House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Thursday in a press conference that she personally believes it’s “really important” to lower the voting age to 16.
What are your thoughts on this topic?
Absolutely not! There are enough illiterate, ignorant, uneducated, or downright stupid people voting today without lowering the age to that of immature high schoolers or high school dropouts (the legal age in many states to drop out of school), and that includes both parties. It is bad enough that people who've never had a civics or government class have the right to vote, however, opening it up to even more of them is unthinkable. I can see some young high school girl voting for Beto because he is "cute," or a group of high schoolers voting for someone because he or she is for giving away free college educations. I don't see most 16-year-olds voting for a candidate because that person knows more about running our government or keeping us out of war than the opposition. These very idiotic ideas are why I am no longer a member of the Democrat Party, but that doesn't mean that I'm willing to become a card-carrying member of the Corporate Capitalist Party or vote for any of its candidates. So come on, third party, give us some choices here besides billionaire businessmen.
An EMPHATIC NO! I staunchly believe that the voting age should be upped to between 21 and 25 years of age. In my opinion, even 18 years of age is WAY TOO YOUNG to vote. I believe that in order to vote, one should have extensive real life experience & maturity. An 18 year old isn't mature nor reasonable enough to vote, let alone a 16 year old who is green behind the ears! 21-25 years of age is THE APPROPRIATE age to begin voting!
Would you also agree the military service age should be raised to 21 and 25?
I would like an answer to that as well. Ann Coulter says that we should raise the voting to 25 to 30, as too many liberal leaning people are voting?
Agree. Most young people in this age group are totally apathetic re politics.
I disagree with G. Williams. 18 is the age of majority and all adult prerogatives and responsibilities should be granted this group. I am still angry about a society that will would send young men to risk their lives in conflicts for which they had no right to select the leaders that send them there. I was active in this area during the closing years of the Vietnam War. For anyone to say that you have to be 21 or 25 based on THEIR assessment of the maturity of majority of those between 18 and 21 is utter nonsense and is just another tool of the Right to try staunch a demographic of generally, progressive voters.
I agree. The matter of military participation, particularly when forced as it was with the draft, if very important. If you are old enough to die for your country you are old enough to vote for its leaders.
And I'll go further; I see efforts to raise the smoking/vaping age to 21 and drinking is often that already. That's just as wrong as no vote; if you are old enough to die you are old enough to participate in ALL adult vices. And pleasures.
I am with you all the way on this one, Wilderness. 18 is the magic number!
Or perhaps eighteen is too young to be a member of the armed forces.
I hear you Glennis, but I resented the second class citizenship doled out to those that found themselves in the "no man's land" between 18 and 21 years of age. I was there for a time and quite vexed by it.
Either make the adult boundary for EVERYTHING at either 18 or 21.
Anything else really is not fair. I support 18 as the place where public education ends at least a couple of years after the requirement for compulsory school attendance. People marry at 18, they need the ability to enter into binding contracts as they are most likely required to support themselves and their families at this point. So, who is telling them that they cannot buy cigarettes?
People 18 and over can be held responsible as an adult for crimes, and are subject to the death penalty as those under that age when capital crimes are committed are not. That is a clear distinction between minor and adult.
So, either give me the whole loaf or none, half won't do.
Glenis, there would be a dearth of available candidates to serve in the military if the minimum age for participation were 21.
Yet...if ALL countries (geographical and philosophical) followed suit it would be a great thing indeed!
Well, I'm not sure about being magic, but if we allow some major adult activities (military service is just one example - putting other lives in danger on the highway is another and so is marriage and family) then we allow them all. Whether 18 or 21, it must be set for all activities.
The very idea that politicians know better than a teen whether they should drink (or smoke or vote), but a teen is competent to start a family or join the military is ludicrous.
No, an age of majority has been established at 18. The point where I believe that full acceptance of adult responsibilities and privileges should begin. So that means that the drinking age should be 18 in my opinion Old enough to fight means, old enough to vote and do anything else adults can do. No second class citizenship for those between 18 and 21. But all persons under 18 are minors.
Musings from an old liberal, 18 is the magic number, no more and no less...
I agree that 18 is the magic number. If we remember correctly, both the age to drink and to vote was 21. Then the argument was made that we were sending young people too young to drink or to vote to die for us. It wasn't fair that they couldn't vote for the leaders who sent them to war.
We don't send 16-year-olds to war to die for us, nor do we knowingly allow them to go to bars and get drunk. There is no valid reason to allow them to help decide who our leaders should be.
Any of you remember the 1968 cult classic "Wild in the Streets", America was in upheaval as they were advocating lowering the voting age to 14?Nancy has gone a bit too for me this time, 16?, never....
Nancy is absolutely wrong on this one. At 16, kids are not truly thinking about voting. A true story: at 17, my uncle explained he was so messed up, drinking, gambling, and working with a bunch of bad people in Chicago that if the judge hadn't given him the option of jail or military, his life would have been ruined. He went on to be a heck of an engineer in the Midwest. No, leave 18 alone.
Our schools do not teach political science, civics, or enough government to allow younger people to make an unbiased choice when it comes to elections.
They could teach all those things Ralph, it would mean nothing because the vast majority of children first of all probably wouldn't learn anything getting average grades and head knowledge is meaningless without experience. College grads aren't even deemed competent in their fields until they have years of experience in employment in their field. Do you really think book learning will create competent voters? At that age? It's helpful to adults to have had training but adolescents are clueless.
Think about it. What possible issue that confronts our elected government officials could 16 year olds possibly have an educated experienced grasp upon? What Pelosi knows is that teenagers are easily indoctrinated by an education system already controlled by left wing Democrats and a naive child with NO real world life experience, wanting to act grown up, is a vote they can count on.
Combine all that with the fact that the rational part of a teen's brain isn't fully developed and won't be until age 25 or so. In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain's rational part. ... They weren't thinking as much as they were feeling.
And there you have it, the basis for liberal indoctrination is to appeal to feelings and to hell with intellect. And to suggest that's the way to create an electorate is insane, Pelosi is insane (unless you think hearing and feeling dead people and bragging bout it to the world is sanity)
Well Ralph, since you pointed out Pelosi (the woman who the liberal media looked the other way on when video surfaced of Democrat Pelosi describing her encounter with ghosts back in August of 2012. An Aug. 12, 2012 CNSNews.com story recounts Pelosi’s claim she not only heard – but also felt – dead women sitting in a chair with her) wants the age lowered the real question is why would she suggest such an insane idea?
Maybe it's because she is not sane, a thought anyone can find plenty of evidence on as well as the rest of the Democrat leadership and ranks - they're all mentally ill.
Not all? Name one you think isn't mentally ill and I'll bet I can demonstrate to you their sanity is in question.
https://hubpages.com/politics/National- … egislation
Read this - another Democrat trick
Absolutely not. Let me count the ways... No, won't waste my time. It becomes more apparent each day how the Dems are desperate. They are in a complete meltdown. Hopefully, they continue to spiral downward with their own special kind of "crazy". The ideas that are emerging are scary.
It seems universal that nobody wants the voting age lowered. I completely agree and it's an obvious ploy by Pelosi to get more votes because it's well known that young people lean toward the Democrats.
And the easy criticism is: why not? Of course they lean Democrat. Young people are usually idealistic and liberal, having not earned a penny toward their own existence even a day in their lives (usually). Interestingly, young people have a similar relationship with their parents that many Democrats have with the government.
I think it is entirely reasonable to allow voting when people have enough life experience to know what they need from government. How can one vote when one hasn't even had a job yet?
That said, there are probably as many kids of liberal parents as kids of conservative ones and my guess is most of them are voting the same way their parents vote.
"...my guess is most of them are voting the same way their parents vote."
Depends on what you call "kids". Just a hunch, but I doubt that very many college "kids" vote conservative. Certainly not as many as have conservative parents.
But you're talking 15, 16 year olds, I would agree - the large majority would vote with their parents.
I was referring to 16-year-olds. Most would probably vote with their parents or would be heavily influenced by their parents.
The argument for allowing 18-year-olds to vote is that if you can be drafted, then you have a right to decide who you want deciding such things.
Voting age lowered to 16 ?
Not only voting age should not be lowered, it should be restricted to people who have a clear understanding of civics.
Voting is a priviledge, not a right.
The fact that the democratic party treats this so lightly speaks volume about what they think of elections...
They will hold on to power how ever and what ever means. Sad state.
They want children and illegals to vote and cancel votes by American citizens who are the majority.
Civics should be mandatory curriculum of all middle school and high school students.
That is incorrect, the right to vote is a right, not a privilege and it belongs to any adult age of 18 and over who is a citizen and resident of the jurisdiction where he or she casts their ballots. That is enshrined as part of the Constitution and Its Amendment. Sounds like both you and Steven need to brush up a bit on your civics.
The demographics are working against you already, Jack, relative minority population growth rates, will in short time makes their votes, the majority. So, we won't need children or illegals.
Credence, why would you want people voting who does not know how our government works?
It seems to me, all of us, should demand this...
I don’t want my vote cancelled by some kid who doesn't know anything.
It is the same with voter ID. Why should someone be allowed to vote when we can’t determine if that person is a citizen?
The same goes with social security and welfare benefits...
We should expect verification of identity.
OK, I go along with verification of identity, but if the Right and Republicans are misusing this concept to unfairly disenfranchise American citizens as registered voters, there is going to be hell to pay.
Who decides if one "knows enough"?
Surely, having informed voters are preferable but I stand squarely for the Right of that illiterate man to cast a ballot whatever his motivation. Because no one requires a test of him to apply before he or she is required to pay taxes or abide by laws without having a part in their formulation, as a child.
The point is that when we get down to basics, your vote is no more important than that of anyone else.
