Church of England complaints and Sony responds

Church of England complaints and Sony responds
Yesterday, the Church of England demanded an apology from Sony, claiming that a re-creation of Manchester Cathedral in the hit PS3 game Resistance: Fall of Man was used without permission and that the re-creation upset the local area which has been trying to shed its bad reputation for gun violence.

The Church also said it is considering legal action depending on Sony's response. "It is well known that Manchester has a gun crime problem," The Bishop of Manchester, the Rt Rev Nigel McCulloch, told ITV News.



"For a global manufacturer to re-create one of our great cathedrals with a photo-realistic quality and then encourage people to have gun battles in the building is beyond belief and highly irresponsible.

"Here in Manchester we do all we can to support communities through our parish clergy, we know the reality of gun crime and the devastating effects it can have on the lives – it is not a trivial matter," he said.

This morning, Sony responded to the allegations and they seem to be apologetic without necessarily accepting blame.

"Sony Computer Entertainment Europe is aware of the concerns expressed by the Bishop of Manchester and the Cathedral authorities about the use of Manchester Cathedral in the game Resistance: Fall of Man, and we naturally take their concerns very seriously," the statement reads.

"Resistance: Fall of Man is a fantasy science fiction game and is not based on reality. The game is set in an alternate and mythical version of Europe in the 1950s, in which the enemy are strange looking alien invaders seeking to destroy humanity.

"Whilst we believe that we have sought and received all permissions necessary for the creation of the game, we will be contacting the Cathedral authorities in order to better understand their concerns in more detail."

More updates as they become available.

Source:
GI.biz

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 11 Jun 2007 11:30
Advertisement - News comments available below the ad
  • 45 comments

  • gleone

    I’d love to know which Priest was playing Fall of Man and noticed the Church. It’s good to know PS3 is in God’s house. Or maybe the Church obtained this information from a little boy. In that case I wonder how they interrogated the boy.

    Don’t the people of Planet Earth have anything else better to do??? I can think of 70,000 things that are more important than bothering Sony about a game.

    11.6.2007 12:03 #1

  • scott2k7

    what the hell this has nothing to do with manchester never mind a church if there that bothered take sony to court u will have to have a good solicitor to beat them and the preist played this game wtf!

    11.6.2007 12:25 #2

  • 26r0cK

    seriously, this is just lame to pick on Sony.

    11.6.2007 12:37 #3

  • muccione

    Originally posted by gleone: In that case I wonder how they interrogated the boy.


    You know how priest interrogate little boys.....they give them an ORAL release....
    The last thing this priest needs is to point his fingers at ANYONE..cuz it might come out that he put his finger where they did't need to be....pertaining to small children(boys)

    11.6.2007 14:26 #4

  • borhan9

    This is just a game people. But i would love to see what becomes of this.

    11.6.2007 14:43 #5

  • cashman91

    Originally posted by borhan9:This is just a game people. But i would love to see what becomes of this.same here

    11.6.2007 15:01 #6

  • djeazyg

    Church must be running out of money. Collection plate coming up a bit thin these days.
    Has anybody else that has played that game compared the church in Resistance to the real one? I beat the game 3 time and had no clue the church was a copy of a real church.

    11.6.2007 15:11 #7

  • hughjars

    S'funny

    (but wholly predictable when it comes to anyone else but them),

    but I bet if the situation was reversed and people were using recognisable images of Sony's Japanese, US or European property (including 'photo-realistic' images of their features logos etc etc) Sony would be the first to leap through the courts claiming 'damage' to their name and reputation.

    They even claimed non-Sony suppliers (who are on record as supplying Sony themselves) could have caused them 'damage'.

    Lik-Sang anyone, hmmmmmmmm?

    11.6.2007 15:11 #8

  • gleone

    Religion is out dated. It only spreads hate & causes Wars.

    Play GRAW2 on PS3 instead. It comes out in August.

    The End!

    11.6.2007 16:39 #9

  • duckNrun

    i agree with hughjars on this.

    i serioulsy doubt that sony would be silently sitting by if someone say, made a game called 'Mogul Monster Mayhem 2256' and placed it outside a photo quality image of their HQ where you had to run around and shoot and kill the monster moguls. In this game a mogul could be some evil looking zombie in a suit that sucks the free-thinking from humans and turns them into Soneis Fanbois [mindless slaves to the moguls] who then run about preaching the virtues and values of the moguls which only further endangers the human race to becoming enslaved by the moguls lol.

