Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Crime Rates

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by nfe View Post
    Fig. 3 in the paper which shows a huge drop off across all age groups for men which never significantly lifts again, and a similar drop off for women which also remains low barring a small spike in the early 80s. Around all the miner's strikes, I imagine.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	dyq094f3a.gif?Expires=1629328549&Signature=ln6iBQdN0-pPXIKT01JpaYDJNFJVGtPaCW-B3b73JkZDwOeMLvdf~2Qkadgu7wzemfweA62cwEdE8Plr~wOZYeWQAcxz8ZYksg2EPuzn1jsnTwWjogFU9ZrxBY0JD0Q7FIYsX5hIPWRpFRZx1XON3V-FM~5qcXUW8O9ZjXKDu7Zz8O84P-RXhhynHmH-U5~hg7sm2w6EqSCdMlyw
Views:	100
Size:	23.6 KB
ID:	23529

    I see it as trend starting in the 1930s that has two big drops followed by corrections, one at WW2 and one with coal gas. You may notice the upward trend before that, despite the dent in suicides that WW1 caused. Further, I might point out that the older age groups are committing suicide *more* frequently after than before until the 2000s.




    Originally posted by Herzlos2 View Post
    If they just changed methods you wouldn't see the drop in overall rate at all - it clearly went down, and then something else caused it to rise.
    Yeah, they found another gas to use in the form of car exhaust, as you can see on the chart. If it was something driving it up, it wouldn't have risen and the resumed the same trajectory it had been on previously.

    Originally posted by nfe View Post
    Gonna need a citation for 'widely available', please.
    As of 1823, it could be found throughout Britain, but I used when the gas stove took off in the UK to determine 'wide spread' as far as home use might be measured. You could argue that it was as far back as the 1880s if you like, but gas stoves really were not a commercial success until it was sufficiently cheap and wide spread that people could afford to burn enough of it to run a cook stove.

    I'll point out though that neither date really advances your argument.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by BaronIveagh View Post

      I see it as trend starting in the 1930s that has two big drops followed by corrections, one at WW2 and one with coal gas. You may notice the upward trend before that, despite the dent in suicides that WW1 caused. Further, I might point out that the older age groups are committing suicide *more* frequently after than before until the 2000s.
      What trend? There is a sudden drop in the second world war, but you'd struggle to draw any reasonable line from there through the 70s. You could argue there is a trend beginning about 1905 that's relatively steady through the 50s but then drops off much more severely in the 60s. Fair on the slight increase amongst the oldest groups.

      As of 1823, it could be found throughout Britain, but I used when the gas stove took off in the UK to determine 'wide spread' as far as home use might be measured. You could argue that it was as far back as the 1880s if you like, but gas stoves really were not a commercial success until it was sufficiently cheap and wide spread that people could afford to burn enough of it to run a cook stove.

      I'll point out though that neither date really advances your argument.
      This is not a citation. You also seem to be saying 1880 is before 1823? In any case, even if coal gas was more common earlier than I thought, that it rises rapidly as a method of suicide without any commensurate drop in other methods hardly supports an argument that people just switch between methods without it having a notable effect on overall suicide numbers.

      We are some way away from crime rates, though.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by BaronIveagh View Post

        As of 1823, it could be found throughout Britain, but I used when the gas stove took off in the UK to determine 'wide spread' as far as home use might be measured. You could argue that it was as far back as the 1880s if you like, but gas stoves really were not a commercial success until it was sufficiently cheap and wide spread that people could afford to burn enough of it to run a cook stove.

        I'll point out though that neither date really advances your argument.
        In 1823, it was used almost exclusively for municipal street lighting, I doubt that would have been accessible to most people.

        This source:
        https://fet.uwe.ac.uk/conweb/house_a...ices/print.htm
        Suggests that whilst gas stoves became a commercial success in the late 1880's, the majority of working class households still had no piped gas supply, with only working class housing built from the 1890's onward even having gas lighting. It looks like working class homes wouldn't commonly start to get gas stoves until post-WWI. Gas stoves took off in middle class households with, apparently, 40% of Bristol homes having gas stoves by 1908.

