The Fastest Growing Violent Crime In The United States

I can address from memory only one set of facts for one country. Child murder in the UK occurs at the same rate today as it did in the 1950s and as it has done in each decade since.
Lest anyone think I am complacent about, or indifferent to this situation, they are mistaken. Awareness of child murder is much greater today than it was in the 1950s. That is one reason that today children are not allowed the freedom's we enjoyed. Parental fear of risk. The risk itself has not changed.
I do not know if this applies to other crimes. I do not know if it applies to other countries. I suspect it might.
I therefore believe it to be more constructive to focus on the fact that the crimes occur at all, rather than on some contestable change in rate. One crime of violence is one too many.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

exactly

few yrs back, media decided to go 'mad dog' and reported EVERY (jus about) dog attack incident occurring at the time, all sorts of panic re doggies was going on as a result. There was no reporting before and no reporting after, did dogs suddenly go mad one yr or did the press? The press.

Re K's ed bundy's. Our tribes are bigger thus problems are more ocncentrated and confined. But still we are less violent not more so. Look at the Romans and what they did to fellow humans for sport. There is no comparison.

K is media led. End of

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A few years back a very insidious incident of two dogs attacking and killing a lesbian woman in the hallway of her San Francisco home apartment building, after the two lawyers who owned the dogs did nothing to restrain them from repeated earlier incidents. I think this is where theoryofrelativity's (spiked media) doggie attack hypothesis originates. Meanwhile, it wasn't really about the dogs, it was about their unrestrained, anti-lesbian, heterosexually coupled owners, and, the social environment they grew up in. After several incidents of the free running dogs attacking the woman in the hallway of her apartment, they summarily ripped off all her clothes and tore her neck out, with the owner standing over the entire abomination.

As regards the - 50,000 capacity - Roman Colisieum, it has conspicuously moved to the American living room via - the multi-million capacity - TV ('electronicoliseum'), and from there to the street (Popcorn, anyone?). Indeed, Ms. Theoryofrelativity, 'there is no comparison'... 'Drive by shooting', for example, was not even in the American vocabulary until it became 'a fact of life' in the past several decades. Acts of violence and visions of moribidity are pouring out of the artificial experience machine into the American living room on a 24/7 365 basis. Ho hummie.

Oph's statement 'from memory' about the rate of child murder in the U.K. in the '50's compared to the rate of child murder in the present' is not adequate as evidence in any reasonable debate.

What does seem to be agreed upon here is that unredeemed, avoidable violence is despicable. With K emphasizing the avoidable, and T and O agreeing on the despicable.

'Our tribe has grown bigger' does not account for any increase in violence. Tokyo Japan is the most demographically populated location in the world, and is among the lowest crime rates. Yes. It's a different culture, but, until it can be proven that Japanese are not human, the notion that crime goes up with population is pure - cop-out - horsefeathers.

Incidentally, I must pay homage to anyone who is seriously concerned with this (growing) problem, certainly including theoryofrelativity and Oph, whether we agree on this or that point, or not. As Oph said, one casualty to this odium is one casualty too many.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Never heard of it actually, I am uk, don't follow American news.

Drive by shootings in last few decades wouldn't coincide with invention of cars last few decades would it?

 

Whereas, the UK news does follow American news.

Not quite sure what you mean by 'Drive by shootings in last few decades wouldn't coincide with invention of cars last few decades would it?'

The term 'Drive by shootings' became a part of the American vocabulary in the past few decades. The automobile has been around for a century and more. Gangsters did the equivalent of drive by shootings against one another back in the 20's and 30's, but it wasn't a part of the American vocabulary until it started happening in the past twenty or so years.

Violence as entertainment is not news, but violence as entertainment to tens of millions of people of all ages simultaneously is unprecedented in the history of human kind. Whetting an appetite for destruction as never before.

Incidentally, Oph, 'Sympathy for the Devil' is a Rolling Stones Album known all over the English speaking world. The abuse of the TV medium is to be thanked for that, also.

