Newtown School Shootings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

So you are saying that the US has more blacks than the UK, so naturally has more murders? Nice!

---

I'm not prepared to speculate on the "whys", but the murder rate among our black population and among the UK's black population is many times higher than the white populations in their corresponding countries. In the US, the homicide rate by race of the perpetrator is over 7x higher for blacks than whites (24.7/100,000 vs 3.4/100,000). The US is about 66% white, the UK is about 85% white.

I didn't readily find the comparable rates in the UK, but I do see that Wikipedia says that blacks are only 2.7% of the general population (over 10) in the UK, but 13.7% of the prison population.

NOTE:
Correlation is not causation- and I'm not attempting to make any argument to that effect. The reason I bring these statistics up is to demonstrate that straight up homicide rate comparisons between relatively homogenous European countries and the more heterogeneous US population are not particularly meaningful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Can we please dispense with this 'absolutist' moniker? [...] this is nonsense.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Mandated safety measures are not appropriate for what is a constitutional right [...] Gun ownership is a right and should not be subject to government demands before you are allowed to exercise it. Safety training and record keeping would do nothing to prevent these sprees.

I have yet to see any gun control proposal that would actually prevent mass murder and is based on a rational view of the country and not a knee jerk reaction hysteria.

---

Note CR's self-conflicting mish-mash of reasoning, beginning with how any regulation is impractical, but always coming back to how any regulation is a violation of fundamental rights and an imposition of the Nanny State. (So why bother to argue the practicality in the first place, if we're proceeding from a priori truths?)

From CR's stated perspective, there is no regulation of firearms in the U.S.A. that can ever be legitimate. Or of there is, he's avoiding mentioning it. How is that not "absolutist"? Or at least a very good imitation of absolutism?

The NRA, for that matter, appears to have no "end game" beyond unlimited access to firearms for pretty much everyone. Yes, they make occasional noises about the insane and criminals, but none of their proposed legislation would mitigate against either, and things such as the gun show loophole (which they fight strenuously to maintain) put a hole below the waterline in their credibility.

Anyway, we'll see. The NRA says it's going to hold a presser tomorrow. Let's see if they have anything more interesting to say than "more guns" or "OBUMMER DIKKKTATOR GONNA DERK UHR GEHNS."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Anyway, we'll see. The NRA says it's going to hold a presser tomorrow. Let's see if they have anything more interesting to say than "more guns" or "OBUMMER DIKKKTATOR GONNA DERK UHR GEHNS."

---

the first indications show they are gonna try to throw videogames and movies under the train.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

the first indications show they are gonna try to throw videogames and movies under the train.

---

Reminds me of a case a few years back. Some kid was playing with a toy gun in the street, and some passer by decided he was in danger, so took out his real gun and shot the kid. The end result was:

Toy guns were banned

As I say. I just won't ever understand Americans.

I find it amusing that the ACLU, who are 1st emendment absolutists and often despised by the religious right and some others on the right for being "liberals", essnetially function in the same manner as the NRA.

I also find it funny that the ACLU helped kill a bill in conncecticut a few weeks prior to the shooting that would have been a fairly comprehensive overhaul of mental health in the state, but was killed by the state democratic state legislature, the ACLU arguing that it would bring back involuntary commitments and it would violate privacy by making mental health records available for more prying eyes.

And I find it endlessly funny that in peoples fantasy discussions of a civil war or tyrant us government, they seem to forget that the us military is made up of a diverse demographic of american citizens, and that any sort of wholesale oppression or slaughter of the population would entail many instances of high end military equipment and vehicles disappearing and showing up on the side of the "insurgents." In other words, the talk of whether our guns would or would not work is largely moot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

I find it amusing that the ACLU, who are 1st emendment absolutists [...] essnetially function in the same manner as the NRA.

---

There's truth in that. I find the ACLU less worrysome, however, given that their myopia is focused on free speech, rather than armaments. It's relatively difficult to kill people with speech. Unless your name is a killing word.

Ironically, I suspect the mental health angle will be easier to address than any attempt to impose safety standards on gun owners. So, if we believe current reporting, and the mother of the killer (a) wanted to commit him against his will, and (b) had unsecured guns in her home, (a) will be easier by far to address than (b).

Personally, I think if you have a violent or unstable person in your home, and you do not take steps to secure your firearms, you are an unbelievable idiot—a danger to yourself and your community. But the mother already paid for her stupidity, with her life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

There's truth in that. I find the ACLU less worrysome, however, given that their myopia is focused on free speech, rather than armaments. It's relatively difficult to kill people with speech. Unless your name is a killing word.

