purplerat wrote:Doesn't seem to be working seeing as everytime there's a non-school-mass-shooting it's basically 50/50 that it's gonna be ex-military. It's no wonder the Islamic terrorist don't bother to do much over here anymore when we are training our own soldiers to terrorize us.

he caught a lot of shit for being so stupid

willhud9 wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

Removing lead from gasoline a little over two decades earlier resulted in a drop in violent crime as the first generation of kids without lead poisoning came of age. Just one large factor out of many. Gang and mafia conflicts deacreased at about that time as well.

https://www.motherjones.com/environment ... en-health/

There is hardly conclusive evidence to suggest this is a major factor though.

The more likely indicator is the simplest one. Mass communication. What developed massively in the time from 1995 to 2014? The internet. Cell phones. The ability of people to report crime and deter crime easily. Potential victims have the means of immediately contacting the police; is that risk worth the criminal's time? Police and detectives are able to identify and investigate people more throughoughly than before. You get caught on a surveillance camera (which are getting clearer and clearer as tech improves) you face a high liklihood of being identified and arrested.

Those factors are huge in crime deterrance. This is a much more simpler and straightforward answer than the limited studies that have verified the idea that lead contributed to significant rises in violent crime. I am not saying it didn't have any effect, but its not a very conclusive one and I see it get pushed really hard especially on fringe left sites like MotherJones.

If you looked at the numerous published journals, you would see this is pretty damned robust. Mother jones was just the first link that came up that wasn’t behind a paywall. Multiple countries see the same decrease in violence about two decades after removing the lead. The effects of lead on the brain are well understood. What is happening in flint and other places throughout the states worried those of us aware of this link.

I have looked into this. A lot.

What you have is a classic case of correlation not equaling causation.

The amount of peer reviewed studies is not exhaustive to draw a clear conclusion. As I said lead poisoning can attribute to behavioral changes but cannot account for the massive changes in the long term. Lead poisoning that affects behavior is not something like smoking which has reversible effects if you stop. Lead poisoning lasts for life. Yet the trends show a steady, not a sharp decrease. Regulations for lead removal from gasoline, paint, pipes, etc. happened quickly. 1978 to be exact. Crime in the US started it’s major decline in the mid-90’s. Again 1995+.

The studies I’m reading at the moment all seem to start with the premise of investigating the decrease in crime, seem to be content with linking lead poisoning, and then do not seek to address other potential causes.

Which is my biggest issue with these studies.

I am not disagreeing with the effect of lead poisoning, but I am skeptical enough to think that violent crime is not affected entirely by lead poisoning when there are other answers as well that goes with the available data.

OlivierK wrote:Incredibly saddening that all those responses seem reasonable.

Thanks to the risk of copycat incidents, our schools here also do lockdown drills, which at least do also cover risks that are much more likely here, such as chemical spills, or unrelated incidents nearby to the school.