Born Hunter 17,809 Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) Gnasher, according to a report bank robberies have dropped by 90% in the last decade which is a result of better enforcement of the law. Essentially the chancers have weighed up the risk to reward and it ain't worth it no more. You can increase the risk by either increasing the punishment or the chance of getting caught. You dont think that might have something to do with cctv/forensics/.....ie technology..........rather than tougher sentancing ?................tougher sentancing for a crime does not stop the crime being committed.....simple. That's exactly what it had to do with. The chance of getting caught went up rather than the punishment. But to my mind it's those things combined that is the deterant. If we started executing bank robbers do you not think that that would have had a similar effect? That's an extreme example to make my point. You up the consiquences and normal folk start thinking twice about what they are doing. It might take a significant increase but folks will start paying attention. Good old authoritarian tactics, to kirb civil dissobedience, hang a few wrong uns. The rest will start taking note.... Edited July 31, 2014 by Born Hunter Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 30,458 Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 a 2 second google showed that in the UK bank jobs have dropped by 90% in the last decade which has been attributed to a greater risk of being caught. Essentially the criminals have taken note of the risks they are taking and packed up that game for easier pickings How does a " greater risk of being caught " tally up with harsher sentancing ? which is the reason for the drop greater risk of being caught or harsher sentancing ? Technology ( the greater risk of being caught ) is the reason people no longer walk into a bank with a sledghammer and a sack........not harsher sentances. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,809 Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) Should a spoilt spotty entitled little b*****d be allowed to get in a 200mph supercar? All you are doing is pricing out those that haven't the coin. The wealthy idiot remain... To my mind with that logic you might as well just ban anybody from owning a dog that's on the lower tax band. If you want to take a similarity from the motor world, I'd be more in favour of a CBT for dog owners. And whats wrong with pricing out those who cant afford to pay for their mistakes ?..............Besides which,how is it pricing out a sensible middle aged man who lives in the country who,s premium will likely be less than the spotty idiot driving a Fiesta in London Nothing, but the point in this isn't to create a system that ensures mistakes are payed for and corrected, it's to prevent the mistake in the first place. I'm not sure someone who has just had their kid mauled by a stray dog cares about compensation, they want their little angel safe in the first place. You're comparing a low risk individual with money with a high risk individual with none. I'm comparing two high risk individuals but at the opposite end of the wealth spectrum. I'm talking two high risk individuals with high risk dogs/cars, but one is wealthy and one isn't, insurance prices one out but the other remains and as such remains a threat to society. That's why I don't see it as a solution. All we have done is price out the poor idiots, the wealthy idiots keep their liberties and remain a threat. Edited July 31, 2014 by Born Hunter Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Accip74 7,112 Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 I'm not talking high risk dogs, I'm saying poorer people wouldn't be priced out to own a dog in general.........if you want to strut round with a cane corso then pay top wack......if that prices a lot of people out, tough shite, so maybe people with more money can afford them, but you would ultimately decrease the amount of these shite personel protection dogs being about, & if that decreases the amount of kids killed, then that's a good thing right?? Just because I can't afford many things, I don't winge about it not being fair....that's life. Fair or not.......it probably wouldn't work anyway, because poor or not, people always find away of getting what they want....it might even increase crime lol What's the answer? High prison sentences don't stop joe public taking risks..........even in organised crime, it's joe public that take the most risk (mules) & ultimately pay the highest price.....ie..15 years inside. So why don't we just ban all dogs, f**k it, that'll save babies lives. Completely ban the pet ownership of dogs un the UK. Got to be worth it right? You don't want to live in a world where laws are fair, well I do and frankly that's the whole point in a democracy. What do you think is a good idea then & keeping it fair for all the scrotes who wanna strut round with aggressive dogs? I've told you, harsher sentencing and harder enforcement. Gnasher gave an example of bank robberies, a 2 second google showed that in the UK bank jobs have dropped by 90% in the last decade which has been attributed to a greater risk of being caught. Essentially the criminals have taken note of the risks they are taking and packed up that game for easier pickings. Make a few examples and the public will become more aware of the risks they are taking by owning a dog. Possibly also improve education through compulsary basic training in dog ownership. So tough sentencing has reduced bank robberies by 90% but not touched drug smuggling?? yeh not sure about that one born.......Google isn't always a good replacement for good old common sense.... High sentences would definitely go some way, but for people like you & me......the high risk owners.....& yes they may be poorer, I don't think it would make much difference, it comes down to personal attitude, & the lads I see strutting round with these dogs, probably wouldn't give a f**k..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,809 Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 a 2 second google showed that in the UK bank jobs have dropped by 90% in the last decade which has been attributed to a greater risk of being caught. Essentially the criminals have taken note of the risks they are taking and packed up that game for easier pickings How does a " greater risk of being caught " tally up with harsher sentancing ? which is the reason for the drop greater risk of being caught or harsher sentancing ? Technology ( the greater risk of being caught ) is the reason people no longer walk into a bank with a sledghammer and a sack........not harsher sentances. Because any logical risk assesment is based on the statistical chance of falling foul and the consiquences of falling foul. It's a combination of the two. If you had to cross a road and their was a 50% chance of you getting clipped by a cyclist would you cross? Now if there was a 50% chance of you getting clipped by a landy would you cross? