PDA

View Full Version : Britain is 'surveillance society'


Neteru
02-11-06, 21:05
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42268000/jpg/_42268308_cctv203.jpg

Fears that the UK would "sleep-walk into a surveillance society" have become a reality, the government's information commissioner has said.

Richard Thomas, who said he raised concerns two years ago, spoke after research found people's actions were increasingly being monitored. Researchers highlight "dataveillance", the use of credit card, mobile phone and loyalty card information, and CCTV. Monitoring of work rates, travel and telecommunications is also rising.There are up to 4.2m CCTV cameras in Britain - about one for every 14 people. But surveillance ranges from US security agencies monitoring telecommunications traffic passing through Britain, to key stroke information used to gauge work rates and GPS information tracking company vehicles, the Report on the Surveillance Society says. It predicts that by 2016 shoppers could be scanned as they enter stores, schools could bring in cards allowing parents to monitor what their children eat, and jobs may be refused to applicants who are seen as a health risk.

Produced by a group of academics called the Surveillance Studies Network, the report was presented to the 28th International Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners' Conference in London, hosted by the Information Commissioner's Office. The office is an independent body established to promote access to official data and to protect personal details. The report's co-writer Dr David Murakami-Wood told BBC News that, compared to other industrialised Western states, the UK was "the most surveilled country. We have more CCTV cameras and we have looser laws on privacy and data protection," he said. "We really do have a society which is premised both on state secrecy and the state not giving up its supposed right to keep information under control while, at the same time, wanting to know as much as it can about us." The report coincides with the publication by the human rights group Privacy International of figures that suggest Britain is the worst Western democracy at protecting individual privacy.

How we can be watched

4.2m CCTV cameras 300 CCTV appearances a day Reg plate recognition cameras Shop RFID tags Mobile phone triangulation Store loyalty cards Credit card transactions London Oyster cards Satellites Electoral roll NHS patient records Personal video recorders Phone-tapping Hidden cameras/bugs Worker call monitoring Worker clocking-in Mobile phone cameras Internet cookies Keystroke programmes

For a breakdown of this list, see Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6110866.stm)

Full story bbc.co.uk (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6108496.stm)

Rivendell
02-11-06, 21:08
Huzzah! Another one of Net's threads I get to say "We're living in 1984" in again.

;) :(

*Winks in dismay*

Mad Tony
02-11-06, 21:11
What a surprise.
I saw this on the news this morning.

Freakin' pervs.

tha_mattster
02-11-06, 21:11
4.2 million CCTV cameras?!!!?!?!?! That's almost one for every person in scotland !!

Glad I'm not a criminal!!!

I was listening to the BBC news today, and they said the government is looking at plans to charge you variable council tax by watching what you do and how you use council services.

And it also features a woman who was put on a government database of alcoholics eventhough she wasn't alcoholic!

Lew
02-11-06, 21:12
Urgh, Ever heard of privacy?

Cochrane
02-11-06, 21:13
I was so going to quote 1984 about this, but sadly, I got beaten. If it didn't affect all of us (those same trends exist in any western country, not just GB) I would say that it was fun to watch where this would all lead.

Mad Tony
02-11-06, 21:13
Urgh, Ever heard of privacy?
Obviously the British government hasn't.

Alive_and_Funky
02-11-06, 21:13
I've never thought I would say this, but it sounds like a great time to become a hermit in the mountains.

Lew
02-11-06, 21:13
You think Tony Blair is behind it all? :)

Mad Tony
02-11-06, 21:15
You think Tony Blair is behind it all? :)
Probably.
He's a corrupt, stupid, big-eared perverted *******. ;)

Cochrane
02-11-06, 21:15
You think Tony Blair is behind it all? :)
This is a global trend. Blair has influence, but whether and how he uses it is unlikely to change anything unless he works for strict laws against such surveillance.

Lew
02-11-06, 21:23
It should be illegal. Well....

Bullethail
02-11-06, 21:25
Probably.
He's a corrupt, stupid, big-eared perverted *******. ;)


I'll bet they saw that...



Man, that's creepy. What if this all falls into the wrong hands?

Mad Tony
02-11-06, 21:27
I'll bet they saw that...

