Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on June 10, 2014, 11:36:11 pm
-
Feeling really sorry for the victims of the recent shootings in the US. As a father I cannot begin to imagine how the parents of those kids must be feeling.
I guess that most people in most develop countries understand and accept the idea that the global good of the society must be prioritized above the selfish desires of individuals.
This is what has driven the creation of our laws and of all the elements that structure our societies.
What I don't understand at all, is why in a country as developed as the US, there is not a large majority of the population realizing that the free availability of weapons is extremely negative for the society at large and should therefore be banned, even though it may result in a possible disadvantage for a small number of individuals (such a being killed by a vilain).
Or... a lot more scary I guess... a large majority of citizens do in fact want weapons to be banned, but the politicians supposed to represent them don't support their electors desires?
Either way, I would think that a free online open source system enabling citizens to express their preference would be a great way to cast light on this puzzling question.
Is such an independent "voting" platform available? Note that I am not speaking about a poll. I am speaking about an online system that would enable anyone to express one's preference in this debate. Politicians would of course not have to take these results into account. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If something like Newtown can't shock the federal govt, congress and states into action, what ever will? You just have to see it as normal for the USA - somewhere every few months bunches of innocent people are going to be gunned down. But it'll never be you or those you care for, will it?
-
Just came across this: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/11/74-school-shootings-sandy-hook-obama-infographic_n_5483283.html?utm_hp_ref=canada&ir=Canada (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/11/74-school-shootings-sandy-hook-obama-infographic_n_5483283.html?utm_hp_ref=canada&ir=Canada)
-
Before a load of fascist-commie-atheist-muslim-liberal-pinko-homosexual-evolutionists, start trying to argue for the removal of the God-given right of all True Patriot Americans to own & openly carry machine guns, rocket launchers and the odd nuclear device (for personal protection and to oppose any tyrannical government), let me point out that school shootings happen in other countries too. There was one in the UK in 1996. None prior, nor since, but that's because God hates those fascist-commie-atheist-muslim-liberal-pinko-homosexual-evolutionist-Brits and won't let them have their God-given right to bear arms without proper licensing from the state.
Just saying.
-
I guess that most people in most develop countries understand and accept the idea that the global good of the society must be prioritized above the selfish desires of individuals.
Hi Bernard,
Guess again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States) combined with the need to raise re-election campaign funds, is a recipe for disaster.
It's a flawed system, excellently characterized by Lawrence Lessig (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc).
Cheers,
Bart
-
But it'll never be you or those you care for, will it?
That's really not sure as I have many friends in the US and may very well be proposed to work in the US at some point of time, but I am not sure how my selfish well being is relevant?
Just like we all fell compelled to help Iraki citizens a few years ago, many people outside the US feel an urge to help. Is that odd? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Bernard,
Guess again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States) combined with the need to raise re-election campaign funds, is a recipe for disaster.
It's a flawed system, excellently characterized by Lawrence Lessig (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc).
Yes, I have read his Ted Lesterbook like most of us.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That's really not sure as I have many friends in the US and may very well be proposed to work in the US at some point of time, but I am not sure how my selfish well being is relevant?
Just like we all fell compelled to help Iraki citizens a few years ago, many people outside the US feel an urge to help. Is that odd? ;)
I hope you noticed I was being ironic.
It may not be odd, Bernard, but it's probably as futile as expecting to transform women's rights in Afghanistan. Even if - big if - the US introduced federal and state gun laws as sensible as those in the UK or Japan, you've big problems in enforcement, compliance, and the number of guns in circulation.
John
-
... It's a flawed system...
So flawed in fact, that it made them the most powerful country on Earth, ever ;)
-
The most powerful nations on earth were always the most powerful nations on earth, until they weren't anymore. So what.
-
So flawed in fact, that it made them the most powerful country on Earth, ever ;)
Agreed, depending on one's definition of powerful ... ;)
Cheers,
Bart
-
In any case, that power isn't due to every John Doe's right to own guns.
-
... So what.
So, while they are, they are.
And it IS because of being pro-gun, pro-individualism, pro-cutthroat competition, pro-winner-takes-all, pro-might-makes-right, anti-colectivism, anti-socialized healthcare, etc.
Not that I necessarily condone the above, just stating the fact.
-
This thread will surely be locked at any moment, but until it is...
In these situations, it's easy to look at a particular body of law in isolation and say "Well they have a much more sensible one in country X" without looking at the broader picture, and including a whole host of other factors.
You have to remember that the US was founded by people who had left countries where citizens were generally under a tighter level of social/class/government control. They came to a dangerous place, where they frequently got into violent contact with the natives. We could argue about the morality of colonization all day long, but that's what happened here. And as a result, that was the beginning of a long tradition of people wanting the right to protect themselves.
There are all kinds of opinion polls out there, from any number of agenda-driven takers, but there is no evidence that the majority want an outright ban on guns. There isn’t even consensus on the desirability of banning semi-automatic rifles. I think arguments that the situation is due to a small minority of NRA members controlling politicians are just false.
From the point of view of someone living in a city, you might see no need at all for personal defense. I live in the west, and spend a lot of time in places where law enforcement could not reach hours after being notified, if they could even be called for assistance in the first place. My wife and I have a favorite weekend getaway spot in the mountains about an hour and a half’s drive from our home. A couple of years ago, a man living in that town was killed and mostly eaten by a cougar. Some of you will say that’s because greedy developers keep pushing deeper and deeper into virgin natural territory, but that town has been there for over a hundred years, the population in the area is declining, and there were plenty of Anasazi living there a thousand years ago. There are plenty of bears, rattlesnakes, and other dangers too. At any rate, I carry a gun when I’m hiking there alone, and I will not apologize for that.
To my mind, the issue with all of the recent shootings I’ve looked at (and I haven’t read anything about Portland yet) is that they were perpetrated by dangerously insane people. The mother of the Newtown shooter pleaded with authorities to take control of her son repeatedly, and nothing was done. It’s currently very, very difficult to have someone committed, even with strong evidence that they are likely to act out violently. That’s the problem that needs tackling first.
-
In one country an insane person can probably injure or kill one or two people with knives, while in the US he has the right to arm himself with semi-automatic rifles and it's the authorities' fault when he massacres dozens of infants. After all, he might have to defend himself against red indians or a passing cougar. I appreciate it's too late to do anything about US gun "laws", but which is the more sensible arrangement?
-
Drugs are illegal. Yet everyone who wants them, gets them. Guns in Chicago were illegal, yet we have one of the highest homicide rates in the states. Just saying that it isn't so simple as it might look from the outside.
-
In one country an insane person can probably injure or kill one or two people with knives, while in the US he has the right to arm himself with semi-automatic rifles and it's the authorities' fault when he massacres dozens of infants. After all, he might have to defend himself against red indians or a passing cougar. I appreciate it's too late to do anything about US gun "laws", but which is the more sensible arrangement?
Sensible to whom? If we were to somehow magically eliminate guns (and I'd love to see someone's implementation plan for rounding up the estimated 400 million of them in this country), people who couldn't get help from law enforcement when they needed it would die. People who become victims of homicidal maniacs die now. If you're on the receiving end in either case, you're going to argue against the "sensibility" of allowing either situation to exist.
The berserker in Santa Barbara a few weeks ago drove into people intentionally with his BMW, in addition to shooting others, and I doubt you'd suggest getting rid of cars. The overwhelming majority of gun owners don't go on murderous rampages with them either. Personally, I'd rather see solutions that keep weapons out of the hands of the insane than I would the complete elimination of weapons. You’re free to disagree, as is your right.
But please don’t straw-man my argument. I didn’t solely blame the authorities for Newtown. It was incredibly foolish for the mother to keep guns in the same house with the shooter, and she paid for that mistake with her life. Still, I believe authorities have to find ways to contain the criminally insane. Have you ever faced down a violent criminal alone? I have. Have you ever struggled with an insane person? I have. It is to our credit that we try to be as understanding with folks like that as we are, but I’m here to tell you that allowing them to move about freely among the rest of us comes at a cost, guns or not.
My original intention was to point out some of the unique circumstances of the US as compared to, say, Japan and the UK. I lived in Japan myself for three years. Their per capita suicide rate was higher than our per capita murder rate at the time. Suicide by train was particularly common. That probably says something about the way Japanese people internalize their problems, whereas too many Americans externalize ours. But it doesn’t argue in favor of both countries having the same laws I think.
We have a curious comparison here in the southwest. El Paso, TX is per capita among the safest cities in the country. But it shares a border with Juarez, Mexico, which is one of the most deadly cities in the world. A couple of years ago, there were more per capita violent deaths in Juarez than in Iraq. Mexico completely prohibits private citizens from owning guns. Texas practically encourages it. I doubt that explains the crime difference, but who knows? Who has the more “sensible” laws? I don’t know.
-
As I say, I appreciate it's too late to do anything about the US gun ownership problem. Clearly strict regulation of gun ownership is the more sensible arrangement for any society, but it's equally clear that it's close to impossible across the US. If Newtown doesn't lead to major progress, shouldn't we just shrug our shoulders and accept that 15000 murders a year and dozens of school shootings is as American as apple pie?
