17 year old shot in Britain....where they have extreme gun control...

[NoNukes]

This is the difference between American criminals and British criminals...in Britain, the criminals tend to shoot their victims in the legs, in order to not kill them, but simply to punish or threaten them. In the U.S., our criminals kill ........ different culture, different practices....and nothing to do with guns...

Updates as teenager shot in park after gang ambush

Updates after a teenager was shot after a gang attack in a Huyton park.

The 17-year-old victim was gunned down as he walked through the park in Woolfall Heath last night.


As he turned round he was hit in the face and then shot in the leg.

A police spokeswoman said officers are carrying out searches today.

The victim with the help of a relative turned up at hospital with a gunshot wound to his thigh, which is not believed to be life threatening.

One person was shot? Let me know when they have one of our mass shootings with an AR15.

One was shot? We would take that.

In the minute it took me to post this 100 people were shot in America

Right, so gun violence was lower in the UK, before they had extreme gun control.

Now they do, and more people are getting shot.

Proving that gun control does not work. Period.

This is like two people going on a diet, one being 200 lbs, and the other 150 lbs. After a month, the 200 lbs person is down to 190, and the 150 person is up to 160.... and you saying "see the diet works for the skinny guy! He only weights 160 lbs!'

No. it didn't work. He only weights less, because he weighted less to start with.

Gun control in the UK has clearly and utterly failed miserably. Gun violence is UP. Not down.

Decade-high gun crime for four counties

It does not work. Your system DOES NOT WORK. PERIOD. You fail sir. Your idiotic approaches have failed at everything.

You do not know how things might be different if they had not made the laws.

"Guns Laws will prevent people from getting guns".

This statement is either true or false.

"Alcohol laws will prevent people from getting alcohol"

Was that true in the 1930s?

"Drug laws will prevent people from getting illegal drugs"

Is that true today?

"Guns laws will prevent people from getting guns"

Surge in knife and gun crime in England and Wales

Is that true? Yes or no?


If no.... then we should learn from that, and stop pursing idiotic policies that don't work.

When the UK is up to 200 mass shootings in a year, get back to me. You might be smarter by this point.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

This is the difference between American criminals and British criminals...in Britain, the criminals tend to shoot their victims in the legs, in order to not kill them, but simply to punish or threaten them. In the U.S., our criminals kill ........ different culture, different practices....and nothing to do with guns...

Updates as teenager shot in park after gang ambush

Updates after a teenager was shot after a gang attack in a Huyton park.

The 17-year-old victim was gunned down as he walked through the park in Woolfall Heath last night.


As he turned round he was hit in the face and then shot in the leg.

A police spokeswoman said officers are carrying out searches today.

The victim with the help of a relative turned up at hospital with a gunshot wound to his thigh, which is not believed to be life threatening.

One person was shot? Let me know when they have one of our mass shootings with an AR15.

One was shot? We would take that.

In the minute it took me to post this 100 people were shot in America

Right, so gun violence was lower in the UK, before they had extreme gun control.

Now they do, and more people are getting shot.

Proving that gun control does not work. Period.

This is like two people going on a diet, one being 200 lbs, and the other 150 lbs. After a month, the 200 lbs person is down to 190, and the 150 person is up to 160.... and you saying "see the diet works for the skinny guy! He only weights 160 lbs!'

No. it didn't work. He only weights less, because he weighted less to start with.

Gun control in the UK has clearly and utterly failed miserably. Gun violence is UP. Not down.

Decade-high gun crime for four counties

It does not work. Your system DOES NOT WORK. PERIOD. You fail sir. Your idiotic approaches have failed at everything.

You do not know how things might be different if they had not made the laws.

"Guns Laws will prevent people from getting guns".

This statement is either true or false.

"Alcohol laws will prevent people from getting alcohol"

Was that true in the 1930s?

"Drug laws will prevent people from getting illegal drugs"

Is that true today?

"Guns laws will prevent people from getting guns"

Surge in knife and gun crime in England and Wales

Is that true? Yes or no?


If no.... then we should learn from that, and stop pursing idiotic policies that don't work.

When the UK is up to 200 mass shootings in a year, get back to me. You might be smarter by this point.

They are unable to explain the yawning chasm between our stats and those in the US.

