Murders necessarily sky-rocketing

Tungsten said:

Our society will never approve of the methods required to fix it. Instead, they glorify the behaviors that cause it.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you are right.

Sent from my SM-N970U1 using Tapatalk

sundazes said:

Or, some people are just inherently bad. They are plenty of people who had $hitty childhoods who grew up to become respectable members of society.

Click to expand...

I think the idea is that with those situations, there is an effect. Not to give a black & White, if this happens, that will happen. It seems that what he is showing is statistics. Many times in statistics, people will give a few examples that go against the trend of the data. That does not mean the trend is wrong.

Like, I drive 90 in a 55mph zone passing up people driving 55 ALL THE TIME, I have not crashed, therefore, driving 90mph in a 55 is perfectly safe. Well, if 1000 people drive 90 and 1000 drive 55 and there is NOTHING different about them that would make a significant difference, good chances the crash rate of those driving 90 will be higher.

When looking at crime statistics, if they did their due diligence, they looked at other influential situations and worked them out of the statistics.

That being said, many studies are "massaged" to produce an outcome by sifting through and removing valid data.

I know several who had single parent, wife beater dad, saw sister/brother die and they turned out just fine.

This may be TMI but I'm married to one and she is about as Conservative/law abiding grounded hard working as anyone could be.

I don't believe murders are necessary and the thread title should be "Murders predictably sky-rocketing".

TheOriginalMexicanBob said:

I don't believe murders are necessary and the thread title should be "Murders predictably sky-rocketing".

Click to expand...

Some murders are necessary. Part of the self cleaning oven that is the inner city. 'The trash taking the trash out'.

traveller said:

Some murders are necessary. Part of the self cleaning oven that is the inner city. 'The trash taking the trash out'.

Click to expand...

Point taken...I remember Jeff Cooper observed that the murder rate isn't very high at all when you back out the "good riddance factor".

Self cleaning, yes and this is also why the left supports abortion clinics.

If you apply Topher's criteria , working backwards , will there be a corelation ? Probably .

If you apply those criteria forewards , will the corelation be anywhere near as strong ? Probably not .

Dave M said:

Self cleaning, yes and this is also why the left supports abortion clinics.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Margaret Sanger...the founder of Planned Parenthood...was a racist and believer of eugenics to eliminate the black race through abortion. That's why Planned Parenthood locations have historically been placed in or near predominantly black areas.

The Democrats have only moved beyond that goal in name only but not in practice.

oberyn said:

Data is sketchy and combed through for the result they want as deeply as possible. Democratic and Republican led cities are both seeing surges in violence for tons of reasons, but personally I think it comes down to idle hands. More people laid off and unable to work and desperate leads to more crime.

Click to expand...

Hoe do you get that? that is not what the data show. The data show the increase in violence is considerably more pronounced in Democrat populated and run jurisdictions. It is not sketchy.

How can it be "idle hands" when before the black swan event of covid-19, the economy and employment under Trumps first three years had better numbers than anything in the past 100 years, and crime was still rising in the Democrat run cities?

It does not correlate to employment/unemployment numbers but rather reductions in incarceration. The jurisdiction (like DC) that have released the most criminals, especially those with felonies or multiple arrests are the ones seeing the largest increases in stabbings and shootings. That is not just correlation, but slam dunk causal relationship, since 90% of murder is committed by prior criminals, the bulk of whom are recently released. Put more felons on the streets and you get more murder.

Topher said:

There is actual science behind why people become criminals. I am being serious.
It has to do with two things in their childhood.
1. The number of adverse childhood events, called "ACEs", they experienced. These are things like did they see their mother beaten by their father, where they abused, was there an ugly divorce, was a parent in jail or not present, was a primary caregiver present, did a primary caregiver die, were drugs in the family, did they experience real hunger from lack of food, was there a constant threat of violence from the neighborhood.
AND...
2. Did they have a stable support system to help them through the traumatic events?

Look in the prisons and the gangs, they are full of adults that had a sh!tty childhood and basically no stable or consistent caregiver to nurture them through the traumatic times. Just google - early childhood trauma leading to criminal behavior. You will find a mountain of evidence.

To fix this, you need to weed out the unfit parents and support those that are at risk. It will take generations to fix.
Societal values, respect for one another, and their duty as a caregiver must be instilled in all would-be parents.

Click to expand...

That is not actually what the science shows, since
a) the vast majority of people who have been subject to those conditions do not end up as predators, robbing people, raping them, or murdering them. The vast majority of people who grew up under adverse conditions become totally productive and peaceful members of society. And;
b) 20-25 year olds today have had more social service, less exposure to lead, more public spending on nutrition and education, and more protection against abuse in their childhoods than 25 year olds 15 years ago (born 40 years ago), yet it is todays 20-25 year olds who commit nearly DOUBLE the murder.

Fact: The correlation of rises and declines in crime are incarceration rates. That is the case nationally and in cities when you plot incarceration rates and violent crime stats. For example between 1993 and about 2008 we tripled the number of people in prison and the US murder rate PLUNGED by nearly 2/3.

Washington DC and Baltimore did NOT see any change in murder rates based on eliminating or even reducing the number of people with bad childhoods. In fact young people today have had better childhoods. Yet DC and Baltimore have seen extremely pronounced swings in five and ten year trends that cannot attributed to major advances in how people were brought up -- but which do correspond to incarceration.

What DC and Baltimore (and virtually every other city) see is that increased incarceration decreased violent crime, and todays decreasing incarceration increases violent crime. Why? Because criminals who are not punished, or are lightly punished and who are out on the streets are committing OVER 90% of murders and violent crimes.

The data show a tiny subset of the population, about 2% are committing 90% of the crime through repeat criminality -- and that is effectively and massively reduced by having them in prison where they can not commit more crime.

It is failure to punish predation by that 2% that causes rises in violent crime. Even the atmospheric lead claims of the past have been utterly debunked by the 25 year data. The atmospheric lead claims depended on cherry picking, and excluding say countries like Australia, which had trivia levels of atmospheric and blood lead but which saw violent crime and murder climb in the 1980's and then decline almost as sharply as the US as the Australians also tripled their incarceration rates.

Starting in 2012 til last year DC nearly halved its incarceration rate -- and its homicide rate today doubled since 2012. You'd have to claim that people who are 25-years old today had "sh1ttier" childhoods than people born ten years earlier. Is there evidence for that? (answer: no)