Gun free Britain? Murders going to hit 10 year high...

[2aguy]

I answer that all the time.....World War 1 and 2 destroyed those countries, and drained millions of young men from their countries...... They are behind the United States in every way until now...they are catching up to the destruction of the family...which is creating violent sociopaths.

Their criminals do not use their illegal guns to murder as often or as easily as American criminals....due to cultural factors, not gun control.

What part of the fact that gun crime is going up in Britain is beyond you to understand....? They are getting illegal guns in larger numbers...they need them, especially their 3rd world drug gangs, to control their drug territories....they just do not use them to murder...as I highlight in most of these posts...they shoot the legs, not to the chest or the head when they shoot...a cultural difference and even that is changing....

Read the book, "Life at the Bottom," because it shows how their welfare system and bureaucratic mess is creating the exact same situation you see in our violent, democrat controlled cities....and they are just getting there...while we were there back in the 1960s, since our country was untouched by the destruction of World war 1 and 2....

What a ridiculous answer.

WW1 and WW2 killing off lots of young men and destroying the family is the reason that violent crime hit a high in the early 2000s. What, 60 years later.

If your idiotic theory were true, it'd have happened in the 1950s.

You don't understand the damage that those wars did to the societies in Europe..... we didn't experience the loss of life and the destruction they did......

For the current situation? Read "Life at the Bottom," it will show you where the family is in Britain....

Don't I? How the fuck would you know?

The point I was making, and somehow it managed to slip massively past you, was that you said that the death of so many males caused families to break up, which then led to social problems, and therefore by the time the 2000s came along, and all this violence, the widowers of those who died in WW1 were probably dead, and widowers of WW2 were probably in their 80s or 90s.

So how the FUCK does that impact the 2000s?

Can you please explain how a person dying in WW1 impacted the crime rate going up in the 2000s?

No...moron, that isn't what I said... I said the destruction and death of the Two World Wars, and now that I think of it, the Depression, slowed down their society advancing the way the U.S. did.... So, moron, you have the death and destruction of World War 1, and it's aftermath, the Depression, and then World War 2.....major, catastrophic events....... and they slowed down those societies in Europe...... now you have the social welfare states wrecking the family structures in those countries, allowing young teenage girls to have children without husbands, and fathers for those children, so the young males have no one to raise them into young men.... And you are now seeing the effects of that in the increasing violence in those societies, especially Britain.....

Fascinating. How has the US managed to avoid the single mother problem ?

We haven't, you moron, which is why we have full prisons, and in our democrat party cities we have high gun murder rates.....that is what I keep telling you.......

 

[2aguy]

I answer that all the time.....World War 1 and 2 destroyed those countries, and drained millions of young men from their countries...... They are behind the United States in every way until now...they are catching up to the destruction of the family...which is creating violent sociopaths.

Their criminals do not use their illegal guns to murder as often or as easily as American criminals....due to cultural factors, not gun control.

What part of the fact that gun crime is going up in Britain is beyond you to understand....? They are getting illegal guns in larger numbers...they need them, especially their 3rd world drug gangs, to control their drug territories....they just do not use them to murder...as I highlight in most of these posts...they shoot the legs, not to the chest or the head when they shoot...a cultural difference and even that is changing....

Read the book, "Life at the Bottom," because it shows how their welfare system and bureaucratic mess is creating the exact same situation you see in our violent, democrat controlled cities....and they are just getting there...while we were there back in the 1960s, since our country was untouched by the destruction of World war 1 and 2....

What a ridiculous answer.

WW1 and WW2 killing off lots of young men and destroying the family is the reason that violent crime hit a high in the early 2000s. What, 60 years later.

If your idiotic theory were true, it'd have happened in the 1950s.

You don't understand the damage that those wars did to the societies in Europe..... we didn't experience the loss of life and the destruction they did......

For the current situation? Read "Life at the Bottom," it will show you where the family is in Britain....

Don't I? How the fuck would you know?

The point I was making, and somehow it managed to slip massively past you, was that you said that the death of so many males caused families to break up, which then led to social problems, and therefore by the time the 2000s came along, and all this violence, the widowers of those who died in WW1 were probably dead, and widowers of WW2 were probably in their 80s or 90s.

So how the FUCK does that impact the 2000s?

Can you please explain how a person dying in WW1 impacted the crime rate going up in the 2000s?

No...moron, that isn't what I said... I said the destruction and death of the Two World Wars, and now that I think of it, the Depression, slowed down their society advancing the way the U.S. did.... So, moron, you have the death and destruction of World War 1, and it's aftermath, the Depression, and then World War 2.....major, catastrophic events....... and they slowed down those societies in Europe...... now you have the social welfare states wrecking the family structures in those countries, allowing young teenage girls to have children without husbands, and fathers for those children, so the young males have no one to raise them into young men.... And you are now seeing the effects of that in the increasing violence in those societies, especially Britain.....

If your reasoning about Britain being battered in two world wars (and now you throw in the Depression) causing crime rates to rise is true, then why has the US been so far ahead of them in this regard for so long?
Especially when, in your reasoning, they have been insulated from all this mayhem and living in a land of milk and honey.
Are you saying that Americans are just naturally bigger arseholes than the Brits?

Why do you hate Americans?

Our society didn't get hit with the destruction, we had a booming post War economy with stable families...it wasn't until the 1960s where we had the Great Society destroy those families...especially minority families in our democrat party controlled cities.... That is when single teenage girls could have children without fathers in the home.....and from the 1960s going forward you had the huge crime problem here.......Britain is just now starting that violence problem....

 

[frigidweirdo]

What a ridiculous answer.

WW1 and WW2 killing off lots of young men and destroying the family is the reason that violent crime hit a high in the early 2000s. What, 60 years later.

If your idiotic theory were true, it'd have happened in the 1950s.

You don't understand the damage that those wars did to the societies in Europe..... we didn't experience the loss of life and the destruction they did......

For the current situation? Read "Life at the Bottom," it will show you where the family is in Britain....

Don't I? How the fuck would you know?

The point I was making, and somehow it managed to slip massively past you, was that you said that the death of so many males caused families to break up, which then led to social problems, and therefore by the time the 2000s came along, and all this violence, the widowers of those who died in WW1 were probably dead, and widowers of WW2 were probably in their 80s or 90s.

So how the FUCK does that impact the 2000s?

Can you please explain how a person dying in WW1 impacted the crime rate going up in the 2000s?

No...moron, that isn't what I said... I said the destruction and death of the Two World Wars, and now that I think of it, the Depression, slowed down their society advancing the way the U.S. did.... So, moron, you have the death and destruction of World War 1, and it's aftermath, the Depression, and then World War 2.....major, catastrophic events....... and they slowed down those societies in Europe...... now you have the social welfare states wrecking the family structures in those countries, allowing young teenage girls to have children without husbands, and fathers for those children, so the young males have no one to raise them into young men.... And you are now seeing the effects of that in the increasing violence in those societies, especially Britain.....

Fascinating. How has the US managed to avoid the single mother problem ?

We haven't, you moron, which is why we have full prisons, and in our democrat party cities we have high gun murder rates.....that is what I keep telling you.......

So, the UK has an increase in violent crime in the 2000s because of the impact of WW1 and WW2. Yet the US which avoided a lot of that suffering on the home front has a much higher murder rate.

What are you fucking talking about?

 

[frigidweirdo]

What a ridiculous answer.