 

[2aguy]

This is the difference between American criminals and British criminals...in Britain, the criminals tend to shoot their victims in the legs, in order to not kill them, but simply to punish or threaten them. In the U.S., our criminals kill ........ different culture, different practices....and nothing to do with guns...

Updates as teenager shot in park after gang ambush

Updates after a teenager was shot after a gang attack in a Huyton park.

The 17-year-old victim was gunned down as he walked through the park in Woolfall Heath last night.


As he turned round he was hit in the face and then shot in the leg.

A police spokeswoman said officers are carrying out searches today.

The victim with the help of a relative turned up at hospital with a gunshot wound to his thigh, which is not believed to be life threatening.

One person was shot? Let me know when they have one of our mass shootings with an AR15.

One was shot? We would take that.

In the minute it took me to post this 100 people were shot in America

Right, so gun violence was lower in the UK, before they had extreme gun control.

Now they do, and more people are getting shot.

Proving that gun control does not work. Period.

This is like two people going on a diet, one being 200 lbs, and the other 150 lbs. After a month, the 200 lbs person is down to 190, and the 150 person is up to 160.... and you saying "see the diet works for the skinny guy! He only weights 160 lbs!'

No. it didn't work. He only weights less, because he weighted less to start with.

Gun control in the UK has clearly and utterly failed miserably. Gun violence is UP. Not down.

Decade-high gun crime for four counties

It does not work. Your system DOES NOT WORK. PERIOD. You fail sir. Your idiotic approaches have failed at everything.

You do not know how things might be different if they had not made the laws.

"Guns Laws will prevent people from getting guns".

This statement is either true or false.

"Alcohol laws will prevent people from getting alcohol"

Was that true in the 1930s?

"Drug laws will prevent people from getting illegal drugs"

Is that true today?

"Guns laws will prevent people from getting guns"

Surge in knife and gun crime in England and Wales

Is that true? Yes or no?


If no.... then we should learn from that, and stop pursing idiotic policies that don't work.

When the UK is up to 200 mass shootings in a year, get back to me. You might be smarter by this point.

We don't have 200 mass shootings a year....moron. In 2018 we had a total of 12, with a total of 93 killed......cars killed over 38,000 people.....

 

[2aguy]

One person was shot? Let me know when they have one of our mass shootings with an AR15.

One was shot? We would take that.

In the minute it took me to post this 100 people were shot in America

Right, so gun violence was lower in the UK, before they had extreme gun control.

Now they do, and more people are getting shot.

Proving that gun control does not work. Period.

This is like two people going on a diet, one being 200 lbs, and the other 150 lbs. After a month, the 200 lbs person is down to 190, and the 150 person is up to 160.... and you saying "see the diet works for the skinny guy! He only weights 160 lbs!'

No. it didn't work. He only weights less, because he weighted less to start with.

Gun control in the UK has clearly and utterly failed miserably. Gun violence is UP. Not down.

Decade-high gun crime for four counties

It does not work. Your system DOES NOT WORK. PERIOD. You fail sir. Your idiotic approaches have failed at everything.

You do not know how things might be different if they had not made the laws.

"Guns Laws will prevent people from getting guns".

This statement is either true or false.

"Alcohol laws will prevent people from getting alcohol"

Was that true in the 1930s?

"Drug laws will prevent people from getting illegal drugs"

Is that true today?

"Guns laws will prevent people from getting guns"

Surge in knife and gun crime in England and Wales

Is that true? Yes or no?


If no.... then we should learn from that, and stop pursing idiotic policies that don't work.

When the UK is up to 200 mass shootings in a year, get back to me. You might be smarter by this point.

They are unable to explain the yawning chasm between our stats and those in the US.

They have been explained...fatherless homes since the 1960s in the U.S. and now in Britain you are experiencing the same thing......your murder rate is going up, and illegal guns are flooding your country.

 

[Vagabond63]

If "fatherlesness" is creating generations of bad boys then gun control is vital to stop them buying weapons in order to kick start their criminal careers

 

[2aguy]

If "fatherlesness" is creating generations of bad boys then gun control is vital to stop them buying weapons in order to kick start their criminal careers

Yeah....no.....as more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate went down 49%, our gun crime rate went down 75%....so you would be wrong on the solution. The actual solution? When you have a violent gun offender, lock them up for a long time. That is the actual solution. Our gun murder rate is caused not by normal people who own guns....for sport, self defense and hunting, but by repeat violent offenders released from jail and prison over and over again because the democrats believe in a false narrative of the violent criminal as a victim.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Right, so gun violence was lower in the UK, before they had extreme gun control.

