Murder and how to Reduce it

Dec 2018
2,361
872
Florida
#21
Better background checks for gun purchases would be a start, with a national database.
Well. Using NYC and London as a comparison...London was outpacing NYC on murder rates. Which was interesting to note. But I don’t like to use 2 different nations due to their difference in culture, laws, rights, and even general crime is very different. Why bring it up then?

I think the idea of focusing on guns is a bit silly for a variety of reasons. But on the topic of murder? Guns are already out there. 310 million or so. And it doesn’t address the root cause. New York City saw like an 80% reduction in murder. We have a unique issue in that 65% murder is concentrated to 157 counties. That is south of 10,000 murders and above 9000 in 157 counties. Which IS impressive for a population of 325 million. But still.

Imagine if we saw even a 50% reduction? Or 30% in those counties? You are talking about 11,000 murders in a population of 325,000,000. 3.3 per hundred K? Not much to sneeze at.
 
Dec 2018
2,361
872
Florida
#22
Working to make sure the economy works for as large a portion of the population as possible would go a long way toward reducing crime in general.
Was thinking about that last night while talking to a friend of mine from the UK. Something that came up was “income inequality” vs “economic mobility.” I think a concern for “inequality” is a bit disingenuous in the sense that what do I care if some rich guy has more than me? What I want is the ability to make a stable and better income. Giving people the option to get out of shitty situations is a lot better.
 
Dec 2018
2,361
872
Florida
#23
I can't speak for NYC but locally within the Cleveland city limits, we are seeing a increase of violent crime and gun violence. Shooting occur every day here along with violent robberies and car jacking or theft. I think our problem is drugs and the opioid issue. There are rival gangs competing for business and innocent people get caught in the cross fire including children. It doesn't help that LE is not responding to these areas like they used to because of LE problems in the past and the department is still under DOJ control. It is basically, LE is damned if they do or damned if they don't. Rumor has it, we don't have enough LE at this point to cover all the red zones or high crime areas....so they are basically left to rot.
Orlando has the same problem. Last I heard they were down 45 officers. That is an entire shift.
 

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
73,759
63,283
So. Md.
#24
Was thinking about that last night while talking to a friend of mine from the UK. Something that came up was “income inequality” vs “economic mobility.” I think a concern for “inequality” is a bit disingenuous in the sense that what do I care if some rich guy has more than me? What I want is the ability to make a stable and better income. Giving people the option to get out of shitty situations is a lot better.
I'm also fine with people having more money than me. But when the wealth of a nation mostly ends up in the hands of a few then economic mobility is stifled. Economic immobility is a symptom of income inequality.
 
Likes: Ian Jeffrey
Oct 2014
29,435
5,065
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
#25
Flame Baiting
Statistics are not very useful, here. You are comparing an abusive household to a non-abusive one. Is a child better off in a non-abusive single-parent household than in an abusive dual-parent household? If the latter, you are then arguing the child is better off being abused than not - which is exactly what you are saying when you say a single-parent household is "worst" while abused child is merely "bad."

Not to mention that you are saying a child is better off in a household where one parent is abusing the other, which is to say that the abused parent has a duty to keep being abused for the sake of the child.
Wow... you really put some effort to try to spin things... very dishonest of you, but expected.

Before I address the points, let's decompress things a bit.

- This instance is precisely where statistics are useful, it becomes less useful when trying to use statistics to predict a specific outcome (not something I have done)

- I'm not comparing specifics. Not a specific child with different cases, but how the different situations statistically lead to certain outcomes, reasonably predictably.

- I'm not advocating for abuse; you leftists can not help yourselves but to attack the character of anyone presenting FACTS that you cannot dispute. It is an appalling practice. I do hope you DO NOT act like this to your children because that behavior qualifies in the category of psychological abuse. To repeat; if you engage in this behavior with your children, that would make you a psychologically abusive parent. (I'm not making accusation or insult, just a conditional observation. For your benefit, a conditional is if condition met then outcome A else outcome B applies or multiple other potential outcomes)

- The statistics are a two parent mother and father that are loving and the results and comparing that with the children with distant or absent fathers, distant or absent mothers, and abusive parents, then comparing those outcomes with the average baseline results of the two parent home.

- I was never proposing some sort of law or any mandatory action steps; I was merely giving the simple facts that will lead to a SERIOUS reduction in those types of crimes, and I mean to the degree of about 60-80%. It is not flashy, or fun, it's simple and practical solution.

So, first the parents. A child has no control over their parents, their parents are expected to be mature adults. As mature adults, they have the agency to determine the person they will spend their lives with. If they choose to stick with and bear children with an abuser, there's little to be said that can change that, and the abuse will have statistically have a negative impact on any children. (spousal abuse in front of children has a similar impact as abusing the child directly)

Next, this type of analysis is exactly why statistics was created... not sure what your attempt was, maybe to try and make my claims into a diagnosis instead of analysis, all I know is that the facts are irrefutable and is based on a compilation of hundreds of studies, mostly performed by government agencies.

Now, lets take the result of "rapist with anger issues" an abandoned child will be at 20X the average rate of everyone, where (exception of extreme abuse, because there is a threshold like if you are trying to create an MK-ULTRA victim, where the statistics no longer apply and the numbers are not significant enough to draw conclusions, ie it's so rare that there's no statistical significance to the numbers) an abused child will only be at 5X above the average rate. Or, you could simply stick around and not abuse the children and the rate stays in line with the average (ie not likely).

Which is "better", but perhaps for framing, it is less detrimental to abuse the child than abandon.

