Todays London Stabbing/Shooting

=XDC=FluphyBunny said:
I think the point you are trying to make has failed spectacularly.
Click to expand...


Really,

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6736617/Teenager-19-dies-shot-stabbed-west-London.html

What are we running at now?

4 deaths in 4 days and many more wounded, And that's just London!

How many is that so far this year?

Back in Pierrepoints day we only got a couple of hundred each year, across the entire country (And that was at a time when people were far more likely to die from their injuries than they are today, IE a "Like for like" comparison that factored this in would have an effective homicide rate today several times greater than what the current figures suggest)

:/
 
mmj_uk said:
Mass shootings in America aren't really the biggest killers, it's the accumulation of single smaller incidents like London is experiencing.

.
Click to expand...

But they are the most spectacular. They are also, next to domestic violence, probabally the biggest risk of a Gunshot death that the white middle classes face.

So even though it is actually a very low risk indeed, it is something that they worry about.

Violent crime is typically something that White America only sees on TV. so when something like a school shooting that actually effects them happens, it affects them badly.

By contrast, the majority of violent crime in the US is typically committed by Black people, in Black neighborhoods, against other Black people.

Homicides split much the same way and if you want to look specifically at firearm related homicide. Black people shooting other Black people accounts for some 2/3 of the total homicides where a firearm has been used.

And even then these figures overstate the incidence and risk of violent crime that White America faces since in official stats, Hispanics are often treated as being "White".

There will be plenty of all White counties in the Trumptastic flyover states that will not have seen a non-domestic homicide in decades. Despite being solidly Gun-Owning communities
.
People in the UK/Europe cannot really comprehend just how stark the differences in life experience are in different parts of the USA. It is like comparing the Cotswolds with the Ukraine!

(PS to add, Did I get Effects and Affects the wrong way round? I have been bothering about this. If the Grammerobergruppenfuhrer currently on duty can tell me, I would be grateful! :p)
 
Last edited:
One More Solo said:
The rest, as they say, is silence.
Click to expand...
Official stats can be very misleading.

AIUI, and I may well be wrong, (Please advise)

USA-Man found in gutter with bullet hole in head=Homicide

UK-Man found in gutter with bullet hole in head=Unexplained death (Only Homicide if somebody can be found to have been responsible for committing it)

Even if this difference in official reporting is only a little bit true.

The implications in the significance for the "Official statistics" are likley to be staggering.
 
Thecaferacer said:
That graph is an overall murder rate. The trouble with that graph is it could mean that domestic related murders have dropped and knife murders have increased or vice versa.

There is also the fact that medical expertise has progressed so far that many people who would have died 30 years ago can now survive horrific attacks.

Year figures can also be iffy, such as in 2006 where the London bombing victims were all classes as separate murders.
Click to expand...

There has also been a dramatic change in the age profile of both the killers and the killed.

An awful lot of the the assailants and their victims are teenagers, and as i said elsewhere. Sure teenage gangs would rumble in the 50's and 60's, but for the most part they were actually very careful indeed not to actually kill each other.

The prospect of having Breakfast with Albert Pierrepoint if they did was undoubtedly a major factor in this, whatever people say today!
 
So..

When crime and poverty are discussed, the typical debate is about whether – and how much – poverty makes someone crime-prone. This overshadows discussions about the law-abiding majority of the poor, and whether they are more likely to be the victims. Using extensive survey and crime data, this paper shows that in fact the poor are by far the most likely to be affected by crime. One of the worst aspects of being poor in modern Britain is the far greater likelihood of living near criminals and being their victim – and the fear this produces.
While all law-abiding people would benefit from lower crime, it is those on lower incomes and those who live in deprived areas who would benefit most. Compared to households on incomes above £50,000, those on incomes below £10,000 are:

• Considerably more likely to be attacked by someone they know and far more likely to be attacked by a stranger;

• Twice as likely to suffer violence with injury;

• Twice as likely to be burgled;

• Three times as likely to be robbed and mugged;

• Three times as likely to suffer rape or attempted rape;

• Six times as likely to be a victim of domestic violence.