Who cares, what are they gonna do?
Arrest me!? :p

Lew
02-11-06, 21:28
I'll bet they saw that...



Man, that's creepy. What if this all falls into the wrong hands?

haha! That would be bad.



One minute later police show up at house ' Your under arrest for *****ing about the government'.

rika2
02-11-06, 21:46
do they have them in the restrooms as well?

K.J
02-11-06, 21:47
Probably.
He's a corrupt, stupid, big-eared perverted *******. ;)

Did You Know: The May 1997 general elections, in which Blair was elected prime minister, gave the Labour Party the largest victory in its history.
Blair's 1997 meeting with Gerry Adams was the first meeting between a British prime minister and a Sinn Fein leader in 76 years.
When elected, Blair became the youngest British prime minister in almost 200 years.

So he must have done something right right?

Mad Tony
02-11-06, 21:47
do they have them in the restrooms as well?
I wouldn't put it past them.

@K.J: Nope, he lied his way in to parliament.
They're all liars.
Can't you read between the lines?

jarhead
02-11-06, 21:48
We were heading that way anyway.....

Nothing better then being really stupid and doing funny poses in front of CCTV cameras though :whi:

Rivendell
02-11-06, 21:50
Well we're only following trend after all. Lord knows where all this started, as do most uk citizens.

tr_mitch
02-11-06, 21:50
It was always gonna happen.... I personally think it's a good thing since crime seems to be on the rise anyways.

Mad Tony
02-11-06, 21:51
It was always gonna happen.... I personally think it's a good thing since crime seems to be on the rise anyways.
But does this CCTV stop the UK's troublesome teenagers, nope.
My answer, as I said in the open chat thread, is to make a good example of one of them.

K.J
02-11-06, 21:53
I wouldn't put it past them.

@K.J: Nope, he lied his way in to parliament.
They're all liars.
Can't you read between the lines?

:rolleyes: Is this a "thing" that all young people/teenagers hate the authorities because it's cool or what?

You should start opening your eyes.

tr_mitch
02-11-06, 21:54
But does this CCTV stop the UK's troublesome teenagers, nope.
My answer, as I said in the open chat thread, is to make a good example of one of them.

You think troublesome teenagers are the only problem in the uk?
At the end of the day, Camera's have helped a lot and provided good evidence for crimes.

Mad Tony
02-11-06, 21:54
:rolleyes: Is this a "thing" that all young people/teenagers hate the authorities because it's cool or what?

You should start opening your eyes.
No, I am not like many of the youths in this country.
I don't hate the authority because it's "cool".
I hate them because they're lying and corrupt *******s! :mad:

Why don't you open your eyes.

@Mitch: No, they're not the only problem, just one of the many.

DREWY
02-11-06, 21:55
On one hand this is a necessary evil as it may do something towards preventing terrorist acts. Its what's done with the information that's gathered thats the worry. We have them here in OZ too.
Privacy? Thats an illusion. There are spy cameras that can look at individual blades of grass in your backyard from satellites. Teamed with all the other spy tactics there' not much room for privacy.

jarhead
02-11-06, 21:57
No, I am not like many of the youths in this country.
I don't hate the authority because it's "cool".
I hate them because they're lying and corrupt *******s! :mad:

Why don't you open your eyes.

@Mitch: No, they're not the only problem, just one of the many.

Well it could be a whole lot worse, luckily Blair doesnt go arround massacering whole towns,

And I'd rather be watched the whole way to the shops rather then not be watched and mugged and then let the attacker do it again to someone else

Mad Tony
02-11-06, 21:58
And I'd rather be watched the whole way to the shops rather then not be watched and mugged and then let the attacker do it again to someone else
But isn't that what happens?
These CCTV cameras hardly do anything.

tr_mitch
02-11-06, 21:58
These CCTV cameras hardly do anything.

You are kidding right?

jarhead
02-11-06, 22:00
But isn't that what happens?
These CCTV cameras hardly do anything.

Have you seen Crimewatch, They solves tonnes of crimes by CCTV's

Mad Tony
02-11-06, 22:01
You are kidding right?
Nope.

That's why the teenagers in Britain are still just as bad as they ever were.

tr_mitch
02-11-06, 22:02
Nope.

That's why the teenagers in Britain are still just as bad as they ever were.