    You the hero of the game would have to make your way through the 'just an image in a futuristic game' killing the moguls and their legion of fanbois with such weapons as the aurcos gun, small silver frisbees (they ARE NOT dvds!) all while avoiding the dreaded Pea-X3 pods which will suck your wallet dry and cost you intellect points...

    Yeah I am POSITIVE that Sony would just think this was a game and not raise an international stink about it...(NOT!)

    I am also POSITIVE that some of the same people saying how the church in manchester is lame would DEFEND Sony's attack on this game.

    14.6.2007 02:23 #10

  • salinger

    Even the church is trying to make money of companies that just want to entertain us (for thier profit). Why cant they just appreciate the fact that out of ALL the settings out there, the deveolpers chose a nice church?

    14.6.2007 10:56 #11

  • TekPete

    Let's face it Sony just don't care who they upset. I wonder if they paid to use the image Manchester Cathedral. I will tell you one thing; they would never have dared use an image of a Mosque in the same way!
    However it'll be interesting to see how this is resolved, would Manchester Cathedral accept monetary compensation for the hurt this has caused? For their part they have demanded that the game be withdrawn, but what about the games that have already been sold, is there any way they can expect them to be returned? I suppose they might appeal to the parents.
    Perhaps the people bought these games could try returning their copies for a full refund.

    15.6.2007 06:59 #12

  • hughjars

    Originally posted by TekPete:would Manchester Cathedral accept monetary compensation for the hurt this has caused? - I hope they do & I hope they extract a huge amount of cash from Sony while they are at it.

    Church roof funds etc etc across the country will enjoy the big donation .....and our national lottery 'good causes fund' will be free to spend more money on other deserving things
    (cos right now Church repairs & renovation is a significant drain on their resources).

    So carry on Sony; keep on offending and damaging people's reputations in the UK & end up getting fleeced in the courts.

    It'll do all sorts of needy & vulnerable people the power of good!

    Thanks.

    ;)

    15.6.2007 08:57 #13

  • FlakMNKEY

    As much as I despise Sony and thought this was hilarious when I read it. The church has no case whatsoever, all sony has to do is say it's a landmark//landscape. Just like if I were to make a film that happened to show the statue of liberty - new york couldn't sue me for it because it is a landmark//landscape.

    Now im not for sure about the inside. If the inside looks exactly like the real thing then im not so sure. but if the church is a public area then I'd say they can't do shit about it.

    15.6.2007 09:27 #14

  • hughjars

    The Church in the UK isn't just another public area tho and the Church of England has a special status in the UK as the established Church.

    C of E property is Crown property, not public property as such.

    15.6.2007 09:36 #15

  • scott2k7

    let the bible bashers speak lol

    15.6.2007 10:13 #16

  • Ethrieltd

    ....ok then,

    So Manchester cathedral appears in a game, and being a Manchester Man (obscure reference alert!) It is pretty accurate as it goes.

    The questions that bother/amuse me are:-

    Isn`t the cathedral God`s house? (and therefore any legal action would require the presence/signature of GOD?)

    EEEEEERRMMMM Target markets anyone!

    So the church have never been party to/sanctioned violence have they?



    Salem
    Inquisitions
    Crusades...

    ...I rest my case.

    15.6.2007 10:45 #17

  • hughjars

    Originally posted by Ethrieltd: Isn`t the cathedral God`s house? (and therefore any legal action would require the presence/signature of GOD? - Naaa, that's just smart ars*d pedantic quibbling.

    Sony went out of their way to make a lame little bit of publicity knowing very well it would create a fuss.

    The only real pity here is that the C of E have now just accepted the Sony admission it was Manchester Cathedral actually afterall and the Sony apology.

    15.6.2007 12:38 #18

  • Steve83

    It's fine for Sony to piss off millions of US consumers with RootKit (etc.), or Universal Studios, or even the US government.

    But when they piss off a BIG corporation (like the Catholic Church), they're ASKING FOR IT!!!

    BTW
    When exactly did the CofE copyright the image of that cathedral in the US?

    15.6.2007 13:28 #19

  • hughjars

    Originally posted by Steve83:It's fine for Sony to piss off millions of US consumers with RootKit - Since when?!