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 30,458 Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 If we started executing bank robbers do you not think that that would have had a similar effect? That's an extreme example to make my point. You up the consiquences and normal folk start thinking twice about what they are doing. It might take a significant increase but folks will start paying attention Because drug mules never try slipping out of Malaysia or the Philippines any more do they ..................people will always be tempted to juggle risk/reward thats human nature,my logic tells me removing that temptation is better for everyone. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 30,458 Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 a 2 second google showed that in the UK bank jobs have dropped by 90% in the last decade which has been attributed to a greater risk of being caught. Essentially the criminals have taken note of the risks they are taking and packed up that game for easier pickings How does a " greater risk of being caught " tally up with harsher sentancing ? which is the reason for the drop greater risk of being caught or harsher sentancing ? Technology ( the greater risk of being caught ) is the reason people no longer walk into a bank with a sledghammer and a sack........not harsher sentances. Because any logical risk assesment is based on the statistical chance of falling foul and the consiquences of falling foul. It's a combination of the two. If you had to cross a road and their was a 50% chance of you getting clipped by a cyclist would you cross? Now if there was a 50% chance of you getting clipped by a landy would you cross? But what makes there any greater risk of getting clipped by either ?............re " greater risk of getting caught " Technology is the single reason banks are harder to rob today.....screens/response times/cctv/dna and a million other things......harsh sentancing has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,809 Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 If we started executing bank robbers do you not think that that would have had a similar effect? That's an extreme example to make my point. You up the consiquences and normal folk start thinking twice about what they are doing. It might take a significant increase but folks will start paying attention Because drug mules never try slipping out of Malaysia or the Philippines any more do they ..................people will always be tempted to juggle risk/reward thats human nature,my logic tells me removing that temptation is better for everyone. Of course, but compare that to a country with equal chance of getting caught but lighter sentencing? Where do YOU choose to do bussiness? If we want to remove temptation, lets just ban all pet ownership of dogs. The only people allowed to keep dogs are professionals that do essential jobs. Police, military, guide dogs, keepers. Amateur working dog folk don't need their dogs. No more lurcher, terriers or amateur gundogs, they're not necessary to our society, they're just past times essentially. No dogs, no deaths. That's not fair though, we don't want to give up our liberties do we....... but it's alright to force the less wealthy to give up theirs? f**k me I sound like a f***ing socialist! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,809 Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) a 2 second google showed that in the UK bank jobs have dropped by 90% in the last decade which has been attributed to a greater risk of being caught. Essentially the criminals have taken note of the risks they are taking and packed up that game for easier pickings How does a " greater risk of being caught " tally up with harsher sentancing ? which is the reason for the drop greater risk of being caught or harsher sentancing ? Technology ( the greater risk of being caught ) is the reason people no longer walk into a bank with a sledghammer and a sack........not harsher sentances. Because any logical risk assesment is based on the statistical chance of falling foul and the consiquences of falling foul. It's a combination of the two. If you had to cross a road and their was a 50% chance of you getting clipped by a cyclist would you cross? Now if there was a 50% chance of you getting clipped by a landy would you cross? But what makes there any greater risk of getting clipped by either ?............re " greater risk of getting caught " Technology is the single reason banks are harder to rob today.....screens/response times/cctv/dna and a million other things......harsh sentancing has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Yes I know, I was trying to give a hypothetical situation where the chance of getting caught remains the same but the consiquences are different, to highlight that a persons judgement on whether or not to take the risk is not only based on the chance of being caught but the consiquences of being caught as well. A persons inpromptu 'risk assessment' is an intelligent thought process taking into account both of those factors. I guess we just dissagree. It's past my bedtime. Edited July 31, 2014 by Born Hunter Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Accip74 7,112 Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) If we started executing bank robbers do you not think that that would have had a similar effect? That's an extreme example to make my point. You up the consiquences and normal folk start thinking twice about what they are doing. It might take a significant increase but folks will start paying attention Because drug mules never try slipping out of Malaysia or the Philippines any more do they ..................people will always be tempted to juggle risk/reward thats human nature,my logic tells me removing that temptation is better for everyone. Of course, but compare that to a country with equal chance of getting caught but lighter sentencing? Where do YOU choose to do bussiness? If we want to remove temptation, lets just ban all pet ownership of dogs. The only people allowed to keep dogs are professionals that do essential jobs. Police, military, guide dogs, keepers. Amateur working dog folk don't need their dogs. No more lurcher, terriers or amateur gundogs, they're not necessary to our society, they're just past times essentially. No dogs, no deaths. That's not fair though, we don't want to give up our liberties do we....... but it's alright to force the less wealthy to give up theirs? f**k me I sound like a f*****g socialist! We just can't afford certain things though born.......is it fair I can't afford to insure certain cars, but my neighbour can? There's so many things I'd like to do, but I'm simply priced out of the market, because I don't have much money......