London Murder Rate Overtakes New York's (but does it really?)

ANOTHER EDIT: Apparently there are seventeen-thousand threads on this topic already. Please post in the original, which is here. I'm sorry, mods...my first big fail in starting a thread.

EDIT: Nevermind, JBurns beat me to it here. That's what happens when you just scroll through thread subject lines but don't do a search. I shall throw myself a party of pities at my earliest convenience.

*************THIS IS NOT THE MUDPIT*************

Okay, so let me preface this with, yes, I understand that this is only three month's worth of murder statistics, but it bears noting because of much of the rhetoric that we hear surrounding how places that aren't in America and don't have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms are in such a better place when it comes to murders.

Well, while this is only the comparison of two cities (New York [pop: 8.5-million-ish] and London [pop: 8.8-million-ish]) it's worthy of note because of the type of weapon being used in general in London: Knives.

London Murder Rate Overtakes New York's

The Met Police has launched 44 murder investigations in 2018, 31 of which have been as a result of stabbings.

That is 70% of the murders in London occurring with knives--you know, those things that aren't designed for killing, so aren't as bad as guns.

I'm not sure what murder weapons were used in NYC, as the story doesn't say, but I'm willing to bet that it's probably 70% firearms.

Also, the title is a bit misleading, because with a total of 46 murders in London versus 50 in NYC, the murder rate is actually higher in New York than in London, but the point is that is on a steady rise in London versus the ebb and flow of NYC.

(Image from linked story)

But this is more about the point of the issue--that all of these claims about knives not being a tool of murder on par with firearms, and how America is so dangerous compared to other places, is just all a load of half-truths. And then we hear the rhetorical question about why aren't people focused on banning bladed weapons.

Well, I don't foresee it being too far off when you have MPs like Sarah Jones stating the following:

"Knife crime and violent crime acts like an epidemic, so you need to go in at the source to cut it off and then you need to inoculate the future young people against it.

"Going in at source means major intervention work with youth workers, inoculating means going into schools, changing the social norms, educating kids, teaching them what it is to be a man, teaching them how they don't need to carry knives."

This sounds eerily similar to the beginnings of the war on drugs and the D.A.R.E. campaign here in America. That has been a large waste of money and destroyer of lives.

And that comparison doesn't sound too far off:

Meanwhile, the government has launched a £1.35m campaign aimed at 10 to 21-year-olds.

The adverts to run across social media and digital channels feature stories of teenagers who have been stabbed.

While that's not a lot of money in the grand scheme of a city like London's size, it has all of the makings of a failed program, from how it sounds. (You can read more on the program here and at the government's website, #knifefree)

I don't know about you all, but I just find it sadly ironic that, in the midst of all of this talk about gun death in the U.S., here we have London basically keeping pace with New York City, just with (most likely) different weapons.

When are governments going to accept that the heart of the problem lies within the hearts and minds of the individuals willing to do things like this:

The deaths of 47-year-old Laura Cecilia Navarrete De Figueira, from Twickenham, and her sons Claudio, 10, and Joaquin, seven, are part of the same Met Police murder investigation. She was found stabbed in London, while the boys were discovered dead, along with their father, at the foot of Birling Gap, in Sussex.

You know, maybe if the mother or father had the ability to carry a concealed firearm, they may not be a statistic in a newspaper article about knife murders.

Just thinking out loud.

*************THIS IS NOT THE MUDPIT*************

a reply to: SlapMonkey

"You know, maybe if the mother or father had the ability to carry a concealed firearm, they may not be a statistic in a newspaper article about knife murders."

Cant carry or conceal any weaponry in the U.K, no matter what it is, or even for defensive purpose.

Your best bet is to carry a heavy torch, but even that can land you in trouble, especially if it's not dark. LoL

End of the day through i would take our gun laws over the U.S variety 9 times out of 10.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Been doing a lot of reading and thinking about evo devo recently and I think the answer is people. We are the problem and we are the problem because in the last few hundred years things just moved way too fast.
We are 10k years away from the only thing mattering is survival. For you and your group.

Now we all live in cities on top of each other with various cultures and religions.
We have all these constructs that we made up like what is acceptable and what is not.

All those primal for lack of a better word urges and all the survival # that is coded into us will be our downfall.
I think.

Just 1 dudes opinion

I really do not care about murder rates in those cities. I live in the country and need a gun in case some armed people try to rob us. As long as criminals know that people probably have guns out here, they will not usually break into a home when it is occupied. Even if they have a gun.

If people in California and New York want to disarm their good honest citizens so they cannot defend themselves, then they can vote on it. But they have no right to push their policies on the people of other states that are protected by the right to bear arms.

Does that chart include police killings of a 'questionable' nature?

a reply to: rickymouse

Plenty of criminals break into homes when they are occupied in the UK and 99% of those people don't have guns.

I get that Guns can indeed be a deterrent and that your second amendment rights are no one's business but your own, but over here Guns are just not required these days.

We would just end up with the same issues as the US, which granted are debatable, but it would happen all the same.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: SlapMonkey


Cant carry or conceal any weaponry in the U.K, no matter what it is, or even for defensive purpose.