WW1 and WW2 killing off lots of young men and destroying the family is the reason that violent crime hit a high in the early 2000s. What, 60 years later.

If your idiotic theory were true, it'd have happened in the 1950s.

You don't understand the damage that those wars did to the societies in Europe..... we didn't experience the loss of life and the destruction they did......

For the current situation? Read "Life at the Bottom," it will show you where the family is in Britain....

Don't I? How the fuck would you know?

The point I was making, and somehow it managed to slip massively past you, was that you said that the death of so many males caused families to break up, which then led to social problems, and therefore by the time the 2000s came along, and all this violence, the widowers of those who died in WW1 were probably dead, and widowers of WW2 were probably in their 80s or 90s.

So how the FUCK does that impact the 2000s?

Can you please explain how a person dying in WW1 impacted the crime rate going up in the 2000s?

No...moron, that isn't what I said... I said the destruction and death of the Two World Wars, and now that I think of it, the Depression, slowed down their society advancing the way the U.S. did.... So, moron, you have the death and destruction of World War 1, and it's aftermath, the Depression, and then World War 2.....major, catastrophic events....... and they slowed down those societies in Europe...... now you have the social welfare states wrecking the family structures in those countries, allowing young teenage girls to have children without husbands, and fathers for those children, so the young males have no one to raise them into young men.... And you are now seeing the effects of that in the increasing violence in those societies, especially Britain.....

Ah, insults. Why are you pulling the insults out?

Oh, oh, so societies in Europe slowed down, did they?

Do you see a slowing down here? After WW2 the economies of the UK, Japan and Germany boomed. Just like the US. There was a certain amount of slowing compared to the US because they had to rebuild countries bombed to hell by their enemies. But the reality is, post WW2 the western world was booming.

So, how did that lead to an increase in gun deaths in the 2000s in the UK, but not Germany or Japan?

But this is just like a hole. You keep digging and digging. You didn't have a clue what you were talking about before, making up "facts", and now you have to make up more "facts" to try and save face for having been shown how wrong you were the previous time.

Moron, after the war....... it set them back as a society, read some history of England after World War 2 ..... And then the social welfare state kicked in, you moron, and now we have had generations of teenage girls raising young males without fathers...which is why you are seeing the increase in violence there...

Again, read "Life at the Bottom...." It reads as if it was in the U.S.....

So you're suggesting that crime is caused by single parent families. Do you have anything to back this up? So, when the violent crime rate and murder rate went DOWN at the end of the 2000s, this was because there were LESS SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES?

 

[2aguy]

answer the question:
why is UK's murder rate 4 times lower?
or France's/Germany's?

I answer that all the time.....World War 1 and 2 destroyed those countries, and drained millions of young men from their countries...... They are behind the United States in every way until now...they are catching up to the destruction of the family...which is creating violent sociopaths.

Their criminals do not use their illegal guns to murder as often or as easily as American criminals....due to cultural factors, not gun control.

What part of the fact that gun crime is going up in Britain is beyond you to understand....? They are getting illegal guns in larger numbers...they need them, especially their 3rd world drug gangs, to control their drug territories....they just do not use them to murder...as I highlight in most of these posts...they shoot the legs, not to the chest or the head when they shoot...a cultural difference and even that is changing....

Read the book, "Life at the Bottom," because it shows how their welfare system and bureaucratic mess is creating the exact same situation you see in our violent, democrat controlled cities....and they are just getting there...while we were there back in the 1960s, since our country was untouched by the destruction of World war 1 and 2....

ok--and I've stated this before--if it's a difference of UK vs American culture and not gun control, explain this:
==very pro-gun/lax gun control St Louis:--population 320,000... murders -199
==very gun controlled NYC population 8.6 MILLION... murders-300 !!!!!!!!!!!!

very gun controlled Chicago and LA lower murder rates than very pro-gun STL

SAME country!!!!! SAME cultures

St. Louis homicide statistics for 2017
2017 was record-low for homicides in New York City, with NYPD logging lowest number in nearly 70 years - NY Daily News

Wrong....St. Louis, like chicago, lets violent gun criminals out of prison....you have been shown this over and over againg...in all the cities where gun crime is through the roof you have democrat policies allowing criminals out of prison....New York had Guilliani, who locked them up and his police policies are still in place...

It isn't normal, law abiding gun owners committing the crime....... when you keep letting the violent criminals out on bail, and out of jail, you get more gun murder...

You have missed the truth about this issue.

Mayor of St. Louis - Wikipedia


Rise in Murders Has St. Louis Debating Why

Jennifer M. Joyce, the city’s circuit attorney, or prosecutor, an elected position, complains that in St. Louis, the illegal possession of a gun is too often “a crime without a consequence,” making it difficult to stop confrontation from turning lethal.

At the same time, deeper social roots of violence such as addiction and unemployment continue unchecked. And city officials also cite what they call a “Ferguson effect,” an increase in crime last year as police officers were diverted to control protests after a white officer shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager in the nearby suburb on Aug. 9.

-----------

Now, an overstretched department is forced to pick one neighborhood at a time to flood with officers. Last month, Chief Dotson even asked the state highway patrol if it could lend a dozen men to help watch downtown streets; the agency declined.
----
When the police discover a gun in a car with several passengers, including some with felony records, but no one admits to owning the gun, criminal charges are often impossible, Mr. Rosenfeld said.

In addition, according to a 2014 study by Mr. Rosenfeld and his colleagues, a majority of those who are convicted of illegally possessing a gun but not caught using it in a crime receive probation rather than jail time. Gun laws and enforcement are stiffer in many other cities.

Violence down in St. Louis but homicides hold steady. Are tougher penalties for gun crimes the answer?
But many challenges remain, official said. The department is still down more than 130 officers. Witnesses to crimes remain reluctant to come forward for fear of retaliation, making it difficult to close cases. And a lack of state laws to deter gun crimes has forced the police to turn to federal courts to indict some suspects.

On Tuesday, Edwards made a new pitch: He wants to see the mandatory minimum sentence for armed criminal action raised from its current ceiling of three years to at least 15 years for nonfatal shootings, and 25 years for fatal shootings.

--------

D.C.

DC Won’t Allow Concealed Carry, But Takes It Easy On Armed, Violent Criminals

The problems stem from the city’s Youth Rehabilitation Act, legislation implemented in the 1980s to provide leniency to criminal offenders under the age of 22, even violent ones, with murder convictions being the only exception. It allows judges to disregard mandatory minimums meant to dissuade criminals, often to disastrous effects. The homicide rate spiked by 54 percent in the District in 2015, and 22 of the murderers were previously sentenced for crimes under the Youth Rehabilitation Act, according to an investigation by The Washington Post.

A man released on probation in 2015 under the law was involved in the July shooting death of Deeniquia Dodds, a transgender man. Just over 120 people previously sentenced under the Youth Rehabilitation Act have subsequently been convicted of murder since 2010.

“I knew they were going to let me off easy,” Tavon Pinkney, an 18-year old convicted of homicide in 2015, told The Washington Post regarding his previous sentencing under the youth law. “Nothing changed … They just gave me the Youth Act and let me go right back out there. They ain’t really care.”

 

[2aguy]

You don't understand the damage that those wars did to the societies in Europe..... we didn't experience the loss of life and the destruction they did......

For the current situation? Read "Life at the Bottom," it will show you where the family is in Britain....

Don't I? How the fuck would you know?