& I'm living in a democracy........but I don't think it's not fair, as an individual, I know if I'd made more effort, I'd have more money to do what ever I wanted.....So I really don't think an insurance on potentially lethal dogs.....should be an argument about fairness, based on my wealth......the problem runs deeper than that......like enforcement...... Edited to say......my bedtime too :-) Edited July 31, 2014 by Accip74 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dare 1,103 Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 Gnasher, according to a report bank robberies have dropped by 90% in the last decade which is a result of better enforcement of the law. Essentially the chancers have weighed up the risk to reward and it ain't worth it no more. You can increase the risk by either increasing the punishment or the chance of getting caught. You dont think that might have something to do with cctv/forensics/.....ie technology..........rather than tougher sentancing ?................tougher sentancing for a crime does not stop the crime being committed.....simple. Too much risks compare to selling drugs would be the reason I think bank robberies hardly happen. As for for the spotty teenager comment I can see where your coming from. Thing is plenty of idiots who shouldn't own dogs aren't short of money. Maybe it'll make them want the dogs even more as a way of showing off their wealth? The thick criminal type that is. Also you get owners who should know better aging like prats. Can remember first dog show i went to had idiots facing their dogs off in the car park. These were men easily in their 30s. Surely best solution is to educate people so mistakes don't happen in the first place? Rather than just giving them tougher punishments when it does. If everyone had to pass a test to prove they know how to control and handle a dog is no excuses for it then. Before you even pay any car insurance you need to pass your driving test. Far to many people have out of control dogs or aren't confident enough to properly handle their dog. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 30,458 Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 Of course, but compare that to a country with equal chance of getting caught but lighter sentencing? Where do YOU choose to do bussiness? Im a greedy c**t so id head for Malaysia ....but like i say its risk/reward so you take your pick.....taking your pick doesnt stop the crime itself though. I dont agree with your points mate.......but what would your realistic answer to the problem be ?... keeping societies othercrimes/ punishment/sentancing guidelines in mind ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,809 Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 We just can't afford certain things though born.......is it fair I can't afford to insure certain cars, but my neighbour can? There's so many things I'd like to do, but I'm simply priced out of the market, because I don't have much money......& I'm living in a democracy........but I don't think it's not fair, as an individual, I know if I'd made more effort, I'd have more money to do what ever I wanted.....So I really don't think an insurance on potentially lethal dogs.....should be an argument about fairness, based on my wealth......the problem runs deeper than that......like enforcement...... Edited to say......my bedtime too :-) Yes that's perfectly fair, he's earnt that. The dog situation is different, the purpose of this insurance is completely different. car insurance is to ensure that any accidents are sorted out fairly and the greater risk of you causing an accident combined with the potential cost of that accident dictates the premium. In the case of dogs, the 'insurance' isn't really insurance at all, it's effectively a licence that is costed in the same way as car insurance is. The reason i say that is because it's purpose isn't to settle any accidents fairly (how can any amount of money be compensation for you daughter being dissfigured or killed?), it's to prevent high risk individuals from owning high risk dogs. But it only prevents low income high risk individuals, no high income high risk individuals, so to my mind it's different to car insurance and completely unfair. This isn't about paying for 3rd party damages, it's about preventing an accident. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,809 Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 Of course, but compare that to a country with equal chance of getting caught but lighter sentencing? Where do YOU choose to do bussiness? Im a greedy c**t so id head for Malaysia ....but like i say its risk/reward so you take your pick.....taking your pick doesnt stop the crime itself though. I dont agree with your points mate.......but what would your realistic answer to the problem be ?... keeping societies othercrimes/ punishment/sentancing guidelines in mind ? I want to say shoot or dissfigure the dosey twats, but that perhaps won't go down too well. Any dog killing should be considered man slaughter, any dog mauling should be considered gross negligence. Publicly make examples of people, plaster the consiquences of trials all over the media, hammer it into the thick f***ing sculls of societies pond life that responsibility is at your own feet. Possibly introduce CBT for dog ownership. Educate people thoroughly on the potential threat the have and the consiquences of not being responsible in their ways. That's the best I have. Bottom line, an accident won't be happening to anyone I love because I'd throttle a thousand men to protect the little baby that it's my job in life to protect never mind let a dog near to them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 30,458 Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 Yes that's perfectly fair, he's earnt that. The dog situation is different, the purpose of this insurance is completely different. car insurance is to ensure that any accidents are sorted out fairly and the greater risk of you causing an accident combined with the potential cost of that accident dictates the premium. In the case of dogs, the 'insurance' isn't really insurance at all, it's effectively a licence that is costed in the same way as car insurance is. The reason i say that is because it's purpose isn't to settle any accidents fairly (how can any amount of money be compensation for you daughter being dissfigured or killed?), it's to prevent high risk individuals from owning high risk dogs. Call it a license then if you like i really couldnt care less as long as it achieves the goal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.