I know, that was my point in phrasing it the way that I did.

You can keep your gun laws, for sure.

a reply to: intrptr

The story does a poor job breaking things down, but I would assume that if the story and chart discuss murders, I'm sure that any "killings of a 'questionable' nature" are not included.

Of course, I would have to argue that if these cases have not been adjudicated yet, they none of them are technically "murders," just homicides.

a reply to: TinySickTears

I would argue that "all the survival # that is coded into us" is what has kept us alive as a species for as long as we have. But species survival is a cyclical thing, and our cycle will end one day, regardless as to what is coded into us.

These large urban dwellings--a way that no animal was ever meant to live--will be what leads to the downfall of humanity. But again, that's opinion and impossible to know.

And just so I know, how do you define "me and my group?"

This is like arguing over which type of cancer is worse.
Both cities crime rates suck.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

End of the day mate, in any first world nation, which apparently both countries are(debatable really), guns should not be required to protect our respective populations from one another.

Stands to reason really, but it does not quite work out that way.

Pros and cons on both sides of the fence where gun ownership is concerned.

Personally, i would rather just not get shot at period.

a reply to: rickymouse

The problem with your comment is that the right to keep and bear arms is not a state-by-state issue, even though certain states choose to put ideology above reality and then wait for someone to sue them over it.

I'm sure that you know that, though, but I have to point it out for others reading along

a reply to: andy06shake

Guns aren't required in America, they're just an option protected by the Constitution.

As for the philosophical fantasy world that you mention, you're correct, force of any type should not be necessary for self-protection, but in the real world, also like you mention, where not everyone has respect for other people's right or a general respect for life, it's better to have the option than not.

But that's just my opinion, and you're free to have yours. We'll agree to prefer not to get shot at...and I'll add stabbed to that preference as well.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Agree with allowing us to survive so long but I'm the last couple thousand years # moved really fast.

Your group of 50 or 80 of whatever size group you roamed with back then

a reply to: TinySickTears

Ah, gotcha about the group thing (tribalism...clans, if you will).

Yes, I am of the belief that our technologies and changes in how we live/eat/sleep/communicate/travel/fight/everything else is happening at an alarming rate, and we're not going to be able to maintain this forever. When it crashes, it's going to crash hard and fast.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Gun crime/knife crime, its all crime. Homicide by gun/knife, its still homicide.

For a meaningful discussion about this topic, I believe its necessary to look at "crime rate" statistics. But, my limited research indicates that is pretty difficult to model and that for a variety of reasons.

I refer you to: en.wikipedia.org...

Crime in London, as in various cities, is very hard to measure. Police figures generally understate crime substantially and can be extremely misleading. Accordingly, recorded crime statistics need to be treated with great caution and have sometimes been shown to show opposite trends to victim surveys or to violence as measured by hospital intake.[1] However, police figures are usually the only available way to gauge local crime.

That's instructive, but for those of us who have been on the planet for more than say, 20 years, know all too well that Metropolitan policing forces tend to underestimate or intentionally under-count crimes for political reasons.

Nonetheless, go to the linked article and the graphs would indicate to me that violent crime in London has actually fallen since the 1990's, although the text states that there was an increase between 2015~2016, but that's attributed to mass casualty attacks.

I would guess that the education programs will do no good whatsoever. Cities are breeding grounds for crime, with packed populations of groups that, for one reason or another, hate each other combined with stacked poverty populations that turn to crime for drugs and money.

The biggest surprise to me about the London stats is that the homicide rate appears to be relatively low, but on the other hand, with all the CCTV, I'd have thought it would be lower.

a reply to: TonyS

Yeah, that's a big problem overall in measuring one country's stats to another--none are tallied, reported, or even defined the same way across the board, so it's really an impossible task.

But in any event, I'm kind of slowly waiting for mods to close this thread since three others already exist on the topic, but I thought your comment worthy of at least a reply.

And I agree that homicide is homicide is homicide...that's why I had the tone in my OP that I did. It's all about the mind and heart of the killer, not in the tool used.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Nice reply, thanks.

It is rather dreadful that on most all of these threads, the issue devolves to the gun control issue. Its so "parochial". I don't live in a major US metro area, its of no consequence to me what the locals choose to do relative to gun control. And its somewhat silly considering that there reporting thousands of crimes in London wherein a firearm was used.

Humanity really hasn't progressed all that much since "UG" figured out how to fasten a sharp stone to a long stick!

Khan is doing the job we all knew he would - making London a crime infested sh**hole.
It will only get worse.

a reply to: TinySickTears

A lot of content in those words. Good stuff.

I fully agree humanity is in unknown territory if we look at it from an evolutionary POV. The last 100 or 200 years is a blip. We still indeed are wired for small groups. We seem to work better that way.

I will also argue the thousands of years of tribal inculcation (not a panacea) is not directional. 'Making gone' of each other is not new or unusual. I will offer the last few decades have seemingly produced a popular mindset that "we" are past all that. We have "evolved". I completely disagree with that. We are still the same critters. Yes, we may try harder to be good and most see its incumbent advantages. But we are still wired for the same stuff.