-
Japan … per capita suicide rate was higher than our per capita murder rate at the time.
afaict The US per capita suicide rate was also probably higher than the US per capita homicide rate, something like:
2009, rate per 100,000 population, Japan
suicide 24.4
homicide 0.4
2009, rate per 100,000 population, USA
suicide 12.4
homicide 5.5
Mexico completely prohibits private citizens from owning guns. Texas practically encourages it.
fwiw
"We find that the reach of U.S. gun laws extends be-
yond its borders. Our analysis shows that the expi-
ration of the U.S. FAWB led to immediate violence
increases within areas of Mexico located close to
American states where sales of assault weapons be-
came legal. The estimated effects are sizable, and un-
related to the idiosyncratic influence of specific bor-
der states, trends in socioeconomic conditions, legal
enforcement patterns, and drug-trafficking along the
border."
pdf Cross-Border Spillover: U.S. Gun Laws and Violence in Mexico (https://files.nyu.edu/od9/public/papers/Cross_border_spillover.pdf)
-
afaict The US per capita suicide rate was also probably higher than the US per capita homicide rate, something like:
fwiw
"We find that the reach of U.S. gun laws extends be-
yond its borders. Our analysis shows that the expi-
ration of the U.S. FAWB led to immediate violence
increases within areas of Mexico located close to
American states where sales of assault weapons be-
came legal. The estimated effects are sizable, and un-
related to the idiosyncratic influence of specific bor-
der states, trends in socioeconomic conditions, legal
enforcement patterns, and drug-trafficking along the
border."
If guns from Texas are responsible for violence in Mexico, than why aren't they responsible for even more violence in Texas?
-
My original intention was to point out some of the unique circumstances of the US as compared to, say, Japan and the UK. I lived in Japan myself for three years. Their per capita suicide rate was higher than our per capita murder rate at the time. Suicide by train was particularly common. That probably says something about the way Japanese people internalize their problems, whereas too many Americans externalize ours. But it doesn’t argue in favor of both countries having the same laws I think.
Nobody is denying the fact that there are important problems in other countries, such as Japan. The high suicide rate is a sad reality, but as sad as it is, a suicide is an act that doesn't affect other innocent by-standers (but we know of course that the emotional impact for the relatives is huge). You are seemingly saying that suicides in Japan are a natural consequence of the Japanese society and that gun killings is a natural consequence of the US society, but there is a very easy solution to the latter while the former is much more complex. There is nothing "natural" about free access to gun. It is absolutely not a logical and unavoidable consequence to the perceived "freedom" in the US.
The mention of insane people being the root cause of mass killings with weapons is not relevant. Until proven otherwise, there are as many insane people in the US as in other countries, yet the number of killing is much higher. So insanity is not a likely cause of the difference.
The mention of the number of casualities in car accident isn't relevant either. Yes, we need to strive to reduce that, but not using cars is not an option for many people and people sadly die in car accidents all over the world. Providing free availability to guns is definitely not something mandatory, or even useful, for the society. The obvious proof being that most countries do very well without guns, and, this being the point, much better than the US.
Guns are not a solution to a problem. They feel like a local solution to some gun owners, but the problem guns are a perceived solution to is, to a large extend, created globally by the very presence of those very guns. I would love this vicious circle if I were a gun manufacturer! I would like it so much that I would create an association lobbying for the free availability of guns. I would of course claim I am trying to help people defend themselves (and... amazingly... people would believe me), but my real goal would be the continuation of the vicious circle explained above.
The need to carry guns for some people in special areas where wildlife is a danger is understandable. But this should be tightly controlled and should only concern a few tens of thousand of citizens among 400 millions.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Before a load of fascist-commie-atheist-muslim-liberal-pinko-homosexual-evolutionists, start trying to argue for the removal of the God-given right of all True Patriot Americans to own & openly carry machine guns, rocket launchers ...
I 'm all in favour of tasteful humour in some threads.
Not at all convinced that comments, such as the above, are appropriate when discussing something as tragic as this.
-
This thread will surely be locked at any moment...
Possibly but unlikely given the reasoned tone of the discussion.
I should point out however, that the use of irony can easily be misread - particularly by those who do not know you or whose mother tongue is not English. As to its appropriateness - I leave that to you.
-
You are seemingly saying that suicides in Japan are a natural consequence of the Japanese society and that gun killings is a natural consequence of the US society, but there is a very easy solution to the latter while the former is much more complex.
The mention of insane people being the root cause of mass killings with weapons is not relevant. Until proven otherwise, there are as many insane people in the US as in other countries, yet the number of killing is much higher. So insanity is not a likely cause of the difference.
The need to carry guns for some people in special areas where wildlife is a danger is understandable. But this should be tightly controlled and should only concern a few tens of thousand of citizens among 400 millions.
Cheers,
Bernard
No, I'm not saying that insane people are unique to the US. We have a particularly awful situation now where young men, having played thousands of hours of video games oriented around shooting people, and having seen endless hours of TV commentary about school shooting sprees ever since Columbine, have developed a national obsession with school shootings. If you're a miserable loner now, these things are constantly on your mind. That's a serious problem, and probably unique to the US.
Guns are not much more available now than they were fifty years ago. I grew up on a farm five miles from a small town. The family gun cabinet was in my bedroom, where my father stored, among other things, his M-1 carbine semi-automatic military rifle, and probably ten or so pistols. It never occurred to anyone that my brother or I would use the things to shoot people. We were both taught to shoot and hunt at about age five. Nothing unusual about that either. In my town, there was no school during the first week of deer hunting season, because most of the boys, and some of the girls, would be hunting with their families. Somehow, these student run amok school shootings just didn't happen in those days. Things have changed, and I don't believe it's the guns. Overall,our homicide rate has dropped steadily since the 1970s, but this teenage murder rampage got started at that time (See Bob Geldoff's Boomtown Rats song "I don't like Mondays").
You really think eliminating guns is "a very easy solution"? See mezzoduomo's comment. How would you propose to limit gun ownership to people who might travel to rural areas? I don't think that's an easy problem to work out either.
-
As our gun laws have progressively loosened over the years there's been all the expected consternation, fear and loathing about the impending 'blood in the streets' that would surely be inevitable, and it simply has not come to pass. Yes, Gabby Giffords was shot in Tucson, and we certainly have tragic gun crime here, but all-in, I think I'll stay here and take my chances in the wild, wild west. Guns are part of our culture, and while some forum members might have a hard time believing it, most Americans are OK with that.
I can accept that. I'm not American (Canadian) and have no business telling you how to run your affairs, for much the same reasons that I don't want others telling us how to run Canada's affairs. Some might question your assertion that "Guns are part of our culture", but I guess if enough people believe that, then to that extent it's true.
But the question begs to be asked. Once you reach the point of having 74 school shootings in less than 2 years (just since Sandy Hook, although it's not clear from that article whether these were all looney-with-a-gun incidents), and once you feel the need to bring weapons into grocery stores or when running simple errands, doesn't that make you wonder if there aren't more deep-seated problems at play here that are not being addressed effectively by the current methods? Is it really a good idea to accept this as the new normal?
-
Are there Texan drug cartels?
Actually, yes, that's what we worry about now. The mayor and a few other city officials in a New Mexico border town were convicted a year or two ago of running guns to the cartels. The cartels are currently recruiting children all along the US side of the border to help them smuggle. I think the reason the cartels get away with their depredations in Mexico is because they can.
A week ago, the Mexican government decided to allow residents of one remote town to own guns, as they were insisting on the right to defend themselves against the drug gangs. It appears to be an experiment to see whether letting them have weapons would have prevented the cartels from taking over in the first place.
-
But the question begs to be asked. Once you reach the point of having 74 school shootings in less than 2 years (just since Sandy Hook, although it's not clear from that article whether these were all looney-with-a-gun incidents), and once you feel the need to bring weapons into grocery stores or when running simple errands, doesn't that make you wonder if there aren't more deep-seated problems at play here that are not being addressed effectively by the current methods? Is it really a good idea to accept this as the new normal?
I don't think any of us want this to be the new normal. I just dispute the assertion that it's simply due to private citizens being able to own guns. Some even believe that if ordinary citizens were suddenly deprived of the ability to fight back, the violence would explode, as it did in Mexico of late.
There are plenty of horrors to go around right now. Yesterday, a man in Vado, New Mexico decided to drive around looking for someone from whom to purchase heroin. He took his three year old son along for the ride. At some point, the boy unbelted himself from his car seat, and got out of the car. The father was unable to find drugs, and tried to drive away in great haste, running over and killing the boy as he left.
-
A 17-year-old St. Louis girl went out to her car to get something around 11p.m. Monday night (June 9th, 2014) when she was accosted by two armed men who held a gun to her head and ordered her to take them into her home.
One step back. Could it be that the availability of guns had something to do with it? Why would 2 men require a gun to over-power a girl?
Maybe home invasions and gunpoint rapes don't happen Norway or Belgium or other European countries, but they happen here, and the kind of defensive use of firearms described above also happens.
Indeed, gunpoint rapes are virtually non existing here. Wonder why ... Maybe a chicken and egg situation?
It's probably a result of conditioning, and presumably overexposure to 'reality shows' which tend to paint a one-sided image of society in general. This article (http://www.killology.com/article_teachkid.htm) may help to gain some insight.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It's probably a result of conditioning, and presumably overexposure to 'reality shows' which tend to paint a one-sided image of society in general. This article (http://www.killology.com/article_teachkid.htm) may help to gain some insight.
Thanks for that linked article.
-
No, I'm not saying that insane people are unique to the US. We have a particularly awful situation now where young men, having played thousands of hours of video games oriented around shooting people, and having seen endless hours of TV commentary about school shooting sprees ever since Columbine, have developed a national obsession with school shootings. If you're a miserable loner now, these things are constantly on your mind. That's a serious problem, and probably unique to the US.
Right... Japan didn't invent the Playstation and Nintendo is a company coming from outer space... there are no gaming addicts around in Tokyo and they also don't have access to satellite TVs, youtube,... ;)
Irony aside, I totally agree with you that we live in societies that stress violence way too much (now, why is that... don't these media simply reflect the world some - at least one - country live in... a world full of guns?), but the key difference between the one country where this generates a large number of killing (the US) and the other ones is clearly, without the shadow of a doubt, the free availability of guns.
