Sure is easy to support your hypothesis when you start by cutting out the largest single category that damages it, isn’t it? The funny thing is I think you have at least the beginnings of a point; women do murder more frequently than society would like to pretend, particularly when it comes to the murder of children. As usual, however, you’ve jumped to the most retarded possible version of proving that. It’s like saying “when you exclude homes homes where the mother is not dead, fathers commit the most infanticide.”
Okay, I can buy that logic to a degree, but I think you’re being a little hasty to discount the possibility of non-affiliated civilians getting caught in the crossfire. I also have to admit my assumption is that truly random killings are going to be mugging gone wrong, terrorist attack, collateral damage in a gang fight, etc. and that those outwardly aggressive, violent crimes probably do tend male. Where I expect women to make up the murder gap is with murders of people known to them, where they have access to poison someone or shoot/knife them in the back. Obviously, those can’t really be random.
But maybe I just read too much Agatha Christie as a kid and I’m way off base. It is possible.
That must be why the ONS still refuses to tell anyone the amount of non-gang affiliated murders by gender.
Sure is easy to support your hypothesis when you start by cutting out the largest single category that damages it, isn’t it? The funny thing is I think you have at least the beginnings of a point; women do murder more frequently than society would like to pretend, particularly when it comes to the murder of children. As usual, however, you’ve jumped to the most retarded possible version of proving that. It’s like saying “when you exclude homes homes where the mother is not dead, fathers commit the most infanticide.”
I'm cutting out a group that doesn't affect others. If you're not in a gang, you don't care about them killing each other.
It's like including suicides in gun deaths. Completely irrational.
Why don't women want us to know who is most likely to commit a random killing in the UK?
Okay, I can buy that logic to a degree, but I think you’re being a little hasty to discount the possibility of non-affiliated civilians getting caught in the crossfire. I also have to admit my assumption is that truly random killings are going to be mugging gone wrong, terrorist attack, collateral damage in a gang fight, etc. and that those outwardly aggressive, violent crimes probably do tend male. Where I expect women to make up the murder gap is with murders of people known to them, where they have access to poison someone or shoot/knife them in the back. Obviously, those can’t really be random.
But maybe I just read too much Agatha Christie as a kid and I’m way off base. It is possible.
The only reason I even bothered clicking on this thread was just to see how you fit a women angle here, and of course, you delivered.
That's why it's interesting.
That's why I click on half the stuff here. It's always fun to see how he makes everything about wamman
So you'd rather the "asylum seekers" be men?
That makes more sense. Women can just shack up with the invaders as they always do.