True, but think of this hypothetical. By your logic...
Suppose we have open borders policy and 10 million Buddists or Muslims immigrated to our country. Everyone of them can potentially vote in our elections. Do you want a government dictated by their values?
How about Sharia law? Or Confucious?
Ok, Jack, first of all, I am not for open borders. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are applied to prevent the rule of and otherwise being overrun by a tyrannical majority. So Sharia Law as defined cannot be just "voted in".
We said the same thing about Catholics with some sort of conflict between adherence to American Law verses their support of the papacy. JFK proved all of that wrong.
I guess that I have to consign the possibility of your hypothetical as the same as the possibility of the sun going supernova tomorrow.
What is to prevent this from happening?
Given that the Democrats do not want a wall, want to abolish ICE...
Want to propose free college education...
Want to propose elliminating fossil fuel in 10 years...
Want to propose free healthcare for all...
Wants no part of a voter ID law.
Want to elliminate the Electoral college.
Want to allow criminals to vote.
Want to allow kids 16 years old to vote...
Any thing else I forgot?
I am a Democrat, just because I believe that a physical wall may not be the best way of properly monitoring the border, does not mean that we are not concerned about the best way to insure border security.
I see reduced cost or free education as an investment in our own people, it is unfortunate that conservatives never see things this way
Elimination fossils fuels within 10 years is a dumb idea as I doubt that it is possible. Yes, I am a Democrat, but that does not mean that I subscribe to every idea put forth.
If I can pay exorbitant sums for our saber rattling around the world, I don't have any problem with universal health care. It is just a matter of where your priorities lie. For progressive, this perspective is simply different.
I, reluctantly accept the idea of voter ID, as long as the ID is made completely accessible, free and easy to obtain by all.
I question the necessity of the Electoral College, but will live with it as changing it requires a Constitutional Amendment and I doubt that 3/4 of the states would go along. Changing demographics will eventually make concern about elections that are not representing the will of the people a moot issue, Electoral College or not.
People who have paid their debt to society and met all requirements related to their parole are no longer criminals and should have the right to vote.
The sixteen year old vote is a dumb idea, relative to this culture. I will admit that.
Did you forget anything else?
... so they keep students infantile until they're 18 and then want them to vote at 16.
Students are spared of the realities of life in government schools: They don't even know economics or business!
PS Michael Moore wants to lower the age for POTUS.
He wants AOC to run for president.
“It’s too bad you have to be 35 to be president,” Moore said on MSNBC. He continued, “You know they put that in the constitution, the Founding Fathers, because people died at 38 or forty back then. You know we need to lower that.”
https://hotair.com/archives/2019/02/04/ … president/
My initial reaction was, heck no, but then I thought back to a particular young man, in a crowd, wearing a red MAGA hat. Young Mr. Sandmann exhibited more maturity, wisdom and control than the many so-called adults, (that probably vote, if they can get lunch out of it and a free ride) which harassed him and his young friends after the March for Life.
So perhaps Nancy is onto something....I am sure that young Mr. Sandmann would love to have a vote!
I'm sure he and his ilk would too, but we still don't know if he was smiling or sneering at the Native American man. Nobody seems to be able to prove either. I'd hate to base changing the voting age to 16 on that.
I DO NOT wish for the brainwashed youth of America, products of today’s liberal government-run institutions to vote any sooner than they already do, so we are actually in agreement!
Sixteen year old Nick Sandmann responded to activist, bullying ‘adults’, (definitely old enough to vote) as they harassed him and other kids from his school, with great maturity and restraint. Just making a point.
It’s a good question, and I’ve read all the replies with interest. I am in favour of lowering the voting age to 16 in the UK; the question of lowering it in the USA is perhaps a different matter because of some of the reasons already mentioned that don’t apply to the UK in the same way as they apply to the USA.
Countries that already have 16 as the minimum voting age are Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey; and if employed in Bosnia, Serbia and Montenegro.
Also, 16 is the minimum voting age for Local Government Elections in Scotland, and possibly in Wales in the near future e.g. the Welsh Government is currently debating the issue.
All Socialist Parties in the UK are in favour of lowering the voting age to 16, as is the House of Lords; but the Conservative Party is NOT. Therefore, it’s most probably likely be just a matter of time before the voting age in the UK is lowered to 16. No great surprise here as 75% of young people support Socialist politics.
One argument against 16 in this forum is that you can’t join the Army until you’re 18. In the UK you can join the Army at 16 (but unlike the USA) in the UK Military Service is completely voluntary e.g. there is no ‘register for conscription’. Time and time again the British Army has stated they only want volunteers, because volunteers make for the most dedicated fighters; and in any conflict it’s always the Gurkhas (in the British Army) who are in the front lines because they are the most fearless of all fighters.
Lone Gurkha (British Army) took out 30 Taliban single handily: https://youtu.be/a2kxdSIq8Es
Another difference between the USA and UK is that in the UK politics is taught in British Schools. When I was at school it was from the age of 14 (now it’s from the age of 11). I was taught ‘British Constitution’ (National Government and Politics), and ‘Civics’ (Local Government and Politics). Also, politics is a big thing in Colleges in the UK (aged 16 to 18) e.g. politic debates are organised and encouraged in forums in colleges as part of the educational process; and separately (since 2000) we’ve had the ‘UK Youth Parliament’ whereby 369 children from the age of 11 to 18 are democratically elected by their fellow school children across the UK (organised by the British Youth Council).
In 2009 (in spite of opposition from Conservative MPs) the House of Commons voted in favour of allowing the UK Youth Parliament to sit in the House of Commons one day a year to debate topical issues; below is a peek at one such debates (by 11 to 18 year olds) held in the House of Commons in 2014, very topical as the subject under debate was the question of lowering the voting age to 16:-
UK Youth Parliament: Junaid Ashraf Backs Votes At 16: https://youtu.be/axvZ-e_e5sE
Most interesting, Arthur.
Here the issues are a bit different.
I believe that anyone under 16 is considered truent if not in school. Most persons between the ages of 16-18 are still in high school.
Contracts are not binding between parties if one of the signatories is under the age of 18.
The age 18 was focused upon primarily due to the hypocrisy of asking 18 year olds to risk their lives in armed conflicts yet have no political voice as to who is putting them there.
Before all of that, 21 was the number. But, I believe all adult Rights, privileges and obligations should be at 18. You have to be 18 to be drafted.
You can't, in this society, hold a 16 year old ultimately responsible nor contractually bound in America. Since they are not held responsible, the flip side is that they are not trusted with "adult responsibility"
Nice to hear from you Arthur, hope all is well on the other side of the pond.
If I recall, you can join the military here at 17 with parental approval.
We have civics classes as apart of public education.
In this state, we have social studies classes (focusing on civic responsibility), American history classes, and state history classes. During these courses, often how the state and Federal Constitutions and various branches of government interact is discussed. (Frequently, engaging in mock elections is a part of the curriculum.) Also, most schools have a student government, giving the students some idea of how elections work and campaigns and so on.
However, all public school districts are not created or funded equally. Yet, I think these are general requirements for most schools throughout the country since the nation has moved to a standardized curriculum, accepted by most school districts across America.
Yet, all teachers are not created equal; America serves a very diverse population of young students relative to other nations; funding changes yearly; principals may initiate the standardized curriculum in varying degrees - these are all factors influencing the state of American education.
These kids will mature and gradually understand how to run the republic. I don't doubt that. But my son at 16 was only interested in taking apart every machine he could find and putting it back together, and could he get a date with the cutest girl in his class. I'm glad he eventually got a date with a tech school and now works putting together high rises.
Hi Credence2, and thanks for your informative feedback.
Yes, laws are complex, can be confusing, and slowly change over time. Historically, in the UK before 1970 you didn’t become an adult until the age of 21; then in 1970 the law was changed bringing that age down to 18.
For what it’s worth, under UN Law the age you become an adult is 18, unless the law of the land in which you live is different! In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, you are legally a child until the age of 18, but in Scotland that age can be as low as 16 under certain circumstances!!!
Education is a little different in the UK compared to the USA, and has changed a little since I left school. In the UK, in my grandfather’s day you could leave school at 14 and get a job, when I left school it was 15, now it’s 16; although, to complicate matters, there are some minor variants in the laws between the four countries (Kingdoms) of the United Kingdom:-
In England and Wales, when you leave school at 16 you have a choice of either going onto College until 18; or taking an Apprenticeship; or working part time (20 hours a week or more) while continuing in part-time education at College e.g. ‘day release’. Then from the age of 18 you can optionally go onto University to get a degree.
Education in the UK is free for all until the age of 18, except in Scotland where education is free for all regardless to age e.g. university is free in Scotland for all EU citizens unless you are English, in which case you have to pay.
In Scotland and Northern Ireland, further education beyond 16 isn’t compulsory; and in Scotland, a child over the age of 16 can optionally take a ‘gap year’ before deciding what they want to do e.g. go back to education or get a job.
Yes, as with the USA, in the UK, contracts are not binding between parties if one of the signatories is under the age of 18.
In the UK, at 16 a child is predominantly legally free from parental control (although in some cases parental consent is still required); a 16 year old in the UK can drink beer, wine or cider in public if it’s with a meal, and an adult buys the drinks; they can leave home, can start a family, can get married, start work and pay taxes, they can also join the forces, and vote in Local Government Elections in Scotland (and maybe Wales soon). Also, at 14 a child can pilot a glider solo, and a child can have a full driving licence to drive a car from age 17.
So it doesn’t seem to hinge so much on when a child legally becomes an adult, but rather what legal rights and privileges society chooses to bestow (entrust) on older children, who are soon to become adults. With the exception of education, where children are increasingly encouraged to stay in further education for longer, the trend for bestowing rights on children tends to be downward, e.g. from 21 to 18 and increasingly now 16; at least in the UK, which is broadly similar to Europe.