This should be easy to acknowledge. I have a hard time understanding why we can't get past this obvious fact and debate based on this common view. The free ability of guns in the US is the enabler of these killings. Putting it the other way, removing the possibility to access gun freely would fix those killings to a large extend. It is probably important to stress that I am not advocating the complete banning of weapons, but a strict control of their availability, just like we can buy some drugs in pharmacies with the prescription of a doctor.
Heck, why not amend the constitution further and make it possible to freely access drugs, remove speed limits because they are an obstacle to the great freedom of the West to drive your car at any speed you like?...
Now, a majority of citizens in the US may think it is OK to get those killings, just like we get road casualties (even with speed limits). They may see it as the price to pay for enjoying their gun ownership hobby.
But is that really the case?
All I am saying is that it would make sense to measure, through an open referendum, what % of the US population in each state is really in favor of free fun ownership. Why would this be a problem? You seem certain about the outcome, right? Easy, more than 66% of the population is against it? You ban it. Regardless of whether the remaining 33% have more money or are represented by powerful lobbies.
That would be a great democratic approach in my view. In fact, I fail to understand why any other approach can be called democratic.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Short of some dream-state America where all guns are miraculously vaporized overnight, we need to face the facts that that criminals really don't care about the laws to begin with. Like, for example, the laws against murder and assault. Poor, young black men are gunned down by the scores month after month in Chicago, its harsh gun laws notwithstanding. I'd like to see CNN cover that like they cover each and every 'school shooting'.
One of these recent sprees began with 3 killings by the blade, then a few by the gun, then additional deaths by motor vehicle. I for one can clearly see the common denominator.
Well, nobody ever said that it would be easy, but is that a reason for not starting?
By the way, when I traveled in the US, I don't remember being controlled at interstate borders. Is there an active effort to prevent vehicles loaded with guns from entering states where gun ownership/purchase is controlled? If there isn't, then one state allowing free gun accessibility would pretty much be sufficient to flood the whole country. So this would probably have to be a country level law, right?
This is currently enforced pretty strictly at the border of countries, although it is of course far from perfect.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... the key difference between the one country where this generates a large number of killing (the US) and the other ones is clearly, without the shadow of a doubt, the free availability of guns.
This should be easy to acknowledge. I have a hard time understanding why we can't get past this obvious fact and debate based on this common view. The free ability of guns in the US is the enabler of these killings. Putting it the other way, removing the possibility to access gun freely would fix those killings to a large extend...
Obvious fact? To you, sure. To many others, especially here, it is just an opinion. Common view? Now you are departing from a "fact" to a "view," which is good, but common? Again, not here. Common outside the US? Probably.
The differences between countries can not be reduced ab absurdum to just one "key" factor. Country cultures come as a package, i.e., as a totality of factors, and you can not cherry pick from one and transplant it to another. Many Americans would like to eat cheese and drink wine like French, and be healthy and skinny like French, but alas... By the same token, you can't just take guns out of the equation in America and still have... America.
As noted before, Chicago had guns banned for decades until recently, yet has had some of the highest gun violence rates in the country. As noted before, drugs are prohibited universally across the States, yet anyone who wants them can get them. If you ban guns universally, across the whole USA, not just certain cities, there will be a black market, just like for drugs. Another example on an international level: many war-torn countries are under arms embargo, yet they get theirs "freely" on the black market. American tried to ban alcohol universally, didn't work.
Just for the record, I neither have a gun, nor want one. I am all for a tighter control, definitely for a ban on high-power, military-style guns. However, I do realize it is only my personal choice and preference, my opinion, and realize there are other opinions too. I do not think that when each side sticks to their guns (pardon the pun), without listening to each other, without taking into account different viewpoints, we are not going to make much progress.
-
To the first bit: I would posit that its a key difference, but perhaps not the key difference, and probably not the causative difference.
OK, and what would those be?
What are these other factors unique to the US?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... What are these other factors unique to the US...
As a European who moved to the States, I can tell you from my own perspective.
Most Europeans have some sort of serfdom in their genes. They see themselves as 'subjects' of their kings, queens or tsars. The authority they've accepted through millennia is of a divine kind. God in heaven, king on Earth. Millennia of authoritarian rule is in their blood. Today, it is their government who gives and takes away, permits and forbids.
America was born in direct repudiation to all of the above. The power belongs to the people first, some of which is then transferred to the government, which serves at the pleasure of the people, not the other way around. To bring it back to the gun issue, people had guns before they had government. This is why their government does not have the authority to take them away, cemented in the Constitution.
Thus, I did not find it strange at all when you used this phrase in one of your earlier posts in this thread:
Providing free availability to guns is definitely not something mandatory, or even useful, for the society.
That is a typical European attitude. Here, it is not that somebody (government) "provides" guns to the population. Again, the population had it before the government "decided" to "provide" it to them.
These are the unique factors.
IMHO, of course.
-
I 'm all in favour of tasteful humour in some threads.
Not at all convinced that comments, such as the above, are appropriate when discussing something as tragic as this.
I'm in favour of tasteless humour, specially when it pokes fun at the sort of arguments that regularly get trotted out to excuse a society, that manages to kill so many of its children, with oh so chilling regularity
-
Rape is as irrelevant here as suicide rates, car accidents, and the Chicago factoid.
As you say, the difference is "the US is #1 in gun ownership rate by a wide margin". The US may only lie down at #28 in murder rate, but who is it rubbing shoulders with? Countries like Jamaica, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa. The European countries with the serf mentalities (I hope I'll soon stop laughing at that one!) or post-Imperial Japan and China are a long way down the list.
Gun ownership stats in comparable First World countries don't reflect the kinds of guns that can be owned. In countries with sensible gun control, you can't generally go out and buy semi-automatics, for example. You also have to be undeterred by compliance checks such as annual inspections - these even affect reproduction muskets of the type meant in the Second Amendment.
It's as self-evident as all men being created equal that gun availability is the problem - but I doubt the cork can ever go back in the bottle. Americans haven't got that serf mentality, have they, so they'll just stay free and make endless excuses for events like Newtown.
John
-
Most Europeans have some sort of serfdom in their genes. They see themselves as 'subjects' of their kings, queens or tsars. The authority they've accepted through millennia is of a divine kind. God in heaven, king on Earth. Millennia of authoritarian rule is in their blood.
You speak for yourself, Slobodan, it certainly doesn't apply to me, nor anyone else I know. Us Brits once chopped off a king's head, and the French chopped off lots of aristocratic craniums.
Today, it is their government who gives and takes away, permits and forbids.
Governments that we elect. The government came down hard on gun ownership after the Dunblane school killings, and it was public outcry that brought that about.
-
The suggestion above is that lots of societies stress violence, but the free availability of guns is the sole 'something' about the US that generates the killing. Wouldn't it necessarily follow that other countries where guns are available would then also be plagued by carnage? If not, then there's at least one additional 'something' at work in the US, or a missing 'something' in Finland, Greece, etc.
It is well established that there are lots of guns in peaceful (i.e., no tragic school shootings) European places like Finland, Italy, Switzerland, Czech Republic...even France.
Exactly. The availability of guns doesn't help to reduce the risk of someone using it inappropriately, but it's also another, deeper, cause that is at the root of the frequent carnage in the USA.
Check the attached overview of a number of European countries (first attachment). Apparently the above average concentration of firearms is in Scandinavian countries, i.e. Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark. If we compare those, and a few other continents to the USA, we see that the USA does lead the pack, more than double, but not by an order of magnitude (see second attachment). So with everything else being the same, we would expect about double the number of casualties if availability alone were the cause.
See attachment 3. Apparently, with the exception of Finland, the average number of gun deaths in the USA is 5x as high as most others with already above average availability. Hmm, something is wrong with the availability hypothesis alone ...
Maybe it's the gang related crime that boosts those figures (which would be an interesting topic but hard to compare), so let's look at something else, accidents (one could also look at suicides). The fourth attachment shows there is apparently something odd going on in the USA, with 5x (yes, FIVE times) as many unintentional deaths compared to those Scandinavian gun slingers.
I'll leave it to you to peruse the very interesting http://www.gunpolicy.org/ (http://www.gunpolicy.org/) website (from which the attached charts came), which allows to drill down much further into the specifics. Anyway, although availability plays a role, there does also seem to be a 'cultural component' that causes an abnormal number of deaths by firearms.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I suspect one major difference is the legislation, that in Europe tends to require firearms to be safely stored, usually locked away in a safe gun cabinet or similar. Add-in licensing, age-restrictions on ownership, and laws regarding the carriage of weapons. Firearms in Europe are for hunting & sport shooting, vermin control, and that's about it. In addition, in the US, the mindset for many people seems to be quite different - guns for personal protection & defence against a tyrannical government ('cos an AR15 will always stop a tyrannical Abrams MBT, or something).
-
I've never quite understood the 'tyrannical government' argument. The first thing a dictatorship is going to do is strip the citizens of their guns. Happened in Germany in '38 I believe. Those who hide and secret their arms away will be spread out, untrained, have practically no sources of ammunition resupply on what is essentially a huge island and hopelessly outclassed by regular military never mind that every shooter having different guns and different calibers of ammunition is a joke in a combat situation. Even then, um, didn't the last time the South try to gain independence from a government whose policies they disagreed with, go really badly? With fully mechanised arms and modern technology the militias and individuals would not stand a chance at being anything more than a nuisance to any government, lethal nuisance perhaps but nothing more. Similar to the resistance/terrorist forces in occupied territories of Europe during the past century.
