2012-12-22, 13:24 | Link #921 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
If you compare the states with the highest poverty (almost all Southern States), you see higher violent crime rates. Which is why a state like Vermont has people walking around with guns on their hips, yet low crime compared to a state like Kentucky which forbids such action. Quote:
Also, I don't put as much weight on the statistics for this issue as I would others due to the politically charged nature of it. Everyone is manipulating data to "win" the argument, so getting raw, unadulterated data, is difficult. When such data has been made available, it generally shows that gun bans and other gun control measures do little to nothing to curb crime. That indicates that these laws are an infringement on people's rights that should not exist. My position doesn't require detailed statistics to support. The burden lay with the group that wishes to convince me that I should give up my right to own a specific item for what they percieve as the greater good. Clearly they haven't proven this poinit since crime has gone down, as has the freqency of mass shootings. Repeating the same laws expecting a different result is not good public policy. That's my poiint. Gun control laws that ban firearms to lower crime aren't working the way they were intended, if at all. Quote:
Poverty in US: Then we can take the issue of drug gangs in the US and apply that as well. (Map from the FBI's website): Compare that to murder rates: Compared to concentration of minorites: As you can see, there is a commonality to all of these maps, and firearms has little to do with it. What it does show is that we need to provide better education, put an end to the drug war to bankrupt the drug gangs, and have a cultural discussion about the violent image our youth find so appealing. Especially in the "gangska" cultures of our minority communities. Mindset plays a role in whether or not a person chooses to engage in criminal activity, it isn't always about lack of money and/or poverty (though I would imagine those play a factor). Quote:
That's my point, we have so little data on this as to make it laughable to set policy based on these kinds of assumptive statistics. Quote:
And it s a fun site, thanks for introducing me to it. That's going to have to be it for now. I've got errands to run today. I know you must be crushed, since you LOOOOVE talking to me so much.
__________________
|
|||||
2012-12-22, 13:52 | Link #923 | ||
Sensei, aishite imasu
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong Shatterdome
|
Quote:
Violent media? This is ludicrous. The rest of the world produces plenty of their own violent media, and more importantly, the rest of the world are some of the BIGGEST consumers for violent American media. American movie Blockbusters that feature violence and killing gross very well overseas, even in countries which have very little violence. While there are lots of possible inquiries you could make between the connection between American foreign policy and US culture, I think this is a bit too hypothetical, and doesn't consider what the majority of all these homicides are connected with. In America, the greatest participants in homicides (as well as the most common victims) tend to be economically/socially disenfranchised ethnic minorities, or other economically disadvantaged groups. The politicians who control US foreign policy tend to overwhelmingly to be White Anglo Saxon Protestant social elite. I'm thinking you're going to have a hard time trying to find a connection between disenfranchised minorities who turn to crime because of social/economic situations and between extremely powerful White guys in suits. Even American obsession with the death penalty and self defense laws are only the most superficial way to examine the problem. Because when you come down to it, these kind of measures are reactions to American concerns about crime. They're a sign of dysfunction that ALREADY exists. The death penalty is only issued allot because there ARE significant numbers of crimes committed that warrant the death penalty, out of some unrealistic idea that they'll deter future crimes. The reason America has a high homicide rate is much simpler than what you're talking about. We have a high homicide rate because there is a large wealth gap in this country, and no comprehensive and well organized social safety net like European countries have. When you combine that with a war on drugs that punitively punishes non violent offenders by throwing them into jail with violent offenders, forcing them to learn to be more violent criminals, and then coming out of prison for even worse job prospects thanks to their criminal record...we're basically training people for criminal behavior. The War on Drugs is a much bigger issue than the death penalty. Social and economic deprivation and lack of social safety net are parts of America are close to developing countries in terms of violence than they are to Europe. People who talk about stricter gun control being able to reduce this violence are SERIOUSLY underestimating how deep the core problems are. It's poverty and deprivation that cause violence, not weapons. Reducing the numbers of guns won't help as long as this poverty and deprivation remains. Look at the Philippines. They don't even have a tenth as many guns per capita as the United States does, but still only trail somewhat behind in terms of the overall firearms homicide rate. What does that tell you? When poverty and social disorder is widespread enough, you don't need THAT many guns to have significant gun homicides. This intuitively makes sense, considering that not THAT many people are murderers. Trying to completely disarm the American populace is just plain unproductive compared to actually addressing systematic poverty in this country. Quote:
What separates some black/mexican kid in the ghetto, or some Alabama redneck getting involved in a meth gang from all those nice middle class kids, is the white middle class kids have been afforded the economic/social opportunity to more easily do productive things. For the latter, indulgence in violent media is a pass time. For those who have nothing, know they have nothing, and have no other productive things to do, carrying out empowerment fantasies in a gang, and looking up to a powerful male figure comes much more naturally.