In addition to what I’ve said above; another factor that has cropped up in this forum is the minimum age of drinking; which I understand in the USA is still 21?
In the UK, as with the rest of Europe, the minimum age of drinking in public is 18; unless you have a drink (wine, beer or cider) with a meal while sitting at a table, in which case you can legally drink at the age of 16, provided someone over the age of 18 buys the drink for you. And finally, in the privacy of your own home, in the UK (as is the case in other European countries e.g. France) a child from the age of 5 can legally drink, provided it’s supervised by an adult.
At 16, teens have just about one thing on their minds. And everyone knows what that one thing is.
The only reason high school students get up, get dressed in their most attractive clothing and go to school, is for the party. ( ... to the frustration of their teachers.)
The 1967 movie, To Sir with Love came on the other night. What a great movie! The teacher, who insisted his high school students call him Sir, appealed to the fact that they would soon be adults and that they needed to start learning how.
This would be a great movie to remake today!
Kathryn; that may be so in the USA, that’s certainly the impression I get from speaking with Americans in forums and by email, and from watching American TV programs and films.
However, that’s not my experience of 16 year olds in the UK or across Europe. Yes you do get children under the age of 18 in any Society who are immature, but then you get adults of all ages who are also immature. Although, in my experience you do get a lot, and I would say the majority, of children under the age of 18 who are mature, and some are more mature than many adults will ever be.
I can’t speak for American Society, but in British/European Society to say 16 year olds are too young to understand political issues is in my view patronising; I believe that the voices of young people does belong in politics.
The British Youth Council, founded in 1948, is a UK charity that works to empower young people and promote their interests. It was originally established by the British Government in preparation for the first World Assembly of Youth, with the aim to unite young people in Britain against the forces of communism. The British Youth Council gained its independence from the Government in 1963 when it became a UK charity championing the opinions of young people.
In 2000 the British Youth Council formed the UK Youth Parliament, where over half a million young children aged between 11 and 18 democratically elect 369 members to represent them. As well as the Annual General meeting which is for three days, once a year, elected members also meet 3 times a year at local level to hold debates and plan campaigns, and twice a year at national level, including since 2009 once a year in the House of Commons.
The UK Youth Parliament (11 to 18 year olds) in its opening session debating LGTB-rights, in the House of Commons in 2017: https://youtu.be/ZECkjcnlN8c?t=919
I left school at 16 and joined the civil service (middle class status job), albeit I continued with day release (one day a week) at college for the next two years to obtain further qualifications. When my son left school at 16 he chose to go onto Collage for two years to get the necessary qualifications for university, from where he took his degree and graduated at 21 before setting up his own business.
However, at 18 when he was eligible to vote my son had a far better understanding of the politicians in the local elections than I and my wife had, so after a lengthy family debate while he took our advice on which political party to support in the local elections, we took his advice on which mayoral candidate to vote for. It was an interesting debate, and it showed us how much our son understood political issues. In the local elections our son was mindful to support the Liberals (Democrats), while I and my wife are staunch socialists, but on balance (after our discussion) we all decided to vote Labour (Socialist), and to our delight they won. While as regards the Mayoral elections our 18 year old son strongly advised us to back the Independent candidate, which after listing to his reasoning, we did; and to our delight, the Independent won.
A prime recent and topical example of how politically mature children can be in Europe is the 15 year old from Sweden who spoke about Climate Change at the UN Climate Change Conference in December 2018, which has since sparked demonstrations by school children across Europe.
Greta Thunberg (aged 15) full speech at UN Climate Change Conference in December 2018: https://youtu.be/VFkQSGyeCWg
School children in UK go on strike in February 2019 over climate change, in response to Greta Thunberg’s speech: https://youtu.be/8N196CwLVTI
Sorry. Have to disagree. There are some exceptional young people who clearly have a firm grasp on current affairs, as you have mentioned; but most are too uninterested to cast meaningful votes. Let’s improve educational standards in the UK before unleashing the tiger.
Exactly. The expectations I give are the ones I expect. I've discovered referring to youth as Mr. or Ms. tends to encourage more adult behaviors. Likewise, I will accept nothing less from them. Some students do have their minds focused on the future, but not many.
Exactly as you say Tim. I was taught at secondary school (school in the UK being from age 11 to 16) by one of the teachers that if you treat a kid like a child (speak down to them) then they will act like a child; whereas if you speak to them as if they were an adult they are more likely to respond in a more adult like way.
Also, when I was a kid, my parents (particular my mother) treated me like an adult (rather than a child) e.g. she would talk to me as an equal, and respect my views, and it made me feel responsible. Later, when I grew up, she explained that her parents (particular her father) also talked to her as if she was an adult rather than a child.
It's something that stuck in my mind, so when we had our son we made it our policy never to speak down to him but treat him like an adult; and he responded accordingly e.g. rather than just saying "you're too young to understand", or "adults know better" etc., we would take the time to listen to him, discuss the matter, and give our reason, advice and opinions, to give him something to think about.
Consequently, as a child, from quite a young age (increasingly from about 8 upwards) our son may not have always agreed with us, but we did earn his trust in our advice, and if he didn't agree with us (which wasn't often) he always had a good valid well thought out reason which we could respect.
You bring up a great point: not only are schools, teachers, and instruction unequal in this country, and some other places, but parents can be a major obstacle in their children's maturity. I have a few students who have come in discussing the merits of impeachment for this president (at age 14). Yet, these are discussions they will not initiate with other teachers during study time. They love it when Mr. Truzy (Mr. T.) holds the study sessions. They get their work done and its whatever happens to be on their minds for open discussion. We've had discussions of gun control, police brutality, racial inequities, is rap music bad, will we elect another minority president, and so on and so on.
Very impressive Tim, your approach is certainly the right way, and hopefully in time it will become more universal, worldwide. Yes, parents in all countries can be a major obstacle in their children’s maturity; but hopefully attitudes will change over time e.g. corporal punishment was the norm in both schools and at home over a 100 years, whereas now it’s illegal across Europe (especially in schools); but even in the homes across Europe (with changing attitudes since the 2nd world war) it’s largely become a thing of the past. My great-great grandfather back in the 1870s (with four daughters) didn’t practice corporal punishment (some would say he was too soft on them); but it set a trend in our family that’s stuck through the generations, and a policy my wife and I in turn adopted when bringing up our son (in the same manner our parents brought us up) e.g. we reasoned with our son when he was a child, rather than using physical force, with great effect in that he listened to our reasoning and responded according (just as I and my wife listened to our parents when we were kids, because they talked to us rather than using physical force).
Yep, holding discussions on topical subjects in your study sessions is a brilliant way to get the kids thinking about the issues; it’s certainly going to help them make ‘informed’ decisions when they are old enough to vote. You might find this video interesting (which I found) of a school in London holding ‘Mock’ elections at the same time as the real General Election was taking place in the UK, back in 2015. In the video six of the Political Parties standing for election in the General Election (including the Monster Raving Loony Party) are each represented by a student who makes their case for voting for them; so it looks like it was an engaging debate:-
UK: Mock Elections Gets School Students Engaged in Politics: https://youtu.be/Ug56WtjrkOM
Thank you very much. I will watch this video and hopefully it's short enough that I can present to my students when we discuss different types of democracies. By the way, I have great respect for our western traditions, recognizing how our concepts for Congress grew out of the British Parliamentary system and the struggles Great Britain had with that Cromwell fellow. Thanks again, and God bless and keep our great allies in the U.K. and the Queen safe.
The video is less than 3 minutes; so I hope it’s useful in inspiring discussion in your student group sessions. With regards to the British Parliamentary system, Cromwell was certainly a turning point in the development of Parliament and Democracy, but as you probably know the roots (foundation stone) of British Democracy stems from the Magna Carta signed by King John in 1215, which laid out many of the fundamental rights upon which the British ‘unwritten’ constitution is based. It’s been a rocky road ever since, with the last four months being no exception e.g. the current power struggle between Parliament and Government.
Magna Carta and the emergence of Parliament (6:30 minutes); dramatized production by the ‘UK Parliament’: https://youtu.be/4qj2vpp9Wf4
Also, as you no doubt know, Britain is one of just a handful of countries that don’t have a Written Constitution, which can cause confusion at times e.g. Theresa May’s Government has been taken to the High Court on Constitutional matters, and lost, more times in the past three years than any other British Government in recent history.
Only today, as you probably saw in the News, the Speaker of the House invoked a constitutional rule dating back to 1604 to prevent Theresa May from repeatedly trying to get her Brexit Deal approved by Parliament in spite of the fact that the House of Commons has already twice voted against the Deal by huge margins (Groundhog Day).
Speaker John Bercow ‘Full’ Statement to the House of Commons; using constitutional law from 1604 to stop the Government in its tracks; and in the process causing a Constitutional Crisis e.g. part of the continuation of the current power struggle between Government and Parliament, of which the Speaker plays an important role (10 minutes): https://youtu.be/dwZul-t2x4s
Democrats will do anything to win. Whether it's illegals voting, dead people voting, ballot box stuffing, the fact is they can't win in a fair election so they have to cheat.
If they can get kids who are still under the tutelage of leftist propagandists in the school system that haven't experienced the real world, the odds are better for them to vote for these liberal fantasies.
Voting Age of 16 is alright with me considering in some states you can still actually own a firearm at a younger age; The ONLY reason why all the alt-righters around here are opposed to the idea is because they understand perfectly well the majority of younger Americans always vote DEMOCRATIC, if they voted Republican which would be ridiculous, the alt-righters around here would be in favor of LOWERING the voting age to 1 second POST Womb:
You're right - the young have not matured enough to understand that pure idealism does not a nation make and vote from emotional desires rather than logic and reason; the definition of liberalism.