The point I was making, and somehow it managed to slip massively past you, was that you said that the death of so many males caused families to break up, which then led to social problems, and therefore by the time the 2000s came along, and all this violence, the widowers of those who died in WW1 were probably dead, and widowers of WW2 were probably in their 80s or 90s.

So how the FUCK does that impact the 2000s?

Can you please explain how a person dying in WW1 impacted the crime rate going up in the 2000s?

No...moron, that isn't what I said... I said the destruction and death of the Two World Wars, and now that I think of it, the Depression, slowed down their society advancing the way the U.S. did.... So, moron, you have the death and destruction of World War 1, and it's aftermath, the Depression, and then World War 2.....major, catastrophic events....... and they slowed down those societies in Europe...... now you have the social welfare states wrecking the family structures in those countries, allowing young teenage girls to have children without husbands, and fathers for those children, so the young males have no one to raise them into young men.... And you are now seeing the effects of that in the increasing violence in those societies, especially Britain.....

Fascinating. How has the US managed to avoid the single mother problem ?

We haven't, you moron, which is why we have full prisons, and in our democrat party cities we have high gun murder rates.....that is what I keep telling you.......

So, the UK has an increase in violent crime in the 2000s because of the impact of WW1 and WW2. Yet the US which avoided a lot of that suffering on the home front has a much higher murder rate.

What are you fucking talking about?

It has to do with the destruction of the family.....single teenage girls raising young males..... we reached that point earlier...in the 1960s, because we didn't get set back by World War 2....they fell behind, and now are catching up, their social welfare programs have finally reached the point where they have destroyed their families...

 

[2aguy]

You don't understand the damage that those wars did to the societies in Europe..... we didn't experience the loss of life and the destruction they did......

For the current situation? Read "Life at the Bottom," it will show you where the family is in Britain....

Don't I? How the fuck would you know?

The point I was making, and somehow it managed to slip massively past you, was that you said that the death of so many males caused families to break up, which then led to social problems, and therefore by the time the 2000s came along, and all this violence, the widowers of those who died in WW1 were probably dead, and widowers of WW2 were probably in their 80s or 90s.

So how the FUCK does that impact the 2000s?

Can you please explain how a person dying in WW1 impacted the crime rate going up in the 2000s?

No...moron, that isn't what I said... I said the destruction and death of the Two World Wars, and now that I think of it, the Depression, slowed down their society advancing the way the U.S. did.... So, moron, you have the death and destruction of World War 1, and it's aftermath, the Depression, and then World War 2.....major, catastrophic events....... and they slowed down those societies in Europe...... now you have the social welfare states wrecking the family structures in those countries, allowing young teenage girls to have children without husbands, and fathers for those children, so the young males have no one to raise them into young men.... And you are now seeing the effects of that in the increasing violence in those societies, especially Britain.....

Ah, insults. Why are you pulling the insults out?

Oh, oh, so societies in Europe slowed down, did they?

Do you see a slowing down here? After WW2 the economies of the UK, Japan and Germany boomed. Just like the US. There was a certain amount of slowing compared to the US because they had to rebuild countries bombed to hell by their enemies. But the reality is, post WW2 the western world was booming.

So, how did that lead to an increase in gun deaths in the 2000s in the UK, but not Germany or Japan?

But this is just like a hole. You keep digging and digging. You didn't have a clue what you were talking about before, making up "facts", and now you have to make up more "facts" to try and save face for having been shown how wrong you were the previous time.

Moron, after the war....... it set them back as a society, read some history of England after World War 2 ..... And then the social welfare state kicked in, you moron, and now we have had generations of teenage girls raising young males without fathers...which is why you are seeing the increase in violence there...

Again, read "Life at the Bottom...." It reads as if it was in the U.S.....

So you're suggesting that crime is caused by single parent families. Do you have anything to back this up? So, when the violent crime rate and murder rate went DOWN at the end of the 2000s, this was because there were LESS SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES?

Yep....... do you mean you don't know about this research?

Here......from the Atlantic......a left wing source looking at this...

Then go on and read "Life at the Bottom." about the British problem with crime and family breakdown...

The Real, Complex Connection Between Single-Parent Families and Crime - The Atlantic

But by ignoring a host of policy and cultural shifts during that time, Cohen fails to prove his conclusion. When crime was rising in the '80s and early '90s, legislators, police, and criminal justice experts naturally began to think about ways to counter it. They tried a number of approaches: increasing the number and presence of police on city streets and "broken windows" and "hot spot" policing (intensive and assertive police presence in specific areas where crimes have been committed.) In his recent book The City That Became Safe, criminologist Franklin Zimring, using the sort of careful regressions missing from Cohen's analysis, concludes that improved policing is the only plausible explanation for New York City's record drop in crime during these years. It's entirely possible that smart policing compensated for the initial causes of rising crime whatever they were, including massive family breakdown. It's also worth noting that Washington D.C., the city which is the subject of Cohen's analysis, has by far the largest per capita police force of any large city in the U.S. It also has one of the highest percentage of single-parent homes

-------

The 1987 "Survey of Youth in Custody" found that 70% did not grow up with both parents. Another 1994 study of Wisconsin juveniles was even more stark: only 13% grew up with their married parents. Here's the conclusion of Cynthia Harper and Sara McLanahan, the doyenne of researchers about single parenthood: "[C]ontrolling for income and all other factors, youths in father-absent families (mother only, mother-stepfather, and relatives/other) still had significantly higher odds of incarceration than those from mother-father families."
--------------
The bottom line is that there is a large body of literature showing that children of single mothers are more likely to commit crimes than children who grow up with their married parents. This is true not just in the United States, but wherever the issue has been researched.

 

[harmonica]

answer the question:
why is UK's murder rate 4 times lower?
or France's/Germany's?

I answer that all the time.....World War 1 and 2 destroyed those countries, and drained millions of young men from their countries...... They are behind the United States in every way until now...they are catching up to the destruction of the family...which is creating violent sociopaths.

Their criminals do not use their illegal guns to murder as often or as easily as American criminals....due to cultural factors, not gun control.

What part of the fact that gun crime is going up in Britain is beyond you to understand....? They are getting illegal guns in larger numbers...they need them, especially their 3rd world drug gangs, to control their drug territories....they just do not use them to murder...as I highlight in most of these posts...they shoot the legs, not to the chest or the head when they shoot...a cultural difference and even that is changing....

Read the book, "Life at the Bottom," because it shows how their welfare system and bureaucratic mess is creating the exact same situation you see in our violent, democrat controlled cities....and they are just getting there...while we were there back in the 1960s, since our country was untouched by the destruction of World war 1 and 2....

ok--and I've stated this before--if it's a difference of UK vs American culture and not gun control, explain this:
==very pro-gun/lax gun control St Louis:--population 320,000... murders -199
==very gun controlled NYC population 8.6 MILLION... murders-300 !!!!!!!!!!!!

very gun controlled Chicago and LA lower murder rates than very pro-gun STL

SAME country!!!!! SAME cultures

St. Louis homicide statistics for 2017
2017 was record-low for homicides in New York City, with NYPD logging lowest number in nearly 70 years - NY Daily News

Wrong....St. Louis, like chicago, lets violent gun criminals out of prison....you have been shown this over and over againg...in all the cities where gun crime is through the roof you have democrat policies allowing criminals out of prison....New York had Guilliani, who locked them up and his police policies are still in place...