To be honest I don't personally believe that guns are the problem. I work at present in a city (Jerusalem) where every street has people walking along with fully automatic assault rifles and many carry pistols. This is due to compulsory army service and the terrorist situation. Every school and mall has armed guards. Strangely enough the civil murders with firearms are almost non existent. My brother in law in Switzerland keeps his army assault weapon at home. So do most apparently. Still a lack of massacres. I don't think the guns are the problem. It's attitude to guns which is the issue. But heck what do I know, I've never been in the States and don't intend to be yet another patronising European armchair know it all comparing the US to countries with vastly different mentalities, education, histories and government control and most of all a tiny fraction of the population of the US.
-
Fascinating debate.
I guess that many US parents will unfortunately have to continue fearing for the life of their kids a bit longer while others continue to enjoy the idea of having the power to kill thanks to their steel sex toys. ;)
When I was a kid our closest neighbour had a gun license and was storing a handgun and shot gun at home. He gave me the opportunity to shoot with his automatic handgun a couple of times in their garage without my parents knowing (a 9mm if I recall correctly). I was probably 12. I was pretty good at it, not to say excellent.
I would think that I belong to a tiny minority of Belgians my age who have ever used a gun loaded with real bullets, a few meters away from an adult that would have died had I decided to turn the gun at him.
I quickly decided to turn down my neighbours invitations to go shoot his concrete wall though.
Not that I didn't like the act of shooting. I realised that I was very uncomfortable with the relationship our neighbour had with his guns. I read the Lord of the rings a few months later by chance and, although I did of course understand that the ring was mostly the symbol of money and power, it did a good job a describing the relationship my neighbour had with his "precious" guns.
I know, he is just one guy and the other gun owners are different.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Not that I didn't like the act of shooting. I realised that I was very uncomfortable with the relationship our neighbour had with his guns.
Probably the way he rubbed them? To polish them, of course.
John
-
No-one here has said anyone's afraid to send their kids to school. After all, these shootings always happen somewhere else, and it's always a weirdo or loner. Most of the US does indeed feel blissfully safe (not joking there) and it'll never happen in Scottsdale, so why worry? Just give the teachers weapons training. What's crazy about that?
-
The condescension is becoming insulting.
I present U my apologies then.
Cheers,
Bernard
P.s.: my neighbour past away many years ago. He was overall a very normal person, a nice guy, had 2 nice kids, a Toyota, worked in a major bank, liked barbecues, beer and good jokes. He had no other place than his garage to practise his hobby, I wouldn't read too much in that part of the story.
-
Some Israelis need to be armed because they're fighting for the territory. It's a totally different situation.
-
I'm in favour of tasteless humour, specially when it pokes fun at the sort of arguments that regularly get trotted out to excuse a society, that manages to kill so many of its children, with oh so chilling regularity
A Duh! egg-on-my-face moment and perhaps a warning to myself not to post too early in the morning.
Apologies.
-
... The first thing a dictatorship is going to do is strip the citizens of their guns.
Isn't that EXACTLY the reason gun owners here are against ANY restrictions in gun ownership, however small and reasonable they might be, as it might start a boiling-the-frog process?
...Those who hide and secret their arms away will be spread out, untrained, have practically no sources of ammunition resupply on what is essentially a huge island and hopelessly outclassed by regular military never mind that every shooter having different guns and different calibers of ammunition is a joke in a combat situation....Similar to the resistance/terrorist forces in occupied territories of Europe during the past century....
Not quite so, depending of national mentality and circumstances. The way you described above is how it actually happened in Yugoslavia during WWII, when partisans started with absolutely nothing and ended with a formidable army capable of fighting vastly superior Germans for four years, to the point of liberating its whole territory practically alone. There are many more examples like this throughout history. True, small, isolated uprising usually stands no chance against a government. However, with enough motivation behind it, many small, isolated uprisings grow surprisingly fast, arming itself along the way by ambushing regular forces. Soon cracks start to appear in the government forces, ideological desertion, whole units switching sides, new alliances are made, foreign or domestic, etc. (isn't that what just happened in Ukraine?)
...But heck what do I know, I've never been in the States and don't intend to be yet another patronising European armchair know it all comparing the US to countries with vastly different mentalities, education, histories and government control and most of all a tiny fraction of the population of the US.
Amen, brother! ;)
-
The right to keep and bear arms to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government, and also to defend ourselves against mortal harm, is the keystone of America. We emerged from tyrannical British rule, and without small arms that emergence would never have happened. We keep our politicians in check (to a degree) by fear of armed revolt.
Most non-Americans cannot comprehend this, as you will never have the possibility to bear arms against your tyrannical government.
Also, most non-Americans think a simple click of the fingers and all privately owned firearms will disappear from circulation in America. THAT CANNOT HAPPEN. There are estimated to be up to 300 million privately owned firearms in US circulation. No matter how hard you try, these guns will always be in circulation, and WILL ALWAYS BE AVAILABLE TO CRIMINALS, but not law-abiding citizens if made illegal.
The school shootings are a product of media sensationalism providing sick minds with a quick means to notoriety and fame. Doing a school shooting is the surest and quickest means to national fame in this country.
-
... The school shootings are a product of media sensationalism providing sick minds with a quick means to notoriety and fame. Doing a school shooting is the surest and quickest means to national fame in this country.
Indeed. What we need is a total ban on... media coverage of such events (other than generic info). No purp name, no picture, no interview with relatives, friends and neighbors.
Instead, a total coverage of victims, with their names, pictures, interviews and eulogies. That would nip in the bud any idiot who plans to "immortalize" himself, when he realizes all he is going to achieve is make his victims famous, while he is disappearing into a total darkness. But, alas, that won't happen either.
-
I've never quite understood the 'tyrannical government' argument. The first thing a dictatorship is going to do is strip the citizens of their guns. Happened in Germany in '38 I believe. Those who hide and secret their arms away will be spread out, untrained, have practically no sources of ammunition resupply on what is essentially a huge island and hopelessly outclassed by regular military never mind that every shooter having different guns and different calibers of ammunition is a joke in a combat situation. Even then, um, didn't the last time the South try to gain independence from a government whose policies they disagreed with, go really badly? With fully mechanised arms and modern technology the militias and individuals would not stand a chance at being anything more than a nuisance to any government, lethal nuisance perhaps but nothing more. Similar to the resistance/terrorist forces in occupied territories of Europe during the past century.
To be honest I don't personally believe that guns are the problem. I work at present in a city (Jerusalem) where every street has people walking along with fully automatic assault rifles and many carry pistols. This is due to compulsory army service and the terrorist situation. Every school and mall has armed guards. Strangely enough the civil murders with firearms are almost non existent. My brother in law in Switzerland keeps his army assault weapon at home. So do most apparently. Still a lack of massacres. I don't think the guns are the problem. It's attitude to guns which is the issue. But heck what do I know, I've never been in the States and don't intend to be yet another patronising European armchair know it all comparing the US to countries with vastly different mentalities, education, histories and government control and most of all a tiny fraction of the population of the US.
I know you don't think guns are the problem. Agree with you.
You are correct a dictatorial government will attempt to strip citizens of firearms. THAT IS ALREADY STARTING HERE under the tyrannical Obama regime - but failing. It is has been largely ineffective. Given the knowledge American's have of prior British rule and the absolute necessity to be able to arm ourselves against tyrannical rule, en masse confiscation is highly unlikely to gain traction.
Also, you are incorrect about low supplies of ammunition in such circumstances, many many responsible gun owners in this country stock over 10,000 or more rounds per caliber of weapon they own.
You are incorrect when you state "With fully mechanised arms and modern technology the militias and individuals would not stand a chance at being anything more than a nuisance to any government." Please research Afganistan, which has defeated USSR and USA invasions using 60-100 year old firearms. Research the American Revolution in which we Americans were "hopelessly outclassed" by the British military. A determined and armed citizenry is the most powerful collective weapon in the world.
-
Huh? Tyrannical British rule? Unjust, incompetent, hypocritical, sure, but in 18th century terms tyranny is ludicrous. You're almost as funny as Slobodan and his serf genes theory!
Better read up your history again. You only got away with independence because the French helped you out!
-
I present U my apologies then.
Cheers,
Bernard
P.s.: my neighbour past away many years ago. He was overall a very normal person, a nice guy, had 2 nice kids, a Toyota, worked in a major bank, liked barbecues, beer and good jokes. He had no other place than his garage to practise his hobby, I wouldn't read too much in that part of the story.
That's a fairly accurate description of many, many law abiding Americans, many of whom own guns and use them responsibly. I personally don't like the damn things and would love to see laws in place/in force that balances responsible gun ownership with the safety of all citizens. One of the core issues in the gun control debate is ultimately individual rights -vs- society at large....that's a very, very emotional issue in the US.
-
Do you have to insure your guns against misuse? So if your creepy nephew uses your guns and takes out his classmates or the neighbours, can the victims' relatives not sue you for damages? A free market approach?
-
... You're almost as funny as Slobodan and his serf genes theory!...
Says a Queen's subject ;)
-
Says a Queen's subject ;)
And a republican. But there is a grain of truth in what you said. We may have tried one king for tyranny and thrown another out for Catholicism (as it led to tyranny), but technically Brits are indeed "subjects" and not "citizens". Still, I wonder how well your theory explains gun ownership among black Americans.
-
Using Stinger missile (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204138204576598851109446780) launchers (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-taliban-missile-strike-chinook).
Sure, all afghani's have regular access to stingers. dream on.
-
The right to keep and bear arms to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government, and also to defend ourselves against mortal harm, is the keystone of America. We emerged from tyrannical British rule, and without small arms that emergence would never have happened. We keep our politicians in check (to a degree) by fear of armed revolt.
Most non-Americans cannot comprehend this, as you will never have the possibility to bear arms against your tyrannical government.
