The Next Leader Of The Opposition Speaks...
Politics2 mins ago
Gun crime
91 Answers
I know this question will cause a uproar amongst some of the AB subscribers. But first let me say that it is not meant to be at all offensive, or racist it is just meant to start a honest debate and to try and find answers. Having got rid of these necessary formalities here goes.
On the James Whale show on Talk Sport Radio last night, his topic was why in this day of increased gun crime, are the perpetrators mainly from the black communities? And why is it mainly young black males who carry guns? Is it a fashion item, or can the blame be put firmly on the shoulders Gangster Rap music? All other reasons where discussed ie under achievement, social depravation, role models, but no one came up with any firm answer.
I have thought about this and came up with a rather controversial theory of my own, but I have decided to take the cowards way out and not go there, due entirely to the fact that some subjects cannot be discussed freely and frankly.
On the James Whale show on Talk Sport Radio last night, his topic was why in this day of increased gun crime, are the perpetrators mainly from the black communities? And why is it mainly young black males who carry guns? Is it a fashion item, or can the blame be put firmly on the shoulders Gangster Rap music? All other reasons where discussed ie under achievement, social depravation, role models, but no one came up with any firm answer.
I have thought about this and came up with a rather controversial theory of my own, but I have decided to take the cowards way out and not go there, due entirely to the fact that some subjects cannot be discussed freely and frankly.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
anotheoldgit...I thought I'd heard that name (Rushton) before.
I'm afraid he's not to be entirely trusted. You can certainly take his views on board, but as I've read before (from www.onepeoplesproject.com, he's hardly what you might call a balanced socio-race analyst.
This is what I've found out about him so far:
Rushton was consistently rejected by the scientific community for his faulty empirical data and unscientific research methods, his sole source to fund his racist research program was the fascist group, the Pioneer Fund.
The Pioneer Fund was established in 1937 by the American white supremacist multimillionaire Wickliffe Draper and others who were supportive of Nazi race policies in Germany.
The incorporation papers of the Fund states its policy to support the "procreation of the white colonial stock" and to finance research into "problems of race betterment" and "problems of heredity and eugenics in the human race.
I'm afraid he's not to be entirely trusted. You can certainly take his views on board, but as I've read before (from www.onepeoplesproject.com, he's hardly what you might call a balanced socio-race analyst.
This is what I've found out about him so far:
Rushton was consistently rejected by the scientific community for his faulty empirical data and unscientific research methods, his sole source to fund his racist research program was the fascist group, the Pioneer Fund.
The Pioneer Fund was established in 1937 by the American white supremacist multimillionaire Wickliffe Draper and others who were supportive of Nazi race policies in Germany.
The incorporation papers of the Fund states its policy to support the "procreation of the white colonial stock" and to finance research into "problems of race betterment" and "problems of heredity and eugenics in the human race.
Furthermore, with regards to the published research paper you linked to, I didn't see Rushton trying to analyze his findings.
Perhaps he doesn't feel it's his business to interpret the figures he's found, but as a scientist, I think he should be looking for answers rather than just quoting figures.
For instance, something he fails to mention is that young black men are eight times more likely to be given a custodial sentence on their first offence, than their white counterparts.
It's virtually impossible to analyze a group of people completely independently of the society they exist in.
Rushton appears to be trying to do that.
Actually, I think I know what he's trying to do.
Perhaps he doesn't feel it's his business to interpret the figures he's found, but as a scientist, I think he should be looking for answers rather than just quoting figures.
For instance, something he fails to mention is that young black men are eight times more likely to be given a custodial sentence on their first offence, than their white counterparts.
It's virtually impossible to analyze a group of people completely independently of the society they exist in.
Rushton appears to be trying to do that.
Actually, I think I know what he's trying to do.
Oh dear Ward~Minter why is it every one has to explain things to you twice, are you generally thick or do you like a more personal approach. Perhaps abers should post their answer and then post a more simplified one, personally addressed to you.
Well Ward~Minter my theory is this, all species of the human race have different inbred genetic characterisics, just as in the animal kingdom. Therefore it is not unusual to come to the conclusion that maybe Blacks tend to be more violent due to this factor.