Now they do, and more people are getting shot.

Proving that gun control does not work. Period.

This is like two people going on a diet, one being 200 lbs, and the other 150 lbs. After a month, the 200 lbs person is down to 190, and the 150 person is up to 160.... and you saying "see the diet works for the skinny guy! He only weights 160 lbs!'

No. it didn't work. He only weights less, because he weighted less to start with.

Gun control in the UK has clearly and utterly failed miserably. Gun violence is UP. Not down.

Decade-high gun crime for four counties

It does not work. Your system DOES NOT WORK. PERIOD. You fail sir. Your idiotic approaches have failed at everything.

You do not know how things might be different if they had not made the laws.

"Guns Laws will prevent people from getting guns".

This statement is either true or false.

"Alcohol laws will prevent people from getting alcohol"

Was that true in the 1930s?

"Drug laws will prevent people from getting illegal drugs"

Is that true today?

"Guns laws will prevent people from getting guns"

Surge in knife and gun crime in England and Wales

Is that true? Yes or no?


If no.... then we should learn from that, and stop pursing idiotic policies that don't work.

When the UK is up to 200 mass shootings in a year, get back to me. You might be smarter by this point.

They are unable to explain the yawning chasm between our stats and those in the US.

They have been explained...fatherless homes since the 1960s in the U.S. and now in Britain you are experiencing the same thing......your murder rate is going up, and illegal guns are flooding your country.

No they havent been explained. You produced two links. One a quote from a dickhead right wing failure spewing up nonsense without any stats to back it up. The other being a research project into um 68 kids in a poor area.
This sort of shit has been tory dogma for decades so that they can deflect attention from social problems caused by their shit policies.
And it still doesnt explain the enormous gap in slaughter between the US and the developed world.

Explain this numbnuts.

 

[2aguy]

You do not know how things might be different if they had not made the laws.

"Guns Laws will prevent people from getting guns".

This statement is either true or false.

"Alcohol laws will prevent people from getting alcohol"

Was that true in the 1930s?

"Drug laws will prevent people from getting illegal drugs"

Is that true today?

"Guns laws will prevent people from getting guns"

Surge in knife and gun crime in England and Wales

Is that true? Yes or no?


If no.... then we should learn from that, and stop pursing idiotic policies that don't work.

When the UK is up to 200 mass shootings in a year, get back to me. You might be smarter by this point.

They are unable to explain the yawning chasm between our stats and those in the US.

They have been explained...fatherless homes since the 1960s in the U.S. and now in Britain you are experiencing the same thing......your murder rate is going up, and illegal guns are flooding your country.

No they havent been explained. You produced two links. One a quote from a dickhead right wing failure spewing up nonsense without any stats to back it up. The other being a research project into um 68 kids in a poor area.
This sort of shit has been tory dogma for decades so that they can deflect attention from social problems caused by their shit policies.
And it still doesnt explain the enormous gap in slaughter between the US and the developed world.

Explain this numbnuts. View attachment 286428

Yeah, it does.....the Great Society here happened to us in the 1960s.....from the mid 1960s to the early 90s we had a massive spike in violent crime......your society experienced the set back of World War 2....you are now experiencing what we experienced with the Great Society...deny it all you want, you will be witness to the bloodshed and violence...

 

[Tommy Tainant]

"Guns Laws will prevent people from getting guns".

This statement is either true or false.

"Alcohol laws will prevent people from getting alcohol"

Was that true in the 1930s?

"Drug laws will prevent people from getting illegal drugs"

Is that true today?

"Guns laws will prevent people from getting guns"

Surge in knife and gun crime in England and Wales

Is that true? Yes or no?


If no.... then we should learn from that, and stop pursing idiotic policies that don't work.

When the UK is up to 200 mass shootings in a year, get back to me. You might be smarter by this point.

They are unable to explain the yawning chasm between our stats and those in the US.

They have been explained...fatherless homes since the 1960s in the U.S. and now in Britain you are experiencing the same thing......your murder rate is going up, and illegal guns are flooding your country.

