And it's worked...
MUGGINGS and street robberies rose by eight per cent last year despite an overall reduction in crime, figures revealed yesterday.Indeed they have, they've effectively removed peoples rights to carry anything useful to defend themselves should the need arise. So, with cutbacks in the police and other areas of law enforcement, what's happened is now only the criminals are armed. It isn't helped by the fact that if anyone does defend themselves, they are frequently charged with an offence themselves. Remember Cecil Coley, arrested by police on suspicion of murder after taking on two intruders, who tried to rob his flower shop? That's pretty much what successive government legislation in the nanny state has lead us too. Instead of a congratulations and a careful check of the facts just in case, it's an "I'm arresting you and thank you for your DNA sample."
Pickpocketing, bag and phone-snatching soared by 13 per cent and knifepoint robberies went up nine per cent. The category of theft from the person increased by an alarming 10 per cent – the biggest year-on-year increase in a decade.
The number of Britons falling victim to any crime rose from just under one in 20 in 2010 to almost one in 16.
But total recorded crime fell three per cent, according to the Crime Survey for England and Wales.
Campaigners voiced fears that police cash cuts contributed to the rise in street crime and were leaving forces powerless to stop it.
David Hanson, Shadow Policing Minister, said the Coalition was “taking huge risks” by imposing budget cuts that will cost the jobs of 16,000 officers.
He said: “These figures show some very concerning rises. David Cameron is taking huge risks. Despite promises to protect the front line, we know that thousands of officers have already been taken out of 999
response teams, neighbourhood teams and traffic units.
“The Government is taking risks with crime and people’s personal safety.”
It's my belief that crime would fall if people could carry weapons, yes there are risks, Hungerford and Dunblane tell us that, though if the teachers or a member of public been armed as well, would the gunmen have gotten so far or caused so much grief?
There has to be balance to be sure, we don't want anyone with a record of violence holding guns legally nor anyone on the mental register, though a history of Raoul Moat will tell you how easy it is for someone like that to get them anyway.
It just strikes me that the only reason the government banned knives and firearms is because they feared we'd end up using them on the government.
An armed society would be a more polite society.