Right... I see the Patriot Act and its PRISM follow ups as far overdoing the level of control the best KGB generals ever dreamed of achieving, but good for you if you feel that guns are protecting you from state tyranny. ;)
But back to the original point, how about a referendum on gun free ownership? Wouldn't that be the best way to shut up know nothing outsiders regarding what the Americans truly want?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... But back to the original point, how about a referendum on gun free ownership?...
Why? There are presidential elections every four years, and congressional every two years. Plenty of opportunity for candidates to get an aha! moment when reading opinions of know-nothing outsiders and realize that would be a perfect opportunity for them to get elected. After all, it is clear as day that a vast majority of Americans favor a ban on guns, so if any Joe Schmoe wants to be elected, all he is to do is to run on that platform, and victory is guaranteed, no brainer.
And even if there were a national referendum, it would be in vain, as the wise men in black capes would overturn it as unconstitutional. As is already happening with state referendums on gay marriage, where peoples' will is overturned by a few wise men in black capes.
-
Right... I see the Patriot Act and its PRISM follow ups as far overdoing the level of control the best KGB generals ever dreamed of achieving, but good for you if you feel that guns are protecting you from state tyranny. ;)
But back to the original point, how about a referendum on gun free ownership? Wouldn't that be the best way to shut up know nothing outsiders regarding what the Americans truly want?
Cheers,
Bernard
Quite, we might not have Orwell's grey uniformity but he wasn't far off with the total surveillance and constant war against an unseen enemy. 1984 was written as a warning, not a manual.
-
Take recruit A, from the non-gun 'crazy' or outright hoplophobic country of your choosing. Let's call him Olaf.
Now take Johnny GI, from Ketchum, Idaho who got his first .22 rifle at age 8 and has been around guns his whole life. He's killed a dozen white-tailed deer at distances up to 400 yards in the last 5 years.
Whatever training might be applied in boot camp, Johnny will out-shoot Olaf by a mile in training and especially in combat.
If you had any idea what's required to shoot "Expert" in Marine Corps training, you'd understand that the average Olaf just can't get there, but Johnny has a legitimate chance.
But white tailed dear are so cute!
-
But white tailed dear are so cute!
And taste even better! ;)
-
And taste even better! ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOmIDhBDoww
-
Why? There are presidential elections every four years, and congressional every two years. Plenty of opportunity for candidates to get an aha! moment when reading opinions of know-nothing outsiders and realize that would be a perfect opportunity for them to get elected. After all, it is clear as day that a vast majority of Americans favor a ban on guns, so if any Joe Schmoe wants to be elected, all he is to do is to run on that platform, and victory is guaranteed, no brainer.
And even if there were a national referendum, it would be in vain, as the wise men in black capes would overturn it as unconstitutional. As is already happening with state referendums on gay marriage, where peoples' will is overturned by a few wise men in black capes.
The value of a referendum is that:
- it gives the right of people to express themselves directly on a single clearly defined point and therefore gives a clear view of the desire of the majority
- it removes all the influence of the lobbies.
You don't think it would make sense on such a topic?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Referendums are suitable for countries whose populations can conformably fit into a local cafe for voting.
-
Got Google, Isaac? I wouldn't invest even 10 seconds on that pointless errand.
So you are not able to show any notable difference between militaries in WW2 that links to your speculations. Oh well.
Difference? I'll give you one: American boys won. What better difference would you want?
-
Right... I see the Patriot Act and its PRISM follow ups as far overdoing the level of control the best KGB generals ever dreamed of achieving, but good for you if you feel that guns are protecting you from state tyranny. ;)
But back to the original point, how about a referendum on gun free ownership? Wouldn't that be the best way to shut up know nothing outsiders regarding what the Americans truly want?
Cheers,
Bernard
I totally agree with you that PRISM and the Patriot Act are tyrannical actions! Our president used our Internal Revenue Service (tax collecting branch of the government) to suppress his political opponents during a presidential election. The American people have not revolted yet since British rule, and I hope they never will need to again. The option remains, however. It is a looming reminder to the government that they may at any time overstep their bounds too far and be forceably removed. Imagine if we did not have the right to keep and bear arms; the government would have zero reservations and be in full dictatorial mode by now.
-
Indeed. What we need is a total ban on... media coverage of such events (other than generic info). No purp name, no picture, no interview with relatives, friends and neighbors.
Instead, a total coverage of victims, with their names, pictures, interviews and eulogies. That would nip in the bud any idiot who plans to "immortalize" himself, when he realizes all he is going to achieve is make his victims famous, while he is disappearing into a total darkness. But, alas, that won't happen either.
Yes, a total coverage of victims would be justice and ethical media response. But I agree, it won't happen. American media consumers demand blood and gore and violence.
-
I understand some of you would like to see confiscation of our privately owned firearms and privately owned property to "protect society." I again would remind you there are 200-300 MILLION firearms in private ownership circulation in the USA. Confiscating even a fraction of them will never be possible; there are simply too many. The only effect a ban would have would be to ensure that some law abiding citizens had no guns, while criminals had all the access to all the firearms they desire. This is further compounded by the fact that firearms are very durable and capable of excellent operation for 1-2 centuries or more. Throughout the world fighters are still using 100+ year old british and french rifles; take a look at virtually any third world country.
Case in point; Chicago. Virtual total small arms ban for years, with the highest small arms violent crime rate in the country.
The difference between American citizenry and most other countries is that we the citizens hold the power and grant the power to the government to administer within boundaries of our constitution. If we, collectively, feel our government is out of bounds we can vote it out, and if that fails we can force it out with our firearms.
In most other countries, power is forever 100% inherent in the government itself or worse yet, the monarchy. Non-arming of its citizenry forever ensures the government has no ultimate responsibility to its people. Serfdom.
-
I totally agree with you that PRISM and the Patriot Act are tyrannical actions! Our president used our Internal Revenue Service (tax collecting branch of the government) to suppress his political opponents during a presidential election. The American people have not revolted yet since British rule, and I hope they never will need to again. The option remains, however. It is a looming reminder to the government that they may at any time overstep their bounds too far and be forceably removed. Imagine if we did not have the right to keep and bear arms; the government would have zero reservations and be in full dictatorial mode by now.
So isn't the answer to go and shoot a few government officials then? It's all very well mumbling on about the right to carry arms to prevent tyranny and yet not do anything about it when tyranny threatens.
-
I'm sort of reluctant to contribute here because we had a similar thread a year or so back after the last internationally reported US mass shooting.
But I feel to all those who point out the difficulty in ridding the US of firearms, and claiming that the criminals would still end up with the guns - that you are missing the point. Obviously the killers who carry out these mass shootings are breaking the law. But from what I can tell they are not known criminals before carrying out their awful acts. They are previously ordinary people who for their own reasons (not usually financial gain) decide to take a lawfully held firearm and murder a whole lot of people.
Now if the US outlawed private gun ownership - or made it much more difficult to own a gun as here in the UK, then would not most law-abiding citizens give up their guns?
Gangs and the like will always be able to access guns - they do here too, but by making guns less readily available would of course deter the would-be mad gunman. It is the mere fact that so many homes have a gun readily to hand that makes anyone who just loses their rag to pick up a gun and go and use it.
Gang related crime is usually aimed at other gang members anyway, and if somebody breaks into your house to steal your laptop, do you really want to get into a gunfight over it?
The vast majority of criminals in the UK don't have guns - they don't need them because the people they are committing crimes against don't have them either. Hey, even most police don't have guns (and they don't want them mostly). If you have a gun you are more likely to get shot - surely anybody knows that.
The logical continuation of gun ownership and ability to protect yourself is to enable all citizens to carry a weapon on their person. Then you're back to the Wild West. Hell when I think about it a lot of people I know are lethal enough behind the wheel of a car, let alone giving them a loaded gun.
Jim
-
The difference between American citizenry and most other countries is that we the citizens hold the power and grant the power to the government to administer within boundaries of our constitution. If we, collectively, feel our government is out of bounds we can vote it out, and if that fails we can force it out with our firearms.
In most other countries, power is forever 100% inherent in the government itself or worse yet, the monarchy. Non-arming of its citizenry forever ensures the government has no ultimate responsibility to its people. Serfdom.
The citizens of any country have that power - I think it's called a coup. Do you honestly think here in England where we have no firearms if enough people wanted to overthrow the government we could not? However we do have elections - called democracy, where we can vote out governments if we wish. Our Monarchy has no power in fact.
And I thought the USA was a leading democracy - shame your government has to live with the ever-present threat of an armed insurrection by it's citizens!
Jim
-
And I thought the USA was a leading democracy…
Flawed democracy - "So, which countries do we rate as the most democratic in the world? This group includes the five Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) along with New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland, Canada and tiny Luxembourg. (The US comes in at 19th (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27310566).)" (UK 14th)
Why America doesn't work (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24712433)
-
http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/school_shootings/
Interesting take. I rather like it. Science and data rather than pushing political agendas.
-
So isn't the answer to go and shoot a few government officials then? It's all very well mumbling on about the right to carry arms to prevent tyranny and yet not do anything about it when tyranny threatens.
No, not at all. Those who would infringe upon our constitutionally protected civil RIGHTS secretly desire we are a blood thirsty bunch to justify your paranoia and your desire to deny us our rights. In your ideal world, gun owners would be uncontrollable violent animals to justify your prejudices.
There is still hope that democracy will prevail. I think and hope we are far from violent civil uprising, and god forbid that ever happens.
-
The citizens of any country have that power - I think it's called a coup. Do you honestly think here in England where we have no firearms if enough people wanted to overthrow the government we could not? However we do have elections - called democracy, where we can vote out governments if we wish. Our Monarchy has no power in fact.
