K. - armored glass, armored bodies, and puncture proof tires does more than protect from bullets - and criminals with guns are a significant problem in the U.K.
More...

Not wanting to debate this further. I did however come across the following, which may be of interest:




People think Bradford is Britain's most dangerous city - is that true?
A YouGov poll asked people how safe or unsafe they think the UK's most populous cities are. Bradford came out as the place people feel most at risk - but how dangerous is it really?

bradford.jpg

The much-maligned city of Bradford
YouGov released an unusual poll this week about the ten most populous cities in the UK and public perception of how dangerous they are.

People were asked to say whether they thought the ten most-populous cities in the UK were "safe" or "unsafe".

Turns out that a lot of people (42% of respondents) believe that Bradford is unsafe, whereas only 14% are worried about Edinburgh.

9cIBFhx.jpg


But do the stats back up what people think?
We looked up all ten cities on the UK Peace Index. The Peace Index takes into account five key indicators:

  • Homicide
  • Violent crime
  • Weapons crime
  • Public disorder
  • Police officers
Every UK city is ranked according to these indicators, on a scale from 1 to 403 - and the results are pretty interesting.

Surprisingly, it turns out neither Bradford nor London are the most dangerous cities in the UK. In fact, if we look at the ten most populous cities, Glasgow wins thatparticular prize.

On the overall "dangerous" list, however, it's beaten out by Lambeth and Islington, both boroughs of London (that we can't afford to live in).

Bradford is actually the second most-peaceful of the UK's top ten cities, behind Sheffield.

iHLha8J.jpg


What's interesting is that people massively overestimate the "danger" of Bradford, while feeling an undue sense of security in many other cities. This is particularly noteworthy when you look at Edinburgh – for some reason people just feel safe there.

7fToIxA.gif


So why do people feel like Bradford is so dangerous?
Looking at Bradford's performance on the UK Peace Index, it's pretty average. In fact, almost all key indicators of danger - aside from homicide - are below the UK city average in Bradford. In this graphic, the white dot indicates UK average.

TxZ6cAs.jpg


Google Auto-complete gives somewhat of a clue as to why people don't seem to like Bradford very much. Here are the top four auto-completes for "Bradford is":

  • a dump
  • full of
  • an Israel free zone
  • called little Pakistan
Bradford district is home to the largest proportion of people of Pakistani ethnic origin in England at 20.4% of the population.

If you do the same for Glasgow – and remember, Glasgow is the third most-dangerous city across the whole of the UK – the results are startlingly different. "Glasgow is":

  • a paradise
  • located on the River Clyde
  • famous for
  • paradise vice
(That last result is because Vice magazine thinks the city is "a paradise" btw)

So Google Auto-complete suggests that people may think Bradford is dangerous because of... old-fashioned racial or religious unease?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/people-think-bradford-britains-most-4200412
 
JTrades said:
Not wanting to debate this further. I did however come across the following, which may be of interest:




People think Bradford is Britain's most dangerous city - is that true?
A YouGov poll asked people how safe or unsafe they think the UK's most populous cities are. Bradford came out as the place people feel most at risk - but how dangerous is it really?

bradford.jpg

The much-maligned city of Bradford
YouGov released an unusual poll this week about the ten most populous cities in the UK and public perception of how dangerous they are.

People were asked to say whether they thought the ten most-populous cities in the UK were "safe" or "unsafe".

Turns out that a lot of people (42% of respondents) believe that Bradford is unsafe, whereas only 14% are worried about Edinburgh.

9cIBFhx.jpg


But do the stats back up what people think?
We looked up all ten cities on the UK Peace Index. The Peace Index takes into account five key indicators:

  • Homicide
  • Violent crime
  • Weapons crime
  • Public disorder
  • Police officers
Every UK city is ranked according to these indicators, on a scale from 1 to 403 - and the results are pretty interesting.

Surprisingly, it turns out neither Bradford nor London are the most dangerous cities in the UK. In fact, if we look at the ten most populous cities, Glasgow wins thatparticular prize.

On the overall "dangerous" list, however, it's beaten out by Lambeth and Islington, both boroughs of London (that we can't afford to live in).

Bradford is actually the second most-peaceful of the UK's top ten cities, behind Sheffield.

iHLha8J.jpg


What's interesting is that people massively overestimate the "danger" of Bradford, while feeling an undue sense of security in many other cities. This is particularly noteworthy when you look at Edinburgh – for some reason people just feel safe there.

7fToIxA.gif


So why do people feel like Bradford is so dangerous?
Looking at Bradford's performance on the UK Peace Index, it's pretty average. In fact, almost all key indicators of danger - aside from homicide - are below the UK city average in Bradford. In this graphic, the white dot indicates UK average.

TxZ6cAs.jpg


Google Auto-complete gives somewhat of a clue as to why people don't seem to like Bradford very much. Here are the top four auto-completes for "Bradford is":

  • a dump
  • full of
  • an Israel free zone
  • called little Pakistan
Bradford district is home to the largest proportion of people of Pakistani ethnic origin in England at 20.4% of the population.

If you do the same for Glasgow – and remember, Glasgow is the third most-dangerous city across the whole of the UK – the results are startlingly different. "Glasgow is":

  • a paradise
  • located on the River Clyde
  • famous for
  • paradise vice
(That last result is because Vice magazine thinks the city is "a paradise" btw)

So Google Auto-complete suggests that people may think Bradford is dangerous because of... old-fashioned racial or religious unease?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/people-think-bradford-britains-most-4200412
More...
Good post. We have a similar situation in the US. Violent crime has been falling for decades, yet immigration, legal and not, has been soaring.
 
runtrader said:
The USA builds weapons and supplies them to the rest of the world. So does the UK. War is a good business. A solider needs access to good weaponry to ensure they are effective against enemy soldiers. Fair logic in a world where we have war.

However, why does the average American on the street need to carry a gun. Oh wait, they need it for personal protection, to fend off the other people that carry guns. In fact they need a bigger, better gun to ensure the outcome of any confrontation.

It is very sad to see homes, streets and suburbs turned into battlefields, because people have access to guns. Guns should be banned in the USA.

Today's America is not the wild west, the right to carry arms was created in a time when guns were necessary. In today's America they are not. The right to bear arms should be removed from the constitution. Police should not carry guns. It will save many lives, stop families from being torn apart, and reduce violent gun crime. America can be the land of the free and home of the brave - but it doesn't need guns.

Thankfully I live in the UK. Which has it's own issues but that is another story...

**Friday afternoon rant**
More...

Our genius founders gave us the right to bear arms.. partly (mostly?) to have some defense against oppressive government... even our own.

You don't appear to get that.

So... ON IGNORE!!
 
Scataphagos said:
Suicides with or without guns would likely be about the same... they'd just do it a different way.
More...
On average they'll be less successful, giving them a chance to reconsider. Not that I'm supporting that, but many would.
 
Scataphagos said:
Our genius founders gave us the right to bear arms.. partly (mostly?) to have some defense against oppressive government... even our own.

You don't appear to get that.

So... ON IGNORE!!
More...

There was no wars on American land or serious unrest for a long time. People who are against guns have no idea how quickly things can explode. They live under naive pretense that cops will always be there to help them.

Aftermath of Hurricane Sandy opened eyes to some of the people that I know who were 100% against guns. Not so much anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top