    It'll be a long long time until anyone with a functioning brain forgets that nasty little scummy trick.

    Originally posted by Steve83:But when they piss off a BIG corporation (like the Catholic Church), they're ASKING FOR IT!!! - Well to be accurate the C of E isn't the Catholic Church (if you were meaning Roman Catholics).

    Originally posted by Steve83:BTW
    When exactly did the CofE copyright the image of that cathedral in the US?     - I don't think they have to.....and given the way 'globalisation' seems to work I'd be surprised if they did have to.

    They're selling the game in the UK so even if it were all confined to the UK (and with our EU membership possibly all of the 27 member state countries of the EU too) they would still be in trouble.

    But as I said earlier the C of E accepted an admission it was Manchester Cathedral and Sony's apology.

    Cheap publicity for Sony in yet another deliberate & extremely cheap publicity stunt.
    They must be so proud.

    15.6.2007 14:37 #20

  • Ofnir1

    Quote:The Church also said it is considering legal action depending on Sony's response. "It is well known that Manchester has a gun crime problem," The Bishop of Manchester, the Rt Rev Nigel McCulloch, told ITV News. So there are a lot of problems in Manchester with gun crimes, OK.

    Quote:For a global manufacturer to re-create one of our great cathedrals with a photo-realistic quality and then encourage people to have gun battles in the building is beyond belief and highly irresponsible.So, according to them, Sony is actually encouraging players to bring their guns into THAT specific building and have a gun battle in there in order to defame Manchesters image. This would make sense if the mission was titled "Destroy Manchesters image! Blow everything to pieces!" and if there weren't alien invaders bent out on annihilating humanity.

    Even if the reverend sues Sony and wins the case, their probem with gun crime is still going to exist, so what would the reverend achieve by suing Sony? The only thing that seems feasable is, you guessed it right, money. Who isn't driven by the sin which they claim to be against nowadays?

    Of course, people don't just walk up to others and shoot them for no reason unless they have a mental problem, so what is the real cause here? Gang violence? Drug trade? Illegal arms trade? All three? Gun crime seems more to be the symptom and not the cause. I'm sure the reverend is old enough to understand that R:FOM is JUST a video game, but something tells me he's up to something else.

    15.6.2007 16:13 #21

  • Ofnir1

    Originally posted by gleone:Religion is out dated. It only spreads hate & causes Wars.

    Play GRAW2 on PS3 instead. It comes out in August.

    The End!    Very true, and history backs you up on that. I myself think that religion is a tool to mind control the masses, but we all have our own take.

    15.6.2007 16:23 #22

  • hughjars

    I don't know why people are still discussing this as if it was still 'current'.

    It's all over.

    Sony admitted it was Manchester Cathedral they had used and apolgised.

    The C of E accepted that and that's it, all over.

    Sony got their pathetic little bit of free additional publicity from the fuss and will face no penalties for the offense and upset they deliberately caused......which was their dreary & wholly predictable little 'point' all along.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6758381.stm

    15.6.2007 16:53 #23

  • sclgwhite

    Admission is made that Manchester has a gun crime problem? How can this be, since handguns were banned a decade ago (1997), and the faithful champion shooters of England must spend 10,000 Lbs per year travelling to Switzerland to practice, where their guns are kept locked in an armory at a shooting range in Zurich?

    Of course, I'm ridiculing those who cannot learn that crime cannot be deterred when the criminal has the advantage. Which is why our Thomas Jefferson said, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.", and why our Second Amendment guarantees it.

    Quoting from a letter I received last week from my U.S. Congressman, "Since 1991, 23 more states have adopted some form of a right to carry gun law, and the number of privately-owned guns has risen by nearly 70 million while violent crime has decreased by 38 percent. In fact, research in the 1990's by the University of Chicago on the impact of concealed carry permits found that on average concealed handgun laws reduced murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent. This trend continues today, with statistics showing that in 2005 right to carry states had on average lower violent crime rates than the rest of the country..."

    Handguns have been banned for three decades in Washington, D.C., and crime has gotten so bad that the ban is being reversed.

    15.6.2007 17:58 #24

  • hughjars

    Well besides the selective cherry-picking of what the US 2nd Amendment actually says (with regard to bearing arms & malitias) I'll take a comparison between the gun crime and murder rates between the USA & the UK anyday of the week.