It isn't normal, law abiding gun owners committing the crime....... when you keep letting the violent criminals out on bail, and out of jail, you get more gun murder...

You have missed the truth about this issue.

Mayor of St. Louis - Wikipedia


Rise in Murders Has St. Louis Debating Why

Jennifer M. Joyce, the city’s circuit attorney, or prosecutor, an elected position, complains that in St. Louis, the illegal possession of a gun is too often “a crime without a consequence,” making it difficult to stop confrontation from turning lethal.

At the same time, deeper social roots of violence such as addiction and unemployment continue unchecked. And city officials also cite what they call a “Ferguson effect,” an increase in crime last year as police officers were diverted to control protests after a white officer shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager in the nearby suburb on Aug. 9.

-----------

Now, an overstretched department is forced to pick one neighborhood at a time to flood with officers. Last month, Chief Dotson even asked the state highway patrol if it could lend a dozen men to help watch downtown streets; the agency declined.
----
When the police discover a gun in a car with several passengers, including some with felony records, but no one admits to owning the gun, criminal charges are often impossible, Mr. Rosenfeld said.

In addition, according to a 2014 study by Mr. Rosenfeld and his colleagues, a majority of those who are convicted of illegally possessing a gun but not caught using it in a crime receive probation rather than jail time. Gun laws and enforcement are stiffer in many other cities.

Violence down in St. Louis but homicides hold steady. Are tougher penalties for gun crimes the answer?
But many challenges remain, official said. The department is still down more than 130 officers. Witnesses to crimes remain reluctant to come forward for fear of retaliation, making it difficult to close cases. And a lack of state laws to deter gun crimes has forced the police to turn to federal courts to indict some suspects.

On Tuesday, Edwards made a new pitch: He wants to see the mandatory minimum sentence for armed criminal action raised from its current ceiling of three years to at least 15 years for nonfatal shootings, and 25 years for fatal shootings.

--------

D.C.

DC Won’t Allow Concealed Carry, But Takes It Easy On Armed, Violent Criminals

The problems stem from the city’s Youth Rehabilitation Act, legislation implemented in the 1980s to provide leniency to criminal offenders under the age of 22, even violent ones, with murder convictions being the only exception. It allows judges to disregard mandatory minimums meant to dissuade criminals, often to disastrous effects. The homicide rate spiked by 54 percent in the District in 2015, and 22 of the murderers were previously sentenced for crimes under the Youth Rehabilitation Act, according to an investigation by The Washington Post.

A man released on probation in 2015 under the law was involved in the July shooting death of Deeniquia Dodds, a transgender man. Just over 120 people previously sentenced under the Youth Rehabilitation Act have subsequently been convicted of murder since 2010.

“I knew they were going to let me off easy,” Tavon Pinkney, an 18-year old convicted of homicide in 2015, told The Washington Post regarding his previous sentencing under the youth law. “Nothing changed … They just gave me the Youth Act and let me go right back out there. They ain’t really care.”

key word '''DEBATING'' --that means you have no stats/proof/etc
the cities have the same diversity/etc
in fact, LA, CHi and NYC have much denser populations!!!

 

[idb]

You don't understand the damage that those wars did to the societies in Europe..... we didn't experience the loss of life and the destruction they did......

For the current situation? Read "Life at the Bottom," it will show you where the family is in Britain....

Don't I? How the fuck would you know?

The point I was making, and somehow it managed to slip massively past you, was that you said that the death of so many males caused families to break up, which then led to social problems, and therefore by the time the 2000s came along, and all this violence, the widowers of those who died in WW1 were probably dead, and widowers of WW2 were probably in their 80s or 90s.

So how the FUCK does that impact the 2000s?

Can you please explain how a person dying in WW1 impacted the crime rate going up in the 2000s?

No...moron, that isn't what I said... I said the destruction and death of the Two World Wars, and now that I think of it, the Depression, slowed down their society advancing the way the U.S. did.... So, moron, you have the death and destruction of World War 1, and it's aftermath, the Depression, and then World War 2.....major, catastrophic events....... and they slowed down those societies in Europe...... now you have the social welfare states wrecking the family structures in those countries, allowing young teenage girls to have children without husbands, and fathers for those children, so the young males have no one to raise them into young men.... And you are now seeing the effects of that in the increasing violence in those societies, especially Britain.....

Fascinating. How has the US managed to avoid the single mother problem ?

We haven't, you moron, which is why we have full prisons, and in our democrat party cities we have high gun murder rates.....that is what I keep telling you.......

So, the UK has an increase in violent crime in the 2000s because of the impact of WW1 and WW2. Yet the US which avoided a lot of that suffering on the home front has a much higher murder rate.

What are you fucking talking about?

There must be some logic in his mind there somewhere...buggered if I can pick it out though.

 

[candycorn]

Do they have 30,000+ gun deaths a year? No. They are doing something very right and we are doing something very wrong.

 

[harmonica]

I answer that all the time.....World War 1 and 2 destroyed those countries, and drained millions of young men from their countries...... They are behind the United States in every way until now...they are catching up to the destruction of the family...which is creating violent sociopaths.

Their criminals do not use their illegal guns to murder as often or as easily as American criminals....due to cultural factors, not gun control.

What part of the fact that gun crime is going up in Britain is beyond you to understand....? They are getting illegal guns in larger numbers...they need them, especially their 3rd world drug gangs, to control their drug territories....they just do not use them to murder...as I highlight in most of these posts...they shoot the legs, not to the chest or the head when they shoot...a cultural difference and even that is changing....

Read the book, "Life at the Bottom," because it shows how their welfare system and bureaucratic mess is creating the exact same situation you see in our violent, democrat controlled cities....and they are just getting there...while we were there back in the 1960s, since our country was untouched by the destruction of World war 1 and 2....

What a ridiculous answer.

WW1 and WW2 killing off lots of young men and destroying the family is the reason that violent crime hit a high in the early 2000s. What, 60 years later.

If your idiotic theory were true, it'd have happened in the 1950s.

You don't understand the damage that those wars did to the societies in Europe..... we didn't experience the loss of life and the destruction they did......

For the current situation? Read "Life at the Bottom," it will show you where the family is in Britain....

Don't I? How the fuck would you know?

The point I was making, and somehow it managed to slip massively past you, was that you said that the death of so many males caused families to break up, which then led to social problems, and therefore by the time the 2000s came along, and all this violence, the widowers of those who died in WW1 were probably dead, and widowers of WW2 were probably in their 80s or 90s.

So how the FUCK does that impact the 2000s?

Can you please explain how a person dying in WW1 impacted the crime rate going up in the 2000s?

No...moron, that isn't what I said... I said the destruction and death of the Two World Wars, and now that I think of it, the Depression, slowed down their society advancing the way the U.S. did.... So, moron, you have the death and destruction of World War 1, and it's aftermath, the Depression, and then World War 2.....major, catastrophic events....... and they slowed down those societies in Europe...... now you have the social welfare states wrecking the family structures in those countries, allowing young teenage girls to have children without husbands, and fathers for those children, so the young males have no one to raise them into young men.... And you are now seeing the effects of that in the increasing violence in those societies, especially Britain.....

Ah, insults. Why are you pulling the insults out?

Oh, oh, so societies in Europe slowed down, did they?

Do you see a slowing down here? After WW2 the economies of the UK, Japan and Germany boomed. Just like the US. There was a certain amount of slowing compared to the US because they had to rebuild countries bombed to hell by their enemies. But the reality is, post WW2 the western world was booming.