__________________
|
||
2012-12-22, 13:53 | Link #924 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 46
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-12-22, 14:05 | Link #925 | |||||
temporary safeguard
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Germany
|
kyp275, you are justifying a lot of points, but that is beside the topic here.
I am not reasoning for or against things. I am talking about how these things form a public opinion. In this case the general stance towards violence. Quote:
I am not sure myself, if pop culture is part of the cause here, or simply mirroring the already established opinion. Quote:
Most of the unrest that is there, is more about 'bringing our boys home', your own casualities, or the high costs of war. Not much about the fact that there is war at all and how that might be a bad thing.. maybe? And because you bring up Europe: Yes, this is actually a lot how people thought like here back when we started wars within Europe. Quote:
They are bad guys -> we kill the bad guys -> problem solved. When it is the government of the country doing this, don't you think this sends certain signals? Quote:
Remember, this is all about wether in the general public opinion, lethal violence is a viable solution to problems. And so far, the gov is sending a clear YES sign. Quote:
1.) Most of it originates from the U.S. and as I said, I am not sure myself if this is part of the problem, or really just a symptom. I can tell you at least, that local productions usually are much more tame in that respect. 2.) The PG ratings for violent material come out different, are usually more strict Maybe all of these are just symptoms, rather than causes. But if they are, they point to something really problematic. Last edited by Dhomochevsky; 2012-12-22 at 14:21. |
|||||
2012-12-22, 14:38 | Link #926 | ||
Sensei, aishite imasu
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong Shatterdome
|
Quote:
There's another thing you REALLY need to stop and consider...Hollywood really isn't an entire American institution creatively wise. Think about some of the biggest names in Hollywood. James Cameron? A Canadian. Del Toro? Mexican. Peter Jackson? New Zealand. Pierre Morel (he did Taken with Liam Neeson)? He's French. Really...when so many of Hollywoods top actors, directors and producers are international, and the international market makes such a overwhelming part of Hollywood's profits, is it really accurate to characterize everything Hollywood makes as entirely American products? Quote:
Look at Hong Kong. Hong Kong is lower than Japan when it comes to homicides. But look at the kind of media that Hong Kong produces. A Chow Yun Fat Herioc blood shed movie sees more people violently killed in 5 minutes than are killed in all of Hong Kong annually (300 people get killed over the course of the movie. A violent crime spree that would probably make international headlines even in a violent developing country). Is this kind of movie a symptom of some innate and pervasive problems with extreme violence in Hong Kong?
__________________
Last edited by Roger Rambo; 2012-12-22 at 14:52. |
||
2012-12-22, 14:52 | Link #927 | ||||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
2012-12-22, 14:53 | Link #928 | |
temporary safeguard
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Germany
|
This is not about me liking it, or not.
The fact is, all of these points are at least somewhat different in other countries. These are all choices made by someone. It should serve as another hint when looking for the reason of different homicide rates. Quote:
Media was only a minor point and I said I am not even sure if it not only a symptom. In fact I still believe it's BS that consuming violent media would somehow make you a killer, provided you are in an otherwise healthy environment. So about the link to poverty and crime rates: Are crime rates (violent/crimes involving arms in general, not only homicides) also that much higher? Or is it only the homicide rate, that is out of proportion in international comparison? Last edited by Dhomochevsky; 2012-12-22 at 15:14. |
|
2012-12-22, 15:28 | Link #930 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
So... killer fires off 10 shots, maybe hitting some people. When he pauses to reload, the rest swarm him and take him down. - or - The killer fires of 30+ shots making sure everyone is dead, and thus no one can stop him when he reloads. Which would you prefer? I've made my answer clear. I'd go for giving everyone blinding weapons and sonic weapons. Non-lethal, and guaranteed to stop anyone in their tracks. You wanna defend yourself? Fine, here's a Dazzler. Use it at will against any attacker, secure in the knowledge that you can stop him without killing him. But the kind of people who advocate against gun control because of precious self-defense reasons, don't actually do so for self-defense reasons. They do it because they love guns. They love the power of holding a gun in their hands. They do it for the rush of adrenaline and ego boost. And limiting guns to 10 bullets max, will have NO effect on self-defense, hunting, or sports reasons. So none of those are a reason. I'd go further and outlaw all ammo, except for rubber bullets. Less lethal. |
|
2012-12-22, 16:45 | Link #931 | ||||||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
More importantly, how many weapons does the shooter have? how is his proficiency at reloading his weapons? Quote:
Quote:
I don't "love" guns, it gives me no adrenaline nor ego boost, and your mystical allure about holding a gun in your hand? now try saying that again after you have to go everywhere with one for months or years - including having to sleep and take shit with them. It only applies to those who don't understand and respect what a firearm is. For my part, I see them for what they are - a tool. It's a powerful tool to be sure, but a tool nevertheless. I go to the range periodically to maintain my skill because it was part of my job, and it's a useful skill to have. I take pride in my marksmanship and recognize their utility in a home defense scenario, but I don't particularly love shooting, certainly not with the cost of ammo these days. So you'll excuse me if I say I find your statement to be rather insulting. Quote:
This is on top of the fact that banning magazines that carry more than 10 rounds would be even more futile than trying to ban guns. You think there are a lot of guns in the US? now try magazines. Quote:
Last edited by kyp275; 2012-12-22 at 16:58. |
||||||
2012-12-22, 17:15 | Link #932 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
I don't know, though I do have some suspicions that it is still the government assistances available that plays a dominant, if not major part on the ills and vices prevalent within the society - I know for sure that over here, the number of hardcore gamblers are increasing despite the casino entry costs due to the shortage of gambling-prevention counsellors. Over in US, the easy availability of firearms, coupled with the lack of funding for mental health treatment, resulted in all these shootings.