I really think you need to watch the news more.

jarhead
02-11-06, 22:02
So you'd be happy with no CCTV's what so ever, or a few littered about.

Mad Tony
02-11-06, 22:03
So you'd be happy with no CCTV's what so ever, or a few littered about.
Just in between would be nice.

@Mitch: I do watch the news.
In fact I watch it a lot.

Ampersand
02-11-06, 22:04
*waits for this to descend into another 'OMG BRITAIN SUX SO BAD' thread*

:rolleyes:

jarhead
02-11-06, 22:05
I thought teenagers were getting worse??

But if you think it'll be better if we have less CCTV's there'll be a lot more criminals about, and I certainly wouldn't want that

tr_mitch
02-11-06, 22:05
Tell me Ben, Why on earth would the goverment spend money on putting camera's up if they were doing nothing, and having little effect on the country in which we live in?

Mad Tony
02-11-06, 22:05
But if you think it'll be better if we have less CCTV's there'll be a lot more criminals about, and I certainly wouldn't want that
There would probably the same amount of criminals as there are now.

@Mitch: Well, they're spending loads of money on public schools, but are they getting better?
No.
The government are stupid, they're only interested in lining their own pockets.

Atlantean-Squid
02-11-06, 22:08
I'm sure you've had LOTS of first-hand experience in British politics, MT. :)

tr_mitch
02-11-06, 22:09
@Mitch: Well, they're spending loads of money on public schools, but are they getting better?
No.
The government are stupid, they're only interested in lining their own pockets.

Your steriotyping of the whole goverment is becoming quite tiresome.
To be frank Ben, I don't think you know what your actually talking about.

Mad Tony
02-11-06, 22:09
I'm sure you've had LOTS of first-hand experience in British politics, MT. :)
No, I haven't.
So please stop with the sarcasm.

But I do know they are interested in lining their own pockets.

@Mitch: I'm not stereotyping, they are like that.
The only ones that seem to want to do anything are the BNP, but I don't wanna go into that.

And I do know what I'm talking about. ;)

Night Crawler
02-11-06, 22:10
It's alright for you to just sit there and make judgements Mad Tony. If it bothers you so much why don't you try and do something about it? Campagne, write, petition...anything? Or why don't you just turn up your nose and run away to another countr...oh wait...:whi:

jarhead
02-11-06, 22:10
There would probably the same amount of criminals as there are now.

The government are stupid, they're only interested in lining their own pockets.

Then why does Blair earn less/on par then his wife??

And I can assure you, Britain would be a far worse off if there were less CCTV's. In a world where people are scared to give whitness descriptions etc CCTV's are normallly the only way criminals are identified, and yes, they do catch a lot of criminals each year. Criminals which could easily be attacking you

So then, have you spoken to PM's about their lining pockets campaign, do judge poeple by what you see.

Mad Tony
02-11-06, 22:12
It's alright for you to just sit there and make judgements Mad Tony. If it bothers you so much why don't you try and do something about it? Campagne, write, petition...anything? Or why don't you just turn up your nose and run away to another countr...oh wait...:whi:
Hey stop that.
I'm not sticking up my nose and running to another country.
This country is gone, and I don't think it'll bounce back.

@Jared: You only know what he tells you, I bet he earns a lot more.
And did you know he takes vacations on tax payers money?

tr_mitch
02-11-06, 22:12
@Mitch: I'm not stereotyping, they are like that.
The only ones that seem to want to do anything are the BNP, but I don't wanna go into that.

And I do know what I'm talking about. ;)

I really don't think you do. Your opinion is only valid for yourself, Not everybody in the goverment is the same... So please stop with your quite embarrasing assumptions.

Mad Tony
02-11-06, 22:12
I really don't think you do. Your opinion is only valid for yourself, Not everybody in the goverment is the same... So please stop with your quit embarrasing assumptions.
How do you know?

I do know what I am talking about. ;)

jarhead
02-11-06, 22:17
@Jared: You only know what he tells you, I bet he earns a lot more.
And did you know he takes vacations on tax payers money?

I did know that ;) , and I know he lies etc but you should be lucky hes not some crazed dictator, and yes, he might have lied about his pay, the author of the article might have lied to make him better then he is, but then again he might not have. You have to stop assuming every politician is a liar

tr_mitch
02-11-06, 22:17
How do you know?

