UK Street Crime Rise Blamed on iPods

CNET reports that the British Government today attributed the country's 22% rise in street crime to iPod robberies. This has hit CNET close to home. Guy Cocker, a CNET (Gamespot) journalist based in London, was mugged last week. The muggers held 'a semi-automatic weapon to the back of Cocker's head and told him, "we're taking all your stuff"'. CNET's solution to the problem is suggestions on how to conceal your iPod from attackers. These include 'The gaffer tape method,' 'The Coke can method,' and 'The Christopher Walken method.'

Magnets??

[Alicat1194]

From TFA The Coke can method Get a Coke can, drink the contents, rinse out the can. Carefully cut the lid section off the can. Superglue a small magnet to the inside of the upper lip of the can so that it's flush with the open top of the can.

a) Aluminium isn't magnetic, it wouldn't hold the can closed

b) Is it really that good an idea to have a magnet that close to your ipod?

Re:Magnets??

[RedOregon]

On the off chance you're not just trolling or have lived in a cave for the past few decades...

http://coke.fluidvision.net/manufacturing.htm/ [fluidvision.net]

It'll turn out to be bogus

[igb]

just as the `mobile phone theft' epidemic was bogus. Reports of the theft of phones rose. But thefts of phones as reported via the British Crime Survey (which interviews a large number of people and asks them what crimes they've experienced) showed essentially no such rise. Conclusion? People who had lost their phone (often not insured, and if you're a child, liable to piss off your parents) or wanted a new one (clearly not insured) were reporting them stolen. Result? A massive rise in reported crime. But when you interview people in a survey, who at that point have no incentive to over-report, the `crime' goes away. It's like the purported rate of burglary (as seen through reported crime) doesn't match the surveyed results: because the police are unlikely to turn up and do a forensic job over the tidy break in that did no damage and just took some consumer durables, it's safe to report even if it didn't happen. Insurance fraud is the crime that even the middle-classes think is victimless.

ian

Attractiveness or visibility?

[Mr. Underbridge]

Now there's an interesting question there - is the rise in iPod thefts due to the fact that iPods, associated with white earbuds, are more popular and hence worth stealing? Or is it simply because the white earbuds are more visible at night, thus making their owner a more obvious target?

Re:Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, an inciteful comment (spelling deliberate).

The 'phones iRiver use are better quality than the buds used on iPods and the iRiver works with Linux and OGG (most versions, anyway: I think the H10 series cannot).

So why is the iRiver a piece of garbage?

Re:Magnets??

[CXI]

This is an article from the UK. They have steel cans in Europe, which confused the hell out of me when I first drank from one. They are heavier so I kept thinking there was soda left in it!

Re:The Solution

[ichigo 2.0]

Thanks for the link, I've been looking for a source like that. I think you'll find it interesting to know that the country with the second most firearms per capita is Finland, yet our firearm related murders per capita is smaller than that of countries like Canada and the Netherlands, and nowhere even close to the rate of the US. So obviously the problem lies elsewhere than in the number of weapons. My guess would be the harsher penalties in the US, if you know your going to be locked up for a long time or even put to death, then it's better to leave less evidence and witnesses to make your chances of evading capture better.

Re:a light touch with the clue stick

[Kjella]

Actually, it's an idea from the English common law, which was preserved in America while England abandoned the traditional rights of Englishmen. Before the suppression of the Jacobites, there wasn't much dispute in Britain that free men are entitled to posess arms for their own defense.

In America, we wrote it into our bill of rights, because having just overthrown our king about a decade earlier, we decided that placing a monopoly on armaments in the hands of government was a very dangerous idea.

1) Guns as personal protection
What happens in a fist/knife fight? You can fight, or you can run (well, most of the time). What happens in a gun fight? You let the bullets fly. Shooting first is best, as every cowboy western duel has taught us. Guns are almost a 100% guarantee that more situations will come down to an actual fight, and that more people will be hurt. If they have the drop on you, you're equally SOL if you have a knife at your throat or a gun at your head. Yes, some hardened criminals have guns around here as well - but they're usually after bigger fish than the few dollars in your pocket. Your average street thug or wacko doesn't have a gun - and if they do they're very much so wanted by the police. "Shots fired" actually get real attention here, and with modern communication you can expect the cops to arrive in a timely fashion.

The world has moved on since the Dark Ages. Your (or any other witnesses) cell phone is a more powerful tool than the gun in almost every situation. There are really extremely few situations where you would have time to pull out a gun, and where the gun would be more efficient than the police. Either you have no time at all and would be shot, or you have run off, barricaded or hidden yourself somewhere and the police will arrive in time. It was a different time when you could be all alone on the farm in the countryside, and noone would help if you screamed off the top of your lungs.