    The British murder rate is approx one quarter that of the USA's.

    US figures are appalling and have never been lower than ours when compared.

    16.6.2007 02:47 #25

  • dblbogey7

    Originally posted by hughjars:The British murder rate is approx one quarter that of the USA's.
    It looks like the Brits want to catch up though:

    http://newsbusters.org/node/12267

    Quote:British Gun Crime up 242 Percent; Post Says 'Laws Seen As Curbing Attacks'

    Posted by Ken Shepherd on April 24, 2007 - 13:06.
    Update below jump with related items from NewsBusters.

    This morning, NewsBusters contributing editor Dan Gainor brought this Washington Post article to my attention:

    "Britain's Gun Laws Seen as Curbing Attacks"

    But the problem is that while anti-gun activists recited those talking points in Post foreign service correspondent Mary Jordan's April 24 story, the empirical evidence shows otherwise.

    The number of crimes in which a handgun was used in England and Wales has risen from 299 in 1995 to 1,024 last year. Offenses committed with all types of firearms, including air guns, have also increased.

    That's an increase of 725 gun crimes in 11 years, a 242 percent increase. Britain already had strict gun control before the 1996 Dunblane, Scotland, school shooting, and in 1997 both Conservative and Labour governments pushed through fresh gun control legislation banning small caliber handguns.

    Jordan did note that gun fatalities are down at just 50 deaths in the U.K. last year from 55 in 1995, yet Jordan carefully inserted a caveat earlier in the same paragraph.

    "According to government statistics, the number of people killed by guns has essentially stayed the same, with dips and spikes, as before the 1997 gun control laws went into effect," she wrote.

    "Dips and spikes?" Perhaps like the spike in total homicides in England and Wales in the years following the 1997 gun laws? Homicides peaked at over 1,000 in the 2002-3 survey period. The number has since fallen to just above 1997-8 levels.

    What about the oft-repeated meme that gun-free Britain is much less violent than the United States? Jordan doesn't raise that meme per se, but neither does she compare apples to apples. Has Britain historically been less violent, more violent, or similarly violent per capita to the United States? Jordan doesn't say.

    The better comparison, in fact, is if Britain has become more or less violent since the 1997 gun laws.

    The notion that it's become less violent doesn't wash according to data from the British government.

    What about "possession of weapons." Surely arrests for illegal weapons is on a downward trend, right?

    Wrong.    Violent crime in the UK pre and post 1997 gun control laws:


    16.6.2007 04:01 #26

  • hughjars

    You can play with the stats and concentrate on rates of change/increase etc etc all you like but the fact still stands.

    The British murder rate is currently approx one quarter that of the USA's.

    16.6.2007 04:24 #27

  • hughjars

    Originally posted by hughjars:You can play with the stats and concentrate on rates of change/increase etc etc all you like but the fact still stands.

    The British murder rate is currently approx one quarter that of the USA's.    ......and delude yourself all you like but we're not going to be reversing the gun ban either.

    There's not a single political party in the UK (besides the nationalist nutter fringe which doesn't even run a local town council never mind our UK Gov) which is standing to increase gun ownership
    (by any means at all).

    16.6.2007 04:26 #28

  • dblbogey7

    I guess you also have the right to live with the delusion that gun control laws curb gun crime.

    Quote:Admission is made that Manchester has a gun crime problem? How can this be, since handguns were banned a decade ago (1997), and the faithful champion shooters of England must spend 10,000 Lbs per year travelling to Switzerland to practice, where their guns are kept locked in an armory at a shooting range in Zurich?

    Of course, I'm ridiculing those who cannot learn that crime cannot be deterred when the criminal has the advantage. Which is why our Thomas Jefferson said, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.", and why our Second Amendment guarantees it.

    Quoting from a letter I received last week from my U.S. Congressman, "Since 1991, 23 more states have adopted some form of a right to carry gun law, and the number of privately-owned guns has risen by nearly 70 million while violent crime has decreased by 38 percent. In fact, research in the 1990's by the University of Chicago on the impact of concealed carry permits found that on average concealed handgun laws reduced murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent. This trend continues today, with statistics showing that in 2005 right to carry states had on average lower violent crime rates than the rest of the country..."