So, how did that lead to an increase in gun deaths in the 2000s in the UK, but not Germany or Japan?

But this is just like a hole. You keep digging and digging. You didn't have a clue what you were talking about before, making up "facts", and now you have to make up more "facts" to try and save face for having been shown how wrong you were the previous time.

good points

 

[frigidweirdo]

Don't I? How the fuck would you know?

The point I was making, and somehow it managed to slip massively past you, was that you said that the death of so many males caused families to break up, which then led to social problems, and therefore by the time the 2000s came along, and all this violence, the widowers of those who died in WW1 were probably dead, and widowers of WW2 were probably in their 80s or 90s.

So how the FUCK does that impact the 2000s?

Can you please explain how a person dying in WW1 impacted the crime rate going up in the 2000s?

No...moron, that isn't what I said... I said the destruction and death of the Two World Wars, and now that I think of it, the Depression, slowed down their society advancing the way the U.S. did.... So, moron, you have the death and destruction of World War 1, and it's aftermath, the Depression, and then World War 2.....major, catastrophic events....... and they slowed down those societies in Europe...... now you have the social welfare states wrecking the family structures in those countries, allowing young teenage girls to have children without husbands, and fathers for those children, so the young males have no one to raise them into young men.... And you are now seeing the effects of that in the increasing violence in those societies, especially Britain.....

Fascinating. How has the US managed to avoid the single mother problem ?

We haven't, you moron, which is why we have full prisons, and in our democrat party cities we have high gun murder rates.....that is what I keep telling you.......

So, the UK has an increase in violent crime in the 2000s because of the impact of WW1 and WW2. Yet the US which avoided a lot of that suffering on the home front has a much higher murder rate.

What are you fucking talking about?

There must be some logic in his mind there somewhere...buggered if I can pick it out though.

Potentially he has multiple personality disorder?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Don't I? How the fuck would you know?

The point I was making, and somehow it managed to slip massively past you, was that you said that the death of so many males caused families to break up, which then led to social problems, and therefore by the time the 2000s came along, and all this violence, the widowers of those who died in WW1 were probably dead, and widowers of WW2 were probably in their 80s or 90s.

So how the FUCK does that impact the 2000s?

Can you please explain how a person dying in WW1 impacted the crime rate going up in the 2000s?

No...moron, that isn't what I said... I said the destruction and death of the Two World Wars, and now that I think of it, the Depression, slowed down their society advancing the way the U.S. did.... So, moron, you have the death and destruction of World War 1, and it's aftermath, the Depression, and then World War 2.....major, catastrophic events....... and they slowed down those societies in Europe...... now you have the social welfare states wrecking the family structures in those countries, allowing young teenage girls to have children without husbands, and fathers for those children, so the young males have no one to raise them into young men.... And you are now seeing the effects of that in the increasing violence in those societies, especially Britain.....

Ah, insults. Why are you pulling the insults out?

Oh, oh, so societies in Europe slowed down, did they?

Do you see a slowing down here? After WW2 the economies of the UK, Japan and Germany boomed. Just like the US. There was a certain amount of slowing compared to the US because they had to rebuild countries bombed to hell by their enemies. But the reality is, post WW2 the western world was booming.

So, how did that lead to an increase in gun deaths in the 2000s in the UK, but not Germany or Japan?

But this is just like a hole. You keep digging and digging. You didn't have a clue what you were talking about before, making up "facts", and now you have to make up more "facts" to try and save face for having been shown how wrong you were the previous time.

Moron, after the war....... it set them back as a society, read some history of England after World War 2 ..... And then the social welfare state kicked in, you moron, and now we have had generations of teenage girls raising young males without fathers...which is why you are seeing the increase in violence there...

Again, read "Life at the Bottom...." It reads as if it was in the U.S.....

So you're suggesting that crime is caused by single parent families. Do you have anything to back this up? So, when the violent crime rate and murder rate went DOWN at the end of the 2000s, this was because there were LESS SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES?

Yep....... do you mean you don't know about this research?

Here......from the Atlantic......a left wing source looking at this...

Then go on and read "Life at the Bottom." about the British problem with crime and family breakdown...

The Real, Complex Connection Between Single-Parent Families and Crime - The Atlantic

But by ignoring a host of policy and cultural shifts during that time, Cohen fails to prove his conclusion. When crime was rising in the '80s and early '90s, legislators, police, and criminal justice experts naturally began to think about ways to counter it. They tried a number of approaches: increasing the number and presence of police on city streets and "broken windows" and "hot spot" policing (intensive and assertive police presence in specific areas where crimes have been committed.) In his recent book The City That Became Safe, criminologist Franklin Zimring, using the sort of careful regressions missing from Cohen's analysis, concludes that improved policing is the only plausible explanation for New York City's record drop in crime during these years. It's entirely possible that smart policing compensated for the initial causes of rising crime whatever they were, including massive family breakdown. It's also worth noting that Washington D.C., the city which is the subject of Cohen's analysis, has by far the largest per capita police force of any large city in the U.S. It also has one of the highest percentage of single-parent homes

-------

The 1987 "Survey of Youth in Custody" found that 70% did not grow up with both parents. Another 1994 study of Wisconsin juveniles was even more stark: only 13% grew up with their married parents. Here's the conclusion of Cynthia Harper and Sara McLanahan, the doyenne of researchers about single parenthood: "[C]ontrolling for income and all other factors, youths in father-absent families (mother only, mother-stepfather, and relatives/other) still had significantly higher odds of incarceration than those from mother-father families."
--------------
The bottom line is that there is a large body of literature showing that children of single mothers are more likely to commit crimes than children who grow up with their married parents. This is true not just in the United States, but wherever the issue has been researched.

I have no doubt that one of the factors of crime is single parenthood.

However it's one factor.

Now here's the thing, guns exacerbate such factors. Take a kid with problems at home, and allow him to easily get a gun, you've got a much WORSE situation than the same kid who struggles to get a gun.

That's what this issue is about, in the US there's easy access to guns, along with a total lack of dealing with social problems.

Britain saw a drop in crime, especially gun crime, because once the problem became apparent, people went out there to try and reduce that problem. And it worked. Now the right wing are in power, they couldn't be bothered to deal with such problems, so they rise again.

In the US no one seems to be bothered in certain places, so the effects are exacerbated by the easy access to guns.

 

[idb]

What a ridiculous answer.

WW1 and WW2 killing off lots of young men and destroying the family is the reason that violent crime hit a high in the early 2000s. What, 60 years later.

If your idiotic theory were true, it'd have happened in the 1950s.

You don't understand the damage that those wars did to the societies in Europe..... we didn't experience the loss of life and the destruction they did......

For the current situation? Read "Life at the Bottom," it will show you where the family is in Britain....

Don't I? How the fuck would you know?

The point I was making, and somehow it managed to slip massively past you, was that you said that the death of so many males caused families to break up, which then led to social problems, and therefore by the time the 2000s came along, and all this violence, the widowers of those who died in WW1 were probably dead, and widowers of WW2 were probably in their 80s or 90s.

So how the FUCK does that impact the 2000s?

Can you please explain how a person dying in WW1 impacted the crime rate going up in the 2000s?