I do know what I am talking about. ;)

Wow.... So you think everybody in the goverment is only interested in themselves, That camera's actually make little or no difference to crime in the Uk, and that the Uk is practically a lost cause which has no chance of 'Bouncing Back'.
If everybody was as optomistic as you we'd all be buying plane tickets to America.

Mad Tony
02-11-06, 22:21
Wow.... So you think everybody in the goverment is only interested in themselves, That camera's actually make little or no difference to crime in the Uk, and that the Uk is practically a lost cause which has no chance of 'Bouncing Back'.
If everybody was as optomistic as you we'd all be buying plane tickets to America.
:rolleyes:

Ok, you guys probably think I'm crazy, right?
Well, everyone's entitled to their own opinion.
And in 20 years time this country will be down, trust me, it will be. I have no doubt that it wont.

So can we let it rest, I don't know what those greedy politicians really do, but neither do you guys.
And please, stop assuming I think America's perfect, because I don't.

tr_mitch
02-11-06, 22:24
And in 20 years time this country will be down, trust me, it will be. I have no doubt that it wont.

I so totally trust that statement... Since all you've been speaking is fact, So why should i doubt you now. :rolleyes:

Mad Tony
02-11-06, 22:25
I so totally trust that statement... Since all you've been speaking is fact, So why should i doubt you now. :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
Hey, like I said, everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

jarhead
02-11-06, 22:26
:rolleyes:
And in 20 years time this country will be down, trust me, it will be. I have no doubt that it wont.


ok well you stick to that ever so optimistic outlook :tmb: and we'll live here and see for ourselves. And I wouldnt even say 'i have no doubt' , I would think an adults answer to a similar question would be more valid,m after all they would have seen the country go through changes for a longer amount of time

This country might have been a complete **** hole in the 70's /80's and it might be improving

Mad Tony
02-11-06, 22:28
This country might have been a complete **** hole in the 70's /80's and it might be improving
What?
It's getting worse from there.
This country, IMO, is definitely not improving.

jarhead
02-11-06, 22:31
What?
It's getting worse from there.
This country, IMO, is definitely not improving.

But how can you make such a judgement, you wenrnt around then, so you wouldnt have an idea of what this country was like. You are only basing your opinions on what you have seen, a country doesnt just improve in a few years

Mad Tony
02-11-06, 22:33
But how can you make such a judgement, you wenrnt around then, so you wouldnt have an idea of what this country was like. You are only basing your opinions on what you have seen, a country doesnt just improve in a few years
I know.
But I have seen, read, heard etc. what It was like.
And to me, it's just getting worse by the year.

But that's my opinion.
Mitch doesn't seem to be very welcome to freedom of speech. :rolleyes:

jarhead
02-11-06, 22:36
I know.
But I have seen, read, heard etc. what It was like.
And to me, it's just getting worse by the year.


But newspapers/ TV programmes are biased, always have been, always will be.

And yes, everyone has a right to speech, but you do tend to express your opinions in a very strong opinionated way. whcih can often be conssidered rude

tr_mitch
02-11-06, 22:36
Mitch doesn't seem to be very welcome to freedom of speech. :rolleyes:

Freedom of speech is great, If you actually know what your talking about. ;)

Mr.Burns
02-11-06, 22:41
But newspapers/ TV programmes are biased, always have been, always will be.

And yes, everyone has a right to speech, but you do tend to express your opinions in a very strong opinionated way. whcih can often be conssidered rude


There's nothing wrong with being strongly opinionated Jared. As I'm not totally informed as to what is going on in the UK regarding this topic I will not comment on this. From an American's perspective: We've got the glorious "Patriot Act" which I'm sure has helped increase the ability of our intelligence agencies but I've always felt it gives too many freedoms to said groups and the gov't of course.

Geck-o-Lizard
02-11-06, 22:44
What?
It's getting worse from there.
This country, IMO, is definitely not improving.

Yeah... Damn medical advancements, helping us live into our 80's and 90's. Bloody computers and broadband connections for all. Stupid CCTV cameras, keeping chav crime down. Freaking democracy and freedom to live pretty much as we please. :p

Seriously Tony, you have a million and one complaints about the UK. There are a million and one worse places than here where you could be living.