    Handguns have been banned for three decades in Washington, D.C., and crime has gotten so bad that the ban is being reversed.     Excellent points sclgwhite.

    Also check out Nephilim's Polite Gun Debate thread:

    http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/325933

    Quote:Anyone inclined to be a thug will have already made the choice to be one and acquired a hot gun long before being given one :)
    Words of wisdom from Nephilim.

    16.6.2007 04:39 #29

  • hughjars

    Quote:I guess you also have the right to live with the delusion that gun control laws curb gun crime. - The only people 'deluded' in this are those who would seek to use minor fluctuations in the British gun crime stats as if it somehow 'proves' gun ownership is a 'good thing'.

    'Adding more guns' is not anybody here's (excepting that previously mentioned neo-nazi nationalist nutter fringe's) idea of a helpful strategy to the current problems.

    The central point you cannot escape is that despite those minor fluctuations the UK murder rate is one quarter that of the USA's, it has always been lower and it will always be lower (cos almost no-one will vote for the proposition of 'adding more guns').

    Nevermind the rest of the carnage that widespread and barely controlled gun ownership has brought the US
    (maimings from accidents, lethal domestic violence and the whole range of abuse & mental illnesses they help foster and/or spawn.)

    Much of our current problem stems from the import of the US culture of the 'gangsta' and our idiot young boys/men aiming to adopt & emulate it; we can well do without that other insanity, widespread and barely controlled gun ownership.

    In the UK over the last 20 years we have seen 37 Police Officers murdered in the line of duty (that by all means, not just guns).....

    .....would you care to enlighten the board as what the US figure is over the last 2 decades?

    I shall not be holding my breath for a straight answer.

    16.6.2007 06:11 #30

  • dblbogey7

    You missed the point entirely.

    There is no question as to which country has the higher crime rate. We agree that the US has a higher crime rate than the UK.

    The point is that gun control laws don't work. Case in point are the UK statistics pre and post 1997.

    No matter how much you try to regulate gun ownership the "thugs" as Nephilim calls them will find a way to own one.

    The delusion is that gun control laws can control the "thughs."

    16.6.2007 06:24 #31

  • hughjars

    Originally posted by dblbogey7:You missed the point entirely. - No.

    You're avoiding the point as hard as you can.

    The UK has low gun crime levels (despite any periodic movements in the percentages) because guns are fundamentally hard to come by here for most people.

    Of course there will always be a certain element that can get them (sometimes thanks to individuals in the USA supplying certain groups or individuals here) but nevertheless we sustain, relatively speaking, very low levels of murder by the gun thanks to our gun laws.

    You'll also find the USA has higher rape & assault numbers than us in the UK too -

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_rap )

    Originally posted by dblbogey7:The point is that gun control laws don't work. - If the type of 'logic' many 'gun fans' seem to believe was true then all the criminals here would carry guns.
    They don't.
    Very few do, in large part because we are a society without a widespread 'gun culture'.

    It's also a fantasy to imagine all of the Police here are unarmed too, they are not but guns are strictly controlled even within the British Police.....

    .....Police who, when the question is asked, have resolutely said time and again that they do not want to be routinely armed.

    BTW those 37 Police Officers that were killed on duty met their end by these means -
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4451852.stm

    3 were beaten to death
    12 were stabbed to death
    11 were shot to death
    12 were run over and killed by a motor vehicle

    Since 1900 the total number of murdered Police Officers is 160 -

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4451324.stm

    I'm genuinely sorry to say I have little doubt the USA beats that number in an individual year nevermind a whole century.

    Originally posted by dblbogey7:Case in point are the UK statistics pre and post 1997. - Stop trying to cherry pick the stats and the history.

    The methods of recording crimes has changed (for instance whereas previously a violent street attack on 3 people would have been counted as 1 instance of a violent crime now it gets counted as 3 separate violent crimes).

    The truth is that crime is down here, including gun crime - there's no mystery to this, it's a consequence of our aging population.

    Citing percentage changes to crime here is just taking advantage of our low numbers, numbers so low for inatance that Harold Shipman's murders alone skewed the stats for murder in previous years.