Which is sufficient reason to give them some more time to understand the world and develop their cognitive and reasoning skills.
I just published another article on another brewing trick by the Democrats to circumvent the US Constitution - pay attention to the topic of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in the coming months - it's already becoming a threat to our Democracy
https://hubpages.com/politics/National- … egislation
Dear god no... I'm 18 and I don't even think my friends should vote.
You must have very immature friends because the vast majority of American Teens are mature enough to make critically important decisions on a battlefield of war in our military which means voting for a 16, 17, or 18 year old is really a non-issue:
Sure Jake - that's why they eat Laundry Detergent, drink hand sanitizer, eyeball vodka shots (and other intimate places), the hot water challenge, snorting condoms, uncontrolled sexting and selfies, etc.
Is that your definition of maturity? Not mine?
I usually agree with you, Jake, but not on this one. We don't send 16 and 17 year olds to the military, much less the battlefield. In fact the military boots out a kid under 18 if they find the kid has gotten in on false paperwork. It IS an issue. I still don't want kids voting just because a candidate is cute or because a candidate says he/she will give them free college, among other freebies, and have no idea where they stand on nukes, climate change, health care or other vital issue.
"vast majority of American Teens are mature enough to make critically important decisions on a battlefield of war in our military."
Please tell me the experiences you've had that have led you to come to that conclusion.
I can tell you from experience...you are VERY wrong.
I suggest you speak with a drill sergeant or others involved in training. You will be enlightened.
So seriously, now trump followers are comparing and equating casting a vote in an election to owning a gun? I mean seriously, you do understand the difference right?
I could not agree more. We have a lot of Americans not knowing basic fundamental values such as the Bill of Rights or components of the Constitution. I would go on by saying we need to have some level of testing before a person can vote. If you can't pass a basic test on the American government then how can you somehow know who would be best for leading the country?
Sir, you are also problematic, literacy tests have been declared illegal during the 1960's, so where have you been?
And we ain't goin' back....
We are not going back but moving forward.
It is the idiotic policies of open borders, and free education and all these entitlement benefits that is attracting fraud and abuse of the system.
Why would we want to open up our government to be defrauded?
It is a vicious cycle of dumbing down our electorate and voting for progressive policies and destroying our sovereignty...
It is a formula for suicide for any nation.
Dumbing down and progressive policies seem one in the same for you. Rest assured I am just as educated and I do not necessarily subscribe to that correlation.
For those in any doubt that children can’t be mentally mature enough to understand political, environmental and social issues, and therefore too young to vote; then Greta Thunberg (who is only 16) is a prime example that children can have a better understanding of the world around us than a lot of adults:-
• How a 16-Year-Old (Greta Thunberg) is Leading a Global Climate Movement: https://youtu.be/uRgJ-22S_Rs
• London climate protests continue, Greta Thunberg meets British MPs: https://youtu.be/DOpAHeFEgZ8
• Greta Thunberg met with applause by MPs in House of Commons, following her speech to British MPs in Parliament: https://youtu.be/oZJbFZe0EC4
Yes, but she's an exception, maybe even a crystal child. If you don't know what a crystal child is, google them.
I disagree, I was holding adult conversations with my son by the time he was 13, just as my mother did with me when I was of a similar age. Many children, by the time they reach 13 or 14, at least in Europe, are fully aware of the world around them.
The highly successful UK Youth Parliament, in Britain, is testimony to that, as demonstrated in this video: https://youtu.be/rqYdnF8EIpI
I have yet to meet the young child that consistently, correctly and objectively reasons their way to conclusions. It's difficult to do with an undeveloped prefrontal cortex, the reasoning center of the brain, which does not fully develop until the 20's.
Yep, get the impression from many Americans that in their opinion, people are far too immature to understand life until they are in their 20's.
But that is defiantly NOT the case for the young in Europe; so obviously, brain development is only part of the picture. I suspect part of the difference in our experiences and views on the matter may relate to cultural differences and differences in educational approach between the USA and Europe e.g. in Europe the young, when they go to Secondary School (from the age of 11) are treated and respected like young adults (not as kids) e.g. we have respect for them as being young adults; and as such many respond accordingly (they show maturity of mind).
When I was 16 I left school, and left home, got a full time job and became responsible for my own life; as many kids of that age in Britain often did in my day.
From a British Cultural perspective (where we respect the views of young teenagers) to say a 16 year old kid is too immature to understand is patronising, demeaning, and insulting e.g. in the UK and across Europe, people are considered old enough to take responsibly to drink from 16 to 18; and the young can vote from the age of 16 in Scotland because the Scottish Government has already recognised the fact that 16 year olds are mature enough to understand issues.
Interesting it was the United States who had to save Europe in not one but two World Wars. So much for European maturity. I could go on, but trust me. Europe hasn't had the success the United States has had for some very good reasons. Maybe you need to realize how much you have to learn from us.
Mike, That depends on differing perspective as to what constitutes "successful". Your American values and the accompanying yardsticks may not be universally applicable.
You are right.
But facts are facts. The United States has the largest economy in the world. In 242 years, the United States leads the world in science, economics literature and more. No other country brings more advancement in science and medicine than the United States. I could go on and on, but other countries who have been here much longer have done far less. You have to as yourself why.
Mike, yes, ‘facts are facts’.
Yes, the USA is currently the largest economy in the world, but the EU is not that far behind.
However, historically and today, Britain (and many other countries) have led the world in science, technology, economics, literature, and medicine etc.
• Yes, America got men on the moon;
• Yes America Invented the ‘Internet’ (but Britain invented the World Wide Web),
• Yes America has made major contributions to many (but not all) economic theories, and the USA gave the world two great recessions (1930s, and in 2008), and
• Yes America has given the world great literature (and entertainment), including Hollywood and Disney etc., e.g. I love the Star Trek Series.
• And no dispute that America has made major contributions to medicine.
In contrast, just some of Britain’s contributions to the world include:-
• England is a world leader in renewable wind energy technology; Scotland is leading the way in research and development of renewable wave energy.
• The light switch is invented by John Holmes (English Inventor) in 1884
• In Economics, John Keynes was a British Economist (Keynesian Economics)
• There is as much World famous British literature, if not more, than American Literature, Robert Burns, Ian Fleming (James Bond) etc., plus the British film and Entertainment e.g. Dr. Who, the Beatles etc.
• In Medicine, the NHS has made many major breakthroughs e.g. the world’s first test tube baby in 1978, 1980s, pioneering use of keyhole surgery, first gene therapy in 2002 etc.
You've made your point, Arthur, positive contribution to world did not begin or end with the US.
Are you a Trekkie? So am I, maybe we ought to chat over best episodes sometime?
Yep I am a Trekkie Credence2; we’ve got the full DVD box sets of the 3 original series, and the Blu-ray box sets for all the Trekkie series; including the more modern ones, such as the ‘Next Generation’, ‘Deep Space Nine’, Enterprise and ‘Voyager’. Currently, we are following the ‘Orville’ series on TV; but it’s a name that causes amusement in the UK because to Brits, ‘Orville’ is a word associated with a famous British puppet of a green duck.
I and my son are also fans of other famous TV Sci-fi series including, Dr Who, Red Dwarf, Firefly and the 2005 Serenity Sci-fi series etc.
Yep, I’d be interested to hear your favourite episodes. The ones that spring to my mind at the moment (from the original series) are the ones featuring Harry Mudd; but my favourite is the one with the tribbles.
Orville sings on ‘Top of the Pops’ in 1982: https://youtu.be/2c8PUVIKgI4
The ‘Top of the Pops’ was a weekly TV series by the BBC that presented the top most popular ‘pop’ songs in the UK for that week (in reverse order); with the most popular pop song (#1) being sung on TV at the end of the 1 hour long weekly show.
On the 18th December 1982, Orville singing “I wish I could Fly” was the 4th most popular song in the UK; Orville stayed in the top 10 for four weeks, and the top 20 for 11 weeks.
You should add a disclaimer Mike; "One man's opinion."
Mike, historically, for over 2,000 years, Europe has been the most war torn place on earth; it’s only in the last 70s (in the aftermath of war, and the creation of the EU) that Europe has experienced relative peace and stability.
And FYI America was LATE for both world wars. The USA joined the 1914-1918 war in 1917, and the 1939-1945 war in 1941; something the Brits have never forgotten. Also, not forgotten by the Brits was the behaviour of American soldiers in England, when they did eventually join us e.g. the famous slogan of “Over Sized, Over Here, and Over Sexed”, which to this day forms the butt of British Comedy. Albeit, America’s assistance in the world wars, was (and is) greatly appreciated by the Brits. Also, the major (but thankless) role America’s military plays in worldwide peace keeping in today's world is recognised and greatly appreciated by Brits.
I sense in your ‘tone’ a strong feeling of ‘Nationalistic American Pride’, to the point of a ‘them and us’ attitude (the rest of the world vs the USA); with a view that America is superior to the rest of the world! Its an attitude which is often seen coming from America, albeit, I know its not from all Americans; but to the outside world, it does give America a bad image.
In this day of Globalisation, there’s nothing wrong with good healthy National Pride, provided it doesn't lead to ‘Nationalism’ (Isolationism). Albeit, we Brits don’t take enough ‘pride’ in our own country (but that’s the Brits for you). The only place in the UK where you’ll see the UK’s Flag (Union Jack) proudly on display are in tourist shops in London, and in Protestant areas of Northern Ireland; outside of London (and the Protestant areas of Northern Ireland you are far more likely to see the different national flags flying relevant to whichever part of the UK you’re in e.g. England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Cornwall. Likewise, the UK’s National Anthem is almost never played at public events these days; it’s almost always the National Anthem as appropriate for which part of the Union your in. Interestingly, the National Anthems for the Celtic Nations in the UK e.g. Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Cornwall, are all warring songs aimed at England; while England’s National Anthem (Jerusalem) is a bit of an enigma considering two thirds of Brits are non-religious anyway.
