Newtown School Shootings

[Husar]

Culture is the crux of my argument anyway.

Yes, that's fine, the real problem is that you're unwilling to improve your culture.
It's almost like you say your culture is a problem but you're too proud of it to do anything about it.
I can understand the argument that we keep e.g. capitalism because we know no better alternative but to say that a problem shouldn't be solved because you're proud to have it seems really weird. And I mean you as in most Americans.
Submissive is also a relative term. To me Americans are so submissive to their gun culture that they're willing to watch their children get shot or even train them to do that to others in order to keep the pipe dream of being special and being able to overthrow the government. Europeans are not nearly that submissive to crazy ideas.

[Ironside]

Fairly good discussion you had there ICaSpeDa. I'm gonna requote one good data point there, since it's very relevant to the discussion, even if I won't comment on it this time.

in particular, though, the thing that leads me to believe that this dude is retarded is him making a big deal out of the US having "six times the number of large metropolitan areas!" as the UK. well, we also have five times the population of the UK. if he wanted to make some meaningful comparison, he'd look at the fraction of the US and UK populations that live in cities.

some other statistics are probably helpful. in england and wales, 9.3% of homicides are committed with a firearm, and in scotland it's 2.2%:

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf

in the US it's in the neighborhood of 66%:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us...esbyweapon.svg

this, to me, says a lot about why the murder rate is so much lower in the UK. -- the non-firearm-related murder rates are actually pretty similar. it seems like guns play a significant role here.

and yet you have higher violent crime rates per 100k? Interesting.

I did occur to me that you probably have a larger underreporting of violent crime than, say the UK. You have a large population that mistrusts the police and a more "manly" attitude, so I suspect that smaller violent crimes doesn't get reported as much. Does that explain the whole difference? No idea (but probably not), but it's worth to remember.

[Sir Moody]

can you name your source for the claim the UK has a higher violent crime rate per capita than the US - the only sources I can find was an article in the Mail in 2009 and a corresponding article in the Telegraph - hardly a reliable source since they were Anti Labour at the time

[Papewaio]

Your population is a lot smaller than ours. I would liken Australia to a super Canada. And culturally we are quite different.

Culture is the crux of my argument anyway.

(As long as Antarctic regions aren't counted). Canada is about 20% larger land area and about 50% more population then Au.

Canada is more like a super Australia with naughtier neighbors then the Kiwis.

As far as culture is concerned it is definitely a crux in this situation.

I don't think that middle class white America is as cultural diverse from Canada, Australia, UK and NZ as say Sweden is to Spain.

[The Lurker Below]

Far more dangerous is the American tendency to see "the Government" as something remote. That discourse has crossed the Atlantic and infected my country. Something I am not grateful more.

Not sure how goegraphy got involved with the "remoteness" of American gov't. Please stop it.

We the people do in fact get to elect 537 people to go to Washington, D.C. and represent us to the best of their ability. Yet those 537 cater to the countless lobbyists that represent everybody with enough money to pay for their services. It's not just Gun owners, old people, and foriegn nationals. Even Americas own cities recognize that to have a voice in Washington, you must have substantial lobbyists. It makes no difference that you have the vote, because you have no real influence.

Sorry, I know nothing of GB gov't. Is your gov't remote in that respect?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not sure how goegraphy got involved with the "remoteness" of American gov't. Please stop it.

We the people do in fact get to elect 537 people to go to Washington, D.C. and represent us to the best of their ability. Yet those 537 cater to the countless lobbyists that represent everybody with enough money to pay for their services. It's not just Gun owners, old people, and foriegn nationals. Even Americas own cities recognize that to have a voice in Washington, you must have substantial lobbyists. It makes no difference that you have the vote, because you have no real influence.

Sorry, I know nothing of GB gov't. Is your gov't remote in that respect?

Many things which are legal in the US are illegal in the UK. All UK politicians must declare outside interests and favours received - failure to do so, particularly for government ministers, breaches codes of conduct and can result is suspension or expulsion from the party.

Overall though - we don't have the problems you have at the moment, we have different ones.

I'll tell you where the US is different though - to have the same proportion of Representatives to electors as the UK, Canada, or Australia you would need around 3,000 sets in your Lower House.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The remoteness of government argument is interesting. In terms of geography, USA is much like Australia: there's a few fringes of population centers and most a whole big, void, nothingness. In terms of percentages, USA has more actual wilderness than the African continent, which says something.

So it stands to reason that remoteness is similar to that of Australia, but less pronounced than in Russia or Canada -- both of which "dwarf" the USA.

