Bike theft problem around London

I live in Arizona. This state only requires you be a US citizen to legally carry a gun in public. We don't have very many murders anywhere but the inner-urban depressed city areas. Most of those involve gangs or drug trade.

Most people understand the person standing in front of you may have a gun, so please be a decent human being to them, and be polite.

The only place outside of a warzone which I ever had a gun pointed at me was in Memphis. But then, they are usually on the top-ten list for murders. I don't equate the government with providing immediate protection when needed. Often, the job of the police is to collect the forensic evidence and do the paperwork after the crime has happened in major cities.
 
We don't have very many murders anywhere but the inner-urban depressed city areas.
Murder rate in Arizona per capita: 8.1 / 100,000 inhabitants
Murder rate in England and Wales per capita: 1.1 / 100,000 inhabitants
Murder rate in London per capita: 1.2 / 100,000 inhabitants (less than 15% than in Arizona).

I never saw a gun pointed at me in all my life. Neither me, my wife, my family, or anyone I know with maybe one single exception: a friend of mine stopped by the police during the "Red Brigades" crisis in Italy, more or less 40 years ago.

I lived and traveled all over the world and I have never been physically harassed either. Got stolen a radio while the car was parked in front of my home in Cardiff, Wales, and pickpocketed once in Rome, my hometown. And that was it. Never even got stolen a bicycle despite I used them for commuting everywhere.

I really hope that this frenzy with guns allowed to the public, spearheaded also by the right-wingers in Europe, does not gain ground. The EU remains one of the safest regions of the world, and the data show that the figures for various crimes continue to remain low and in some areas are on the decline, at least on the long term (20-30 years), including in London. The only noticeable exceptions usually are sex offences against women, but also because they are fortunately gaining confidence in reporting to the police.
 
I imagine a person carrying a weapon. He points it to you that are riding a bicycle. The rider stops and say "Wait, I carry a concealed gun". The thug would then go i away scared like hell. Problem solved, sure.
Welp, if someone were to pull a gun on me while i was riding my ebike, I'd seriously think they were gonna shoot to kill me.

I'd then stop drop and roll, then aim and shoot 1 time, then i'd kick it's body to see if it reacted then i'd ask the body some questions.

Problem Solved :)
 
All that i'm saying here is this, Every country in this world of ours has good people and places and bad people and places.

As Humans, the elite species here on earth, we shouldn't bash one another or where we as humans live....make sense?
 
In my opinion (and many studies confirm that) the defense of citizens should not be theirs but the prerogative of the state.
It's not logistically possible. There can never be enough police to defend all the citizens. Heck, they can't even ENFORCE the laws when they have criminals dead to rights.

We have a saying in the USA that the police are there to examine the crime scene, not to stop the crime. It really comes down to good social control; having a general citizenship that obey laws and do the right thing.

If you start with a "non-lethal pepper spray" 1) be sure that it will be used first by thugs (who at that point will have the right to have it), while the poor old lady at risk of having her pension stolen will never be able to make use of it in time against two thugs assaulting her, and 2) you start like this and you end up with people buying weapons of war at the supermarket, because of the "escalation effect".
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The fact that this guy was packing heat saved a lot of lives when someone crashed his party and started shooting.

I don't know if that reminds you of anything... I would rarther worry about studying what the roots of the problem are and how to reduce it.
Yes, I agree. That is long-term thinking though, and politicians cannot be bothered with anything that's not going to get them re-elected in the short term. There has to be a culture where everybody does the right thing just because it's right.
 
Well, we're getting a little derailed here; (and I'm guilty too) it turned from bike theft to a discussion on right to keep & bear arms.

Let's get back on topic before the thread gets locked.
 
I agree Smaug, but I do wish to reply to Pagheca. In the USA the murder rate is higher than some other countries, but I tend to think that is a politeness and cultural difference more than anything else. Also, that 7.34 rate per 100k includes every conceivable method of mayhem, and not just percussive weapons. As I stated before, our two most criminal areas in the state, are the two largest cities with poverty zones. Just one of those two cities (Phoenix) represents more murders than the entire rest of the state combined. Translation: avoid the bad areas in just two cities, and you are amazingly safe.

I had the pleasure of working in physics research for 18 years, and one facility had a lot of international workers. I was always shocked at how polite so many Europeans behaved. I once saw a significant disagreement occur between a French researcher, and Doctoral Department head from the UK. They were screaming and yelling, with veins bulging in their necks and foreheads. In the USA, this would normally mean blows would be thrown. But, it was like a switch got flipped, they both sat down, and sipped tea together and made small talk afterwards. It would appear that Europeans are raised to avoid physical conflict.
 
I don't know about it being a politeness and cultural difference.......I traveled the world in business a few years back........I also taught management classes at times.....we use to talk about the 80/20 rule and I think it applies to many aspects of this discussion. You put 100 people in a room.....don't care where they're from.....and 80 of them are good folks.....solid citizens....respect others. The other 20 are jerks.....for whatever reasons. I use to tell new managers.....your job is to identify that 20% and get rid of them. The 80/20 rule applies to so many things in life......most folks are good folks.
 
In my opinion (and many studies confirm that) the defense of citizens should not be theirs but the prerogative of the state. If you start with a "non-lethal pepper spray" 1) be sure that it will be used first by thugs (who at that point will have the right to have it), while the poor old lady at risk of having her pension stolen will never be able to make use of it in time against two thugs assaulting her, and 2) you start like this and you end up with people buying weapons of war at the supermarket, because of the "escalation effect".