Ironically, I suspect the mental health angle will be easier to address than any attempt to impose safety standards on gun owners. So, if we believe current reporting, and the mother of the killer (a) wanted to commit him against his will, and (b) had unsecured guns in her home, (a) will be easier by far to address than (b).

Personally, I think if you have a violent or unstable person in your home, and you do not take steps to secure your firearms, you are an unbelievable idiot. But the mother already paid for her stupidity, with her life.

---

The problem with the "its a mental health issue" is that some of those who I hear parroting this (not referring to anyone here, but rather the pundits and pols) are also people who are opposed to things like not allowing veterans with severe PTSD to own guns, and not allowing felons to live in homes with otherwise legally owned guns. If in fact we take the mental health approach from both a treatment perspective but also from a reporting perspective (i.e. database *shiver*) then this may be a workable solution. However, I suspect organizations like the NRA will oppose any sort of information collecting and any measures to to keep guns out of homes with crazies or crazies out of homes with guns.

And a workable solution is also going to have to involve the involuntary commitment of people deemed mentally unstable. does something like this run the risk of being abused? absolutely, it was in the past (politics, agendas, grudges) and it will be again. but to parrot the supporters of the patriot act, "well, my party won't abuse it!" amirite??

So lets start bartering one set of freedoms for another. Thats what this comes down to. Can't have our cake and eat it, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

I suspect organizations like the NRA will oppose any sort of information collecting and any measures to to keep guns out of homes with crazies or crazies out of homes with guns.

---

Oh, the NRA has done better than that. It's illegal for ATF to release any statistical information about makes, models, or types of guns used in crimes. No specifics, mind you, just statistics, and it's been illegal since 2003. Thanks, guys.

Also illegal for CDC to fund any health studies that include fierarms as a metric. Not discouraged, not directed, illegal.

It's bullhockey like this that makes me think the NRA has absolutely no interest in rights, reason, or law. Just moar guns, please. I'd be interested to see how much of their money comes from industry, but wait, that sort of reporting is also illegal. For the NRA, and nobody else. Gotta love laws written with specific "carve outs" for single organizations.

The NRA's financial resources also outstrip any other voice in the gun discussion by a factor of approximately 100-1. Illustration:

https://i.imgur.com/lFmud.jpg

Right, well all of that is stupid. You want new legislation, start there and I can back it. MRD, I could back better recognition of the dangers of mental illness, such as mandatory discussions with people like Lanzas mom who are attempting to have family members civilly committed that they have the option to have their guns kept out of the home until the resolution, otherwise face jailtime should shtf.

A little more detail on just how much the NRA doesn't want pesky scientists analyzing pesky data:

[A]mazingly — there is no current scientific consensus about guns and violence. The most thorough and authoritative analysis is the 2004 report by a panel of leading experts, “Firearms and Violence,” sponsored by the National Research Council. Its startling conclusion was that we simply don’t know enough to make scientifically grounded judgments about which approaches — from gun-control measures to permission-to-carry laws — are likely to work. The panel’s primary recommendation was simply: “If policy makers are to have a solid empirical and research base for decisions about firearms and violence, the federal government needs to support a systematic program of data collection and research that specifically addresses that issue.” Or, as an expert quoted in the Times article on the report said, “The main thrust of it is, we don’t know anything about anything, and more research is needed.”

In the years since the 2004 report, research on firearms has, despite the panel’s recommendation, significantly decreased. According to a 2011 Times article, researchers in the field report that “the amount of money available today for studying the impact of firearms is a fraction of what it was in the mid-1990s, and the number of scientists toiling in the field has dwindled to just a handful as a result.”

It’s not that scientists are uninterested in gun research or don’t know how to study guns’ connection to violence. It’s rather that the N.R.A. has blocked most efforts at serious gun research, going so far as to restrict access to the highly informative data available from Justice Department traces of guns used in crimes. As The Times reported, “Scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off money for such work.”

As a result, things still stand pretty much as they were in 2004. There is no scientific consensus on the best approach to limiting gun violence, and the N.R.A. is blocking work that might well lead to such a consensus. [...]

[I]f we want an enduring transformation, this is the time to insist on an end to the N.R.A.’s cynical blockade of scientific research on guns and violence. The organization has announced that it plans “meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again” and holds a press conference on Friday to detail its ideas. Giving up resistance to gun research should at the top of its list.

Freedom of Speech is trumped by commerical interests/lobby groups? Say it isn't so.

I think an American reporter who is prepared to go to a foreign war zone or report on the next watergate should be prepared to do the 'illegal' thing here and get these stats reported.