No they havent been explained. You produced two links. One a quote from a dickhead right wing failure spewing up nonsense without any stats to back it up. The other being a research project into um 68 kids in a poor area.
This sort of shit has been tory dogma for decades so that they can deflect attention from social problems caused by their shit policies.
And it still doesnt explain the enormous gap in slaughter between the US and the developed world.

Explain this numbnuts. View attachment 286428

Yeah, it does.....the Great Society here happened to us in the 1960s.....from the mid 1960s to the early 90s we had a massive spike in violent crime......your society experienced the set back of World War 2....you are now experiencing what we experienced with the Great Society...deny it all you want, you will be witness to the bloodshed and violence...

Its bullshit. Why didnt WW2 cause a spike in violent crime ? That was the biggest dislocation in society. Also WW1 saw an enormous breakdown of the family. Both of my Grandmothers lost their fathers. No spike in violent crime followed either.

You just like the sound of your theory because you are comfortable with it. I also suspect that you use "fatherless" as code for black because of your racist nature.

 

[Vagabond63]

Yeah....no.....as more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate went down 49%, our gun crime rate went down 75%....

There's no correlation between gun ownership and gun crime rate, we've been over this every time you post this BS. You have no idea how many Americans own guns or have owned guns in the past because you have no universal registration of gun owners or how many guns are owned by individuals. As for crime decline since the 1990s there are many studies that offer possible explanations, NONE of them cite increase in gun ownership as a factor.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah....no.....as more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate went down 49%, our gun crime rate went down 75%....

There's no correlation between gun ownership and gun crime rate, we've been over this every time you post this BS. You have no idea how many Americans own guns or have owned guns in the past because you have no universal registration of gun owners or how many guns are owned by individuals. As for crime decline since the 1990s there are many studies that offer possible explanations, NONE of them cite increase in gun ownership as a factor.

You are wrong.....but we don't have to argue about more guns decreasing gun crime for you to be wrong.

The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...

 

[2aguy]

When the UK is up to 200 mass shootings in a year, get back to me. You might be smarter by this point.

They are unable to explain the yawning chasm between our stats and those in the US.

They have been explained...fatherless homes since the 1960s in the U.S. and now in Britain you are experiencing the same thing......your murder rate is going up, and illegal guns are flooding your country.

No they havent been explained. You produced two links. One a quote from a dickhead right wing failure spewing up nonsense without any stats to back it up. The other being a research project into um 68 kids in a poor area.
This sort of shit has been tory dogma for decades so that they can deflect attention from social problems caused by their shit policies.
And it still doesnt explain the enormous gap in slaughter between the US and the developed world.

Explain this numbnuts. View attachment 286428

Yeah, it does.....the Great Society here happened to us in the 1960s.....from the mid 1960s to the early 90s we had a massive spike in violent crime......your society experienced the set back of World War 2....you are now experiencing what we experienced with the Great Society...deny it all you want, you will be witness to the bloodshed and violence...

Its bullshit. Why didnt WW2 cause a spike in violent crime ? That was the biggest dislocation in society. Also WW1 saw an enormous breakdown of the family. Both of my Grandmothers lost their fathers. No spike in violent crime followed either.

You just like the sound of your theory because you are comfortable with it. I also suspect that you use "fatherless" as code for black because of your racist nature.

Young males died in the war....leaving the old men to keep up the social norms..... Britain is a class based society, the U.S. is not......culture and social norms were intact until the social welfare state wrecked them, and the increase in immigrants from 3rd world countries has also increased violence.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah....no.....as more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate went down 49%, our gun crime rate went down 75%....

There's no correlation between gun ownership and gun crime rate, we've been over this every time you post this BS. You have no idea how many Americans own guns or have owned guns in the past because you have no universal registration of gun owners or how many guns are owned by individuals. As for crime decline since the 1990s there are many studies that offer possible explanations, NONE of them cite increase in gun ownership as a factor.

More guns does help lower the crime rate...

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Maltz.pdf


Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Our results indicated that the direction of effect of the shall-issue law on total SHR homicide rates was similar to that obtained by Lott and Mustard, although the magnitude of the effect was somewhat smaller and was statistically significant at the 7 percent level. In our analysis, which included only counties with a 1977 population of 100,000 or more, laws allowing for concealed weapons were associated with a 6.52 percent reduction in total homicides (Table 2). By comparison, Lott and Mustard found the concealed weapon dummy variable to be associated with a 7.65 percent reduction in total homicides across all counties and a 9 percent reduction in homicides when only large counties (populations of 100,000 or more) were included.43
====

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf

COMMENTS

Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî Florenz Plassmann* & John Whitley**

CONCLUSION Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect.

