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

a reply to: ABNARTY

We are wired the same as 70k years ago.
The social constructs and norms are new.

It happened too fast. It's still happening too.
We are I'm the middle of it.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Comparing population A to population B has problems. Waaaay too many variables for simple conclusions.

However, I do agree if you stuff a zillion humans on a small chunk of space with limited resources, not all of them will make it. Be it knives, guns, hands, rocks, sticks, or whatever. Sure guns might be quicker but the more you turn up the heat, the less problems folks will have with other methods.

So London has way less guns than NYC. OK. Still the same ratio of rats to cheese. To think if you take away the "means" the behavior will change is delusional. Next it's knives. How's that working out? One poster here said you can get into trouble carrying a big flashlight. Where does that crazy train stop? You have some powerful looking fists there, spread 'em!

originally posted by: ABNARTY
a reply to: SlapMonkey

So London has way less guns than NYC. OK. Still the same ratio of rats to cheese. To think if you take away the "means" the behavior will change is delusional. Next it's knives. How's that working out? One poster here said you can get into trouble carrying a big flashlight. Where does that crazy train stop? You have some powerful looking fists there, spread 'em!

And you have solved the issue.

That's not sarcasm--I completely agree with you. Human beings are territorial by nature, and when that territory becomes about 900 square feet of living space with people above and below you, "civilized" humanity is often replaced with primal actions and reactions.

Large urban areas and megacities are more of a cancer to humanity than actual cancer--and they probably cause and promote the growth of actual cancer, too.

I'll never, ever understand how people prefer to live their life in places like New York or London.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I'm with you.
70k years ago the territory of a group of 50 may have been close too 100 square miles.

Look how many people are packed into just 1 square mile now.
Of course there are problems

a reply to: TinySickTears

I looked this up when I was going to have to travel to NYC for work: The population density in Manhattan is 66,940 people per square mile.

WTF?!

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: TinySickTears

I looked this up when I was going to have to travel to NYC for work: The population density in Manhattan is 66,940 people per square mile.

WTF?!

yeah man.
thats not how # was supposed to go for us.
maybe not for another million years

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I'm with you.
70k years ago the territory of a group of 50 may have been close too 100 square miles.

Look how many people are packed into just 1 square mile now.
Of course there are problems

Bingo. Add in poverty rates and use both as a control and all of a sudden murder and violent crime in the UK and the US evens out.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
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

Cities ban guns. Wherever they do, crime rates go up not down.

a reply to: rickymouse

The good thing is that gun bans by cities has been adjudicated by the SCOTUS to be unconstitutional. Now, cities just make it so difficult, expensive, and time-consuming to get one in a concerted effort to stop only those who really, really want one legally from going the proper channels. I would argue that it increases the illegal transfer of weapons, too.