=][=

If prohibition of guns doesn't work apply that logic outward.

Decriminalize drugs. Auto smashes the drug cartels.
Tax the pharmas that make the legal high grade versions (mental health tax).

Increase awareness of mental health, remove the stigma.

Get physically more healthy. Increases mental health, increases the odds that the population can actually overthrow a tyrannical dictator. In the mean time increase length and quality of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I think an American reporter who is prepared to go to a foreign war zone or report on the next watergate should be prepared to do the 'illegal' thing here and get these stats reported.

---

Well, maybe the war zone is the less dangerous option. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, maybe the war zone is the less dangerous option. ~;)

---

More Americans have died/been shot in Chicago this year than Aghanistan

And in Afghanistan the guys with guns have more things to worry about than the press.

Guess what?
Mass shootings are not becoming more common. The media has been largely speculating and getting their facts wrong since the shooting took place and have continued, apparently, making things up to sell copy. I applaud the AP for injecting a dose of reality into the debate.

Quote:

---

Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

---

(emphasis mine)

Thanks Xiahou.

Prohibition finished in 1933. So that removed a lot of the cash flow from the criminals.

I say that is a good argument to stop the war on drugs and reinvest the money in either paying off government debt or into th mental health system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Congratulations! You've shot down to 3.5 times that of the UK - result!!!

~:smoking:

---

You know, I think I am done with this thread. It's obvious that this thread has just become a nice circlejerk among certain europeans who figure that the only statistic that matters is that their number is lower than the US number. You all more or less know me, I am not exactly an American patriot like some of the more right wing American members here. But the arrogance towards the US in general is just insufferable for me.

It's very frustrating to try and explain the differences between US and Europe and get these one liner responses that either outright dismiss the argument or just a rehash of the same statistical argument "we have less deaths, we are more civilized, listen to us."

Someone pointed out that Canada has a fair share of guns and does not have the same problem as the US. Obviously, this is a multifaceted problem involving American culture, more specifically I have made the case that the problem is our terrible mental healthcare, and indeed out healthcare in general. But again, the reaction is to refocus the argument on how not why.

It has been pointed out that the demographics are different for the US, our border situation is different, our neighbors are different (who exactly is the Mexico of Europe?), our history is different, our individual states are different themselves. But no, such things are dismissed as "gang violence is only 12%, you are still barbarians." or "You are saying african americans commit a large portion of overall gun crimes against other african americans? Racist!"

The US is not as urban nor as homogeneous as European countries are, falling back on European attempts at multiculturalism as a defense against the homogeneous argument is laughable. As if a policy that is a few decades old counters an entire culture built upon three centuries of any man, woman and child across the world staking a claim in North America.

Even worse is when I point out that despite the rampant proliferation of guns and the victories of gun culture over the past two decades, we have seen gun related crimes and violent crime in general per capita decline by tremendous amounts. The US is improving, we are becoming more responsible but people want to cave into the immediate emotions now, or they don't want to admit that in the long run there could be a different way than the European model. Instead you get responses like the one I quoted above. Nothing like a few days of condescension from people who live 8 time zones away when 18 of your fellow Americans, kids no less, have been killed.

What's even more sad is when the American liberals hop onto the bandwagon and start painting everyone willing to break the circle as some absolutist extremist. As if the Assault Weapons Ban stopped the kids in Columbine from killing as many fucking students as they wanted. As if the Connecticut ban on handguns for anyone under 21 stopped the 20 year old killer from obtaining a handgun. As if a fucking 30 round magazine is what makes the difference between a massacre and a single murder. Because we all know that if you only have 8 bullet magazines, the killer will need to spend an extra 10 seconds swapping out magazines, which makes the difference for people running at 2% of the speed of a bullet (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i...ed+of+a+bullet).

Obviously though we are just savages who are ignorant of how best to save lives. If only we were as careful with guns as say, Norway, nothing like this would have happened.

I am just done here. No one wants to talk about the real statistics that matter. The fact that there are 3 times more mentally ill people in jail in the US than in actual treatment facilities. We have no other place to put them. http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother

This will likely be my last post in this thread. I am really done reading this. I hope American society continues to improve as it has over the past two decades and shows the world that with enough emphasis on responsibility and improving mental health care we can indeed live in a society where we enjoy the freedom to own guns and live safely as well.