For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 and $3 billion per year.

The results are very similar to earlier estimates using county-level data from 1977 to 1996. We appreciate the continuing effort that Ayres and Donohue have made in discussing the impact of right-to-carry laws on crime rates. Yet we believe that both the new evidence provided by them as well as our new results show consistently that right-to-carry laws reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately, a few simple mistakes lead Ayres and Donohue to incorrectly claim that crime rates significantly increase after right-to-carry laws are initially adopted and to misinterpret the significance of their own estimates that examined the year-to-year impact of the law.

====

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...An-Exercise-in-Replication.proof_.revised.pdf

~ The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication1

Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary - Department of Economics, Virginia 23187, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] Thomas B. Marvell Justec Research, Virginia 23185, U.S.A. Paul R. Zimmerman U.S. Federal Trade Commission - Bureau of Economics, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Fasil Alemante College of William and Mary, Virginia 23187, U.S.A.


Abstract: In an article published in 2011, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang found that shall-issue or right-to-carry (RTC) concealed weapons laws have no effect on any crime except for a positive effect on assault.

This paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem.

Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder.
====
An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates
Mark Gius

Abstract

The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates.

Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states.

It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).

===


“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..


Summary and Conclusion

Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime.

However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years

. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime.

Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering.

We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend.

These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted.

The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review

 

[2aguy]

When the UK is up to 200 mass shootings in a year, get back to me. You might be smarter by this point.

They are unable to explain the yawning chasm between our stats and those in the US.

They have been explained...fatherless homes since the 1960s in the U.S. and now in Britain you are experiencing the same thing......your murder rate is going up, and illegal guns are flooding your country.

No they havent been explained. You produced two links. One a quote from a dickhead right wing failure spewing up nonsense without any stats to back it up. The other being a research project into um 68 kids in a poor area.
This sort of shit has been tory dogma for decades so that they can deflect attention from social problems caused by their shit policies.
And it still doesnt explain the enormous gap in slaughter between the US and the developed world.

Explain this numbnuts. View attachment 286428

Yeah, it does.....the Great Society here happened to us in the 1960s.....from the mid 1960s to the early 90s we had a massive spike in violent crime......your society experienced the set back of World War 2....you are now experiencing what we experienced with the Great Society...deny it all you want, you will be witness to the bloodshed and violence...

Its bullshit. Why didnt WW2 cause a spike in violent crime ? That was the biggest dislocation in society. Also WW1 saw an enormous breakdown of the family. Both of my Grandmothers lost their fathers. No spike in violent crime followed either.

You just like the sound of your theory because you are comfortable with it. I also suspect that you use "fatherless" as code for black because of your racist nature.

Blacks in the U.S. do account for more murder than their population size, but fatherless homes effect all races..and violence levels...

Crime linked to absent fathers

Having a biological father who maintained a close relationship with his son, whether or not he lived in the family home, might be crucial in preventing susceptible boys becoming criminals, research presented yesterday suggested.

But stepfathers appeared to do little to decrease the risk that a boy will turn to crime, the conference of the British Psychological Society's division of forensic psychology heard in Birmingham.

The study by the clinical psychologist Jenny Taylor looked at why a proportion of boys with all the "risk factors" associated with criminal behaviour resisted a life of crime.

Drawing on data from socially deprived areas of south London, she compared a group of "good boys", who had no criminal convictions and had caused teachers no trouble, with a group of "bad boys" at a secure unit for unmanageable adolescents, many of them persisitent offenders convicted of sexual assault, theft and stealing vehicles.

All 68 boys, aged between 12 and 16, were from working class backgrounds, had lower than average intellectual ability, had similar problems with their peers and with hyperactivity, had equally large families, and in both groups 40% suffered from dyslexia.
NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service

The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency reports that the most reliable indicator of violent crime in a community is the proportion of fatherless families.

Fathers typically offer economic stability, a role model for boys, greater household security, and reduced stress for mothers. This is especially true for families with adolescent boys, the most crime-prone cohort. Children from single-parent families are more prone than children from two-parent families to use drugs, be gang members, be expelled from school, be committed to reform institutions, and become juvenile murderers. Single parenthood inevitably reduces the amount of time a child has in interaction with someone who is attentive to the child's needs, including the provision of moral guidance and discipline.