Not wishing to think my theory could be classed at all racist, I decided to research my theory more, hence Professor Rushton who obviously had come to the same conclusion as myself.
So Ward~Minter I was not just agreeing with the Professor, since I did not even know he existed till I had read all the posts and found that no one else had come to the same conclusions as myself.
Phew! I hope even you can now understand.
Well Ward~Minter my theory is this, all species of the human race have different inbred genetic characterisics, just as in the animal kingdom. Therefore it is not unusual to come to the conclusion that maybe Blacks tend to be more violent due to this factor.
Not wishing to think my theory could be classed at all racist, I decided to research my theory more, hence Professor Rushton who obviously had come to the same conclusion as myself.
So Ward~Minter I was not just agreeing with the Professor, since I did not even know he existed till I had read all the posts and found that no one else had come to the same conclusions as myself.
Phew! I hope even you can now understand.
anotheoldgit
Uh-oh, I think I'll take cover before the pinching and kicking starts.
The problem with Rushton's paper, like most studies on human behaviour, is that it can never ben 'an absolute'.
I guarantee that there are research documents out there which could/would refute the evidence he puts forward.
Far more interestingly, and scientifically conclusive would be a study whereby you took twenty children from upper middle class families, and sent them to live for their whole developmental period in a slum in South London, and did the same with some kids from the slum area.
I dunno - but I'm guessing that the black kids would thrive despite Rushton's assertations that we have smaller brains and procreate like rabbits who live on a diet of Viagara and p0rnography.
Uh-oh, I think I'll take cover before the pinching and kicking starts.
The problem with Rushton's paper, like most studies on human behaviour, is that it can never ben 'an absolute'.
I guarantee that there are research documents out there which could/would refute the evidence he puts forward.
Far more interestingly, and scientifically conclusive would be a study whereby you took twenty children from upper middle class families, and sent them to live for their whole developmental period in a slum in South London, and did the same with some kids from the slum area.
I dunno - but I'm guessing that the black kids would thrive despite Rushton's assertations that we have smaller brains and procreate like rabbits who live on a diet of Viagara and p0rnography.
sp1814 I gathered that this would not go down too well with you even when presented with figures based on reliable souces ie Chart 4 INTERPOL, crime rates for the three races (Murder, Rape, and Serious Assault) per 100,0000 Population. four times higher in African and Caribbean countries than in Asian or Pacific Rim countries. European countries were intermediate.
The 1993-1996 Interpol year books show the violent crime rate per 100,000 population was 35 for Asians, 42 for Europeans, and 149 for Africans. Pretty startling figures eh?
These are not any far-right organisation's figures, they are supplied by INTERPOL or could it be that this is also a racist organisation, in some way?
The 1993-1996 Interpol year books show the violent crime rate per 100,000 population was 35 for Asians, 42 for Europeans, and 149 for Africans. Pretty startling figures eh?
These are not any far-right organisation's figures, they are supplied by INTERPOL or could it be that this is also a racist organisation, in some way?
Interpol are in the business of criminal detection, arrest and conviction, they don't suggest that they have a social studies unit which actually looks at the root cause of these figures.
Let me put it this way - even if we were to accept that the root cause behind higher crime figures amongst black people is solely down to genes...how come we're not all in jail?
Isn't the conclusion to this line of thought that the real story is way more complicated than mere racial demographics. It has to do with prospects, educational background and importantly, the belief that you actually can achieve.
Tell you what...has Rushton actually checked his figures against the equivalent demographic in poor white areas? How exactly were the figures broken down?
Does he suggest that a black GP in Hertfordshire is the same social menage as the black crack dealer in Peckham?
If the figures were striped against crime figures for poor white families on estates in Bermondsey, you know what would happen, don't you? They would blow his argument out of the water, because as most people now agree (at least they do in my house when I'm ranting on about it...economics and the lack of education are a far more important predicate to crime, than race.
Let me put it this way - even if we were to accept that the root cause behind higher crime figures amongst black people is solely down to genes...how come we're not all in jail?
Isn't the conclusion to this line of thought that the real story is way more complicated than mere racial demographics. It has to do with prospects, educational background and importantly, the belief that you actually can achieve.
Tell you what...has Rushton actually checked his figures against the equivalent demographic in poor white areas? How exactly were the figures broken down?
