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.
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.