According to a 1993 Metropolitan Life Survey, "Violence in America's Public Schools," 71 percent of teachers and 90 percent of law enforcement officials state that the lack of parental supervision at home is a major factor that contributes to the violence in schools. Sixty-one percent of elementary students and 76 percent of secondary children agree with this assessment.

 

[2aguy]

When the UK is up to 200 mass shootings in a year, get back to me. You might be smarter by this point.

They are unable to explain the yawning chasm between our stats and those in the US.

They have been explained...fatherless homes since the 1960s in the U.S. and now in Britain you are experiencing the same thing......your murder rate is going up, and illegal guns are flooding your country.

No they havent been explained. You produced two links. One a quote from a dickhead right wing failure spewing up nonsense without any stats to back it up. The other being a research project into um 68 kids in a poor area.
This sort of shit has been tory dogma for decades so that they can deflect attention from social problems caused by their shit policies.
And it still doesnt explain the enormous gap in slaughter between the US and the developed world.

Explain this numbnuts. View attachment 286428

Yeah, it does.....the Great Society here happened to us in the 1960s.....from the mid 1960s to the early 90s we had a massive spike in violent crime......your society experienced the set back of World War 2....you are now experiencing what we experienced with the Great Society...deny it all you want, you will be witness to the bloodshed and violence...

Its bullshit. Why didnt WW2 cause a spike in violent crime ? That was the biggest dislocation in society. Also WW1 saw an enormous breakdown of the family. Both of my Grandmothers lost their fathers. No spike in violent crime followed either.

You just like the sound of your theory because you are comfortable with it. I also suspect that you use "fatherless" as code for black because of your racist nature.

Fatherless homes come in all colors you doofus...


The Real Root Causes of Violent Crime: The Breakdown of Marriage, Family, and Community

A review of the empirical evidence in the professional literature of the social sciences gives policymakers an insight into the root causes of crime. Consider, for instance:

• Over the past thirty years, the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers.
• High-crime neighborhoods are characterized by high concentrations of families abandoned by fathers.
• State-by-state analysis by Heritage scholars indicates that a 10 percent increase in the percentage of children living in single-parent homes leads typically to a 17 percent increase in juvenile crime.
• The rate of violent teenage crime corresponds with the number of families abandoned by fathers.
• The type of aggression and hostility demonstrated by a future criminal often is foreshadowed in unusual aggressiveness as early as age five or six.
• The future criminal tends to be an individual rejected by other children as early as the first grade who goes on to form his own group of friends, often the future delinquent gang.

On the other hand:

• Neighborhoods with a high degree of religious practice are not high-crime neighborhoods.
• Even in high-crime inner-city neighborhoods, well over 90 percent of children from safe, stable homes do not become delinquents. By contrast only 10 percent of children from unsafe, unstable homes in these neighborhoods avoid crime.
• Criminals capable of sustaining marriage gradually move away from a life of crime after they get married.
• The mother's strong affectionate attachment to her child is the child's best buffer against a life of crime.
• The father's authority and involvement in raising his children are also a great buffer against a life of crime.

The scholarly evidence, in short, suggests that at the heart of the explosion of crime in America is the loss of the capacity of fathers and mothers to be responsible in caring for the children they bring into the world.
This loss of love and guidance at the intimate levels of marriage and family has broad social consequences for children and for the wider community.
The empirical evidence shows that too many young men and women from broken families tend to have a much weaker sense of connection with their neighborhood and are prone to exploit its members to satisfy their unmet needs or desires.
This contributes to a loss of a sense of community and to the disintegration of neighborhoods into social chaos and violent crime. If policymakers are to deal with the root causes of crime, therefore, they must deal with the rapid rise of illegitimacy.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

They are unable to explain the yawning chasm between our stats and those in the US.

They have been explained...fatherless homes since the 1960s in the U.S. and now in Britain you are experiencing the same thing......your murder rate is going up, and illegal guns are flooding your country.

No they havent been explained. You produced two links. One a quote from a dickhead right wing failure spewing up nonsense without any stats to back it up. The other being a research project into um 68 kids in a poor area.
This sort of shit has been tory dogma for decades so that they can deflect attention from social problems caused by their shit policies.
And it still doesnt explain the enormous gap in slaughter between the US and the developed world.