    Despite a growing population (57 millions - 60 millions) our murder stats in fact have remained pretty static and declined in relation to the population-

    748 in 1997/1998
    750 in 1998/1999
    766 in 1999/2000
    850 in 2000/2001
    891 in 2001/2002
    1,047 in 2002/2003
    904 in 2003/2004
    869 in 2004/2005
    765 in 2005/2006

    http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb1206chap2a.xls

    "The homicide figure for 2002/03 includes 173 murders committed by Harold Shipman in previous years but coming to light in the official inquiry in 2002"

    http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1004chap123.pdf

    So, you can easily see that the blip in 2002's figures is because in 2002, they retrospectively recorded Harold Shipman's murders, which go back to 1975.

    Quote:Mar 2007: The number of crimes recorded annually across London has gone down for the fourth year in a row, new figures show.

    Gun enabled crime was down by slightly more than 14 per cent and violent crime against individuals (not including robbery) saw a 5 per cent drop.
    http://www.london.gov.uk/londoner/07mar/p8a.jsp?nav=safe

    Quote:Jan 2007: Gun crime in England and Wales dropped by 14% last year, the murder rate was down by 9% and overall crime has remained broadly stable, according to Home Office figures published yesterday.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1999201,00.html

    .........and here's the real kicker for you, the biggest increase in the stats for recorded 'gun crime' in the UK has been coming from the crimes where the criminal uses replica firearms and air guns.

    Note that air guns are the 'other' catagory mentioned below



    http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb0305.pdf

    You might like to check you violent crime source cos this is the actual British violent crime situation -


    http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page63.asp

    ......and here is the 'all crimes' situation -

    16.6.2007 07:00 #32

  • dblbogey7

    We're obviously not on the same page here.

    So let's just agree to disagree.

    Anyway to those who care, here are the Cato Institute's Gun Control Myths and Realities:

    http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html

    Quote:
    6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.

    False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures...

    A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.

    The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason. Let's hope more people are catching on.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200310020833.asp

    Quote:While tighter controls on purchasing guns may allay some people's fears, there is not a single academic study showing that background checks reduce violent crime.

    16.6.2007 07:19 #33

  • hughjars

    Like I said you can call it coincidence all you like but I'll take our murder rate, violent crime rates, rape rates, assault rates (frankly the list is endless) any day of the week.

    Crime in the UK (as is the case in much of continental Europe - who often better the UK rates btw) is much lower than in the USA.
    Period.

    I do not think that is unconnected to our much greater controls on gun ownership
    (which, it might surprise you, do not actually amount to total and blanket bans anyways).

    People are entitled to their 'beliefs' on this (much like anything else) but I have provided the official stats & links for anyone else to check out and/or follow up.

    Crime overall and violent crime has fallen despite a perception to the contrary......people may claim much crime goes unreported but the stats are all we have ever had and that situation with regard to reporting crime has always held true to some degree at all times.

    I have also shown conclusively that the UK murder rate is not only very low but that it has remained low
    (in fact set against our population rising it has effectively gone down, not up, as a 'rate').

    I have also shown that much of the so-called rise in gun crime here since the 'Dunblane ban' has been from replica firearms and air guns
    (air guns are the 'other' catagory in the table above).

    Like I said, whilst obviously we're no nirvana and we do have our problems, the UK crime and particularly gun crime situation can easily stand comparison with that of the USA every day of the week and it will always come out looking the better.

    I have discussed this often before with US friends (which is how come I was able to know where to go to lay my hands on the necessary stats so easily......your lucky day, eh? :D ).
    In large part it seems to me that this basically boils down to a 'belief' that it is somehow 'morally better' to have the means to that kind of personal protection (ie guns) if ever attacked by an assailant
    (a view I can easily understand and have some sympathy for)
    but
    the fact still remains that in terms of the actual net effects and outcomes it does not lead to less crime and greater safety at all.

    16.6.2007 07:29 #34

  • error5

    Good discussion but realize that none of your arguments, graphs, and statistics will change anyone's mind one way or the other.

    The political lobby on either side is just to powerful and too well-funded to make a difference. The debate will continue especially here in the US and it looks like the end result will always be a stalemate.

    I know because I have a brother who works for a law firm that represents one side and a cousin who works for a law firm representing the other side. You can imagine how lively our Thanksgiving discussions can be.

    16.6.2007 08:51 #35

  • hughjars

    Originally posted by error5:You can imagine how lively our Thanksgiving discussions can be. - I'll bet.