        If you compare to your chart above, suicide by coal gas appears on the chart at ~1890, but only increases slowly until post-WWI. That seems to follow with the spread of gas stoves, particularly into working class homes.
        Last edited by Haighus; 07-15-2021, 06:31 AM.

        Comment


        • [url]https://twitter.com/Vote4Beckford/status/1415165386908225542[/quote]
          Brave NYPD defending the Public from a man that paid his fare of $2.75 but they thought he didn't.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Shinypixe View Post
            https://twitter.com/Vote4Beckford/st...65386908225542
            Brave NYPD defending the Public from a man that paid his fare of $2.75 but they thought he didn't.
            Well I feel safer. F'ing hell, you'd think after all the BLM nonsense they'd at least, I dunno, ask for his ticket before dogpiling him.

            Comment


            • That'll show him to ever again pay his fare.... wait no that's the wrong lession from this one.

              Also lol tasing him? What happened to friendly asking to see his ticket? Aren't Konducteurs , pardon controll personel, a thing in the US?
              Last edited by Online; 07-16-2021, 08:26 AM.

              Comment


              • WTF - well, everyone of those uniformed fuckwits needs to lose their job. All those cops and they needed to tase him?! I guess he look forward to a big payout after the lawsuits happen.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by RedChimera View Post
                  WTF - well, everyone of those uniformed fuckwits needs to lose their job. All those cops and they needed to tase him?! I guess he look forward to a big payout after the lawsuits happen.
                  Here we need to introduce you to a legal concept in the US known as "qualified immunity", which basically means there is no effective civil recovery of damages. You would need something criminal to bring to court and even then it would be an uphill battle.

                  In tthe US, the cops can tear down your entire house searching for drugs or whatever, find nothing incriminating, and have zero requirements to reimburse for the damage.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Haighus View Post

                    Here we need to introduce you to a legal concept in the US known as "qualified immunity", which basically means there is no effective civil recovery of damages. You would need something criminal to bring to court and even then it would be an uphill battle.

                    In tthe US, the cops can tear down your entire house searching for drugs or whatever, find nothing incriminating, and have zero requirements to reimburse for the damage.
                    Not quite. You can still sue the police department and the city.

                    It's just that trying to sue the offending individual and succeeding has a really high bar due to qualified immunity.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by SilverbackWookie View Post

                      Not quite. You can still sue the police department and the city.

                      It's just that trying to sue the offending individual and succeeding has a really high bar due to qualified immunity.
                      Oh yeah, nothing stops someone from trying, but unless a previous case was successful with almost identical circumstances*, it is basically impossible to succeed in the vast majority of cases.

                      So generally, there is no point bothering.

                      *Precedent is weirdly precise when considered for qualified immunity.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Haighus View Post

                        Oh yeah, nothing stops someone from trying, but unless a previous case was successful with almost identical circumstances*, it is basically impossible to succeed in the vast majority of cases.

                        So generally, there is no point bothering.

                        *Precedent is weirdly precise when considered for qualified immunity.
                        Agreed.

                        Keep in mind that the concept of "qualified immunity" is a judicial creation, a literal "legislating from the bench" sort of thing.

                        Congress, really needs to pass laws to govern that because current state is ridiculous.

                        Comment


                        • https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...-charges-utah/
                          A sheriff’s deputy was wrapping up a routine traffic stop at a Utah gas station last week when he saw a teen take a “back the blue” sign — which urged support for police officers — and stomp on it after her friend was pulled over.

                          The teen, identified in court documents as 19-year-old Lauren Gibson, then allegedly crumpled it up in a “destructive manner” and threw it in a trash can, Garfield County Sheriff’s Deputy Cree Carter wrote in an affidavit. The officer, who accused Gibson of allegedly “smirking” at him “in an intimidating manner,” arrested her.

                          Now, in addition to disorderly conduct, Gibson has been charged with “criminal mischief” with a hate-crime enhancement. The latter crime, county prosecutors allege, was committed with “the intent to intimidate or terrorize another person” in violation of Utah’s 2019 hate-crime law.
                          Hate crime is on the rise :C

                          Comment


                          • Well, Police are already a protected class a la qualified immunity.

                            They are a real sensitive bunch.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X