The point is, no Nation is Perfect, not even the USA. But the Brits (and Europeans) don’t bitch about it, we use Banter to Dis each other. Most particularly there is a long standing ‘Love Hate’ relationship between Britain and France that goes back almost a 1,000 years; not to mention the Scots and Cornish Nations:-
What the Celtic Nation in Cornwall think of the English: https://youtu.be/-nN9I_7djgo
FYI Mike, from a British Perspective, Britain has given more to the World than the USA e.g. our language, our political system (don’t laugh) (which stems back to 1215), Socialism and the birth place of Trade Unions, the Industrial Revolution, Railways, and the World Wide Web (invented by English Scientist Tim Berners-Lee) etc., etc., etc.
No doubt England has provided the world with many cultural, literary, medical and well as advancements in science. English mystery stories are the best. English humor is second to none.
It has also been around a bit longer than the United States.
I once teased people from Britain and say you gave us our language, but we Americans improved it. An Australian and person from New Zealand challenged their improvements to American improvements of English. All of us, including the Brits laughed. It was funny.
Yes, I believe ALL Americans should be proud of our country. I believe citizens Great Britain should also be proud.
I just don't think Europeans are in a position to lecture Americans on anything. I also don't believe people from the United States are in a position to lecture Europeans on anything. (Unless they want to learn the new and improved way to speak English...only kidding)
I have nothing but good things to say about my experiences in London and other parts of Great Britain. It once looked like I was going to be robbed when I wandered in a bad part of Liverpool but some rather motivated Brits came to my rescue. Then then offered to buy me a pint at the local pub. Good times.
"From a British Cultural perspective (where we respect the views of young teenagers) to say a 16 year old kid is too immature to understand is patronising, demeaning, and insulting..."
Is this the big difference? Regardless of whether the child actually understands the implications of their conclusions, it is not acceptable to question them, so they are assumed to be rational and knowledgeable whether they are or not?
It's hard to believe the the children themselves know far more than US kids and, more importantly, have brains that develop years and years earlier.
Nope, Wilderness, common sense prevails. Regardless to their age, if someone talks immaturely then its obvious very quickly, then you might be tempted to patronise them (or ignore them).
There are plenty of adults of all ages, in all cultures, who act immaturely; and some end up being politicians!!! Jokes aside…..
In Britain, young teenagers do show understanding in an adult way, and as such, are given the respect they deserve e.g. it’s why the British Government decided over ten years ago to allow the UK Youth Council to sit in the House of Commons once a year to debate and vote on their policy for the year (The UK Youth Parliament).
You only have to watch the kids (from the age of 11) sitting in the British Parliament, debating and deciding their policy for the year, to appreciate that it would be wrong to patronise them. In fact, if you do watch some of their debates in Parliament, you might think they could do a better job than adult politicians!!!!
All I ask is that you, and others on this forum, to watch some of the videos of the UK Youth Parliament, and for you to decide what YOU think.
UK Youth Parliament sitting in the House of Commons 2017: https://youtu.be/ZECkjcnlN8c
I'm sorry, but after watching a considerable amount of back patting for supporting youth in government, I saw several young people giving impassioned speeches about doing more for LGBT people.
This is what I expect from youth; passion in their causes. But nowhere was there a dissenting voice, and nowhere was there anything about what specific steps should be taken...outside of spending more money and enlisting the aid of teachers.
No debate then, and no solutions. Just impassioned speeches (very well done, too!) without any dissent and without any solutions. No discussion of negatives, no discussion on specifics. This is exactly what I was talking about; youth is terrific about becoming involved, but do not take the steps of looking at solutions and the inevitable negatives connected with their passion. Without both of those any government simply spins out of control and self destructs.
Yes. The whole picture must be understood. How can they understand the whole picture when they are still operating on a self-oriented level?
"My life, my thoughts, our generation, our greatness ..."
We were all there, once.
Are we still there?
( ... well, maybe the deep state left is.)
Very patronising Wilderness, but after having just a glimpse at the whole process, and therefore ignorant of the workings of the UK Youth Council, I shouldn’t be surprised (considering your biases) of your attitude.
FYI, the video you saw was just the first 50 minutes of six hours of debate and voting on motions, to set the ‘Policy’ of the UK Youth Council for the next 12 months.
In a nutshell, the full annual cycle of the UK Youth Council is as follows:
1. School children (from the age of 11) campaign to be elected to the UK Youth Council, by their peers within their own region of the country, to represent the interests of all children (in a similar manner to how MPs are elected in a General Election by their Constituency).
• Statistically, 1 in 6 children (aged between 11 and 17) across the country participate in these elections (nearly a million school children vote nationally each year).
2. The elected representatives in the UK Youth Council then go through a process of whittling down all their proposals for campaign topics to about 5 Subjects; as potential ‘Policy’ for the next 12 months.
3. Once a year the UK Youth Council sit in the House of Commons to debate and vote on the 5 chosen topics; and whichever topic gets the most votes becomes the UK Youth Council Policy for the year.
Election Manifestos of young children standing for Youth Council Mayor and Youth Parliament in the Hammersmith & Fulham Area for 2019: https://youtu.be/gqQ8klaFH3Y
I am sure that with your American attitude that you think its all a load of crap (a complete waste of time) because in your eyes they are just ‘kids’. But that is where you don’t understand British Culture. I don’t know how it works in America, but in the UK ‘Pressure Groups’ (lobbying) play an important role in our democratic process. The UK Youth Council is just one of many ‘Pressure Groups’ who regularly lobby Parliament; and like any other civilised ‘Pressure Group’, Parliament, and the British Governments do take note, and occasionally it does influence Government Policy.
When the Motions are voted on in the UK Youth Parliament, each kid votes for just the one motion he or she believes should become the policy for the UK Youth Council to take forward as their campaign for the year.
To give some insight into the kind of topics discussed, and how the kids rate their priority, below are details of the 2012 and 2018 UK Youth Parliament Motions:-
Motions debated and voted on by the UK Youth Parliament in 2012:-
The motion selected as their campaign policy for the year:
• A curriculum to prepare us for Life = 154 votes
The other 4 motions that didn’t get enough votes to become policy that year were:-
• Equal National Minimum Wage for All = 50 votes
• Getting Ready for Work = 46 votes
• Public Transport = 23 votes
• Marriage for All = 22 votes
Motions debated and voted on by the UK Youth Parliament in 2018:-
The motions selected as their campaign policy for the year:
Last year the Motions were divided into two groups e.g. one topic from each group becoming the UK Youth Council’s Policy for 2019, as follows:-
The Subject selected as Policy for 2019:
• Put an end to knife crime = 115 votes
The two subjects that didn’t get enough votes to become policy were:-
• Mental Health = 107 votes
• Lets Tackle the Homelessness = 33 votes
The Subject selected as Policy for 2019:
• Votes at 16 =143 votes
And the other subject, that didn’t get enough votes was:-
• Equal Pay for Equal work = 110 votes
The video below is the Full Proceedings of the UK Youth Parliament (Nov 2018)
Like MPs in Parliament, the UK Youth Parliament sits for six hours; with the full proceeding recorded live, and televised on the ‘Parliament Channel’ on Cable TV in the UK.
A copy of that video is below (the full six hours), which I doubt you’ll want to watch; but if you so desire you could skip to any of the debates or proceeding; although even by British standards, you’d need to be a nerd to watch the whole six hours!
UK Youth Parliament (Broadcast Live on British TV (the Parliament Channel) in Nov 2018:-
Below: An Educational Awareness Video made by the UK Youth Council introducing the young to the different political parties:- https://youtu.be/soorD-4_a1Q
Don't be patronizing ("I shouldn’t be surprised (considering your biases) of your attitude".
But let's look at just one example - the "ending knife crime". What changes did the kids enact in the law, and what were the results? If they didn't enact any laws, what did they propose should be enacted, and why wasn't it? Did they fail to include all the implications in their calculations or was the regular legislature just mean?
Everything you've shown here is a good example of how to teach children about legislating and how the process works...but not a single thing shows that the kids are actually doing anything. Nothing is shown about the deep end of any legislation or change - the down side (and yes, there is one to everything) as well as the desired result. Nothing is shown about how they have examined the data and reasoned to a conclusion.
Just that they have high, lofty goals...but then many kids that age do. World Peace. Equality for everyone. An end to crime, violent or otherwise. Free (fill in the blank) for all. Problem is they have no idea how to achieve it or what any effect it might have if they DO come up with a solution.
I'll just add one thing - I don't believe anyone should be enacting laws until they have been the one that pays for what they want. It's just too easy to grab whatever is needed from someone else instead of paying for it yourself, and few children that age have any real concept of money. No one does until they have to earn it themselves, and support themselves with what they've worked to gain.
I know we have different political ideas in general, Wilderness, but I'm with you on this one. Ending knife crime, indeed. Are going to take away mama's kitchen knives and eat only soft mushy foods. What would you use to peel potatoes? Just shows how impractical kids are when you turn them loose.
Well, it's not much different than our own gun crime. We have guns as the preferred weapon of violence; the Brits have knives as one of, if not the most popular, weapons.
Murders is horrific, murder is done with knives; the obvious solution is to end knife violence. In that regard they are much the same as our own gun critics; eliminate the weapon and the crime won't happen. It's hard to blame the kids for not understanding the reasoning is flawed when we have millions upon millions of people in our country using the same flawed logic.
