U.K. Cops Solve 10 Crimes Per Year

People in favor of gun control often claim that the laws will make everybody safer. They think that we should leave personal protection in the hands of police officers rather than the individual. The U.K., in particular, has gone through an alarming period of increasingly strict anti-weapons laws in the false hopes of reducing crime.

According to the article in the title link:

COPS are solving an average of just ten crimes a year each, shock figures showed yesterday.

The revelation comes as violent offences continue to soar.

Attacks on individuals smashed through the million mark — an eight per cent rise — for the first time in 2004/2005, according to recorded figures.

Now think about that. In a country where crime has been increasing about as fast as anti-weapon laws have been becoming more strict, roughly 3/4 of the crimes go unsolved. This proves two things:

1. Laws against weapons can't possibly be that effective, as most offenders would not get caught with such a low detection rate
   
   
2. By denying good people the power to defend themselves, they are placed in a position to be victims with very little of chance of their attackers being stopped, caught or punished. In the case of this article, more than 1,000,000 individuals have already been attacked in the past year, and most of these crimes will not be solved.

“The figure would shock most people given for the last ten years successive governments have been focusing more and more narrowly on crime detection.

How many times do we all hear stories in the news about some police department being upgraded with new weapons, police cars, computers, communication systems, etc.? Almost every time a law enforcement agency is allowed to spend a pile of money, we hear about the benefits that this will bring to society by preventing new crimes, solving old crimes and locking up more bad guys. From this last quote, it looks like the U.K. has also been increasingly focused on crime detection, yet this alone has not made people safer. While I am not against law enforcement having good equipment, it is critical to remember that the police are not the first line of defense against crime. It is up to the individual to protect themselves, secure their homes, vehicles and belongings, keep an eye out for danger and to help their fellow man when he is under attack. ANY laws that hinder this effort are amoral and should be stricken from the books. The police are who you call AFTER you have failed to secure and defend youself and AFTER you have already been victimized. I'd much rather not be a victim in the first place than have to rely upon overworked law enforcement personnel who are statistically unlikely to catch my attacker.

Please consider this story the next you have the chance to vote against a law that will further disarm good people or weaken their privacy rights supposedly for the purposes of increasing public safety. It's been proven not to work and generally just results in more defenseless victims.