"I wouldn't discount the gang violence aspect as being a key factor in the overall rate. ..." - SD
I first look at the gang of neo-cons...then at the hundreds of thousands of dead due to differing forms of shock and awe...and have to agree! On Feb 6, 6:02 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > I wouldn't discount the gang violence aspect as being a key factor in > the overall rate. > > The number of killings in which both victim and assailant were under > 18 has jumped from 12 in 2005 to 37 last year, according to a new > study. > > The research paints a picture of a country where youth-on-youth > violence is spiralling as the Government struggles to rein back the > increasing number of children turning to gangs and falling into a life > of drugs. It reveals: > > • A quarter of all gun crimes last year were committed by under-18s. > > • More than half of killings are believed to be gang-related. > > • Children as young as five are joining gangs. > > • Youths are killed for going into the "wrong" postcode area. > > • A sixfold increase in the number of gangs in some parts of London > since 2000. > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576698/Youth-gangs-triple-chi... > > On Feb 6, 12:01 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The study of the evolutionary roots of crime began with the work of > > Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, a married couple who work at McMaster > > University in Canada. They looked at what is usually regarded as the > > most serious crime of all, murder. That murderers are usually young > > men is well known, but Dr Daly and Dr Wilson dug a bit deeper. They > > discovered that although the murder rate varies from place to place, > > the pattern does not. Plot the rate against the age of the perpetrator > > and the peak is the same. Moreover, the pattern of the victims is > > similar. They, too, are mostly young men. In the original study, 86% > > of the victims of male killers aged between 15 and 19 were also male. > > This is the clue as to what is going on. Most violence (and thus most > > murder, which is simply violence’s most extreme expression) is a > > consequence of competition between young, unemployed, unmarried men. > > In the view of Darwinists, these men are either competing for women > > directly (“You looking at my girl, Jimmy?”) or competing for status > > (“You dissing me, man?”). I can't reproduce the graph here, but it is > > "killing proof" - the data is undeniable. > > > On 6 Feb, 00:03, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > “…Unfortunately, criminals have guns and therefore people must have > > > the right to own a weapon comparable to that of the intruder….” – SD > > > > I agree. And, again, since often said ‘intruder/criminal’ is the > > > government > > > itself….http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMB-rnHo5eI&feature=PlayList&p=B9F278C... > > > > On Feb 5, 7:53 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Yes Ian, the Constitution, the Bible and other works are merely > > > > representative of the time in which they were drafted. I see them now > > > > as antiquated relics of the past. However, laws aside, morals > > > > abandoned, let's address the issue for what it really is. Our innate > > > > sense of fear and self preservation takes precedence over any and all > > > > law except the law of nature itself. In ancient pre-gun history > > > > people defended themselves with weaponry that was relevant to the > > > > time. No one did not own a sword because it was against the law to > > > > own. Swords killed as it was their purpose to do so. People did not > > > > hunt with swords, they used arrow and spear, but that is not the > > > > point. When there was an intrusion whether upon a home or a community > > > > from a hostile neighboring clan, people gathered their weaponry to > > > > defend themselves. They were not helpless due to a law that forbade > > > > them the right to own arms. The intruders were no less and no more > > > > armed and the confrontation was on equal ground. Weapons in our time > > > > have changed, even owning a gun may not match up to the weapon of the > > > > intruder should it be a machine gun, but what remains the same is the > > > > right to bear arms for self preservation. > > > > Now, if my government could "guarantee", which it can't, that no one > > > > will have possession of guns then I would feel more comfortable > > > > knowing that if an intruder broke into my home he would not have a > > > > firearm. Unfortunately, criminals have guns and therefore people must > > > > have the right to own a weapon comparable to that of the intruder. > > > > No one can take away our right of self preservation via any means > > > > available. You can't fight a war with rocks when the enemy has > > > > cannons. Defending ourselves, as citizens, against criminals "IS" a > > > > war. I know I can't depend on the police department as they might > > > > just as soon shoot me instead of the criminal. I'd rather just simply > > > > disable the intruder and then call the police. > > > > Unfortunately, humans are a species which finds self predation a > > > > viable means of survival, it's cannibalism. Don't have any money? > > > > Just kill your neighbor and take his. Don't have any food? Just kill > > > > the people at the market and take what you need. Need a car? Just > > > > steal one from someone else. It's the sad state of the human > > > > condition, it is sickness, it is sad, but as long as it is the way it > > > > is, I won't have any qualms about taking out some of the garbage. > > > > Obviously the government thinks it is better to put murderers and > > > > rapists in prison for awhile and then let them out so they can kill > > > > and rape again. Society would be better off without these defective > > > > people but probably the influence of chrisitians in government changed > > > > the way we mete out justice, not sure, just glad I'm not one. > > > > > On Feb 5, 8:53 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > 2009/2/5 Lee <[email protected]> > > > > > > > My comment about America, is really my admision that I have no idea > > > > > > what should be done for the best there. Many Americans will not > > > > > > give > > > > > > up their right to bear arms, and as it is enshrined in their law, > > > > > > then > > > > > > I really don't see why they should, however the title of this thread > > > > > > is Guns in Britain, and as a residant I say that we neither require > > > > > > them nor want them. > > > > > > Lee, there does seem to be almost doctrinal reverence given to U.S. > > > > > Constitution and Bill of Rights. Being English I don't get it at all, > > > > > especially considering how continuously the articles are exploited > > > > > beyond > > > > > their original purpose and all the ill that has come of them. Maybe > > > > > the > > > > > Constitution would have been less like horseshit had Jefferson and > > > > > Adams -- > > > > > who have always struck me as the only sharp tools in a box of very > > > > > dull ones > > > > > -- not been in France smoking opium during the Philadelphia > > > > > Convention? > > > > > > I'm mostly joking, of course, but I do hold to the point that writing > > > > > something down 218 years ago (which may have seemed like a really > > > > > idea at > > > > > the time) is probably due a blank piece of a paper by now. Even > > > > > Christians > > > > > treat the Bible like a wiki, maybe the Colonials should follow this > > > > > example > > > > > with their moldy Constitution? > > > > > > Ian- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