Explain this numbnuts. View attachment 286428

Yeah, it does.....the Great Society here happened to us in the 1960s.....from the mid 1960s to the early 90s we had a massive spike in violent crime......your society experienced the set back of World War 2....you are now experiencing what we experienced with the Great Society...deny it all you want, you will be witness to the bloodshed and violence...

Its bullshit. Why didnt WW2 cause a spike in violent crime ? That was the biggest dislocation in society. Also WW1 saw an enormous breakdown of the family. Both of my Grandmothers lost their fathers. No spike in violent crime followed either.

You just like the sound of your theory because you are comfortable with it. I also suspect that you use "fatherless" as code for black because of your racist nature.

Young males died in the war....leaving the old men to keep up the social norms..... Britain is a class based society, the U.S. is not......culture and social norms were intact until the social welfare state wrecked them, and the increase in immigrants from 3rd world countries has also increased violence.

The welfare state was introduced in the 40s , explain how it wrecked our society 70 years later ? You grab "facts" out of your arse and present them as truth. But they have no basis in reality.
Old men maintaining the "social norms" ? WTF is that all about ?

 

[2aguy]

They have been explained...fatherless homes since the 1960s in the U.S. and now in Britain you are experiencing the same thing......your murder rate is going up, and illegal guns are flooding your country.

No they havent been explained. You produced two links. One a quote from a dickhead right wing failure spewing up nonsense without any stats to back it up. The other being a research project into um 68 kids in a poor area.
This sort of shit has been tory dogma for decades so that they can deflect attention from social problems caused by their shit policies.
And it still doesnt explain the enormous gap in slaughter between the US and the developed world.

Explain this numbnuts. View attachment 286428

Yeah, it does.....the Great Society here happened to us in the 1960s.....from the mid 1960s to the early 90s we had a massive spike in violent crime......your society experienced the set back of World War 2....you are now experiencing what we experienced with the Great Society...deny it all you want, you will be witness to the bloodshed and violence...

Its bullshit. Why didnt WW2 cause a spike in violent crime ? That was the biggest dislocation in society. Also WW1 saw an enormous breakdown of the family. Both of my Grandmothers lost their fathers. No spike in violent crime followed either.

You just like the sound of your theory because you are comfortable with it. I also suspect that you use "fatherless" as code for black because of your racist nature.

Young males died in the war....leaving the old men to keep up the social norms..... Britain is a class based society, the U.S. is not......culture and social norms were intact until the social welfare state wrecked them, and the increase in immigrants from 3rd world countries has also increased violence.

The welfare state was introduced in the 40s , explain how it wrecked our society 70 years later ? You grab "facts" out of your arse and present them as truth. But they have no basis in reality.
Old men maintaining the "social norms" ? WTF is that all about ?

It took our welfare state, the "Great Society" from the 1960s to spike our crime rates going into the 1990s. The social structure of Britain and the war kept the social norms in place longer.....they are now breaking down....I advise you to read "Life at the Bottom," to see what is happening to Britain...

 

[Tommy Tainant]

No they havent been explained. You produced two links. One a quote from a dickhead right wing failure spewing up nonsense without any stats to back it up. The other being a research project into um 68 kids in a poor area.
This sort of shit has been tory dogma for decades so that they can deflect attention from social problems caused by their shit policies.
And it still doesnt explain the enormous gap in slaughter between the US and the developed world.

Explain this numbnuts. View attachment 286428

Yeah, it does.....the Great Society here happened to us in the 1960s.....from the mid 1960s to the early 90s we had a massive spike in violent crime......your society experienced the set back of World War 2....you are now experiencing what we experienced with the Great Society...deny it all you want, you will be witness to the bloodshed and violence...

Its bullshit. Why didnt WW2 cause a spike in violent crime ? That was the biggest dislocation in society. Also WW1 saw an enormous breakdown of the family. Both of my Grandmothers lost their fathers. No spike in violent crime followed either.

You just like the sound of your theory because you are comfortable with it. I also suspect that you use "fatherless" as code for black because of your racist nature.

Young males died in the war....leaving the old men to keep up the social norms..... Britain is a class based society, the U.S. is not......culture and social norms were intact until the social welfare state wrecked them, and the increase in immigrants from 3rd world countries has also increased violence.