No...moron, that isn't what I said... I said the destruction and death of the Two World Wars, and now that I think of it, the Depression, slowed down their society advancing the way the U.S. did.... So, moron, you have the death and destruction of World War 1, and it's aftermath, the Depression, and then World War 2.....major, catastrophic events....... and they slowed down those societies in Europe...... now you have the social welfare states wrecking the family structures in those countries, allowing young teenage girls to have children without husbands, and fathers for those children, so the young males have no one to raise them into young men.... And you are now seeing the effects of that in the increasing violence in those societies, especially Britain.....

If your reasoning about Britain being battered in two world wars (and now you throw in the Depression) causing crime rates to rise is true, then why has the US been so far ahead of them in this regard for so long?
Especially when, in your reasoning, they have been insulated from all this mayhem and living in a land of milk and honey.
Are you saying that Americans are just naturally bigger arseholes than the Brits?

Why do you hate Americans?

Our society didn't get hit with the destruction, we had a booming post War economy with stable families...it wasn't until the 1960s where we had the Great Society destroy those families...especially minority families in our democrat party controlled cities.... That is when single teenage girls could have children without fathers in the home.....and from the 1960s going forward you had the huge crime problem here.......Britain is just now starting that violence problem....

So....I think I might understand now.
Correct me if I've got it wrong.

In the UK, women who grew up during the World Wars and Depression are just starting to have children.
The children don't have fathers because all the men were killed in the War.
Also, they didn't have children before now because the place was a wreck...as well as all the men being dead.
The children are now out on a murderous rampage throughout the country.

It all makes perfect sense now.

 

[2aguy]

answer the question:
why is UK's murder rate 4 times lower?
or France's/Germany's?

I answer that all the time.....World War 1 and 2 destroyed those countries, and drained millions of young men from their countries...... They are behind the United States in every way until now...they are catching up to the destruction of the family...which is creating violent sociopaths.

Their criminals do not use their illegal guns to murder as often or as easily as American criminals....due to cultural factors, not gun control.

What part of the fact that gun crime is going up in Britain is beyond you to understand....? They are getting illegal guns in larger numbers...they need them, especially their 3rd world drug gangs, to control their drug territories....they just do not use them to murder...as I highlight in most of these posts...they shoot the legs, not to the chest or the head when they shoot...a cultural difference and even that is changing....

Read the book, "Life at the Bottom," because it shows how their welfare system and bureaucratic mess is creating the exact same situation you see in our violent, democrat controlled cities....and they are just getting there...while we were there back in the 1960s, since our country was untouched by the destruction of World war 1 and 2....

ok--and I've stated this before--if it's a difference of UK vs American culture and not gun control, explain this:
==very pro-gun/lax gun control St Louis:--population 320,000... murders -199
==very gun controlled NYC population 8.6 MILLION... murders-300 !!!!!!!!!!!!

very gun controlled Chicago and LA lower murder rates than very pro-gun STL

SAME country!!!!! SAME cultures

St. Louis homicide statistics for 2017
2017 was record-low for homicides in New York City, with NYPD logging lowest number in nearly 70 years - NY Daily News

Wrong....St. Louis, like chicago, lets violent gun criminals out of prison....you have been shown this over and over againg...in all the cities where gun crime is through the roof you have democrat policies allowing criminals out of prison....New York had Guilliani, who locked them up and his police policies are still in place...

It isn't normal, law abiding gun owners committing the crime....... when you keep letting the violent criminals out on bail, and out of jail, you get more gun murder...

You have missed the truth about this issue.

Mayor of St. Louis - Wikipedia


Rise in Murders Has St. Louis Debating Why

Jennifer M. Joyce, the city’s circuit attorney, or prosecutor, an elected position, complains that in St. Louis, the illegal possession of a gun is too often “a crime without a consequence,” making it difficult to stop confrontation from turning lethal.

At the same time, deeper social roots of violence such as addiction and unemployment continue unchecked. And city officials also cite what they call a “Ferguson effect,” an increase in crime last year as police officers were diverted to control protests after a white officer shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager in the nearby suburb on Aug. 9.

-----------

Now, an overstretched department is forced to pick one neighborhood at a time to flood with officers. Last month, Chief Dotson even asked the state highway patrol if it could lend a dozen men to help watch downtown streets; the agency declined.
----
When the police discover a gun in a car with several passengers, including some with felony records, but no one admits to owning the gun, criminal charges are often impossible, Mr. Rosenfeld said.

In addition, according to a 2014 study by Mr. Rosenfeld and his colleagues, a majority of those who are convicted of illegally possessing a gun but not caught using it in a crime receive probation rather than jail time. Gun laws and enforcement are stiffer in many other cities.

Violence down in St. Louis but homicides hold steady. Are tougher penalties for gun crimes the answer?
But many challenges remain, official said. The department is still down more than 130 officers. Witnesses to crimes remain reluctant to come forward for fear of retaliation, making it difficult to close cases. And a lack of state laws to deter gun crimes has forced the police to turn to federal courts to indict some suspects.

On Tuesday, Edwards made a new pitch: He wants to see the mandatory minimum sentence for armed criminal action raised from its current ceiling of three years to at least 15 years for nonfatal shootings, and 25 years for fatal shootings.

--------

D.C.

DC Won’t Allow Concealed Carry, But Takes It Easy On Armed, Violent Criminals

The problems stem from the city’s Youth Rehabilitation Act, legislation implemented in the 1980s to provide leniency to criminal offenders under the age of 22, even violent ones, with murder convictions being the only exception. It allows judges to disregard mandatory minimums meant to dissuade criminals, often to disastrous effects. The homicide rate spiked by 54 percent in the District in 2015, and 22 of the murderers were previously sentenced for crimes under the Youth Rehabilitation Act, according to an investigation by The Washington Post.

A man released on probation in 2015 under the law was involved in the July shooting death of Deeniquia Dodds, a transgender man. Just over 120 people previously sentenced under the Youth Rehabilitation Act have subsequently been convicted of murder since 2010.

“I knew they were going to let me off easy,” Tavon Pinkney, an 18-year old convicted of homicide in 2015, told The Washington Post regarding his previous sentencing under the youth law. “Nothing changed … They just gave me the Youth Act and let me go right back out there. They ain’t really care.”

key word '''DEBATING'' --that means you have no stats/proof/etc
the cities have the same diversity/etc
in fact, LA, CHi and NYC have much denser populations!!!

NYC had Guilliani....Chicago and St. Louis are letting violent criminals back on their streets....over and over again...

This is Chicago's problem...