 

TheoryOfRelativity:

"It took me 36 yrs to figure out why I managed to provoke a violent reaction in non violent men, I thought I was cursed, but then I took a good hard look at male/male relations and how I operate. And realised that I was behaving in a manner that was not akin to male male relations when I DID previously think it was. I thought if a man can say xyz to another man and not be struck, why should I a mere female not enjoy the same privilage. Is he lashing out at me because I am female/weaker (hence the equality comments) But then I realised NO, I was NOT communicating to a man as a man, as an equal, I was overstepping all boundaries of male/male dialogue.

A lesson I hope I have learned well. "

It is excellent that you achieved something of value and worth from this experience, specifiically in that it seems so few people do.

"BUT again I stress, not all violence towards women is the result of this behaviour, I have had unprovoked 'controlling' violence too, hence I stress the differences and each situation being judged singularly on it's merit. "

A very important, distinguishing factor, you are correct.

 

Truly Yours is of the apparently diminishing school of thought that says, even if a woman strikes you, as long as it's without a weapon involved, you either dismiss yourself (run, if necessary), or, put her in a bear hug, to prevent her from striking you any more. Combat situations of women with weapons then places them on the level - when they cannot be disarmed - of being dealt with as any armed enemy that cannot be disarmed. That's the only exception to the rule I was raised with.
Real men may or not eat quische, but, they - do not hit women. It is about nobility. It is about being what real men are. Even if the woman really does something she may deserve to be struck for, if it is not to prevent her from seriously injuring you - or someone else - real men do not hit women. A man loses his identity as a man if he does otherwise. I have been an (outstanding, distinguished) athlete all my life. I do not apologise.
There are highly qualified exceptions to this rule, but, they are very highly qualified, as afore described. My father - an Optometrist - was a woman (and child) beater. He was a monster. I learned to be who I am - inversely - from him. Most male children grow up to emulate woman beating behavior. A small percentage of them learn what not to do, and be. Such as I am, that is me.
If a woman wants to be beaten by a man, she's going to have to go get someone besides me to emasculate himself at her goading. The alternative is far too foreboding. Namely, it's one of the more rudimentary faults, of the way people treat others; some women emulate amok male behavior - it is symptomatic of the violence problem at all levels. Unredeemed violence begets violence. Squared. I do not allow unjustified violence in my circle of power. I have protected and will with my life, protect women and children from unjustified violence.
Make a boast of this if you will - it goes far beyond that. The surrender to unredeemed violence because it has always been is akin to the same surrender to war. Whereas, if we do not - very soon - learn to restrain our violence, be it instinctive or otherwise, the species - the innocent with the guilty - will perish as so much flatulence in a typhoon. Atlas will shrug. The universe will go on quite swimmingly within and without us. It's watched our kind come and go like so many quaffed apertifs at as many wine and cheeser pleasers.

Thank you for reading this missive.
Kent Benjamin Robertson, EuroAsian KaiduOrkhon, That Rascal Puff.
Aka, The White Mongol, Magic Horse; etceteras.
Chaplain, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (Chartered by
congress).
Nine documented near sudden deaths. Bay of Pigs, Cuba, '61. Recon.
Two hurricanes on an ammo ship at sea. Freedom isn't free. Se la vie.

 

Kaiduorkhon:

"Real men may or not eat quische, but, they - do not hit women. It is about nobility. It is about being what real men are. Even if the woman really does something she may deserve to be struck for, if it is not to prevent her from seriously injuring you - or someone else - real men do not hit women."

I concur. One cannot rightfully proclaim any status of manhood and be a woman beater.

 

Amen. Brother Man.

 

I never opposed this view I merely noted there is a difference between a woman beater and the scenario I noted. Despite my acknowledgment of my contribution I still left this man. BUT when someone seemingly has more than their fair share of violent reactions to their mere words, one has to reasonably conclude after time that there is something confrontational about those words. And not everyone you meet is just a thug!