Does he suggest that a black GP in Hertfordshire is the same social menage as the black crack dealer in Peckham?
If the figures were striped against crime figures for poor white families on estates in Bermondsey, you know what would happen, don't you? They would blow his argument out of the water, because as most people now agree (at least they do in my house when I'm ranting on about it...economics and the lack of education are a far more important predicate to crime, than race.
-- answer removed --
Ward~Minter
After this post I will no longer be joining in any more slanging matches, with a person who is of such doubtful intelligence as you.
I first thought that you were reasonably up to the mark hence the 3 stars I awarded your first post 02/10/06, although I didn't like your expletives such as "lowlife scum", "thick as pig swill", and "dress like immigrant refugees".
You are now using similar against me, stating that I am "just a lonely old git smelling of urine and will soon die". Does this sound like an intelligent person? You know nothing at all about me, and I could live much longer than you, who can tell?
Your outbursts are not only confined to me you were just as abusive to sp1814. Although I don't agree with what sp1814 says on the subject, I honour his right to voice his opinion. At least he has understood the question and put up an intelligent debate, much more than can be said of you. I hope you have a long life but please in the meantime try and brush up a little on your intelligence.
After this post I will no longer be joining in any more slanging matches, with a person who is of such doubtful intelligence as you.
I first thought that you were reasonably up to the mark hence the 3 stars I awarded your first post 02/10/06, although I didn't like your expletives such as "lowlife scum", "thick as pig swill", and "dress like immigrant refugees".
You are now using similar against me, stating that I am "just a lonely old git smelling of urine and will soon die". Does this sound like an intelligent person? You know nothing at all about me, and I could live much longer than you, who can tell?
Your outbursts are not only confined to me you were just as abusive to sp1814. Although I don't agree with what sp1814 says on the subject, I honour his right to voice his opinion. At least he has understood the question and put up an intelligent debate, much more than can be said of you. I hope you have a long life but please in the meantime try and brush up a little on your intelligence.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Hip-hop (mostly American hiphop that charts here; the "BritRap" thing tends to be more underground, more eccentric, and often not as violent) is a contributing factor, but guns have unfortunately become part of the "ghetto" image for many black men nowadays. There's probably a myriad of other causes which you listed, but they've all culminated in this image and this image seems to drive many black communities. Whether there's any stopping it is questionable.
At the same time, you can't really generalise with these things, because there are numerous successful black doctors, lawyers, and ironically enough, hip-hop artists who escape the ghetto mentality and live their lives within mainstream society without betraying their values and identity.
Without meaning to be vague, all one can really do is theorize.
At the same time, you can't really generalise with these things, because there are numerous successful black doctors, lawyers, and ironically enough, hip-hop artists who escape the ghetto mentality and live their lives within mainstream society without betraying their values and identity.
Without meaning to be vague, all one can really do is theorize.
I've been part of a (mostly) three way discussion on this topic, between W~M and admarlow.
anotheoldgit came back to present his point of view, because I had asked him to follow up on the original post.
Now, this is what I think happened...and I'm willing to be corrected on this:
I think anotheoldgit read Ward~Minter's post timed at 14:53 yesterday as being sarcastic ("So what is your theory then? Or are you just agreeing with Professor Rushton?")
It can be read as either enquiring or sarcastic depending on the vocal inflection you use. I personally read it as enquiring, so I was quite surprised at anotheoldgit's subsequent response.
Y'see...this is why I use italicised letters all the time. The printed (or posted) word can easily be misinterpreted.
anotheoldgit came back to present his point of view, because I had asked him to follow up on the original post.
Now, this is what I think happened...and I'm willing to be corrected on this:
I think anotheoldgit read Ward~Minter's post timed at 14:53 yesterday as being sarcastic ("So what is your theory then? Or are you just agreeing with Professor Rushton?")
It can be read as either enquiring or sarcastic depending on the vocal inflection you use. I personally read it as enquiring, so I was quite surprised at anotheoldgit's subsequent response.
Y'see...this is why I use italicised letters all the time. The printed (or posted) word can easily be misinterpreted.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
My Dearest Friend Ducksie - R I P
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
Film, Media & TV33 mins ago