A Detailed Look At Last Weekend's Chicago Gang Violence Shooting Victims - The Truth About Guns

Behind the scenes, Chicago Police put out a “Detailed Situational Report” (DSR) each weekday. On it, their “Data Warehouse” lists shooting incidents and murders along with guns recovered.
Inside, the report details the names and descriptions of each of the victims and suspects, including any gang affiliations and the location of each incident. Furthermore, it shows each person’s criminal history, a description of their injuries and their Strategic Subject List score. Lastly, it contains a narrative of what happened.
Because it’s Chicago — where support from “the community” typically hovers near zero — police seldom identify any suspects, much less make arrests. In fact, CPD has made arrests in only 13% of homicides so far in 2018.
A casual glance through the confidential DSR reveals that virtually every victim of Chicago violence last weekend had gang ties. Either as a member of a gang or those (often young females) who hang out with gang members. The other glaring common thread: the victims themselves usually have criminal histories, too.
In fact, poring over the fifteen pages of incidents (pasted end to end, that’s over 10 feet of incidents), only 21 of the 78 victims did not have a criminal history. Meanwhile, those with arrest records garnered a total of 813 arrests between them.
Eight hundred thirteen arrests.
At the same time, Cook County’s infamous “catch and release” criminal justice system only managed to gain convictions in 120 of those 813 arrests.
For example, one 23-year-old Black P. Stone gang member who was shot in the gut had 35 arrests and zero convictions. One perforated 66-year-old had 55 arrests!
Another 32-year-old Four Corner Hustlers member, Charles Green, had 62 arrests, but he won’t re-offend. Not after he suffered multiple gunshot wounds that proved fatal. Green’s colorful past included arrests for dope, more dope, armed robbery, and a murder for which Cook County prosecutor Kim Foxx released him without charges.
Tip for the day, besides avoiding Chicago: mommas, don’t let your girls hang out with gang members. Otherwise, they can find themselves caught in the crossfire, and they don’t always survive.
Three young adult women without any criminal history or gang affiliations suffered gunshot wounds in a single incident at 1338 S. Millard Ave. Two offenders began shooting into “a large street gathering” wounding a total of seven. Tragically, a 17-year-old girl named Jahnae Patterson died there from a wound to her face.
--------------
Meanwhile, another victim at that same location, aged 14, remains in good condition. How terrible, you say? That same 14-year-old named Marion already has two arrests for car burglaries and a Strategic Subject List (SSL) score of 385. The SSL score serves to indicate potential future criminal behavior. As defined by the City of Chicago:

Another case caught my eye. The victim, Miguel, a 19-year-old Hispanic male, told police he saw some people who recognized him emerge from a convenience store. For some unknown reason (he says) they began chasing him in the 3900 block of S. Rockwell. In the alley behind the store, he heard gunshots and felt pain.

Before you start oozing sympathy for this poor teen, know that CPD says Miguel also moonlights as a Satan Disciples gang member and has built his SSL score to 500. With a SSL score that high, Darwin will probably catch up with him soon enough, assuming he survives this hospital visit.

--------

Baltimore...

2017 homicide data provide insight into Baltimore's gun wars, police say



About 86 percent of the victims and 85 percent of the 118 suspects identified by police had prior criminal records. And about 46 percent of victims and 44 percent of suspects had previously been arrested for gun crimes, the data show.
----
The average homicide victim in Baltimore in 2017 had 11 previous arrests on his record. About 73 percent had drug arrests, and nearly 50 percent had been arrested for a violent crime. About 30 percent were on parole or probation at the time they were killed, and more than 6 percent were on parole or probation for a gun crime.

Twenty percent of the victims were known members of a gang or drug crew, according to the data.

The average homicide suspect, meanwhile, had 9 previous arrests on his record. About 70 percent had drug arrests, and nearly half had been arrested for a violent crime. Nearly 36 percent were on parole or probation, and 6 percent were on parole or probation for a gun crime, the data show.

Eighteen percent of the suspects were known members of a gang or drug crew, according to the data.

Police did not know the motive behind nearly half of the killings, but at least 20 were related to retaliation, according to the data.


=============

Chicago..


Actual report on shootings in chicago...http://urbanlabs.uchicago.edu/attachments/store/2435a5d4658e2ca19f4f225b810ce0dbdb9231cbdb8d702e784087469ee3/UChicagoCrimeLab+Gun+Violence+in+Chicago+2016.pdf


1/19/17 Shooters in Chicago criminal record research from U of C






Nearly 40 percent of victims had more than 10 prior arrests, while the share with more than 20 prior arrests rose from 14 to 18 percent in 2016.

The share of victims with a current or prior gang affiliation as recorded by CPD was about the same in both years (53 and 54 percent).

And now the shooters . . .

Individuals arrested for a homicide or shooting in Chicago in 2016 and 2015 had similar prior criminal records: around 90 percent had at least one prior arrest, approximately 50 percent had a prior arrest for a violent crime specifically, and almost 40 percent had a prior gun arrest.



The average person arrested for a homicide or shooting in both years had nearly 12 prior arrests, with almost 45 percent having had more than 10 prior arrests, and almost 20 percent having had more than 20 prior arrests.

Why is anyone in Chicago (or elsewhere) talking about gun control? Clearly, Chicago’s revolving door justice system is a failure that allows dangerous killers to roam the city streets.
============================


12/27/16 Gang shootings in Chicago over christmas..90% gang affiliated


Gang Killers In Chicago Used Christmas Gatherings To Target Their Victims

Gang killers, knowing their targets would be home for Christmas, launched a bloody weekend of shootings in Chicago that left 11 dead and another 37 wounded.

"We now know that the majority of these shootings and homicides were targeted attacks by gangs against potential rivals who were at holiday gatherings. This was followed by several acts of retaliatory gun violence," police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said in a statement Monday.

--------------

The violence primarily occurred in areas with historical gang conflicts on the South and West Side of Chicago."


And this is what we keep telling you anti gunners and you refuse to believe it....

"Ninety percent of those fatally wounded had gang affiliations, criminal histories and were pre-identified by the department's strategic subject algorithm as being a potential suspect or victim of gun violence," Guglielmi said.
==

 

[2aguy]

Do they have 30,000+ gun deaths a year? No. They are doing something very right and we are doing something very wrong.

they didn't have that many before they banned guns...now they have more gun crime after they banned guns for law abiding Brits....

Meanwhile...we have less gun crime as more Americans own and carry guns....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[2aguy]

No...moron, that isn't what I said... I said the destruction and death of the Two World Wars, and now that I think of it, the Depression, slowed down their society advancing the way the U.S. did.... So, moron, you have the death and destruction of World War 1, and it's aftermath, the Depression, and then World War 2.....major, catastrophic events....... and they slowed down those societies in Europe...... now you have the social welfare states wrecking the family structures in those countries, allowing young teenage girls to have children without husbands, and fathers for those children, so the young males have no one to raise them into young men.... And you are now seeing the effects of that in the increasing violence in those societies, especially Britain.....

Ah, insults. Why are you pulling the insults out?

Oh, oh, so societies in Europe slowed down, did they?

Do you see a slowing down here? After WW2 the economies of the UK, Japan and Germany boomed. Just like the US. There was a certain amount of slowing compared to the US because they had to rebuild countries bombed to hell by their enemies. But the reality is, post WW2 the western world was booming.

So, how did that lead to an increase in gun deaths in the 2000s in the UK, but not Germany or Japan?

But this is just like a hole. You keep digging and digging. You didn't have a clue what you were talking about before, making up "facts", and now you have to make up more "facts" to try and save face for having been shown how wrong you were the previous time.

Moron, after the war....... it set them back as a society, read some history of England after World War 2 ..... And then the social welfare state kicked in, you moron, and now we have had generations of teenage girls raising young males without fathers...which is why you are seeing the increase in violence there...

Again, read "Life at the Bottom...." It reads as if it was in the U.S.....

So you're suggesting that crime is caused by single parent families. Do you have anything to back this up? So, when the violent crime rate and murder rate went DOWN at the end of the 2000s, this was because there were LESS SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES?

Yep....... do you mean you don't know about this research?

Here......from the Atlantic......a left wing source looking at this...

Then go on and read "Life at the Bottom." about the British problem with crime and family breakdown...