    My only problem here is how our tabloids (and other various groups) deliberately keep upping the fear of crime with exaggerated and amplified tales of supposedly rising crime which are not in line with the reality.

    Obviously I realise bad news sells to a certain section.
    But IMO this is calculated to extend and maintain the separation & atomisation of our society and keep people apart & afraid of each other.

    16.6.2007 16:47 #36

  • dblbogey7

    Originally posted by error5:The political lobby on either side is just to powerful and too well-funded to make a difference. The debate will continue especially here in the US and it looks like the end result will always be a stalemate.

    I know because I have a brother who works for a law firm that represents one side and a cousin who works for a law firm representing the other side. You can imagine how lively our Thanksgiving discussions can be.    What a coincidence error5. My brother-in-law (the one who bought my Sony Pearl PJ) also works for a DC law firm that represents some gun lobby and NRA interests.

    Of course you're right about both sides having enormous political clout and the debate will continue ad infinitum. Nothing we say here today will change that and any gun control legislation will likely contain compromises that will at least be acceptable to both sides.

    16.6.2007 17:40 #37

  • sclgwhite

    Wow!!! I surely did not intend to get hughjars' national pride stirred up! My comments were couched entirely within the data at hand, which was the Bishop of Manchester stating that there is "a gun crime problem", and that he did not want Sony to "encourge people to have gun battles in the building." Apparently he is an alarmist, and I am glad to get that misconception corrected.

    I can only speak semi-knowledgeably with regard to the U.S.A, and over here in this blood-thirsty country the beleagured police are thankful to have us citizens who are licensed to carry concealed handguns help them curtail the criminal element. Aside from the cases where we actually confront armed criminals, our deterrent force comes from instilling fear of the unknown - am I, as a possible target, defenseless, or am I carrying a concealed handgun?

    Hughjars, if you ever boldly visit our primitive country, and one of our gun-toting criminals accosts you, I hope I or one of my concealed-handgun carrying brothers or sisters is there to bail you out. Seriously.

    16.6.2007 17:46 #38

  • hughjars

    Originally posted by sclgwhite:Wow!!! I surely did not intend to get hughjars' national pride stirred up! - You didn't.
    It was the comments about our supposed rising crime that needed correcting, that's all.

    It was a decent to & fro and as has been said I didn't really expect to alter anyone's view anymore that the reverse was expected of me.

    Anyone neutral or wanting some sources for facts on the issue looking in might just be a little more informed tho so it's worthwhile I guess.

    Originally posted by sclgwhite:Hughjars, if you ever boldly visit our primitive country, and one of our gun-toting criminals accosts you, I hope I or one of my concealed-handgun carrying brothers or sisters is there to bail you out. Seriously. - Don't be so defensive about your country, I have several US relatives actually and I consider the place far from primative.

    I do think the law is wrong & that you're in a mess that will be a long time sorting out tho.
    But hey, just my 2 pennies/cents.

    I can say that the chances of you encountering an armed criminal if you should be visiting this country are almost nil.
    You really don't have to spend any time seriously worrying about it anymore than the rest of us here.
    ;)

    16.6.2007 18:01 #39

  • Ofnir1

    Originally posted by hughjars:I do think the law is wrong & that you're in a mess that will be a long time sorting out tho.
    But hey, just my 2 pennies/cents.    I agree with you, and it only seems like it will be getting worse. The Law/System is only there to benefit everyone but us.



    |PlayStation 2 [version 7], DMS4 Pro, ToxicBIOS 1.4w/ ToxicOS 0.4, 80GB HDD|
    NEC DualLayer DVD+RW/-RW ND-3550A, Taiyo Yuden & Ritek DVD-R

    16.6.2007 20:18 #40

  • Attin

    This is bullshit...

    17.6.2007 16:20 #41

  • Emtee

    I really don't care either way, but! Every time you arrive at a church they are so eager to ask for donations for there service... Well I say who cares let Sony be, maybe they should hand out the collection plate to Sony.... If they want some kind of apology, this will help how? and who?

    18.6.2007 19:29 #42

  • scott2k7

    it will help god

    19.6.2007 07:38 #43

  • scott2k7

    it will help god

    19.6.2007 07:39 #44

  • Unfocused

    Are buildings in the Public Domain as far as representation?

    30.7.2007 23:07 #45

© 2024 AfterDawn Oy

Hosted by
Powered by UpCloud