2) Guns protecting "the people" from the government
Sure, a bunch of guys with handguns could be the core of an army in 1776 or thereabouts. Maybe even well into the 19th century. Look around, there's fighter jets, bombers, tanks, artillery, mechanised infantry, machine guns, destroyers and battleships. Hundreds of thousands of men like that died on a single day in WWI, they'd last even shorter today. The closest thing they could mount to a defense would be trying to lead a guerilla war, but they couldn't hold any ground. Any armed revolution that wants any hope of succeeding needs the support of the military. (Not that there aren't other ways, like mass public protests). If they are loyal to the government, well the 300lb lard ass with a rifle will find he's no match for the US armed forces. Really!

Re:Probability IS what it's all about.

[mdwh2]

A good point, although not all muggers will be deterred - after all, muggers often use knives here, even though their victim could have one too. So maybe some are deterred, but you have to factor that against those who have now gone from using knives to using guns (and hence greater risk of death), or possibly those who shoot first rather than take the risk.

Do you have a source for those rates? How is the murder rate affected?

Another point is that if guns are already banned in the US, there are still plenty of guns in circulation. The point about the UK is trying to keep the number of guns available low in the first place, so the figures don't quite apply to over here. Sure, professional criminals may still be able to get them, but the point is to reduce the chances of petty thieves and random yobs getting hold of them.

Re:Thank god in a contry

[Shakrai]

plus, you can't hold up a bank with a blunt object

Really? I beg to differ. Have you ever been a bank teller? We were told to just give them the money regardless of what kind of weapon they had. Do you know how many banks are robbed with nothing more then a note saying "give me the money"?

and you cant take out a room full of unarmed people with a blunt object.

Seemed to work for the 9/11 hijackers. Granted, probably wouldn't work in the post 9/11 world, but the point is still valid. And what do you mean by "take out"? Kill or neturalize? Because if all you mean is "neturalize" then I can think of lots of convenance stores that get robbed by punks armed with nothing more then a knife. Yes, the people in the store could probably take him down. But is it worth getting cut for someone elses money?

if the american gun lobby is so sure that giving the general population guns will stop the government misbehaving, why isnt anyone storming the whitehouse with uzis, taking out the unelected emperor that stole control of their country 7 years ago?

Because half the population supports the "unelected emperor"?

Hey, I'm not a big fan of guns either. I don't own one. But I don't see any harm in letting people own them either. Firearms have been a part of American history since the first Minuteman picked up his farmers musket and took aim at the Redcoats.

Restructuring society

[jmichaelg]

The bit about restructuring society so these things don't happen made me laugh. I live in a fairly nice neighborhood where people leave their front doors unlocked and garage doors open all day. Sometimes somebody will steal something but it's so rare it's not an issue for most people around here.

  Fifteen years ago, a neighbor murdered his wife during a divorce proceeding. Hard to see how you restructure rage and jealousy out of society. Around the same time there was a 5 year old kid who was uncontrollable. The kid had a sibling who was fine but this kid was trouble at any gathering. You could feel sympathy for the parents because you could see them doing what any of us would have done and nothing worked with this kid. At 20, he's in jail for invading someone's home and pistol whipping the occupant. He had a sidekick, also from this neighborhood, who isn't very bright. He's in jail as well.

I just don't see how anyone could have done anything for that pair - some genetic combinations just don't work very well. They'll spring up in both bad and good neighborhoods. No matter how you structure a society, there'll be people that are not a good fit for that society.

Re:Thank god in a contry

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Well, size isn't everything, but if you are 5'5" 140lb, then yes, you probably are a pussy. You need to either learn how to fight (martial arts?), or learn how to avoid fighting.

Written like someone without a clue. I've trained in Kun-tow, Karate, Judo, Tae Kwon Do, boxing, and several styles of Kung-fu. My best instructor once said, "the bigger they are, the harder they hit." He's right of course. Body mass, strength, and the length of arms and legs makes a huge difference in a fight. My technique is much more sophisticated and practiced than some people who can probably wipe the floor with me because they have 60 pounds on me. The best fighter I ever sparred with was over seven feet tall and big into thai boxing. Getting close enough to hit him without being killed was almost impossible.

The average person will not be able to win a fight against the average violent criminal. Most are men within a certain age range. Most have some familiarity with violence. Most people won't even be able to successfully run away from them. My father has a bad back these days. He will not win a fight or successfully run away from many people. My mother is an a wheelchair. By giving them each a firearm you make the average criminal too afraid to attack them, or even neighbors who may or may not have guns. Sorry, but learning to avoid being victimized is not an option for most people without access to appropriate weapons.

Re:Thank god in a contry

[Lars T.]

Thinking you invaded Iraq because they were responsible for 9/11 doesn't make you better informed.