The Real, Complex Connection Between Single-Parent Families and Crime - The Atlantic

But by ignoring a host of policy and cultural shifts during that time, Cohen fails to prove his conclusion. When crime was rising in the '80s and early '90s, legislators, police, and criminal justice experts naturally began to think about ways to counter it. They tried a number of approaches: increasing the number and presence of police on city streets and "broken windows" and "hot spot" policing (intensive and assertive police presence in specific areas where crimes have been committed.) In his recent book The City That Became Safe, criminologist Franklin Zimring, using the sort of careful regressions missing from Cohen's analysis, concludes that improved policing is the only plausible explanation for New York City's record drop in crime during these years. It's entirely possible that smart policing compensated for the initial causes of rising crime whatever they were, including massive family breakdown. It's also worth noting that Washington D.C., the city which is the subject of Cohen's analysis, has by far the largest per capita police force of any large city in the U.S. It also has one of the highest percentage of single-parent homes

-------

The 1987 "Survey of Youth in Custody" found that 70% did not grow up with both parents. Another 1994 study of Wisconsin juveniles was even more stark: only 13% grew up with their married parents. Here's the conclusion of Cynthia Harper and Sara McLanahan, the doyenne of researchers about single parenthood: "[C]ontrolling for income and all other factors, youths in father-absent families (mother only, mother-stepfather, and relatives/other) still had significantly higher odds of incarceration than those from mother-father families."
--------------
The bottom line is that there is a large body of literature showing that children of single mothers are more likely to commit crimes than children who grow up with their married parents. This is true not just in the United States, but wherever the issue has been researched.

I have no doubt that one of the factors of crime is single parenthood.

However it's one factor.

Now here's the thing, guns exacerbate such factors. Take a kid with problems at home, and allow him to easily get a gun, you've got a much WORSE situation than the same kid who struggles to get a gun.

That's what this issue is about, in the US there's easy access to guns, along with a total lack of dealing with social problems.

Britain saw a drop in crime, especially gun crime, because once the problem became apparent, people went out there to try and reduce that problem. And it worked. Now the right wing are in power, they couldn't be bothered to deal with such problems, so they rise again.

In the US no one seems to be bothered in certain places, so the effects are exacerbated by the easy access to guns.

Wrong.....again...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Don't I? How the fuck would you know?

The point I was making, and somehow it managed to slip massively past you, was that you said that the death of so many males caused families to break up, which then led to social problems, and therefore by the time the 2000s came along, and all this violence, the widowers of those who died in WW1 were probably dead, and widowers of WW2 were probably in their 80s or 90s.

So how the FUCK does that impact the 2000s?

Can you please explain how a person dying in WW1 impacted the crime rate going up in the 2000s?

No...moron, that isn't what I said... I said the destruction and death of the Two World Wars, and now that I think of it, the Depression, slowed down their society advancing the way the U.S. did.... So, moron, you have the death and destruction of World War 1, and it's aftermath, the Depression, and then World War 2.....major, catastrophic events....... and they slowed down those societies in Europe...... now you have the social welfare states wrecking the family structures in those countries, allowing young teenage girls to have children without husbands, and fathers for those children, so the young males have no one to raise them into young men.... And you are now seeing the effects of that in the increasing violence in those societies, especially Britain.....

Fascinating. How has the US managed to avoid the single mother problem ?

We haven't, you moron, which is why we have full prisons, and in our democrat party cities we have high gun murder rates.....that is what I keep telling you.......

So, the UK has an increase in violent crime in the 2000s because of the impact of WW1 and WW2. Yet the US which avoided a lot of that suffering on the home front has a much higher murder rate.

What are you fucking talking about?

It has to do with the destruction of the family.....single teenage girls raising young males..... we reached that point earlier...in the 1960s, because we didn't get set back by World War 2....they fell behind, and now are catching up, their social welfare programs have finally reached the point where they have destroyed their families...

Well, WW1 and WW2 had nothing to do with the destruction of the families in the UK.

Maggie "the bitch" Thatcher had A LOT TO DO with the destruction of the family.

How Britain changed under Margaret Thatcher. In 15 charts

"
Families
Ironically for a prime minister who focussed so much on family life, the 1980s saw the end of the traditional family unit for many. Divorce rates reached 13.4 per 1,000 married population in 1985, although that wasn't as high as the peak of 1994 after the recession."

Ah, Thatcher came in in 1979 and left in 1990 and the divorce rate rose during her time and after.

She got rid of things like council houses which allowed people to have a home, which helps when you want to keep a family.

Shotton, 1984: How Thatcher destroyed our town

She destroyed communities and didn't bother to try and help them.

Viewpoints: How did Thatcher change UK?

"The problem was that the Thatcher government did not care about those who lost out as a result of it and did not do enough to replenish the housing stock that had been sold off."

So, Thatcher was the problem, not wars that happened half a century or more before. Major didn't help either. The Tories like to destroy things that keep things good.

Who needs the police? The rich can pay for private security.
Who needs education? The rich can pay for private education.
Who needs health care? The rich can pay for private health care.

See the problem?

 

[2aguy]

You don't understand the damage that those wars did to the societies in Europe..... we didn't experience the loss of life and the destruction they did......

For the current situation? Read "Life at the Bottom," it will show you where the family is in Britain....

Don't I? How the fuck would you know?

The point I was making, and somehow it managed to slip massively past you, was that you said that the death of so many males caused families to break up, which then led to social problems, and therefore by the time the 2000s came along, and all this violence, the widowers of those who died in WW1 were probably dead, and widowers of WW2 were probably in their 80s or 90s.

So how the FUCK does that impact the 2000s?

Can you please explain how a person dying in WW1 impacted the crime rate going up in the 2000s?

No...moron, that isn't what I said... I said the destruction and death of the Two World Wars, and now that I think of it, the Depression, slowed down their society advancing the way the U.S. did.... So, moron, you have the death and destruction of World War 1, and it's aftermath, the Depression, and then World War 2.....major, catastrophic events....... and they slowed down those societies in Europe...... now you have the social welfare states wrecking the family structures in those countries, allowing young teenage girls to have children without husbands, and fathers for those children, so the young males have no one to raise them into young men.... And you are now seeing the effects of that in the increasing violence in those societies, especially Britain.....

If your reasoning about Britain being battered in two world wars (and now you throw in the Depression) causing crime rates to rise is true, then why has the US been so far ahead of them in this regard for so long?
Especially when, in your reasoning, they have been insulated from all this mayhem and living in a land of milk and honey.
Are you saying that Americans are just naturally bigger arseholes than the Brits?

Why do you hate Americans?

Our society didn't get hit with the destruction, we had a booming post War economy with stable families...it wasn't until the 1960s where we had the Great Society destroy those families...especially minority families in our democrat party controlled cities.... That is when single teenage girls could have children without fathers in the home.....and from the 1960s going forward you had the huge crime problem here.......Britain is just now starting that violence problem....

So....I think I might understand now.
Correct me if I've got it wrong.

In the UK, women who grew up during the World Wars and Depression are just starting to have children.
The children don't have fathers because all the men were killed in the War.
Also, they didn't have children before now because the place was a wreck...as well as all the men being dead.
The children are now out on a murderous rampage throughout the country.

It all makes perfect sense now.

No....moron. The British culture was still intact right after the war so they still had family structures in place..... then they started their social welfare state which allowed young girls to have children without husbands and fathers...

 

[Pilot1]

In the UK it is ILLEGAL to use a firearm for self defense purposes, and their are extremely restrictive rules for ownership, what can, and can not be legally owned, and where they can be kept.