But in this case, I was asking what the kids did not change laws, and what the results were. Merely discussing a topic, particularly when there is no disagreement, doesn't do a lot of good.
Yes, but it is still comparing apples and oranges. Guns are not necessary for peeling potatoes. Even kids should be able to understand that.
Neither are knives. I haven't used one for that purpose for years and years. Since soon after I purchased a potato peeler, in fact.
Somehow it has become popular to say that "I don't need a gun so therefore you don't either and thus should not have one." First mistake is to decide that no one "needs" a gun but the far bigger mistake is to declare that because there is no need there should be no possession, either.
Nothing in the law, from the constitution on down, mentions any "need"...for the need was obvious when that document was formed and still is.
Wilderness, your last sentence says it all. I'm not siding with the pacifists on the gun issue. I've "needed" a gun twice in my life, once to scare off a prowler and the second time a burglar, when I was alone at night. If I had not had a gun, I know my life was in danger the second time. The burglar came back the next day while I was at work and burgled the house.
Perhaps I should have said "to peel an apple." I use a potato peeler, too, but haven't found them to work that great on apples. But then I do use the knife to cut up the potatoes if I'm stewing them. My point is that a knife is a necessity in any woman's kitchen. But one night so was a gun, or I might not be here writing this. (But the pacifists don't think I need one.)
MizBejabbers, I was horrified to read your comment “I've "needed" a gun twice in my life, once to scare off a prowler and the second time a burglar, when I was alone at night. If I had not had a gun, I know my life was in danger the second time……..
In the pass Wilderness and I have had many heated arguments about America’s gun violence, and although we have different cultural views on gun ownership we have (I think) come to better understand and respect of each other’s cultural differences on this subject.
However, you might (or might not) be interested in the cultural difference in the UK in respect to your experiences mentioned above?
In the UK not only is it an offence to own a gun (maximum 7 years prison sentence for possession), but to use a gun in self-defence (even in your own home) would be classified as manslaughter or murder and attract a ‘life sentence’.
In the UK the law is quite specific that in defending yourself in your own home against an intruder you can only use ‘Reasonable Force’; and using a gun is not considered ‘reasonable force’, and likewise, using a knife in self-defence would not necessarily be considered reasonable force if the other person was unarmed (that would be for the courts to decide).
Fortunately, in the UK most intruders are unarmed, and do generally flee if disturbed; so in the UK, British people don’t feel they need to keep any weapons to hand in their own home to defend themselves against intruders.
This video below (by an American) gives some insight into the cultural differences between the USA and UK on the subject of gun and knife crime:-
• An American buying a kitchen knife in the UK (and American Experience): https://youtu.be/n-isrXSPh5A?t=60
Knife-wielding man in UK attacks unarmed police: - https://youtu.be/fvaZtb3mxWQ
I don't know that it is a cultural difference so much as belief in the "nanny state", where govt. is smarter than everyone else and will happily do what is truly best for you. Brits have been trained for generations that they do not need to protect themselves, and coupled with a belief that no guns means no murders they are quite happy to leave that duty to the govt.
Since this discussion has already gone off-topic, I will drive it further into the ditches. The cultural differences your comment represents are so alien to my American perspective that I am struggling not to label my view as a common-sense rational perspective instead of just an American one.
Here are some first thoughts:
Consider what your "Fortunately, in the UK most intruders are unarmed, and do generally flee if disturbed..." implies. A home dweller must rely on good fortune to not be victimized, or even lose their life?
What would be "reasonable force" for a weakling home dweller against a brute intruder?
Thoughts of a court considering where to draw that line are boggling to consider; a 90-pound 75-year old grandmother is justified in using a knife for defense, but what about a 90-pound female 50-year old?
Or what about a 90-pound 20-year old against two intruders?
It seems amazing that an innocent victim must rely on good fortune to escape harm from someone with criminal intent.
Regarding the police/knife wielder link; Who has more Right to their life; someone intent on harming someone, or someone intent on defending someone? It was great that the police in your video succeeded in their efforts, but if the knife wielder had fatally stabbed or fatally injured the officer, was that officer's life worth a reliance on "good fortune?"
And your knife restrictions... (at least the attitude represented in the video and your statement)... I know this 'hammer' comparison has been foolishly used in gun control arguments but in the case of knives and your cultural mindset it doesn't seem so foolish; If a trend developed of criminals using hammers as offensive weapons, is it a stretch to think you folks might consider regulating and criminalizing the use of hammers?
I am aware these first thoughts are the extremes, but, they do feel appropriate to your examples.
Call it what you like GA, to me it seems a cultural thing.
I don’t dispute what you are saying GA, if a 20 year old broke into a home and threatened a 75 year old lady then of course she would be vulnerable; but fortunately, it’s such a rare occurrence in the UK that it’s not an issue.
If such incidences did happen frequently then it would be an issue e.g. public outcry, Government under pressure to do something to tackle the problem etc., but that’s not case, because such incidences are so rare in the UK.
The statistics for last year puts it in perspective:-
There were 726 homicides in the UK in 2018, of which 285 were fatal stabbings. Of the 726 homicides in 2018, 527 were domestic violence and 199 were victims killed by a stranger. But no victims were killed by an intruder in their own home.
Weapons used in 2018 for fatal killings in the UK, of the 726 killings, the most common forms were:-
• Knifes (and other sharp instruments) = 285
• Kicking or Hitting = 106
• Strangulation = 56
• Blunt instrument = 36
• Poison = 24
• Motor vehicle = 17
As regards homeowners being attacked by intruders in the UK, it’s such a rare event that it always hits the ‘News Headlines’ e.g. not even 1 a year.
Far more common are homeowners attacking intruders e.g. 11 cases in the last 20 years; of which the two most famous ones are:
• In 1999, a 55 year old farmer shot and killed an unarmed intruder, and was initially convicted of murder, but this was later reduced to manslaughter on appeal, on the grounds of ‘diminished responsibility’, and
• Last year, a 78 year old used a screwdriver to stab and kill an armed professional burglar; the 78 year old Pensioner was initially arrested for murder, but subsequently released without charge after the police had completed their enquiries.
I do understand what you are saying when you say ….. Who has more Right to their life; someone intent on harming someone, or someone intent on defending someone? …… But that’s where attitudes in the UK differ from attitudes in the USA. In the UK (as common throughout Europe) the general view is that ‘all life is precious’. And although I don’t expect you to understand our European attitude, I would hope that you would at least have some respect for our attitude!
My answer to your penultimate paragraph might surprise you? In fact, under British law, a hammer or any other item that is carried or used with intent to cause harm is classified as an ‘offensive weapon’ and as such can attract a prison sentence of up to 7 years for just being in possession of such an item, if it can be proven in a court of law that there was ‘intent’ to cause harm; even if the item itself wasn’t used as a weapon.
I know your (American) views about putting the life of Police Officers above the life of someone wielding a knife; but attitudes in the UK are different, as this video shows:-
UK Cops Disarm Man Wielding a Machete: https://youtu.be/9mzPj_IaMzY
I think it goes far beyond "all life is precious", for if it did not then self defense would be a legal excuse for killing an attacker. Doesn't sound like it is - instead it appears that the life of the attacker is more important, or that you must assume your life/health will not be harmed. A foolish hope with 700 homicides per year and who knows how many injuries.
Arthur, ... a bit of clarity to finish-up:
I do respect your, (generic), Right to hold attitudes accepted by your society. And I do respect that you, (your society), also have the Right to govern by those attitudes, but that doesn't mean I respect what those attitudes are.
Rare may seem statistically unimportant in your determinations, (it would be very important to that "rare" case harmed by it), but I don't think frequency has anything to do with it.
Of course, I am not speaking of a Wild Wild West, shotgun on the porch mentality, and I do support legal sanctions against excessive force, but I am talking about an attitude that believes an attacker bears the consequences of their choice, not the victim.
Thanks GA, I respect your clarity.
Likewise, as a Brit, I’ve come to respect Americans compassion for the ‘Second Amendment’, and their obsession with guns; even if I don’t understand it, and as a Brit, I think such compassion and obsession for guns is insane.
My attitude on this isn’t going to change any more than yours is; we are from two different cultures with two completely different sets of values; and nothing is going to change that.
I agree with you; to the individual victim (and their family), rare or not; it’s a personal thing. And in that respect we do have the ‘Victim Personal Statement’ (which I guess is similar to your Victim Impact Statement) e.g. it gives victims (and their family and friends) an opportunity to explain how the crime has affected them, physically, emotionally, psychologically, financially or in any other way; and if a defendant is found guilty, the court will take the Victim Personal Statements into account, along with all the other evidence, when deciding upon an appropriate sentence.
Where we do digress is that in my mind ‘frequency’ is a factor. Nothing is ever perfect, and can never be perfect; albeit, you can strive for perfection if you have the resources. In this respect, with burglary homicides being extremely uncommon in the UK e.g. less than 1 a year (small compared to the 100 approx. of burglary homicides in the USA each year) then it’s not a major issue to society. If that figure was closer to the 100 (approx.) of burglary homicides in the USA then it would be more of an issue, and more attention would be paid to the problem; but that is not the case.
What is far more important in the UK, and where the Government and other Interested Parties are currently focusing their attention, is knife homicides in the UK; which although it was only 285 last year is nevertheless on the increase e.g. up 40% from its lowest point in 2013. Although this may be small compared to gun crime in the USA, it is still a worrying trend that is focusing Government minds.
The ONS (Office for National Statistics) compile raw data of all kinds of data e.g. levels and types of knife crimes, fatal road accidents, food poisoning, data on the economy etc. etc., gathering the information from all official sources e.g. the Police, Health Authorities, Local Governments etc., and then publishes the data in the ‘Public Domain’; specifically so that the Government and other ‘Interested Parties’ can study the data to monitor trends and take action as appropriate etc.