:2thumbsup:

The United States homicide rate is 4.2 out of 100k per anum avg
The United Kingdom homicide rate is 1.7 out of 100k per anum avg

In the U.S., whites commit 1 homicide to every 8 committed by blacks. Hispanics commit some multiplier (2-3x) of homicides to every 1 by whites, but it is a number between 2 and 8

In the U.S., non-hispanic Whites make up 63.7% of the population, blacks are 12.6%, hispanics make up around 16%
In the U.K., non hispanic whites make up 92% of the population, blacks make up around 2%, hispanics don't register.

here is an article from the CDC, "the conservative d-bags council"?, no wait, the federal center for disease control...

Quote:

---

During 2007, homicide rates were highest among persons aged 15--34 years, and the overall unadjusted rate for males was approximately 4 times that of females (9.8 versus 2.5 deaths per 100,000 population, respectively. Unadjusted homicide rates were highest among blacks (23.1 deaths per 100,000), followed by AI/ANs (7.8) and Hispanics (7.6), then whites (2.7) and A/PIs (2.4)

---

Can anyone break those figures down for me? To pretend that homogeneity and heterogeneity don't enter into the figures is a lie. I like a cosmopolitan society, but I don't like people to lie to me or themselves about reality. Make it about class or status as it relates to race, but weigh the numbers fairly. This isn't aryan race crap, I think people are inherently equal and certain subsections of society have been unfairly disadvantaged due to deeply rooted emotions. It just doesn't mean that I'm going to lie to myself.

CDC is a good place for this information

http://www.cdc.gov/violencepreventio..._age-race.html

That particular link is by ethnic group for 10-24 yr olds

Though White-British is a minority in London.

Quote:

---

White British: 44.9%
Other white: 14.9%
Asian: 18.4%
Black: 13.3%
Arab: 1.3%
Mixed race: 5%

---

Homicide Rate in London? 1.8 per 100,000 people.

Not really homogeneous/heterogeneous issue.

The one I posted is unadjusted for all ages, right?

So London would be a better comparison, although you guys didn't enslave (arguably) and completely decimate the culture of the "asians, blacks, arabs, and mixed race" right? The relative poverty is massively different. Personally I believe that socioeconomic status and disenfranchisement are the causes of high crime, it's just that in the US we have too great a share of that problem in 2 ethnic groups (although there are technically more whites below the poverty line than blacks in sheer number). Compare incomes in each of those groups vs their white counterparts.

In NYC blacks and hispanics make up 55% of the population, the remaining 45% is non-hispanic white (21%) Asian (10%) Other (14%). Our cosmopolitan is one that you couldn't even fathom.

London is as mixed, it's just different "races" in each positon.

Sydney is similar in mix with 39% born overseas.

Most of those "born overseas" in Sydney are British, South African, Rhodesian, Kiwi - other commonwealth and other european. In other word's - people who look, act and have ancestries with 6 degrees of separation from you. Barely 10% even look different or come from markedly different linguistic and cultural origins - and 2% of those were in Australia before you got there not from "overseas". My city dwarfs yours in "cultural ecleticity". But congratulations on being a bumpkin

I'm from out west. About a third are from India and Sri Lanka, next biggest group is Middle Eastern.

My IT team mates are from Zimbabwe (African), Pakistan, Hong Kong, Romania, Thailand, Vietnam, Ireland, England and three Ozzies.

My point is heterogeneity or homogeneity is a red herring. Social economics and mental health are far more on track. Otherwise Brevik a Norwegian in Norway or Lanza an essentially white kid from a well off family in a majority white neighborhood wouldn't have happened. Also to make myself clear, guns are not at fault, they are however a force multiplier and as such lead to more deaths when used as per design.

I agree, but in the U.S. blacks have a special level of disenfranchisement historically that we can't shake as a society to date. The point that many have made is that our Gun rights cause our higher homicide rates rather than our demographic and social openness. We have, historically, invited people in poverty into our country and have a contiguous border with an impoverished nation which allows especially at risk populations access to our lands. Much of this was to fill empty lands, but it has been one of the most incredible experiments in world history and benefited countless people. This makes our crime rate higher, not guns. Gun rights here account for a higher gun homicide rate, but not for the higher homicide rate in general. This is my point. You think you are comparing apples and apples, but you are comparing apples and the finest oranges. I'm pro immigration and I'm not worried about an extra 3 people per 100k being murdered per year because the benefits to everyone drastically outweighs the costs. I also support gun rights because I believe that individuals have an expansive right to defend themselves, their family, their property and their nation. I believe this right is one of our strengths, just like our openness to immigration is. You guys hold us to a standard that we cannot meet because of a situation which you cannot understand.

Australia has a lot of trouble intergrating immigrant waves. We also compared to our physical health system have a very poor mental health system.

One advantage we have is an education system where it is free(Ish) to go to Uni, low youth unemployment and relatively inclusive society if you play or worship at the altar of sport.