Also, nobility works when you are capable for reason, but sleep deprived and emotionally burnt out and then provoked may lead to a reaction otherwise not anticipated or intended.

NOTE: many men here have felt aggression towards me re my responses here. So even the written word can provoke.

 

But fair's fair, ToR. They didn't want to hit you, just to kill you. Quite a different thing.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This is a relevant article from the BBC supporting the contention from TofR and myself that there is a large media interest aspect in dramatising the violence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1156063.stm

It includes this statement:
Yet in Britain today, a child is no more likely to be abducted and killed than 30 years ago, when boys and girls tended to roam with more freedom.
Which supports my statement. You probably feel, K, that this is still "not adequate as evidence in any reasonable debate."
Now I was not offering it as evidence. I was offering it as a fact for your consideration and edification. Since you distrust it as a statement - please don't deny your distrust, for actions are often more informative than words - it seems I must obtain solid 'proof' for you.

Not quite yet there yet, but there is this:
Yet the number of child murders has remained more or less constant for the past 30 years. Though numbers fluctuate slightly each year, according to the NSPCC there has been an average of 79 child murders a year in England and Wales since the 1970s, 11 of which are committed by a stranger. Obviously this is an appalling and, frankly, terrifying statistic, and as the NSPCC says, it shows that the number of child murders is not decreasing. But it does contradict the general assumption that child murder has become more frequent.
Source: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,27869-2275465,00.html
(The NSPCC is a UK based charity, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.)

Now in the UK a quote from the BBC and The Times is better than evidence.
Do you demand more?

While seeking the 'more' for you I chanced on these items that bring into question a second aspect of your thesis.

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) in the UK freely admits that 65% of child abuse is committed by women.
That's in the UK. What about the US.

Consider the Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3) prepared for the US Department of Health and Human Services. They found that in 1993 children were 59 times more likely to be fatally abused [read: murdered] by natural mothers than by natural fathers..

In short you claim that violence against women and children by men is the fastest growing crime in the US.
I present evidence that suggests it may not be growing and that it may not be exclusively, or even predominantly the province of men.

I am challenging the quality of your entire approach on this K. By promoting a viewpoint that is clearly challengeable by evidence you detract from the real issue, which is that any violence, by anyone, directed at anyone is undesirable. I do not doubt your sincerity, but I seriously question the likely effectiveness of your chosen method.

 

TheoryOfRelativity:

"I never opposed this view I merely noted there is a difference between a woman beater and the scenario I noted. Despite my acknowledgment of my contribution I still left this man. BUT when someone seemingly has more than their fair share of violent reactions to their mere words, one has to reasonably conclude after time that there is something confrontational about those words. And not everyone you meet is just a thug!"

I for one never took your argument as supportive of women-beating or that men who beat women are justified in doing so (only that it can come from understandable provocations). Just to note.

"Also, nobility works when you are capable for reason, but sleep deprived and emotionally burnt out and then provoked may lead to a reaction otherwise not anticipated or intended."

Agreed. There are times when even the most noble of men do something out of character. That being said, as much as is possible we must protect ourselves in those times by strong moral instruction and discipline before one reaches those states. That is to say, prepare now, be safe(r) later.

 