FYI the ONS (Office for National Statistics) is an Independent Government Department e.g. only answerable to Parliament, not to the Government (as a safety mechanism to prevent Governments from massaging or hiding vital data). Therefore it’s a reliable source for Pressure Groups, Action Groups, University Studies, and political Opposition Parties etc., as much as it’s important to the Government when formulating Policies e.g. on whether to give the police more resources to fight knife crime, increase public spending on community services, or change laws etc.
I know what you and wilderness are saying about the balance between the life of the attacker and the life of the victim; but that is where our cultures are different, and nothing is going to change that e.g. Brits find the concept of American cops killing people every day (shooting them dead) appalling; to us its murder; but to an American it’s normal.
"... Brits find the concept of American cops killing people every day (shooting them dead) appalling; to us its murder; but to an American it’s normal.'
No, Arthur, this is a tragic misconception on your, (again, generic), part. Perhaps you, (generic of course), are as influenced by media presentations as all cultures are.
Contrary to impressions created by the press, it is not "normal" to Americans. I am not denying there is an imbalance, that law enforcement too often receives an undeserved benefit of the doubt, but, it is as appalling to "normal" Americans as it is to you.
You only hear from the squeaky wheels, the loudest voices, the agenda supported voices, the ones the media highlights in their coverage or the analysts that propagate an agenda's view. But I think the truth is that these are not the views of "normal" Americans.
I support our law enforcement authoritites. I do give them the initial benefit of the doubt, but I do not give them a 'pass'. There are as many bad cops as there are bad people in any segment of our society. And there are as many bad decisions made by good cops as there are made by any other grouping of good people in our society.
If there can be any positive outcome to this exchange, let it be to disabuse you of the media-presented notion that "normal" Americans don't have a problem with unwarranted police violence. That "normal" Americans give the police--as a whole--a pass on bad decisions and behavior. That as a white American I don't have a problem with the disproportional rate of violence on Blacks - even understanding that Blacks are a disproportional percentage of perpetrators of crime and violence.
Take this to heart Arthur, normal Americans do not consider inexcusable police, (or any law enforcement), behavior as just the way things are.
Hmm... I feel like I got overly invested in that explanation Arthur. As second thoughts occur, I am thinking I am a bit perplexed that you would be so swayed as to make that comment.
Cheers, let's put this one to bed. Please take my word that I feel representative of "normal" Americans, and we in no way feel such as you mentioned is "normal."
ps. I didn't intend any of my responses to be relative to a 2nd Amendment defense. Contrarily, I don't recall any of my response emphasises to be about guns.
I assume ‘wilderness’, from your attitude, and ignorance on how ‘Pressure Groups’ work in the UK, that ‘Pressure Groups’ do NOT play an important role in politics in the USA?
• The UK Youth Council is just one of innumerable Pressure Groups in the UK.
• Pressure Groups are in it for the long-haul, because changes through this mechanism are a long and slow process.
• Often, Pressure Groups don’t work in isolation, different Pressure Groups fighting for the same cause (or policy change) will join forces, and co-ordinate their campaigns for a ‘common’ cause.
You question the effectiveness of the UK Youth Council as an effective ‘Pressure Group’. FYI, in respect to the voting age; the Scottish Parliament lowered the voting age in Scotland in 2013, and currently the Welsh Government (following a campaign by the UK Youth Council) are in the process of passing new laws which will bring down the voting age in Wales to 16 in 2021.
As part of the law making process the Welsh Government held ‘public consultations’ last year to gauge public opinion (in Wales); and the public consultation showed that 59% of the Welsh Population are in favour of lowering the voting age to 16 in Wales.
Currently, before the new law is finalised, the Welsh Government is working with other interested parties, including the UK Youth Parliament to determine how to best raise public awareness, and help to ensure the young (16 & 17 year olds) at the time, are encouraged to support and exercise their legal right to vote come elections from when the new law comes into force in 2021.
One Policy Area, where the UK Youth Council have PRIDE (no pun intended) in their achievements in recent years, is their contribution to the public debate (pressure groups) for ‘Same Sex Marriage’ which led the Conservative Government making it law in 2013.
The fact that for the past 11 years British Governments have allowed the UK Youth Parliament to sit in the House of Commons one day a year; and give encouragement and support to these proceedings (in Parliament); and take a keen interest in the debates and votes made by 11 to 17 year olds sitting in the House of Commons; does speak volumes: It shows British Government’s do have respect for the views of 11 to 17 year olds: It’s something I find hard to believe would ever happen in the USA.
As regards knife crime; unlike the USA, where guns is the main issue, in the UK it’s knives. Already, in the UK, you cannot just go into a shop and buy a knife; knifes (even kitchen knives) are not on open display in shops, and to buy one you have to prove that you are over 18 years old.
Also, in the UK, just being in possession of a knife in public (even a kitchen knife, and even if it’s in a rucksack) is a criminal offence with a maximum prison sentence of 7 years.
However, there are those who feel the Government could do more to prevent knife crime, and the Government is currently in the process of formulating Government Policy; which will eventually lead to new initiatives (and possibly changes in the law). It’s in the policy making process (which includes a period of ‘public consolation’) where ‘Pressure Groups’ (including the UK Youth Council) can have maximum impact on a Government (in Britain) in formulating Government Policy. Hence, for the UK Youth Parliament to make it their ‘Campaign Policy’ for the year is a shrewd move.
In this respect: A recent publication on the Official UK Parliament’s Own Website: Published in March 2019:-
"An issue that transcends party lines", statement on knife crime”:-
• https://www.parliament.uk/business/news … rime-rise/
The other aspect of ‘Pressure Groups’, which you don’t seem to understand (maybe because Pressure Groups don’t play a major role in American politics), is that it’s not the job of ‘Pressure Groups’ to formulate ‘policy’; that’s the job of Parliament and the Government. The job of Pressure Groups in the UK is to highlight issues and concerns, and to make Parliament and the Government fully aware of those issues and concerns, and how (and how strong) members of the ‘Pressure Group’ (a representative section of Society) feel about the issue.
Just one example of where Pressure Groups in the UK have had a major impact on Government Policy is ‘Food Labelling’.
Just 30 years ago, if you bought food in the UK it was like America is today e.g. you had little idea of what you were eating; all the hidden ingredients.
After many years of campaigning, and lobbying of Parliament and the Government (by Pressure Groups), the Government was pressured into introducing strict legislation whereby all packaged food has to list not just ‘ALL’ ingredients, but also FULL details of ‘percentages’ for each ingredient; and to list the ingredients in order of Highest percentage at the top of the list to lowest at the bottom.
The net result of this was that the British Public (armed with the detailed information from the food labelling) became more concerning in choosing ‘brands’ containing less artificial ‘flavouring’, ‘colouring’ and ‘preservatives’. Consequently, these days, almost all food products sold in the UK contain only ‘Natural’ flavouring, colouring and preservatives.
In more recent years, with ‘Pressure Groups’ demanding easy identification on the health of packaged food (in relation to salt, fat and sugar); specifically so that when shopping, shoppers can compare different ‘brands’ at a glance, to make an informed decision; the Government was pressured into introducing the ‘Traffic Light’ system of labelling specifically for salt, fat, and sugar. The ‘Traffic Light’ system is where the food manufacturer has to colour code the levels of salt, fat and sugar, in large, bright green, amber and red colours; so that the shopper can instantly see whether for example a product has too much salt in it e.g. salt highlighted in ‘red’ (making it unhealthy).
Another example of where Public Pressure Groups in the UK has had a major success into forcing the Government into making new laws is the ‘Sugar Tax’ on soft drinks, introduced in 2016. Coca-Cola sales were the hardest hit by the introduction of the sugar tax in the UK; and since 2016 over 50% of manufacturers have now reduced the sugar levels in their soft drinks to avoid paying the ‘sugar tax’. The Sugar Tax is 18p tax per litre for soft drinks containing between 5% and 8% sugar, and 24p tax per litre (about $1 tax per gallon) for soft drinks containing more than 8% sugar.
The Green Party is a small political party in the UK compared to other parts of Europe, but nevertheless, as a Pressure Group; the Green Party does have a major impact on formulating Government Policies in both Local Governments and the National Government in the UK.
Although they may be ignored in the USA; Pressure Groups do play a major role in British Politics.
This short video gives some insight into the workings of the UK Youth Council, and its achievements; from the perspective of Manchester’s Youth Council: - https://youtu.be/X5qQCeauypU
Protesters. Your teens are protesters, although given a more formal name of "Pressure group".
Given that, we have little or no disagreement, for teens are great at protesting (if you can get their nose out of the phone). They just aren't so good at finding rational, well thought out solutions to whatever they're protesting against. Personally I'd like to get more teens involved in political discussion groups (as opposed to simply protesting about the sugar in a soft drink). With, as always, a strong eye towards individual rights and freedoms (such as the right to sell sugared soft drinks).
But that last is a major difference between my philosophy and yours; you (I think) believe govt. knows best and is the best decision maker in nearly all things. I do not; putting the onus on every individual to control their own lives and make their own decisions.
I think we’ve finally found some common ground of understanding ‘Wilderness’.
Yes you are right; Brits (and Europeans) do have a natural preference for Governments to Regulate rather than a more Laissez-faire approach. That seems to be the one big distinction between American and European Culture.
Although, interestingly, it’s within this context that the British Government doesn’t always need to actually ‘Regulate’ e.g. it’s not uncommon for Government to tell Industry that it’s ‘Mindful’ to pass laws if Industry does not follow Government ‘Guidelines’ to a satisfactory level; and in such circumstances Industry will sometimes ‘Self-Regulate’ (to an acceptable standard) in preference to the Government passing laws to Regulate the Industry.