Now, I'm not saying this to people with so little self-control that they would use this as justification to abuse their children.... that your mind goes there in the first place is a statement on its own.
 
Jul 2011
76,290
42,243
Memphis, Tn.
#26
People don't like to hear it because it is simple and demands responsibility.

1 - Get into a relationship
2 - stick with that person
3 - Don't abuse any children that come from that relationship.

That will reduce murder, rape, arson, among a list of other crimes drastically. (Not statistically valid, but up to 80% reduction)
Let me guess, you thought the JUST SAY NO program of Nancy Reagan's in the 80's was practical and just fucking brilliant.
 
Nov 2013
10,503
9,976
NY
#27
Wow... you really put some effort to try to spin things... very dishonest of you, but expected.

Before I address the points, let's decompress things a bit.

- This instance is precisely where statistics are useful, it becomes less useful when trying to use statistics to predict a specific outcome (not something I have done)

- I'm not comparing specifics. Not a specific child with different cases, but how the different situations statistically lead to certain outcomes, reasonably predictably.

- I'm not advocating for abuse; you leftists can not help yourselves but to attack the character of [1]anyone presenting FACTS that you cannot dispute. It is an appalling practice. I do hope you DO NOT act like this to your children because that behavior qualifies in the category of psychological abuse. To repeat; if you engage in this behavior with your children, that would make you a psychologically abusive parent. (I'm not making accusation or insult, just a conditional observation. For your benefit, a conditional is if condition met then outcome A else outcome B applies or multiple other potential outcomes)

[2] - The statistics are a two parent mother and father that are loving and the results and comparing that with the children with distant or absent fathers, distant or absent mothers, and abusive parents, then comparing those outcomes with the average baseline results of the two parent home.

- I was never proposing some sort of law or any mandatory action steps; I was merely [3] giving the simple facts that will lead to a SERIOUS reduction in those types of crimes, and I mean to the degree of about 60-80%. It is not flashy, or fun, it's simple and practical solution.

So, first the parents. A child has no control over their parents, their parents are expected to be mature adults. As mature adults, they have the agency to determine the person they will spend their lives with. If they choose to stick with and bear children with an abuser, there's little to be said that can change that, and the abuse will have statistically have a negative impact on any children. (spousal abuse in front of children has a similar impact as abusing the child directly)

Next, this type of analysis is exactly why statistics was created... not sure what your attempt was, maybe to try and make my claims into a diagnosis instead of analysis, all I know is that the facts are irrefutable and is based on a compilation of hundreds of studies, mostly performed by government agencies.

Now, lets take the result of "rapist with anger issues" an abandoned child will be at 20X the average rate of everyone, where (exception of extreme abuse, because there is a threshold like if you are trying to create an MK-ULTRA victim, where the statistics no longer apply and the numbers are not significant enough to draw conclusions, ie it's so rare that there's no statistical significance to the numbers) an abused child will only be at 5X above the average rate. Or, you could simply stick around and not abuse the children and the rate stays in line with the average (ie not likely).

Which is "better", but perhaps for framing, it is less detrimental to abuse the child than abandon.

Now, I'm not saying this to people with so little self-control that they would use this as justification to abuse their children.... that your mind goes there in the first place is a statement on its own.
to [1]: you did not present any facts, in any of your posts in this thread so far. you just say stuff.
stuff you say are not facts because you say them.

to [2]: I dare you to provide us with those statistics.. I bet you it doesn't exist.
no one will eve have ebven tried to poll such a thing, with the specifics you're giving.
again, you just say random stuff, with no connection to reality or supporting evidence.

to [3]: see at [1]. You just say stuff, you have no "facts".
 
Likes: Ian Jeffrey
Oct 2014
29,435
5,065
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
#28
to [1]: you did not present any facts, in any of your posts in this thread so far. you just say stuff.
stuff you say are not facts because you say them.

to [2]: I dare you to provide us with those statistics.. I bet you it doesn't exist.
no one will eve have ebven tried to poll such a thing, with the specifics you're giving.
again, you just say random stuff, with no connection to reality or supporting evidence.

to [3]: see at [1]. You just say stuff, you have no "facts".
1 - I don't make shit up. I've sourced the documents in question SEVERAL times (not in this thread)

2 - You are free to demonstrate the statistics to show I was incorrect.

It is kinda funny how easy it is to find information with these magical tools like google.

Troubling fact in all this is would be how the government subsidizes single parent families, to where, if a man is making a low salary that it may be more financially beneficial to divorce the father then qualify for welfare + child support + tax incentives...

Real solutions are not the sexy elaborate solutions, it's really as simple as (with exception of mental illness) not screwing them up.

But, here, I'll throw you a bone (I debated myself on either giving one general link, or so overwhelming you with raw data that you would never read)
Are Children Raised With Absent Fathers Worse Off?
 
Jul 2013
51,602
54,867
Nashville, TN
#29
Was thinking about that last night while talking to a friend of mine from the UK. Something that came up was “income inequality” vs “economic mobility.” I think a concern for “inequality” is a bit disingenuous in the sense that what do I care if some rich guy has more than me? What I want is the ability to make a stable and better income. Giving people the option to get out of shitty situations is a lot better.
I agree with you.

U.S. lags behind peer countries in mobility

Check the graph at the link, we are less economically mobile in the US than a dozen other OECD countries, all the usual suspects do better than the US.
 

HCProf

Moderator
Sep 2014
26,598
15,453
USA
#30
bmanmcfly has been banned from this thread. Please do not respond to his posts. Thank you for your cooperation.