Well, Oph:
All I may reasonably be do is thank you and be gratefull for your efforts to bring your argument ahead of mine. I required more substantial proof at the beginning of this disagreement, because, although I don't have the figures in front of me right now, the two books I mentioned by Susan Brownmiller and Susan Faludi did provide information to sustain their arguments (and the arguments are still viable with regard to violence against women; but very apparently, not against children).
Your early point was that they had an agenda and publishers influencing them and likely produced a one sided report. Which, apparently, they did - at least as far as child abuse goes. I lieu of overriding evidence, I concede your point, and once again, I may only be grateful to you for prevailing in this - at least half of this - argument.
Be that as it may, I'm still convinced that male violence against females is increasing. Of course I have yet to prove that beyond the apparenty cooked books I mentioned.
Of course its probably occurred to both you and T (and the Prince), that the likely reason for women's violence to children is the fact that for the most part, they spend more time with and have more responsibility for the children than men do.
I recently moved and consequently cannot conveniently access a passel of books I have on the subjects at issue between us. Until if and when I can gainsay any of your well made points, Oph, I must admit, I'm outpointed.
Please mark it well that I have not changed my posturing on violence against women by men. I acknowledge that there is a case for violence against men by women, also. May it suffice for the moment to say that's a different argument for many reasons. I have the feeling that there's much that none of the four of us have said - in this correspondence - yet, that remains to be meaningfully aired out. I look forward to continued correspondence.

Let us by all means stay in touch, please.
Wishing all three of You and Yours the very best,
I am sincerely, That Rascal Poof, Aka Kaiduorkhon, etceteras...

 

Are you off?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have something to add on topic of reasons women may be more violent towards children in modern times, as that possibly is (or was before interventions and increased awareness etc) on the increase.

Anyway, ta ta

ToR

 

TheoryOfRelativity:

Simply make those points. We can all discuss them even in the absence of our topic-starter.

 

Todays world when raising a family in the west diffres to 50+ yrs ago...how?

breakdown of the family unit
breakdown of communities

In the past, when a woman had children she did not just have the support (generally) of her husband in terms of income and discipline) but she had her extended family near by. In addition to her extended family she had the community to support. Neighbours, and freinds and grandparents aunts and uncles all assisting with child rearing and relieving the mother of the burdon of doing it ALL herself.

Today however stress for the mother has increased as not only are women expected to work and raise children, but they must keep a spotless home, care for their husband, ensure they remain presentable and do all this to TOP A1 standards of perfection. With the media pushing these 'perfect' housewife/career mother' images onto women, the pressure to do it all to perfection is immense. This pressure adds to the stress and overall disatisfaction and this can manifest in 'blaming' the children for either preventing the woman for fulfilling all her objectives but for ruining her figure, making her tired...it's a long list. Some women feel very resentful towards their children even though it was their choice to have them. This resentment can peak and wane.

The extended family is not around so much as before as families are now 'spread out', may be several hours away by car. The community now prefers more to keep themselves to themselves and are less likely to offer a helping hand than before.


These are some of the reasons that may be present today more so than in the past that may facilitate an already existing problem. BUT I personally Know no one who harms their children with violence so it is not a great problem, sexual interference with kids by relatives/family members is though. I know of many examples of that from my child hood.

 

And then came mobile phones, the internet and texting, and the innate need and ability to communicate was revitalised.
We have reinstituted the small tribal community on a global basis.

 

Do not presume to patronise me Ron. Such presumption from the aged may be mistaken for senility. If there is to be any patronising done around here I shall take care of it.

Your misanthropic delusions have prevented you from seeing the enormous social benefit that derives from, in particular, the mobile phone.

Man's evolution has insufficiently prepared him for the rigours of living in vast connurbations, cheek by jowl with strangers. It is easy to trace large components of our social ills and international tensions to the contradictions inherent in a tribal animal, thrust into an overcrowded, potentially hostile milieu.

We are comfortable in a tribal grouping of around one hundred people. The challenge in daily living is that the hundred people who constitute our tribe, are strung out around the city, the country, the planet. The mobile phone has provided a means of maintaining the links forged in proximity when separated by distance, and doing it with immediate effect. This strengthens and deepens the natural tribal bonds and makes the individual better able to handle that alien, potentially hostile environment filled with strangers.

If you are unable to see the power of these benefits then it may well be that it is you who needs to get a life.

Edit: As an afterthought: I have never sent a text message in my life, nor do I intend to do so until they can be generated with 99.5% reliability by speech recognition systems. I did not enter the computer age in order to have to resort to primitive keyboard manipulation on an undersized platform.