Fear of crime also plagues the lives of the poor in a way that is unrecognisable to the affluent. The poor are more than twice as likely to fear burglary and rape – and three times as likely to fear attacks, robbery and car crime. This fear is justified, as there are three and a half times as many criminals living in the 20% most deprived areas as in the 20% least deprived areas.
In addition to the fear and reality of much higher crime, the poor also suffer:

• Significant barriers to social mobility: those who need a car or bicycle to get to work are more likely to see their means of transport stolen and damaged. The greatest disparity between poor and rich in what crime they fear is in the fear of the poor of their car being stolen. This is four times as high among the poor as it is among the most affluent;

• Greater insurance premiums: costs that they are least equipped to afford;

• The cost of replacing goods: despite their low incomes;

• Higher shop prices: an inevitable result of the cost of lost stock, the higher costs of hiring people to work in high crime areas, the additional security costs, the higher insurance premiums paid by shops and the costs of using shop floor space differently;

• Social breakdown as people withdraw from their communities and fear to go outside.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Poor people behave in this way because they are poor?

Or that they are poor because they behave in this way?
 
krooton said:
Genetic you say...?
Click to expand...


I dont think that the idea that certain types of criminal behaviour might have a genetic component is an inherently unreasonable one.

There is plenty of evidence that temperament and behaviour have a strong genetic component. Otherwise there wouldn't be any such thing as "Domestic Animals".

The idea that Humans are somehow special and not affected by this has to be logically unsustainable!
 
krooton said:
I was just surprised at such open racism, I'd be impressed if I wasn't disgusted. :D
Click to expand...

So that was a "La-La-La-I'm-not-Listening" then! :D

And who said anything about Race anyway. To my mind it is more cultural.

But that doesn't mean that genetics and selective pressure might not be a significant factor.

The key to this IMO is the genetic/cultural heritage associated with living in large urban communities. Now, for sure, one can ties this to ethnic groups too. but the primary issue is urban living.

large, high population density towns and cities where people live their lives surrounded by total strangers are a very recent thing in terms of human social evolution. For most of our species time on this earth, we have evolved to live in small, semi nomadic, extended family hunter gatherer groups bound by kinship. And indeed, where any humans not a member of this group are likley to be regarded at best as competitors, at worst as mortal enemies.

Urban living is deeply unnatural for Humans and I do not think it is at all unreasonable to suppose that a fair amount of "Domestication" through selective pressure imposed by laws and punishments (Particularly punishments involving execution, banishment or enslavement) has been necessary to allow modern humans to live in this deeply unnatural environment without killing each other as a matter or routine.

Now, for sure, there is going to be an ethnic origin aspect to this. but only as a by product of the cultural evolution factors.

For example, Asiatics have been living in large disciplined urban communities for a very long time and in a modern multi-national city. come very low in the statistics for random violent crime. Northern Europeans haven't been living like this for quite as long, so come somewhere in the middle of the stats. And people from central and southern Africa, who have by far the most limited cultural (And therefore genetic!) experience of living in large cities tend to top the list wherever such diaspora end up living.

Now, I dont know whether this theory is correct or not It is just something that popped into my mind when I saw pictures of the (Relatively peaceful surprisingly) Hong-Kong slums and observed that no European could live like that. We would tear each other to pieces within days!

Further investigation would be needed to either confirm or debunk it. But if course. Since even the very idea generates the inevitable "Racist" accusations, nobody will ever investigate the possibility.

So we will never know.

Which would be a shame if it turned out to be correct (Or at least a factor) since you cant begin to mitigate or solve a problem until you know exactly what the problem is.

And ignoring certain lines of scientific investigation simply because they offend peoples political ideologies is the road to ruin! It always has been!


.
 
Fubsy said:
Someone's been out for a 'random' lazy Sunday stabby spree by the looks of things in London.
Click to expand...

I have more or less given up commenting. It is so common now that it seems just to be a matter of routine.

Another day, Another stabbing!

As Mr Khan might say, Just part of the day-to-day life living in a 21st century city!

:rolleyes:

(I think I would much rather live in a 19th century one really. "Jack" was scary because this sort of thing was actually quite rare back then, nowadays his killing spree would hardly be noticed! :( )
 
Dis86 said:
Yes but infant mortality rates aren't a measure if how safe somewhere is like you proclaimed. They're a measure of health, development and wealth. Life expectancy was artificially low because of high infant mortality rates.
Click to expand...


Indeed,

People so much confuse "Mean" life expectancy (At Birth)

With "Median" life expectancy once having reached adulthood.

The classical world is full of people who managed to achieve the "Three scores years and ten"

And provided you survived childhood (The really high risk period), traumatic injury, and battle.

People, in the "Civilized " world, 2000 years ago, would have had pretty much just as much chance of reaching their 60's as people do today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom