• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

London is cracking down on knives

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Kneedragger

Golden Member
Feb 18, 2013
1,192
45
91
Right, because the empirical evidence indicates this is not true. Most people who attempt suicide never do so again. This is a simple fact. If people were really committed to finding a way to commit suicide then after a failed attempt they would have another go at it. Since they do not, this indicates the means used in the attempt matter a great deal as guns are highly effective tools of suicide unlike say, eating a bunch of pills.


Right, this is why I feel you don't understand the discussion. There is nothing incompatible with Japan having a higher suicide rate than the US with low gun ownership and my point that gun ownership is a risk factor for completed suicide. The question you should ask yourself is not if Japan has a higher suicide rate than the US, it's if you gave everyone in Japan a gun would Japan's suicide rate increase, decrease, or stay the same? (the answer is almost certainly increase)

Ok I'm just gonna keep this simple and start all over...
You said post #89
"Again, this is pointless anecdotal evidence. You understand why it’s pointless, right? That you have to control for societal factors?

Can you give me a reason why you keep ignoring actual empirical research into the topic and instead rely on blog posts? Can you give me any reason other than they tell you what you want to believe?

Where did you come up with this "control for societal factor"
 

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
11,428
997
126
i am not, or have i ever stated that i am, disturbed by the presence of people with different skin tones or cuisines. i am disturbed by people who on purpose try to walk into you in the middle of brixton road because they want to start a fight, and have nothing better to do.
it is by pure case that the vast majority are non-white, but some of the white brits do their part as well. London isn't bad because of the skin tone of the people that live there, but because of the ridiculously insufficient education, labour's softly-softly approach to everything, the fact that everyone and their dog has moved there, and the inexistent policing. Large influxes of poor, undeucated, people mvoing into any city will always have a negative effect, and that's been going on with london since the 60s.

Good luck.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,877
4,209
126
According to Wiki you are indeed more likely to be killed by a gun in Vermont than New York: (the data is a couple years old but such is life) It's important to note this covers gun deaths of all types, including suicide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state

You are less likely to be the victim of gun murder in Vermont than New York though.
Which means people are more prone to suicide in VT than NY. I'll also note that VT is safer all around in spite of those guns. Rape? A bit under twice the rate plus or minus a couple tenths.

So unless my daughter were to commit suicide with a gun (unlikely because women are far more likely to poison themselves) she's much safer with all the guns. Women in general are more concerned with rape than being shot btw and there's very good reason for it.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,302
1,204
126
I've lived in London my entire life (barring a few years in the US). I was born here and went to school here (in Brixton, as it happens - I am familiar with the area, the areas you mention are the places I've spent most of my life in). I'm white I guess (because if you look white you are treated white) though my dad wasn't and half my family aren't. They were, however, born British, because the British grabbed their country. If you are so disturbed by the presence of people with different skin tones or cuisines maybe your ancestors should have thought of that before taking over half the globe? Bit late now, I'm afraid.
I don't believe in sins of the father. Nobody alive today is responsible for what their ancestors did. In any event, I believe most of Europe is much more agitated about Muslims than Indians. Is there bad blood against Indians by white British because the Indians are doing better financially than everybody else? Honestly I did not know that there was bad blood against them until you brought it up in this post.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
7,390
2,610
136
i am not, or have i ever stated that i am, disturbed by the presence of people with different skin tones or cuisines. i am disturbed by people who on purpose try to walk into you in the middle of brixton road because they want to start a fight, and have nothing better to do.
it is by pure case that the vast majority are non-white, but some of the white brits do their part as well. London isn't bad because of the skin tone of the people that live there, but because of the ridiculously insufficient education, labour's softly-softly approach to everything, the fact that everyone and their dog has moved there, and the inexistent policing. Large influxes of poor, undeucated, people mvoing into any city will always have a negative effect, and that's been going on with london since the 60s.

Good luck.
Well I can agree with you about everyone trying to cram into the place. It was much less stressful back when it was emptying out in the 70's and 80's. It's since the deregulation of the City and the country becoming ridiculously dependent on the financial sector that its all gone a bit mad. It would be much better if things were decentralised so everyone didn't try to come to London to get a few crumbs from the City boys' table. The UK is too dominated by its SE corner. I'd vote for shipping the politicians off to Birmingham for starters.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,704
20,048
136
Ok I'm just gonna keep this simple and start all over...
You said post #89
"Again, this is pointless anecdotal evidence. You understand why it’s pointless, right? That you have to control for societal factors?

Can you give me a reason why you keep ignoring actual empirical research into the topic and instead rely on blog posts? Can you give me any reason other than they tell you what you want to believe?

Where did you come up with this "control for societal factor"
Stats 101. Maybe not the first day but sometime close to it. When you're trying to determine the impact of your IV on your DV you need to control for other factors that affect the DV. As suicide rates are affected by a large number of variables, failing to control for them would give you wildly inaccurate results.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
7,390
2,610
136
I don't believe in sins of the father. Nobody alive today is responsible for what their ancestors did. In any event, I believe most of Europe is much more agitated about Muslims than Indians. Is there bad blood against Indians by white British because the Indians are doing better financially than everybody else? Honestly I did not know that there was bad blood against them until you brought it up in this post.
It's not a question of morality or guilt though, it's just a question of logical consequences. London is an international city because of the Empire. That's just how it is. For good or ill. Reality is what it is.

Not sure I understand your question. Some Muslims _are_ Indians. Interestingly I've heard that Indian Muslims are doing better economically than Pakistani or Bangladeshi Muslims.

There has always been racism directed at anyone brown, it's only very, very recently Brits really bothered to distinguish between Indians and Pakistanis. The 'P word' sufficed for all of them. The 'bad blood' had little to do with Indians doing well financially, it was, I guess, to do with the ideology of race that sustained the Empire. Hell, my own grandad was deeply racist against his own mixed-race children.

But, yeah, Muslims are the bogeyman de jour. To the degree that non-Muslim South Asians seem quite eager to distance themselves from them. (Well, to be fair, India has it's own difficulties with religious conflict - and many disputes carry on perfectly acrimoniously without any involvement by white people!).
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
26,987
4,072
126
i am not, or have i ever stated that i am, disturbed by the presence of people with different skin tones or cuisines. i am disturbed by people who on purpose try to walk into you in the middle of brixton road because they want to start a fight, and have nothing better to do.
it is by pure case that the vast majority are non-white, but some of the white brits do their part as well. London isn't bad because of the skin tone of the people that live there, but because of the ridiculously insufficient education, labour's softly-softly approach to everything, the fact that everyone and their dog has moved there, and the inexistent policing. Large influxes of poor, undeucated, people mvoing into any city will always have a negative effect, and that's been going on with london since the 60s.

Good luck.
My cousin lives in Aberdeen. When I've visited her there or met her in Glasgow I had the same experience only with pissed pasty Scottish people. In fact I had more grief walking around Glasgow than anywhere else I've been to.

So good luck right back at you.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,877
4,209
126
Well I can agree with you about everyone trying to cram into the place. It was much less stressful back when it was emptying out in the 70's and 80's. It's since the deregulation of the City and the country becoming ridiculously dependent on the financial sector that its all gone a bit mad. It would be much better if things were decentralised so everyone didn't try to come to London to get a few crumbs from the City boys' table. The UK is too dominated by its SE corner. I'd vote for shipping the politicians off to Birmingham for starters.
I'll trade ours for yours.

BTW, London does have a lower shooting rate than many inner cities here. I'm not arguing that, but you seem to not have much of a gang problem compared to our equivalents. I don't know what would happen in London if that changed but big gangs do have access to weapons already illegal, and if they are anything like the guys I knew if they hadn't access they would just change tactics. As you say those weapons are easier but easy isn't their concern. They will kill as prolifically as ever. As you say you know your world and I know mine.

One question though, with removal of weapons your violent crime rate is still pretty high. I wonder why that didn't go down to that of other locations with greater access to firearms?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,704
20,048
136
I'll trade ours for yours.

BTW, London does have a lower shooting rate than many inner cities here. I'm not arguing that, but you seem to not have much of a gang problem compared to our equivalents. I don't know what would happen in London if that changed but big gangs do have access to weapons already illegal, and if they are anything like the guys I knew if they hadn't access they would just change tactics. As you say those weapons are easier but easy isn't their concern. They will kill as prolifically as ever. As you say you know your world and I know mine.

One question though, with removal of weapons your violent crime rate is still pretty high. I wonder why that didn't go down to that of other locations with greater access to firearms?
I would strongly caution against trying to compare the UK's violent crime rate to the US's (or anywhere else really) The same crime can be defined quite differently from country to country so direct comparisons are often difficult or impossible.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/24/blog-posting/social-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
26,987
4,072
126
One question though, with removal of weapons your violent crime rate is still pretty high. I wonder why that didn't go down to that of other locations with greater access to firearms?

