Forum Home
PC World Chat
 
Thread ID: 114666 2010-12-12 19:35:00 Should the Police be armed Digby (677) PC World Chat
Post ID Timestamp Content User
1161138 2010-12-15 01:49:00 I used to walk through my village with a shotgun and it wouldn't engender a second glance, now I would be surrounded by the armed offenders.

Silly buggers.
Back when I got my first rifle nobody batted an eye if someone was walking down the street with a rifle slung over their shoulder but there was only about two murders a year then.
mikebartnz (21)
1161139 2010-12-15 02:20:00 Back when I got my first rifle nobody batted an eye if someone was walking down the street with a rifle slung over their shoulder but there was only about two murders a year then.

Don't know about you, but I don't have slightest inclination to kill somebody, what do you think has changed.?
Cicero (40)
1161140 2010-12-15 02:35:00 Don't know about you, but I don't have slightest inclination to kill somebody, what do you think has changed.?
I think a lot of it is perception and the panicky public we have now.
It's like the perception it isn't safe for the little darlings to walk or cycle to school now so they are driven creating more traffic on the road and hence making their perception come true as the roads are more dangerous.
mikebartnz (21)
1161141 2010-12-15 03:05:00 Want to reduce serious crime, there are two requirements, NZ partially meets 1 and seriously falls short on the other one.
1. There has to be a high probability of being caught and punished - Clear-up rate on serious crime not too bad, on property crime, the clear up rate is pathetic..
2. The punishment has to be sufficiently severe to be a deterent.

When NZ had a population of round 2 million, there were about 8 - 10 murders per year. Murder was not as a rule downgraded to manslaughter. Those convicted got to dance on the end of a rope - giving the benefit of no recidivism.

The year I left NZ there was 161 culpable homocides, for a population of 4 million.
The same year Australia had 230 for a population of 21 million.
Can anyone draw any conclusions from these figures.
KenESmith (6287)
1161142 2010-12-15 03:07:00 I think a lot of it is perception and the panicky public we have now.
It's like the perception it isn't safe for the little darlings to walk or cycle to school now so they are driven creating more traffic on the road and hence making their perception come true as the roads are more dangerous.

By cripes Mike, I can feel a doctoral theses coming on.
Cicero (40)
1161143 2010-12-15 03:36:00 By cripes Mike, I can feel a doctoral theses coming on.
Is that all. You disappoint me.:)
mikebartnz (21)
1161144 2010-12-15 03:41:00 Back when I got my first rifle nobody batted an eye if someone was walking down the street with a rifle slung over their shoulder but there was only about two murders a year then.


To true before the current gun David Gray licensing system you had to take your new gun down town to the cop shop for them to register the serial number.
I never used a gun bag they were for gay shooters just used to get the gun out of the boot keep it pointed downwards and walk to the ploddery.
Christ try that now they would turn out the National Guard.
prefect (6291)
1161145 2010-12-15 04:31:00 Is that all. You disappoint me.:)

A seat at Vic?
Cicero (40)
1161146 2010-12-15 04:44:00 Want to reduce serious crime, there are two requirements, NZ partially meets 1 and seriously falls short on the other one.
1. There has to be a high probability of being caught and punished - Clear-up rate on serious crime not too bad, on property crime, the clear up rate is pathetic..
2. The punishment has to be sufficiently severe to be a deterent.

When NZ had a population of round 2 million, there were about 8 - 10 murders per year. Murder was not as a rule downgraded to manslaughter. Those convicted got to dance on the end of a rope - giving the benefit of no recidivism.

The year I left NZ there was 161 culpable homocides, for a population of 4 million.
The same year Australia had 230 for a population of 21 million.
Can anyone draw any conclusions from these figures.

All sorts of things come to mind, mainly a race thing is my guess.
Cicero (40)
1161147 2010-12-15 18:12:00 .
We need to be tough with the crims to deter crime



Not this old deterrent chestnut again - where is your evidence that getting tough on crims deters crime? It would certainly appear it has the opposite effect, it leads to more serious crime. Ten years of "sensible sentencing" in New Zealand should have taught you this deterrent theory is hokum.

However, it is amusing to see the get tough on crime lobby are often anti-Police as well, so they get their knickers in a knot about armed Police whereas if they were being consistent with what they post on other topics, they would think a few dead innocent by-standers was a small price to pay for a lot of dead crims. Then again, who really understands how the red neck mind works.

Arming Police though wouldn't have helped the cop who this started over, in fact quite likely would have finished him off if a gun had been on his person. So as usual with these types of things, the people who want Police armed are just using a case to further their cause, even if in this case there is no logic behind it whatsoever.
Twelvevolts (5457)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13