The best example of this in the UK is the ‘Advertising Standards Authority’ (ASA) set up by the Advertising Industry in the UK in 1962. It’s a body set up and financed by the Advertising Industry itself, specifically to self-regulate to a Very High Standard that is acceptable to the Government. The ASA works very closely with the Government, so that it can follow Government Guidelines on Advertising, and because it does such a good job at self-regulation, no Government has ever felt the need to pass laws to ‘Regulate’ the Advertising Industry directly.
Advertising Standards Authority: Every UK ad a responsible ad: https://youtu.be/0xjTJoLklvs
As regards your opening comment, we do seem to have a language issue (difference between American English and British English) e.g. in the UK there is a big distinction between ‘protestors’ (demonstrators) and Pressure Groups (Action Groups). Although both ‘protestors’ and ‘Pressure Groups’ can have a common goal e.g. to influence Government Policy, the former is just placards in the street and marches etc., while the latter do a lot of work behind the scene. Actions Groups (Pressure Groups) may result to either protesting and or lobbying as their mode to get the message across to the Government.
FYI the UK Youth Council are not ‘protesters’, they are an ‘Action Group’ (Pressure Group), and as such, they do spend a lot of their time behind the scenes co-ordinating with other Action Groups, and Associations, as indicated to some extend in my previous video of the Manchester Youth Council.
For clarity, the campaign for tax on soft drinks (which I mentioned previously) wasn’t a Youth Parliament campaign; it was just an example of how Pressure Groups in the UK can have an effect on Government Policy.
The Time Line of the Sugar Tax Campaign in the UK
(Just a summary of some of the key points)
• Back in 2011, Sustain (a charity promoting healthy food) lobbied a handful of MPs who they knew would be sympathetic to their cause.
• FYI: Every Wednesday from 12 noon until 12:30, in the House of Commons, is ‘Prime Minister's Question Time’; half an hour when MPs (from any political parties) can ask the Prime Minster ‘ANY’ Question; and the Prime Minister is expected to give a response on the spot.
• In 2011, one of the MPs that had been lobbied by ‘Sustain’ asked the Prime Minster, if a sugar tax could be considered; David Cameron’s response was a ‘Definitive NO’.
• In 2013 Sustain (Charity) formed an alliance with over 60 other ‘pressure groups’, including the ‘Alliance for Better Food and Farming’, the ‘Children’s Food Campaign’, the ‘Children’s Health Fund’ UK Youth Council etc. and together they lobbied the Government to introduce the ‘sugar tax’.
• Also, in 2013, ‘Healthy Weight Task Force’ (an Action Group) launched ‘Food Active’ (as a new Pressure Group). ‘Food Active’ (is a pressure group in the UK who campaigns for controls on junk food marketing).
• In 2014, Action on Sugar (Charity) was formed, specifically to lobby Government to introduce a sugar tax.
• Also in 2014, ‘Food Active’ commissioned two reports on the effects of tax on sugar, one carried out by ‘Sustain’ in partnership with the University of Liverpool who in 2014 published their report showing the impact of a sugar tax on the prevalence of diabetes, cancer, stroke, healthcare cost savings, calorie savings and quality adjusted life years gained; and the other report (also by the University of Liverpool) published in early 2015 showing the extent of public acceptance of a sugar tax (public opinion).
• Then, in early 2015 (after the publication of both reports) Food Active launched a hard-hitting campaign aimed at teenagers and families, to raise awareness of the adverse health outcomes of excessive consumption of sugary drinks.
• Then, once again, in the summer of 2015, the Government was asked in Prime Minister's Question Time to introduce a sugar tax, and again the Prime Minister gave a “categorical NO”.
• However, Jamie Oliver (famous UK TV Celebrity chef and restaurateur) then promoted and supported the ‘sugar tax’ in the media; dramatically raising public awareness, and support.
• Following Jamie Oliver’s TV campaign for a sugar tax, the ‘Children’s Food Campaign’ coordinated a petition with over 150,000 signatures regarding a sugar tax.
• Under British Law, any petition given to Parliament with more than 100,000 signatures has to be debated by Parliament. Therefore, Parliament debated the matter on the 30th November 2015.
• Prior to the Parliamentary debate the ‘Food Active’ Pressure Group, wrote to every MP lobbying them to attend the debate and to speak in support of the sugar tax in Parliament.
• Consequently, following the debate in Parliament, the Government conceded to the pressure, and in a surprise statement in April 2016 introduced the legislation in Parliament, which became law in April 2018.
How much sugar is in YOUR food? (Publicity Campaign by Jamie Oliver in 2015): https://youtu.be/Jplo68eENYA
How to Make Perfect Porridge - 5 Ways | Jamie Oliver (Famous British TV Celebratory Chief): https://youtu.be/ywkEGKXk2cQ
Finally, for Clarity; regards your main point. We may not be that different on our views as first appears (although there are naturally differences due to cultural differences) e.g. I agree that teens (and adults alike) these days tend to have their nose in smart phones too much of their time (but that’s another issue). I also agree that many teens aren’t that great at finding good rational, well thought out solutions; but neither are a lot of adults.
I too would like to see more teens get involved in political discussion groups; and that is one of the main goals of the UK Youth Council. But I am impressed with the progress that has been made and is being made in the UK in this respect; 1 in 6 (11 to 17 year olds) are now actively involved with the UK Youth Council, which I think is impressive e.g. only 1 in 3 adults in the UK take an active interest in Politics, so in comparison it’s a good achievement. And, one of the main campaigns of the UK Youth Council is to get ‘Politics’ on the National Curriculum (so it becomes a subject taught in all secondary schools as standard) e.g. currently it’s up to individual schools if and how ‘politics’ is introduced and discussed (so it can take a low priority); although when I was at school over 40 years ago, my school did ensure both politics and economics was well covered. That was quite a novel concept for those days, but over the decades, it’s become more common place in many schools e.g. political education in my son’s school (20 years ago) was quite comprehensive; so when he was 15 (come election time) he was debating politics with me, and I was impressed with his understanding of the issues e.g. more intelligible than many adults.
The bottom line is we don't burden our children with adult matters. The youth are not ready for these discussions or concerns. They are not ready for this responsibility.
They truly are, just kids.
I have followed with interest the above debate about gun ownership.It’s of particular interest to me as a U.K. citizen as a case of a farmer, who lived alone, using a legally owned licensed shotgun against two unarmed intruders involved two criminals from my home town. Such an event was unprecedented in the U.K. and as such received widespread and lasting publicity. One was shot in the leg (I occasionally glimpse him limping in the town and am amazed that he had the brass neck to come back here, given the exposure that he was subject to). The second was shot in the back as he tried to make his escape in the darkness. The farmer had been a victim of burglary maintained that he did not intend to kill the man. He was sentenced to a term in prison for manslaughter and there was a national outcry. After his release he make an on-record remark during a television documentary that he would do the same again and demonstrated no sorrow that he had killed a man. Whilst before the documentary, I had every sympathy with his predicament on the night of the events, I was now left with an impression that he had perhaps fully intended to kill the man. In which case, I may have been less sympathetic.
My view in general continues to be that widespread legalised gun ownership in the U.K. would lead to an increase in gun crime, which is currently, thank heaven, at very very low levels. It would be extremely difficult to legally buy a gun here. We do not live in fear of being shot in our homes and long may that continue. It seems that the opposite is true in the U.S.
I agree the UK has very low levels of gun violence. It does have very high levels of people being stabbed to death. I do wonder if a person being stabbed in the UK was able to shoot their attacker, it there would be more people who survive such attacks.
Here are the numbers from the BBC.
"With the number of fatal stabbings in England and Wales in 2017-18 the highest since records began - the BBC has tracked the first 100 killings in 2019 - revealing the people behind the headlines."
I only have full statistics for the UK up to the end of 2018. Knife crime in the UK in 2018 had increased 6% from 2017. However, overall homicides in the UK @ 732 in 2018, and 690 in 2017 is insignificant compared to homicides in the USA, which in 2017 was 17,284, and in 2016 was 19,362.
Therefore ‘Readmikenow’ before being critical of homicides in the UK (taking difference of population size between UK and USA into account), you should ask yourself “Why is the homicide rate five times higher in the USA than it is in the UK?”
By using your homicide numbers (which I am sure you have verified) and compared that to the population of each country of the same time period...
The UK has a homicide percentage of 0.00001%
The US has a homicide percentage of 0.000005%
That means, per capita the UK has a homicide rate that is twice as high as the US.
I think you have too many zeros Mark. The U.S. rate should read .00005 which confirms Arthur's "5 times" comment.
by spbarton21 9 years ago
Do you think the drinking age should be lowered to 18?Should the drinking age be lowered from 21 to 18? If an 18 year old is allowed to vote should they not be allowed all the freedoms we have in our nation? Is it fair that states can reduce the drinking age but will lose federal funding for their...
by stylezink 5 years ago
What age should you stop grounding your kids?What age is a good time to start phasing out grounding your child?
by Peeples 2 years ago
At what age should a woman stop wearing short clothes?For those of you who aren't against short shorts or mini skirts or that type of clothing, at what age should a woman stop wearing them? Is is just dependent upon how she looks in them? Or do you think there should be an age cut off?
by ngureco 12 years ago
Should It Matter If The Drinking Age Is Lowered From 21 To 18?
by Leaderofmany 4 years ago
At what age should people stop dating or should they continue to date until the final roll call?
by JP Carlos 10 years ago
At what age should you allow your child to date?Sooner or later our children will go out with someone. Dating is part of growing up. So at what age should we allow them to go on dating?
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|