Neteru
02-11-06, 22:47
The only ones that seem to want to do anything are the BNP, but I don't wanna go into that.Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Ben, I drop everything I've said against your arguments about this country forthwith. You are totally right, this country is terrible. Please leave it immediately. Or at least, before you can vote.

Geck-o-Lizard
02-11-06, 22:48
The man speaks truth. http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/7199/worriedth6.gif

K.J
02-11-06, 22:49
Wondering what Britain would look like in 20-30 years if we all left..

Neteru
02-11-06, 23:03
To try to bring this back to the topic specifically.

I was always uncomfortable at the advent of this new 'CCTV society' in Britain. But as it has progressed I have found that I haven't really been bothered by it. The fact that they are there at all I don't think is any kind of problem. It is other forms of monitoring that I find more disturbing, like RFID tags on items we buy at shops. Mobile phone triangulation. And most of all, the Electoral roll. I have sadly had to forego my right to vote for a number of years, simply because I refuse to allow my personal information to be available to anyone and sundry who cares to buy the records for their company, or any man in the street who can simply go into a post office and find out my full name, phone number and my address. Anyone who has had a stalker will know about that one.

Pipolinne
02-11-06, 23:06
Well,not being British,I don't have authority to give my opinion on your security system,but I wish we had more cameras in public places,too!Sometimes,victims are too scared to recognize the aggressor and a camera would surely help!

Mad Tony,it's sad when someone stands for a pro-nazi party. It's even sadder when that someone is so young and does not have one single clue about what he's talking about.

We have a similar party to BNP ,here. Until now its brave actions were:


Murder one member of a left wind party
Murder two immigrants from Cape-Vert
Organize a manifestation against immigration


They all dream about being accepted into the german and american pro - nazi parties, and then proclaim how hitler is their god.

Funny you don't agree with the surveillance system once all fascist dictatorships used it and not only in the streets,where it's pretty sensible. But I guess you don't know that much about dictatorships,too.

Paul H
03-11-06, 08:24
Predictions about compulsory chip implants under the skin, enabling the authorities to monitor every movement of every citizen, and to deny services and "privileges" - including even the right to buy food - to anyone refusing to totally fall into line with the new world order, were ridiculed when they were first made, but with the current levels of state surveillance and the moves towards a cashless society, those predictions are now looking more and more credible.

I am surprised to see people apparently happy to entrust their sensitive personal information and future liberties to the likes of control freak Tony Blair and his henchmen. Even setting aside the current police investigation into Blairís selling of peerages and the countless other financial scandals he has been at the centre of, the man is a serial war criminal who lies every time he opens his mouth. Iíd trust the Mafia before Iíd trust that guy and his gang.

Autolycus
03-11-06, 08:54
With all the crime on the streets at the moment i'm not supprised. If the cameras do their job and reduce crime i'm all for them.

PARANOIA
03-11-06, 11:50
If you're doing nothing to endanger the life of anyone else, you've got nothing to hide.

And if you've got nothing to hide, why should you worry?

Mad Tony
03-11-06, 11:51
Freedom of speech is great, If you actually know what your talking about. ;)
I do know what I'm talking about. ;)

So please stop with the childish sarcasm everybody.

Paul H
03-11-06, 13:40
If you're doing nothing to endanger the life of anyone else, you've got nothing to hide.

And if you've got nothing to hide, why should you worry?

So tell me, what did the Jews "have to hide" from Hitler? What did the peasants "have to hide" from Stalin?

Your outlook presumes that governments, politicians, police officers and other officials can always be trusted 100%. Why? Do you seriously believe that?

Rivendell
03-11-06, 14:42
If you're doing nothing to endanger the life of anyone else, you've got nothing to hide.

And if you've got nothing to hide, why should you worry?

Personally I think it's because even if we are innocent - we're still being monitored as criminals.

Geck-o-Lizard
03-11-06, 14:46
If you're doing nothing to endanger the life of anyone else, you've got nothing to hide.

And if you've got nothing to hide, why should you worry?

Let's put a camera in your bathroom over the toilet then. Let's put one in your bedroom over your bed. Let's all watch what you're doing in private; why argue if you're not doing anything illegal there?

Jamie18
03-11-06, 14:56
Cochrane is right - this is a trend all over the West and I don't think you can really pin the blame on Blair. And while he has many major (MAJOR) mistakes in his time, and decisions that I completely disagree with, Britain has been enjoying some of its best times under this government since maybe the War.

As far as why this surveillence thing seems to be larger in Britain, I think there are a lot of different factors - you have to remember that it is a comparitively small country, mostly urban/suburban with one of the highest population densities in the world (particularly in England). It makes sense that a set-up like that is going to make it easier to track citizens with things like CCTV cameras because the majority of people live close together compared to other countries.

As well as that, there's no getting away from the rise of mobile phones, computers and cards and other new technologies that means we're all leaving electronic footprints whether we want to or not. And then you've got things like terrorism that scare people into wanting more protection.

However, I don't like this 'if you're not doing anything wrong then you've got nothing to worry about' argument - I heard it a lot over the phone-tapping issue in America.

When I'm phoning my friends I'm not doing anything wrong, I'm not planning terrorist attacks, but still - I certainly don't want someone else listening in. I don't want records made and conversation habits monitored. The same goes for everything else in my life.

The danger here is a population that aren't willing to question things like this - and that's where the 'well if you're not doing anything wrong then you've got nothing to worry about' argument leads to. It's a very slippery slope and history has taught us that we can't simply sit back as the freedoms we value are quietly eroded until we end up somewhere we couldn't have imagined without even realising we're there.

Geck-o-Lizard
03-11-06, 15:06
http://img346.imageshack.us/img346/6403/thinkingpq3.gif

[edit] nvm. :p

Jamie18
03-11-06, 15:07
Oops, must have hit the enter button before I finished my post.

Geck-o-Lizard
03-11-06, 15:11
Well said, I completely agree with you. :wve: It annoys me how people are willing to give up the freedoms and liberties of everyone just for a tiny fraction of extra "security". It's so selfish. I can't remember who came up with it, but I love the phrase "those who would sacrifice liberty for a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.".

Hurrah4Lara
03-11-06, 19:44
So tell me, what did the Jews "have to hide" from Hitler? What did the peasants "have to hide" from Stalin?

Your outlook presumes that governments, politicians, police officers and other officials can always be trusted 100%. Why? Do you seriously believe that?
A good point.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?:yik: = Who shall watch the watchers?

*H4L starts singing*
Every breath you take
Every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
I'll be watching you
:yik:

H4L:wve: [Jessika]

clairelovestlc
03-11-06, 21:52
If it helps to keep me safe i dont care, no one sits therew and specifically watches me, who ever monoters the cameras probably will never seeme again, so i dont see it as infrigment on my privacy....I have nothing to hide, but its nice to know if god forbid something happened to me or someone i care about theres a chance it could be caught on camera and who ever did it may be broguht to justice... it also deturs people from commiting crimes in first place.

Bullethail
03-11-06, 22:12
One corrupt ruler who hates a certain race and blammo! I really don't like it...

clairelovestlc
03-11-06, 22:14
A very close friend of mine was attacked on the way home from her friends, the police arrive just as the man was undoing his trousers, he had already stripped her naked... if they hadnt turned up she probably would have been raped... the man got away, but luckily was caught on cctv further down the road and was convicted because of the footage

Ward Dragon
03-11-06, 23:58
^ Holy crap! I am very glad that the police got there in time, and that they caught the *******.

I don't know the specifics for how the cameras are in the UK. In general, I think I would feel more comfortable in a society in which there is no surveillance and almost everybody has a handgun (along with the necessary training for how to use it and take care of it). If someone is drugged out, looking for a victim to rob in order to get his next fix, he isn't going to care whether a camera sees him kill somebody. However, if his intended victim has a gun and shoots him through the heart a few times (or the head if he's on something like angel dust) then he's not going to kill the person. Additionally, I think that sane and sober people would be more hesitant to commit crimes if they are thinking, "Will my victim shoot me?" as opposed to, "Can I get away with this?"