And I thought the USA was a leading democracy - shame your government has to live with the ever-present threat of an armed insurrection by it's citizens!
Jim
That our government has to live with the ever-present threat of an armed insurrection by it's citizens is a GOOD THING. It is a very, very good thing. Generally people such as yourself view the national government as a benevolent institution which must not be questioned. I concur it may be a remnant of serfdom ingrained into your culture. In the US, the government is a necessary evil, at best a trained monkey that needs to be closely controlled and monitored by its citizens.
Your lack of firearms would make government overthrow much more difficult, but not impossible. I agree with that.
-
No, not at all. Those who would infringe upon our constitutionally protected civil RIGHTS secretly desire we are a blood thirsty bunch to justify your paranoia and your desire to deny us our rights. In your ideal world, gun owners would be uncontrollable violent animals to justify your prejudices.
There is still hope that democracy will prevail. I think and hope we are far from violent civil uprising, and god forbid that ever happens.
I rather think you are deranged which is as good a reason to curb gun ownership as any.
-
I rather think you are deranged which is as good a reason to curb gun ownership as any.
Your ad hominem rebuttal is illustrative. I'll cease posting on this thread given the direction it is moving.
-
Your ad hominem rebuttal is illustrative.
Not really, it simply illustrates the utter contempt I have for one that who willfully misstates my position, but I have come to expect such desperation of the gun lobby.
-
I rather think you are deranged...
And... there goes our (so far) civilized debate😞
-
And... there goes our (so far) civilized debate😞
Maybe, but I'm not over fond of being informed that I'm paranoid and so on. How about you?
-
I rather think you are deranged which is as good a reason to curb gun ownership as any.
+1 though easier to get away with saying his comments are deranged and ridiculous. Rubbing your weapon isn't good for you, "ligament”.
-
That's great. Meanwhile 15000 murders a year and dozens of school shootings. But so long as you had fun....
This was a response to a post that was subsequently deleted.
-
This is an interesting discussion, even better if it can stay away from name calling and defensiveness, we all have different opinions.
For what it's worth, I have never understood why people outside the States comment on what's happening inside, Americans are the only people who can affect what happens inside their own country, I have visited many many times and have some great friends over there but honestly, it always feels like a different planet rather than a different country!
That being said, it's a discussion so i will give my unasked for and uninteresting views! I have always felt that gun ownership is more about fear than anything else, fear of attack, fear of nature, fear of the guy walking down the street, it's all fear, I don't see power in any of it.
I also feel that there is so much emphasis placed on rights and not enough on what's right, if that makes sense. Sure it can be your constitutional right to have a gun but do people actually feel it's right to own a gun? It always seems to me like it comes back to fear. It doesn't help that the media always roll out clips of people who are the most extreme they can find, the view from the outside is that everyone is spitting, chewing tobacco, wearing checked shirts and oily baseball caps and proclaiming their god given right to own a bomb if they choose to, that's not the America I know but it is the America that is often portrayed.
I am lucky enough to have travelled more than most and have seen the world from a lot of different angles, in my opinion there are lots of issues that need to be addressed alongside gun control, kids that are stuck behind computers day in and day out, unhealthy from eating poorly, not developing their social skills because they rarely play, etc. etc. all these things are global rather than limited to the US but still, combine this with the apparent American way of promoting and positively reinforcing everyone and everything to the n'th degree is dangerous in my view. If you have been told your whole life that everything you do is awesome and you are fantastic then when you hit your teens and realise that actually you're just as average at most things as everyone else is, it can hit hard as you realise that you've been lied to all your life, surely?
I know my opinion is only valid for me but ultimately, I am sad when I read these stories of pointless killing but then I'm also happy that I'm not part of a culture where I'd be so scared of what was going on around me that i'd feel it necessary to exercise my rights and own a gun for protection, that would be the real tragedy.
Mat
-
This is an interesting discussion, even better if it can stay away from name calling and defensiveness, we all have different opinions.
For what it's worth, I have never understood why people outside the States comment on what's happening inside, Americans are the only people who can affect what happens inside their own country, I have visited many many times and have some great friends over there but honestly, it always feels like a different planet rather than a different country!
That being said, it's a discussion so i will give my unasked for and uninteresting views! I have always felt that gun ownership is more about fear than anything else, fear of attack, fear of nature, fear of the guy walking down the street, it's all fear, I don't see power in any of it.
I also feel that there is so much emphasis placed on rights and not enough on what's right, if that makes sense. Sure it can be your constitutional right to have a gun but do people actually feel it's right to own a gun? It always seems to me like it comes back to fear. It doesn't help that the media always roll out clips of people who are the most extreme they can find, the view from the outside is that everyone is spitting, chewing tobacco, wearing checked shirts and oily baseball caps and proclaiming their god given right to own a bomb if they choose to, that's not the America I know but it is the America that is often portrayed.
I am lucky enough to have travelled more than most and have seen the world from a lot of different angles, in my opinion there are lots of issues that need to be addressed alongside gun control, kids that are stuck behind computers day in and day out, unhealthy from eating poorly, not developing their social skills because they rarely play, etc. etc. all these things are global rather than limited to the US but still, combine this with the apparent American way of promoting and positively reinforcing everyone and everything to the n'th degree is dangerous in my view. If you have been told your whole life that everything you do is awesome and you are fantastic then when you hit your teens and realise that actually you're just as average at most things as everyone else is, it can hit hard as you realise that you've been lied to all your life, surely?
I know my opinion is only valid for me but ultimately, I am sad when I read these stories of pointless killing but then I'm also happy that I'm not part of a culture where I'd be so scared of what was going on around me that i'd feel it necessary to exercise my rights and own a gun for protection, that would be the real tragedy.
Mat
I think the answer to your first question is because America does have rather a strong influence on the rest of the world be it politically , economically or culturally so in effect we are all 'stakeholders' and so feel entitled to comment upon developments within the country. Certainly the US is not shy of suggesting the the great American dream is the only way forward for civilisation and regular browsing of the web will go to support the contention that there is little regard for other cultures by America as a whole. This may not be intentional and I doubt that the majority of it is, but the English speaking web is to a great extent based on American social mores and it rankles after a while.
Now why people should be scared of one another is an interesting question, the country boasts of its multiculturalism and integration, but just how deep does that tolerance run? I'm not talking just about race here but culture generally. For instance, the Irish are a pretty easy going bunch but even they feel threatened by the Polish and other eastern Europeans, colour doesn't come into it, and I know many British also feel that their country no longer belongs to them hence the success of UKIP (a rather right wing anti immigration party) in the latest elections. Perhaps this fear and the consequent comfort that comes from gun ownership is due to the fact that the content of the melting pot is not quite as homogenous as wished. The development of human nature is probably lagging far behind the rush of globalisation so we need to be aware and make allowances for the fact that we are not all 'one people' and are hardly likely to be be for many generations yet. Certainly I should be be more conscious of the fact that my use of irony in a cynical manner may not be understood as being such by those living elsewhere.
-
For what it's worth, I have never understood why people outside the States comment on what's happening inside, Americans are the only people who can affect what happens inside their own country, I have visited many many times and have some great friends over there but honestly, it always feels like a different planet rather than a different country!
So should we not comment on Israeli treatment of the people who occupied the land they've taken, on the Syrian government's tactics in the civil war there, on the treatment of women in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan, or should non Brits not comment on how we use sperm to select our head of state? We've probably more first hand experience of the US, and are more exposed to American culture than to what's actually happening in those other societies. In the end a heavy drinker has to decide for himself if he's alcoholic or just a bore, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't tell them they've had enough.
-
Well, that's interesting, of all the points I made in that post, the paragraph I thought the least about was the bit that both of you have picked up on, John, you had nothing to say about any other part of my post.
Just because I don't understand why people post strong views on the social situation in America doesn't mean they shouldn't, just that I don't think it makes any difference to a culture that believe the only way to live is their own way. Suggesting that we shouldn't comment on global injustices is taking my point to the extreme and not really necessary. I guess it's hard to explain your entire viewpoint on everything as a context to what you write on an internet forum. I've spent the last 23 years travelling, working and living in over 80 countries, I have views on most of those places, the common link being they are all based on my view of the world. not anyone elses.
Mat
-
Well, that's interesting, of all the points I made in that post, the paragraph I thought the least about was the bit that both of you have picked up on, John, you had nothing to say about any other part of my post.
That's because "what's it to do with you?" is always wheeled out to invalidate an outsiders right to make any comment or intervene in a dispute. As for the rest of the post, I suppose I just don't disagree much with what you say or feel strongly enough that I would break my preference for keeping (or trying to keep) my own posts short and concise.
John
-
I think it's pointless because this issue isn't about race, religion, gender, it's about the perceived rights of americans, if as a nation there is not enough strength of opinion to change the basis on which everything is built then what possible influence will the outside have? You could have every citizen of every country in the world tell America that their basis for owning guns is wrong and puts innocent lives at risk and what do you think will be the response? It will be that the world is wrong and America is the most powerful nation on earth because of it's rights. There's no group to support, no underdog to fight for, you're arguing against what are seen as basic rights, you can't win. The only change will come from within and it won't be because outsiders think it's wrong.
I honestly don't expect people to agree with my view, that's because it's my view, you're obviously entitled to your own.
Mat
-
Outsiders' opinions.
Ok, let's forget about opinions for a moment. let's check some facts. Facts how people form their opinion about things they know little about. And how the less they know, the more they are certain they are right.
Take tha situation in Ukraine, for instance. The attached map shows "where a U.S. survey respondent situated Ukraine; the dots are colored based on how far removed they are from the actual country, with the most accurate responses in red and the least accurate ones in blue.?