We are certainly not perfect and the environment and wildlife can kill you off as quickly as a road raging nutter.

We did learn from the American Consitution and the Civil War... One of our parts is that once you become part of the federation you cannot leave it. We also watch, learn and incorporate from UK, Europe and the rest of the world ideas.

We still get it wrong, can't operate a submarine or a nuclear reactor, havn't launched anyone into space or done a very good job in looking after the Aboroginal inhabitants. So I'd put us in the reject pile of apples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So I'd put us in the reject pile of apples.

---

Not with crime rates. Remember when it used to be almost impossible for black people to move to Australia to live 25 years ago? You guys have a very different experience with immigration from the U.S. Most of yours comes from very British, relatively and objectively affluent centers

If you're going to look at the total murder rate for the US there's no grounds for going after rifles of any kind - which make up a fraction (~3%) of total firearm homicides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

So... compare the killings in Europe with gangs included to those in the USA without...

Given how restricted guns are in many European countries this will likely make the difference even greater.

~:smoking:

---

Or, you know, your comparison is invalid. Because the gangs in Europe simply do not compare to the gangs in North America - namely American and especially Mexico - that have sprouted up as a result of the drug war.

Quote:

---

The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2006 to 2010. During the same time period, the FBI estimated, on average, more than 16,000 homicides across the US.

---

From your site:

*Because of the many issues surrounding the maintenance and collection of gang-crime data, caution is urged when interpreting the results presented below. For more information regarding this issue, see:

Quote:

---

Congratulations! You've shot down to 3.5 times that of the UK - result!!!

---

No, we've had a drastic drop in murders while having a drastic increase in guns.

I think all you Europeans need to read that again.

Quote:

---

Note CR's self-conflicting mish-mash of reasoning, beginning with how any regulation is impractical, but always coming back to how any regulation is a violation of fundamental rights and an imposition of the Nanny State. (So why bother to argue the practicality in the first place, if we're proceeding from a priori truths?)

---

Really? :laugh4:

That's your response? I respond point-by-point and your critique is that I had two arguments to support my position, neither of which, apparently, you could find fault with?

Quote:

---

From CR's stated perspective, there is no regulation of firearms in the U.S.A. that can ever be legitimate. Or of there is, he's avoiding mentioning it. How is that not "absolutist"? Or at least a very good imitation of absolutism?

---

Wrong. But don't let me get in the way of you misstating your opponent's position. Again.

Quote:

---

and things such as the gun show loophole (which they fight strenuously to maintain) put a hole below the waterline in their credibility.

---

Oh, you mean how the anti-gun folks would like to require a background check for all gun sales between individuals, effectively eliminating gun sales between private parties? Yeah, that's stupid and uselessly restrictive as well.

Quote:

---

It's illegal for ATF to release any statistical information about makes, models, or types of guns used in crimes. No specifics, mind you, just statistics, and it's been illegal since 2003. Thanks, guys.

---

Blame the sue-happy anti-gun nuts who would use that info to sue any gun companies if one model showed up more often than another.

It's interesting, Lemur. You made all those claims about the need for more legislation and regulation. But you haven't responded to any critiques and now you're shifting into vaguely blaming the NRA for various things. It's all ad hominem attacks. You've got nothing.

EDIT: In fact, let's take a quick look at that opinion article from the NYT:

Quote:

---

It’s just common sense that we need a radical reduction in the number and kind of guns for sale.

---

So he's got no backing for this statement in terms of statistics, just a gut feeling. And then again states without evidence that guns have to be tightly regulated, whilst complaining:

Quote:

---

On the contrary, they often plausibly present themselves as tough-minded empiricists, opposing facts to liberal emoting.

---

Gee, I wonder why that is. Why that could possibly be. How it could be that the anti-gun liberals, who always are trying to emotionally exploit these tragedies, could possibly be cast as people pushing laws based on fear and emotions, while the pro-gun people responding with facts and statistics are the empiricists. In short he says without any backing guns have to be banned, complains that pro-gun folks have all the evidence on their side, and then blames the NRA.

:daisy: that's a pathetic argument.

Also, to expand on ACIN's point; why does Norway get praised for not having a knee jerk reaction to their terrorist madman, but if the US does the same thing, it's because we're all stupid violent idiots?

CR

What happened in Norway cannot be compared, that was a terrorist attack not your ordinary rampage. He had planned it for years. Norway deserves a lot of respect for how it dealt with it, they just trialed him. For me at least, I saw a monster that frightened the hell out of me becomming something utterly pathetic.