Edit: I didn't know ******* was censored:p

Geck-o-Lizard
04-11-06, 00:17
Guns for no-one is safer than guns for everyone. All your killer has to do is knock your gun out your hand and you're immediately one down from him. The rule of thumb for carrying any offensive weapon is, don't take it if you don't want it to take you. In any fight, if you know your opponent has a weapon, the natural first instinct is to take it off them; and once you've got it from them, you'll want to use it against them. So if everyone's carrying guns, attackers will go for your holster first. And then yay, they have your weapon as well as theirs.

And you're not accounting for human corruption. You could meet someone behind an un-CCTV'd alley with the intention of killing them, then later claim that they'd taken you there to kill you and you were only protecting yourself when you loaded their face with bullets. Or simply be scuffling in the street, you pull the gun and shoot the person when you knew fine well they weren't going to kill you if you didn't; write it off as self-defence when the police come calling.

Hurrah4Lara
04-11-06, 13:41
Guns for no-one is safer than guns for everyone. All your killer has to do is knock your gun out your hand and you're immediately one down from him. The rule of thumb for carrying any offensive weapon is, don't take it if you don't want it to take you. In any fight, if you know your opponent has a weapon, the natural first instinct is to take it off them; and once you've got it from them, you'll want to use it against them. So if everyone's carrying guns, attackers will go for your holster first. And then yay, they have your weapon as well as theirs.

And you're not accounting for human corruption. You could meet someone behind an un-CCTV'd alley with the intention of killing them, then later claim that they'd taken you there to kill you and you were only protecting yourself when you loaded their face with bullets. Or simply be scuffling in the street, you pull the gun and shoot the person when you knew fine well they weren't going to kill you if you didn't; write it off as self-defence when the police come calling.

Agreed, although for my personal security I do subscribe to the maxim "Peace through superior firepower";). Let me explain:

Gecko, you have touched upon the one weapon that we may carry that cannot be taken, though - Self-Defence:cool:. Claire, sorry to hear about that story, but I am glad it had a happy ending. Self-defence techniques and common sense (avoiding danger) strengthen the individual citizen and offset the "need" for State intrusion and could have made a nicer story for your friend.

I am a pen-pusher these days but self-defence techniques (I mean the Martial Arts:hug:) have served me well over the years, and I exhort interested members to consider them. They are great confidence-boosters too!

H4L:wve: [Jessika]

Ward Dragon
04-11-06, 21:27
Guns for no-one is safer than guns for everyone.

I don't think so. There's no such thing as "guns for no one." All that means is that the criminals have guns and nobody else does.

The rule of thumb for carrying any offensive weapon is, don't take it if you don't want it to take you.

No, the rule is don't make threats, don't brag about having a weapon, and don't draw the weapon unless you intend to use it. There's always the chance that someone could take the weapon away from you, which is why you don't wave it around and make threats. If you have to draw it, then use it without giving the attacker the chance to react.

And you're not accounting for human corruption. You could meet someone behind an un-CCTV'd alley with the intention of killing them, then later claim that they'd taken you there to kill you and you were only protecting yourself when you loaded their face with bullets.

That's true of anything, whether it be a gun or a lead pipe. That's what the courts are for, to judge if someone legitimately acted in self-defense or was lying. There's always going to be corruption whenever people are in the equation, with or without guns. With guns, I think the victim has a greater chance of surviving.

Or simply be scuffling in the street, you pull the gun and shoot the person when you knew fine well they weren't going to kill you if you didn't; write it off as self-defence when the police come calling.

People lie all the time. The court system, flawed though it may be, is supposed to sift through the BS and see through to the truth of the matter. If someone is mentally unstable, just looking for excuses to shoot people, then of course they should not be permitted to carry a gun.


Agreed, although for my personal security I do subscribe to the maxim "Peace through superior firepower". Let me explain:

Gecko, you have touched upon the one weapon that we may carry that cannot be taken, though - Self-Defence. Claire, sorry to hear about that story, but I am glad it had a happy ending. Self-defence techniques and common sense (avoiding danger) strengthen the individual citizen and offset the "need" for State intrusion and could have made a nicer story for your friend.

I am a pen-pusher these days but self-defence techniques (I mean the Martial Arts:hug: ) have served me well over the years, and I exhort interested members to consider them. They are great confidence-boosters too!

:tmb: Well said. Guns should be a last resort available to every (sane and non-criminal) person, but common sense and self-defence techniques should always be the first and best line of defence :)