You can mock a typical American's knowledge of geography, sure, but that is not the point I am trying to make. That's not the kicker. The real kicker is this:
The farther their guesses were from Ukraine’s actual location, the more they wanted the U.S. to intervene with military force.
The above is a study by two professors from Harvard and Princeton Universities, published, among others, in a Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/07/the-less-americans-know-about-ukraines-location-the-more-they-want-u-s-to-intervene/).
-
A mildly-amusing distraction, but we're discussing an issue that we know plenty about.
-
I agree, the geographical knowledge of a section of americans, apart from being embarrassing, has little to do with what's being said here.
Mat
-
... we're discussing an issue that we know plenty about.
Seriously!?
Or you are just confirming the lack of secondary knowledge, i.e., that you even don't know how much you don't know?
-
... has little to do with what's being said here.
Or it actually shows how ignorant people tend to have stronger opinions?
-
Well i guess so, your opinions on what's being said do appear quite strong.
-
Here are some more facts.
Gun ownership in the US is 97 per 100 people, in the UK its 6.2.
Gun deaths in the US is 10.3 per 100,000 so in the UK it should therefore be, on a pro rata basis, around 0.6 but it is in fact less than half that at 0.25.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
-
I think it's pointless because this issue isn't about race, religion, gender, it's about the perceived rights of americans, if as a nation there is not enough strength of opinion to change the basis on which everything is built then what possible influence will the outside have? You could have every citizen of every country in the world tell America that their basis for owning guns is wrong and puts innocent lives at risk and what do you think will be the response? It will be that the world is wrong and America is the most powerful nation on earth because of it's rights. There's no group to support, no underdog to fight for, you're arguing against what are seen as basic rights, you can't win. The only change will come from within and it won't be because outsiders think it's wrong.
There are a few things to say:
- The first is a question I'll ask once more. Do we know for a fact that a large majority of Americans are in favor of the free availability/ownership of guns? Assuming we'll agree that the way politics work in the US is such that large gaps may occur between the desire of the majority of the people and the resulting political decisions (2 parties influenced by the same lobbies), why not clarify this once for all through an open referendum?
- You are obviously right that change can only come from inside for now. But I guess you would agree with me that a lot of people in the US, I hope a large majority, are in contact with people outside the country, would it only be through such online discussion forums, and that such debates have the potential to influence the way some people think?
As far as the origin of change, another reason why I think that this debate isn't useless in the long run is the fact that the very notion of state is being phased out among many people belonging to younger generations. It means that those guys recognize themselves less in the nation they belong to compared to other association of people across countries. The legitimacy of the concept of nation itself is at stake. Farmers in Oregon would somehow finally be able to make their dream come true of uniting with farmers in British Colombia (and France, although they may not realize this).
If we can find a way to make such a world work (and my bet is that we will), physical location and local laws would have a lot less impact on what matters to people providing some basic conditions are met.
Today, there is not yet any "physical" connection between this very deep transformation of mindset and the local laws in countries, and not all layers of the population have an actual perception of what this means either (farmers may have a lot less than IT engineers), but things can change extremely fast. In a context where they do, I guess that the conditions I am talking about will include aspects ensuring the minimization of the odds of physical violence in each locale. Gun ownership law would probably have to be aligned to a world standard. Put it the other way around, a vast majority of people may end up prioritizing their real freedom of association over debatable gun ownership with little practical value.
In short, Facebook kills the guns.
If you think such things cannot happen, think about the way people are giving up on their desire to be untraceable in favor of the experience provided by smart phones. Think of the way security has been leveraged by the US government to let people accept a potential tremendous reduction of their freedom through laws such as the Patriot Act. We have many examples where a value (security) make people accept to lose other things they thought was extremely important to them (freedom). I would argue that gun ownership is an order of magnitude less important to people than their own safety, so it seems obvious to me that they will be willing to trade gun ownership in favor of something else with more actual value to their daily lives.
Future will tell.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... Farmers in Oregon would somehow finally be able to make their dream come true of uniting with farmers in British Colombia (and France...
"Proletarians of all countries, unite!" - The Communist Manifesto (1848), by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
Facebook meets Marx?
Wishful thinking wet dream?
-
"Proletarians of all countries, unite!" - The Communist Manifesto (1848), by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
Facebook meets Marx?
That's absolutely not the point I was trying to make.
I don't see those virtual communities as being politically leaning towards the left of the right. There would be politics in them just as there is in the real physical world, but those politics may be more relevant to the people belonging to these communities.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There are a few things to say:
- The first is a question I'll ask once more. Do we know for a fact that a large majority of Americans are in favor of the free availability/ownership of guns? Assuming we'll agree that the way politics work in the US is such that large gaps may occur between the desire of the majority of the people and the resulting political decisions (2 parties influenced by the same lobbies), why not clarify this once for all through an open referendum?
- You are obviously right that change can only come from inside for now. But I guess you would agree with me that a lot of people in the US, I hope a large majority, are in contact with people outside the country, would it only be through such online discussion forums, and that such debates have the potential to influence the way some people think?
Hi Bernard
I don't believe that a large majority of Americans are in favour of the free availability of guns, I wrote that as a nation there is not enough strength of opinion, which is very different! If the voice of the people who wanted change was loud enough then the opportunity has been there, this is a quote from Obama last week..
Mr. Obama said: “Our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no advanced, developed country on earth that would put up with this.”
“Until that changes, until there is a fundamental shift in public opinion in which people say: ‘Enough, this is not acceptable, this is not normal, this isn’t, sort of, the price we should be paying for our freedom,’ ” Mr. Obama said, “sadly, not that much is going to change.”
Obviously this is just an isolated quote but it's fair to say that there has been every opportunity for restrictions on gun ownership to be put in place.
So, as America is the land of the free, where the common man can influence his future, it would appear that the majority is pro guns. The President and government, according to some on this thread, are held in check by the threat of an armed uprising if they don't represent the majority. One could assume that the power lies with those who have the guns, is America, rather than the land of the free, actually the land of the armed who can keep the rest in check with the threat of armed action?
I agree that the world is getting smaller, we can only hope that as more and more young people reach out, they will see that there are different ways of doing things, not all will work in all situations but it's possible to positively change things. I think Slobodan has proved that there is a way to go but with luck the younger generation will be more interested in seeing the world as full of opportunity to learn and develop. Maybe facebook and other social media channels can start adding maps to their backgrounds to help the geographically illiterate?
Mat
-
I don't believe that a large majority of Americans are in favour of the free availability of guns, I wrote that as a nation there is not enough strength of opinion, which is very different! If the voice of the people who wanted change was loud enough then the opportunity has been there, this is a quote from Obama last week..
Mr. Obama said: “Our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no advanced, developed country on earth that would put up with this.”
“Until that changes, until there is a fundamental shift in public opinion in which people say: ‘Enough, this is not acceptable, this is not normal, this isn’t, sort of, the price we should be paying for our freedom,’ ” Mr. Obama said, “sadly, not that much is going to change.”
Obviously this is just an isolated quote but it's fair to say that there has been every opportunity for restrictions on gun ownership to be put in place.
So, as America is the land of the free, where the common man can influence his future, it would appear that the majority is pro guns. The President and government, according to some on this thread, are held in check by the threat of an armed uprising if they don't represent the majority. One could assume that the power lies with those who have the guns, is America, rather than the land of the free, actually the land of the armed who can keep the rest in check with the threat of armed action?
Fair comments.
Now, there is one caveat I think. The fight is not only between the voice of the people who are against guns and the current status quo. You have to add to the status quo a very strong industrial lobby on both Democrats and Republican sides in favour of maintaining the status quo. I don't know what means this lobby is using.
I don't think there is any company putting money on the table against guns, so the question is how many % of voters the gun lobby manages to counter balance.
Are they only able to make a 50-50 mind share lean in favor of the status quo?
Do they have the power to turn a 60-40 or a 70-30 in such a way that the status quo remains?
How can we get this visibility and is there a point beyond which we can safely say that democracy is at risk?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Bernard
I don't believe that a large majority of Americans are in favour of the free availability of guns, I wrote that as a nation there is not enough strength of opinion, which is very different! If the voice of the people who wanted change was loud enough then the opportunity has been there, this is a quote from Obama last week..
Mr. Obama said: “Our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no advanced, developed country on earth that would put up with this.”
“Until that changes, until there is a fundamental shift in public opinion in which people say: ‘Enough, this is not acceptable, this is not normal, this isn’t, sort of, the price we should be paying for our freedom,’ ” Mr. Obama said, “sadly, not that much is going to change.”
Obviously this is just an isolated quote but it's fair to say that there has been every opportunity for restrictions on gun ownership to be put in place.
So, as America is the land of the free, where the common man can influence his future, it would appear that the majority is pro guns. The President and government, according to some on this thread, are held in check by the threat of an armed uprising if they don't represent the majority. One could assume that the power lies with those who have the guns, is America, rather than the land of the free, actually the land of the armed who can keep the rest in check with the threat of armed action?
I agree that the world is getting smaller, we can only hope that as more and more young people reach out, they will see that there are different ways of doing things, not all will work in all situations but it's possible to positively change things. I think Slobodan has proved that there is a way to go but with luck the younger generation will be more interested in seeing the world as full of opportunity to learn and develop. Maybe facebook and other social media channels can start adding maps to their backgrounds to help the geographically illiterate?
Mat
Indeed, when you are 40 times more likely to meet your demise in a firearm related incident in the US than you are in the UK then certainly there is something amiss.
-
The President and government, according to some on this thread, are held in check by the threat of an armed uprising … is America, … the land of the armed who can keep the rest in check with the threat of armed action?