Our violent crime is high partly because we, as a nation, like to get pissed and have a punch up.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
26,987
4,072
126
Well I can agree with you about everyone trying to cram into the place. It was much less stressful back when it was emptying out in the 70's and 80's. It's since the deregulation of the City and the country becoming ridiculously dependent on the financial sector that its all gone a bit mad. It would be much better if things were decentralised so everyone didn't try to come to London to get a few crumbs from the City boys' table. The UK is too dominated by its SE corner. I'd vote for shipping the politicians off to Birmingham for starters.
I'd agree if we make it that island off Scotland with the Anthrax rather than Birmingham.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,877
4,209
126
I would strongly caution against trying to compare the UK's violent crime rate to the US's (or anywhere else really) The same crime can be defined quite differently from country to country so direct comparisons are often difficult or impossible.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/24/blog-posting/social-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/
That's an odd thing. I mentioned that some time ago and was told that crimes were normalized for international standards. There had been some articles from the UK where there was suspicion of underreporting and fudging definitions to make the police look better after some severe funding and staffing cuts which is generally not the case.
 

Kneedragger

Golden Member
Feb 18, 2013
1,192
45
91
Stats 101. Maybe not the first day but sometime close to it. When you're trying to determine the impact of your IV on your DV you need to control for other factors that affect the DV. As suicide rates are affected by a large number of variables, failing to control for them would give you wildly inaccurate results.
Well why should we stop with just suicides when it comes to the societal factor?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mdram

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
7,390
2,610
136
That's an odd thing. I mentioned that some time ago and was told that crimes were normalized for international standards. There had been some articles from the UK where there was suspicion of underreporting and fudging definitions to make the police look better after some severe funding and staffing cuts which is generally not the case.
There have been multiple attempts to make this comparison, and any criminologist will tell you it never really works. The Daily Mail in particular laps them all up because it's weirdly determined to believe Britain to be the Worst Country In The World. Presumably on the basis of if you can't definitely be the best, being the worst is still preferable to being unexceptional or mediocre.

Some UN agency has an ongoing attempt to 'normalise' the figures, but it can't really be done, because you can't put back data that wasn't recorded in them in the first place.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,704
20,048
136
Why can't rape, murder, drug use etc also be a societal factor?
I still don't understand the question.

Suicide is not a societal factor, it would be the dependent variable in our discussion, not an independent variable as we were discussing the effects of gun ownership on suicide rates.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,302
1,204
126
It's not a question of morality or guilt though, it's just a question of logical consequences. London is an international city because of the Empire. That's just how it is. For good or ill. Reality is what it is.

Not sure I understand your question. Some Muslims _are_ Indians. Interestingly I've heard that Indian Muslims are doing better economically than Pakistani or Bangladeshi Muslims.

There has always been racism directed at anyone brown, it's only very, very recently Brits really bothered to distinguish between Indians and Pakistanis. The 'P word' sufficed for all of them. The 'bad blood' had little to do with Indians doing well financially, it was, I guess, to do with the ideology of race that sustained the Empire. Hell, my own grandad was deeply racist against his own mixed-race children.

But, yeah, Muslims are the bogeyman de jour. To the degree that non-Muslim South Asians seem quite eager to distance themselves from them. (Well, to be fair, India has it's own difficulties with religious conflict - and many disputes carry on perfectly acrimoniously without any involvement by white people!).
Well the caste system does seem a rather barbaric system. Does India still have that? Do you think it is immoral? I can't imagine such a system lasting much longer without the lower castes rising in mass to overthrow the oppressing castes.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
26,987
4,072
126
There have been multiple attempts to make this comparison, and any criminologist will tell you it never really works. The Daily Mail in particular laps them all up because it's weirdly determined to believe Britain to be the Worst Country In The World. Presumably on the basis of if you can't definitely be the best, being the worst is still preferable to being unexceptional or mediocre.

Some UN agency has an ongoing attempt to 'normalise' the figures, but it can't really be done, because you can't put back data that wasn't recorded in them in the first place.
Well The Daily Mail only believes that the UK is the worst country until you suggest letting anyone in from another country. Then its some sort of elysium paradise about to be polluted by filthy foreigners.

In short The Daily Mail has a really fucked up view of reality.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,085
493
126
So you say I'm more likely to be shot in VT than NY. I'd say that not true.

Quick and with out looking- what are your lifetime chances of being shot in killed in the US? Mass shootings? Choking of food?

Ballpark it.
This also appears to include suicides. So I guess your chances of killing yourself are also higher in VT.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY