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.
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.