It's the land of gerrymandered electoral districts where the threat to incumbent politicians is that someone more extreme will stand against them in low-turnout party primary elections.
… 90 percent of House members and 91 percent of senators who sought re-election in 2012 were successful, exceeding the incumbent re-election rates of 2010, when 85 percent of House members and 84 percent of senators seeking re-election were successful.
…
Congress had a 21 percent approval rating (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-13/voters-throw-bums-in-while-disdaining-congress-bgov-barometer.html) on Oct. 15-16 after reaching all-time lows of 10 percent in February and August, according to Gallup polls. Just 10 percent of Americans said that members of Congress have high or very high honesty and ethical standards, according to Gallup data for Nov. 26-29.
-
The US is a constitutional republic, meaning, by design, the states have authority to govern themselves. The federal government has specific powers enumerated in the Constitution, and there are none whatsoever to open some kind of national referendum that would by definition be intended to test the bill of rights. The second amendment will be in force until the Constitution is changed, via the well-established procedure laid out therein. Not likely soon.
We did something like that in the 1920s with prohibition of alcohol, and it turned out to be a disaster. A majority clearly agreed then (and probably still do now) that alcohol caused all manner of social problems. But not very many thought through what would happen after alcohol was banned. It turned out to be unenforceable (just like gun banning would be), and spawned so many new evils that most people preferred going back to the old ones.
The polls do not suggest that most people want guns banned. In many states, sizable majorities would be against that, for reasons listed in several posts above. You can sometimes get a majority to agree to some kinds of restrictions, depending on how you devise the poll, but that’s about it.
The fact is that the trend in violence in the US over several decades is going down substantially, including gun violence. Many states have actually loosened the restrictions on concealed carry of handguns over the last ten years, and still the gun murders drop. Even the level of violence in schools is dropping, despite recent school shootings.
In my state, you have to take four days of classes and get a federal background check to apply for a concealed handgun carry permit. When I took the classes four years ago, permit holders had committed exactly two gun crimes in the entire history of the program. One man carried a handgun into a bar and proceeded to get drunk. The other case had to do with a man threatening another man with a gun under some circumstance I can’t remember. No shots were fired, or persons injured, in either case.
The classes are taught by former law enforcement officers. I was worried that having a permit might make for trouble if I ever got pulled over for a traffic violation or something. It turns out that police officers, at least in this state, relax when they encounter a known permit holder. That’s because they know that, due to the background check, the permit holder has to be a person with no criminal history, no reported psychological problems, etc., etc. The local movie theater used to have signs on the doors that forbade people from carrying in guns, alcohol, your own sodas and so forth. After that lunatic in Colorado shot up that theater a while back, they removed guns from the list of prohibited items.
-
Same as every other place in the US; a federal background check. That processes in less than a day here. Takes much longer in some states.
-
The fact is that the trend in violence in the US over several decades is going down substantially, including gun violence.
Really? Some sources seem to contradict those 'facts (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/194/total_number_of_gun_deaths)'.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Really? Some sources seem to contradict those 'facts (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/194/total_number_of_gun_deaths)'.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, if we're going to quote an agenda group, here's something from the CDC, as quoted by the NRA:
"However, firearm-related deaths among all persons ages 0-19 decreased 33 percent through 2009 and 37 percent through 2010. More importantly, the per capita rate of such deaths has decreased to an even greater extent. Among persons ages 0-14, it dropped 44 percent from 1997 to 2009, and 48 percent from 1997 to 2010, while among all persons ages 0-19 it dropped 42 percent through 2009 and 45 percent through 2010."
http://www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/vcrime500.jpg
(http://www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/vcrime500.jpg)
-
Bart, if we're going to quote an agenda group, here's something from the CDC, as quoted by the NRA:
"However, firearm-related deaths among all persons ages 0-19 decreased 33 percent through 2009 and 37 percent through 2010. More importantly, the per capita rate of such deaths has decreased to an even greater extent. Among persons ages 0-14, it dropped 44 percent from 1997 to 2009, and 48 percent from 1997 to 2010, while among all persons ages 0-19 it dropped 42 percent through 2009 and 45 percent through 2010."
So you are quoting a source that states that amongst infants, todlers, and schoolkids, which is the fastest growing group of citizens, the relative percentage went down. How about the absolute numbers, for the entire population?
Besides, the greatest decline (after a huge increase in preceding years) pro capita (!) was around the turn of the century, after which it seems to stabilize. Of course with a growing population, the absolute numbers paint a somewhat grimmer picture than the per 100,000 numbers, so guess which ones the gun lobby prefers to use ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
If you buy at a gun show?
Absolutely. The vendors at gun shows are all federally licensed. The only exceptions are individuals who bring a gun into the show to trade or sell to another individual. No different than a buyer and seller who find each other via a newspaper or internet ad. But, in this state, that practice is not legal. If I walk into a gun show with any sort of weapon and attempt to transfer it, I'm required to run the sale through the federal process whether or not I'm a dealer. Same in most states.
-
So you are quoting a source that states that amongst infants, todlers, and schoolkids, which is the fastest growing group of citizens, the relative percentage went down. How about the absolute numbers, for the entire population?
Besides, the greatest decline (after a huge increase in preceding years) pro capita (!) was around the turn of the century, after which it seems to stabilize. Of course with a growing population, the absolute numbers paint a somewhat grimmer picture than the per 100,000 numbers, so guess which ones the gun lobby prefers to use ...
Cheers,
Bart
Yes, because absolute numbers are irrelevant to considering the climate of crime.
Actually, that brings up another point. People worry about things getting "as bad as the wild, wild west." My understanding is that per capita murders were actually very low in the western territories. Much of the endemic gunfighting in the movies is a complete Hollywood fabrication.
-
Same in most states.
Gun Show Background Checks State Laws (http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html)
-
How about the absolute numbers, for the entire population?
Burea of Justice Statistics, Homicide in the U.S. Known to Law Enforcement, 2011 (http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4863)
See the pdf report (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hus11.pdf).
-
Isaac, you are a better search engine than Google! You display only one or two most relevant results, not pages to wade through, and no ads. Who needs Google when we have you! ;)
-
I'm wondering how much the US murder rate is influenced by its incarceration rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate) (the graphs say it all). There are a lot of baddies off the streets.
Cheers,
-
I'm wondering how much the US murder rate is influenced by its incarceration rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate) (the graphs say it all). There are a lot of baddies off the streets.
Do you mean there would be even more killings if those gyus were on the street? Or do you mean that people who should never have ended up in jail learn the bad things there and end up creating more violence after their release?
Btw, do we have data showing the correlation between gun killing and previous incarceration?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Do you mean there would be even more killings if those gyus were on the street? Or do you mean that people who should never have ended up in jail learn the bad things there and end up creating more violence after their release?
Btw, do we have data showing the correlation between gun killing and previous incarceration?
Cheers,
Bernard
No it was more like… the gun lobby is saying the murder rate is going down but at the same time the US has the highest incarceration levels in the world and it is still increasing. It's a worry!
Then there is this story (http://disinfo.com/2013/04/how-a-man-was-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-for-stealing-a-pair-of-socks/) about the guy who got life for stealing a pair of sox.
Cheers,
-
The original Rolling Stones article is a bit more detailed on this one. The story you quoted dates back 1995, this law was fortunately changed in California in 2012. Nonetheless, this remains one of the most shocking articles I have ever read.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/cruel-and-unusual-punishment-the-shame-of-three-strikes-laws-20130327?print=true&src=longreads&buffer_share=d7ec7
The scariest part of the article is probably this one:
Ten years later, when a group called Families to Amend California's Three Strikes, or FACTS, tried to reform the law, it was the same story. They fought to get an initiative onto the ballot, Proposition 66. Two weeks before Election Day, a Los Angeles Times poll showed the measure winning by a nearly three-to-one margin. But days before the vote, an Orange County billionaire named Henry T. Nicholas donated $1.5 million for a major ad buy. Soliciting the support of then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his predecessors – including Democrats Jerry Brown and Gray Davis – the anti-Prop 66 camp ran a series of scare ads, including one called "He Raped Me," which showed a middle-aged white woman claiming the initiative would release her attacker, and Polly Klaas' father promising that "murderers, rapists and some very dangerous child molesters" would be released thanks to the new law. It wasn't Willie Horton – the mug shots shown in the ad were mostly all of scary-looking white criminals – but it was in the rhetorical ballpark.
Jerry Brown flew to Long Beach at Nicholas' request, where he recorded anti-Prop 66 radio ads at a studio belonging to Ryan Shuck, guitarist of the rock group Orgy, while Korn drummer David Silveria looked on. The last-minute bipartisan ad blitz worked, and Prop 66 lost by a slim 53-to-47 margin, a come-from-behind win that one pollster at the time called "unprecedented."
You have it right there. Money put on the table by a few guys with extreme views end up manipulating/beating the majority with disastrous effects.
The second puzzling thing in this story, from a political standpoint, is that Democrats did everything they could to prevent the cancelation of this law...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You display only one or two most relevant results…
And sometimes just the relevant information --
Over the same 20-year period, the age-adjusted firearm
homicide rate based on data from the NVSS declined 45%…
…
The homicide rate for incidents involving other types of
weapons also declined from 1992 to 2011. During this 20-year
period, the rate of murder involving a knife or blunt object
declined by 55%…
The percentage of victims killed by a firearm
remained relatively stable from 1992 to 2011…
The percentage of homicides that involved a
firearm was generally stable across periods for
various victim types…
About half of all firearm homicides in rural
areas involved a firearm other than a handgun…
…the percentage of homicide incidents involving a
firearm increased with the number of victims killed
in the incident.
-
... this remains one of the most shocking articles I have ever read...
Perhaps, Bernard, you should start reading more? ;)