__________________
|
|
2012-12-22, 17:21 | Link #933 | |
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-12-22, 17:26 | Link #934 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Chow Yun Fat STILL gets his unlimited ammo as of the 1990s.
__________________
|
|
2012-12-22, 17:28 | Link #935 | |
Sensei, aishite imasu
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong Shatterdome
|
Quote:
(besides, the average person doesn't actually know enough about weapons to be able to recognize what's implausible in most gun fights in movies).
__________________
|
|
2012-12-22, 17:37 | Link #936 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
On the contrary, video games may have become -slightly- more realistic than gunfight portrayals in movies, yet there doesn't seem to be any statistic I can find that measures the blame levels between the two forms of entertainment. Maybe it is because :
__________________
|
|
2012-12-22, 17:47 | Link #937 | |
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
Quote:
There's a scene where two people in a hallway, pressed up against the walls, only about 2-3 feet apart.. are shooting each other, repeatedly! Like they each get shot like 30 times .. and they're not dead. Their pistols have unlimited ammo in them too.
__________________
|
|
2012-12-22, 18:05 | Link #938 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Quote:
I'm starting to wonder if these attitudes say more about the baggage in their own closets.
__________________
|
|
2012-12-22, 18:14 | Link #939 | |||||
Banned
|
Quote:
I guess your assertion is incorrect. Quote:
Quote:
You were saying? Quote:
Quote:
But yes, I'll grant my suggestion was a wee extreme. But I'd be more than willing to regulate small sales of hunting bullets to hunters. But self-defense shooters get rubber bullets only. Better? And yes, I recognize some of my statements were a bit provocative, but they were intended to highlight a point. That is what the NRA (and more than a few gun nuts) argue from. They aren't arguing from the perspective of self-defense, or hunting, or sports... they are arguing from the standpoint of "dun take ma guns away!" That's what we have to get past. I already proposed middle-of-the-road reasonable suggestions for solving the problem. |
|||||
2012-12-22, 18:17 | Link #940 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|
Quote:
Here is the basic argument you should use: The fact of the matter is, unless everyone is carrying the exact same guns, ammo/clip size, etc then there will always exist an "unfair" advantage for one side or the other. There are only two ways of making this "fair", both sides have smaller clips or both sides have larger clips. Since there is no perfect 100% successful way to actually prevent a criminal from obtaining the larger clip, the only "fair" option is to make sure the larger clip is available for everyone (you can, of course, argue the percents on this issue, because maybe there would be a significant enough drop in large scale gun violence if larger clips were banned, but there is no real data to support this one way or another, so we have to keep everything at an arm chair level of supposition). This doesn't validate the use of guns or larger clip sizes, but it does provide a greater degree of potential protection that balances out the potential aggression (of an insane gunmen gunperson ), consequently it creates a degree of less harm than an outright ban would. (edit: Note, laws are not designed to make things "fair", but rather to eliminate the most harm.) --- @ GundamFan: I find it funny that Missouri and Louisiana have the smaller percentage of gang-related activity, yet they are amongst the worst for murders (based on population), and when you break down the diversity, Missouri has less diversity, yet still lots of murders. Just what is going on In Missouri that it is so bat shit insane? . Last edited by james0246; 2012-12-22 at 18:30. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|