I don't know if that reminds you of anything... I would rarther worry about studying what the roots of the problem are and how to reduce it.


Just one note

My Autistic 19 year old was being attacked by a 45 year old thug and had taken cover in a flat with friends (Police were called) he phoned me and I went there armed, with a water gun with some hot sauce and water in, the thug came for me (60) I sprayed him ONLY when he came at me. I was find £200 by the Police.
 
Just one note

My Autistic 19 year old was being attacked by a 45 year old thug and had taken cover in a flat with friends (Police were called) he phoned me and I went there armed, with a water gun with some hot sauce and water in, the thug came for me (60) I sprayed him ONLY when he came at me. I was find £200 by the Police.
That's just awful, how you are not allowed to defend yourself in the UK. If you had not sprayed him, he would have beaten you up (or tried to) and ran. The police wouldn't have caught him. But since you defended yourself, the police fined you? What happened to the thug? Why do they punish the victims in the UK?

It's the kind of thing that gets Americans fired up about our rights...
 
I am sorry to hear that, Pinhead. That's an awful story. Can you please tell us on which base the police fined (I guess you mean "fined", not "find") you 200 pound? What was the reason? I hope your son recovers soon from this. It is neither easy to deal with physical attacks.
 
Is there more to that story? Why would they fine you? Doesn't make sense.
Even in some cities in the USA, they have penned regulations where you "have an obligation to retreat".
If you can possibly get away, and avoid a confrontation, they will fine you should you fail to do so (in those areas).

These restrictive US cities model their regulations off European cities.
The concept seems odd to Americans, but we are already seeing the beginning of them appearing here.

There are 12 states where if you are in your home, and have a gun, and someone breaks in, you have a "duty to retreat".
They are mostly a cluster of Northeastern states.

New York City has under article 35, a duty to retreat, when a threat "could be mitigated by retreating". In other words, you will be punished if you cause harm to a criminal, IF you had the opportunity to retreat (lift your skirt and run away).

A similar clause is why PinHead got in trouble. He arrived with a "device" which indicated an intent to be in a conflict without retreating. As I recall, in the UK, pepper sprays are forbidden. He went to where the "troublesome person" was at, this also showed intent. Now, if he had been walking down a blind alley, and was accosted by the thug (where retreat was not an option), then he could legally act in a more forceful fashion.

When I travel to a less-traditional city, I take the time to review whether they are an obligation to retreat zone. This defines how directly I am allowed to ensure my defense. It is because of regulations like this, which make some people in large cities reticent to get involved when a person is being robbed or assaulted.
 
putting aside for a moment the unpleasantness of the situation in which his son and himself have fallen, what I would like to know is why he didn't call the police rather than confronting a criminal, with all the additional risks involved. I guess he had a good reason, but I want to understand why, as his son was safe in a house and there was no emergency involved.
 
putting aside for a moment the unpleasantness of the situation in which his son and himself have fallen, what I would like to know is why he didn't call the police rather than confronting a criminal, with all the additional risks involved. I guess he had a good reason, but I want to understand why, as his son was safe in a house and there was no emergency involved.
As a father of 6 kids, and 3 step-children, I know how it feels to have one of them treated badly by a stranger. There is often a strong parental desire to have the enjoyment of dealing with the source of your child's pain. It isn't a rational feeling, but it is a strong feeling.

For me, what tempers that desire is a clear understanding of the law.
 
when they stolen my car radio in Cardiff, Wales (UK), I called the police. They came pretty quickly, took the fingerprints from the car, asked me questions and then... they caught the guy! o_O The story is quite funny, listen to that...

What happened was that the person living in the terrace in front of me set a videocamera to catch a stalker of his daughter who hammered her car in the past. In the tape from the night before there was a guy that broken my car window and extracted the radio in a few seconds (it was the standard radio of my old Ford Focus - apparently, they said, those radios contained a chip used to hack playstations :unsure:).

The guy was wearing a hoodie but looked vaguely like a known thief in the area. So they called him in to police headquarters for questioning.
The guy showed up and of course he emphatically denied that it was him.

Except for one small detail: that idiot was wearing a sweatshirt from some American university: the same as in the video. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
Even in some cities in the USA, they have penned regulations where you "have an obligation to retreat".
If you can possibly get away, and avoid a confrontation, they will fine you should you fail to do so (in those areas).

These restrictive US cities model their regulations off European cities.
The concept seems odd to Americans, but we are already seeing the beginning of them appearing here.

There are 12 states where if you are in your home, and have a gun, and someone breaks in, you have a "duty to retreat".
They are mostly a cluster of Northeastern states.

New York City has under article 35, a duty to retreat, when a threat "could be mitigated by retreating". In other words, you will be punished if you cause harm to a criminal, IF you had the opportunity to retreat (lift your skirt and run away).

A similar clause is why PinHead got in trouble. He arrived with a "device" which indicated an intent to be in a conflict without retreating. As I recall, in the UK, pepper sprays are forbidden. He went to where the "troublesome person" was at, this also showed intent. Now, if he had been walking down a blind alley, and was accosted by the thug (where retreat was not an option), then he could legally act in a more forceful fashion.

When I travel to a less-traditional city, I take the time to review whether they are an obligation to retreat zone. This defines how directly I am allowed to ensure my defense. It is because of regulations like this, which make some people in large cities reticent to get involved when a person is being robbed or assaulted.
Thanks for the response. I am really glad I don't live in one of those cities or states. For me personally.......I will protect myself....my family...even my friends if threatened.......no law would hinder me from protecting these folks if need be......just the way I roll. .
 
Back
Top