The welfare state was introduced in the 40s , explain how it wrecked our society 70 years later ? You grab "facts" out of your arse and present them as truth. But they have no basis in reality.
Old men maintaining the "social norms" ? WTF is that all about ?

It took our welfare state, the "Great Society" from the 1960s to spike our crime rates going into the 1990s. The social structure of Britain and the war kept the social norms in place longer.....they are now breaking down....I advise you to read "Life at the Bottom," to see what is happening to Britain...

How did our social structure keep our "social norms" in place longer ? How did that work ?

 

[2aguy]

Yeah, it does.....the Great Society here happened to us in the 1960s.....from the mid 1960s to the early 90s we had a massive spike in violent crime......your society experienced the set back of World War 2....you are now experiencing what we experienced with the Great Society...deny it all you want, you will be witness to the bloodshed and violence...

Its bullshit. Why didnt WW2 cause a spike in violent crime ? That was the biggest dislocation in society. Also WW1 saw an enormous breakdown of the family. Both of my Grandmothers lost their fathers. No spike in violent crime followed either.

You just like the sound of your theory because you are comfortable with it. I also suspect that you use "fatherless" as code for black because of your racist nature.

Young males died in the war....leaving the old men to keep up the social norms..... Britain is a class based society, the U.S. is not......culture and social norms were intact until the social welfare state wrecked them, and the increase in immigrants from 3rd world countries has also increased violence.

The welfare state was introduced in the 40s , explain how it wrecked our society 70 years later ? You grab "facts" out of your arse and present them as truth. But they have no basis in reality.
Old men maintaining the "social norms" ? WTF is that all about ?

It took our welfare state, the "Great Society" from the 1960s to spike our crime rates going into the 1990s. The social structure of Britain and the war kept the social norms in place longer.....they are now breaking down....I advise you to read "Life at the Bottom," to see what is happening to Britain...

How did our social structure keep our "social norms" in place longer ? How did that work ?

Britain had feudalism, a royal family, strict social classes, and that created an ingrained respect for tradition and authority, much like in Japan where their culture places a premium on conformity and obedience to authority..... America didn't have that, and in the 1960s, the destruction of the family moved much faster to bring in more violent crime.

The British police were able to patrol without guns until just recently....that is how long your traditions have held...

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Its bullshit. Why didnt WW2 cause a spike in violent crime ? That was the biggest dislocation in society. Also WW1 saw an enormous breakdown of the family. Both of my Grandmothers lost their fathers. No spike in violent crime followed either.

You just like the sound of your theory because you are comfortable with it. I also suspect that you use "fatherless" as code for black because of your racist nature.

Young males died in the war....leaving the old men to keep up the social norms..... Britain is a class based society, the U.S. is not......culture and social norms were intact until the social welfare state wrecked them, and the increase in immigrants from 3rd world countries has also increased violence.

The welfare state was introduced in the 40s , explain how it wrecked our society 70 years later ? You grab "facts" out of your arse and present them as truth. But they have no basis in reality.
Old men maintaining the "social norms" ? WTF is that all about ?

It took our welfare state, the "Great Society" from the 1960s to spike our crime rates going into the 1990s. The social structure of Britain and the war kept the social norms in place longer.....they are now breaking down....I advise you to read "Life at the Bottom," to see what is happening to Britain...

How did our social structure keep our "social norms" in place longer ? How did that work ?

Britain had feudalism, a royal family, strict social classes, and that created an ingrained respect for tradition and authority, much like in Japan where their culture places a premium on conformity and obedience to authority..... America didn't have that, and in the 1960s, the destruction of the family moved much faster to bring in more violent crime.

The British police were able to patrol without guns until just recently....that is how long your traditions have held...

I am pissing myself laughing at your ignorance.
I suggest you have a look at this book.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/London-Labour-Classics-World-Literature/dp/1840226196&tag=

You will learn about how feudalism and social classes had zero impact on the level of crime in Victorian Britain. Child prostitution was Londons biggest source of employment after service and our jails were so full that we shipped off enough crims to populate a continent.

The welfare state was a reaction to this and kept the country together after the war. Its odd that people with a roof over their head and food on the table have less motivation to get involved in crime.

Of course helping people is anathema to an extremist like yourself.