On the other hand when it comes to managing people, crime especially, what matters more tends to be the population centers. In that respect comparisons with the UK are not at all unfair. You say well, the USA "dwarfs" the UK, because it has about 5-6 times the population. Well, then, take the EU as a whole. Roughly double the population, over 70 official languages to contend with and more problems and conflicting interests than we care to mention. Still the old "where there is a will, there is a way" continues to ring true.

Simply put: I don't think there is any logical explanation that can point at empirical fact backing up the assertion that the USA cannot change its gun laws. The only thing preventing it is located between your collective ears.

[Husar]

We're all wrong, it's the lead!

[ICantSpellDawg]

I did occur to me that you probably have a larger underreporting of violent crime than, say the UK. You have a large population that mistrusts the police and a more "manly" attitude, so I suspect that smaller violent crimes doesn't get reported as much. Does that explain the whole difference? No idea (but probably not), but it's worth to remember.

I do appreciate that you recognize significant demographic differences between the two countries that may affect rates. I agree that under-reporting could be a larger chunk if you agree that the same population might have much higher rates of homicide and cannot reasonably be compared with the UK.

[ICantSpellDawg]

can you name your source for the claim the UK has a higher violent crime rate per capita than the US - the only sources I can find was an article in the Mail in 2009 and a corresponding article in the Telegraph - hardly a reliable source since they were Anti Labour at the time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vi...81-to-2007.png

It was a comparison between the FBI rates and Home Office. The data was presented in this video which I have been posting.

[Ironside]

I do appreciate that you recognize significant demographic differences between the two countries that may affect rates. I agree that under-reporting could be a larger chunk if you agree that the same population might have much higher rates of homicide and cannot reasonably be compared with the UK.

I agree on that you have an entirely different gun culture that would be very hard to change, for better or worse.

It's just weird that your crime areas are very polite until they shoot eachother to death. UK got very high violent crime statistics, while yours is very low. In part it's different definitions (for example, in the UK any sexual assult is an assult, in the US only forcible rape counts as an assult), but it's one area that it would be very good with an excellent summary report. Really needed to properly compare the data.

Murder is popular in crime statistics since it's hard to not notice the body, so it's suffering least from underreporting and classifications.

[Sir Moody]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vi...81-to-2007.png

It was a comparison between the FBI rates and Home Office. The data was presented in this video which I have been posting.

yes but what was the source? that is just an info graphic with no links to the source data so it cant be fact checked

I am not fundamentally doubting (we do have a problem with drunk violence over here) but I take any claims on statistics with a BIG pinch of salt unless they provide the links to the original data (wiki and youtube don't count)

It is entirely possible that the Home office counts offences the FBI doesn't consider violent crime - which would immediately invalidate any comparison

this is usually why we compare homicide rates - its one of the few crimes we universally recognize

[Idaho]

My guess is that these stats compare violent crime but remove actual murders. Which provides a meaningless comparison.

[Husar]

My guess is that these stats compare violent crime but remove actual murders. Which provides a meaningless comparison.

The only meaningful comparison is the one with atmospheric lead levels.

[Sir Moody]

I just looked it up

Definition

In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.
Data collection

The data presented in Crime in the United States reflect the Hierarchy Rule, which requires that only the most serious offense in a multiple-offense criminal incident be counted. The descending order of UCR violent crimes are murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, followed by the property crimes of burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Although arson is also a property crime, the Hierarchy Rule does not apply to the offense of arson. In cases in which an arson occurs in conjunction with another violent or property crime, both crimes are reported, the arson and the additional crime.

5.1 VIOLENT CRIME
Violent crimes are those where the victim is intentionally stabbed, punched, kicked, pushed,
jostled, etc. or threatened with violence whether or not there is any injury.
In published crime statistics, violent crime – both as measured by the British Crime Survey
(BCS) and by recorded crime – is grouped into two broad, high-level categories of violence
with injury and violence without injury. However, these categories are not directly comparable
between the BCS and recorded crime: e.g. the BCS violence categories include robbery, but
the police recorded crime violence categories do not (recorded robbery figures are shown
separately).
Just over half of all BCS violent incidents and just under half of all police recorded violence
against the person, resulted in injury to the victim.
• Violence with injury includes all incidents of wounding, assault with injury and (BCS
only) robbery which resulted in injury. Homicide is only included for police recorded
crime. Police recorded crime also includes attempts at inflicting injury, although the
BCS would not include these if no actual injury occurred.
• Violence without injury includes all incidents of assault without injury and (BCS only)
incidents of robbery which did not result in injury. Police recorded crime also includes
possession of weapons offences and a number of public order offences, such as
harassment.

so there we have it

FBI only includes actual violence

UK includes THREATS of violence - in fact only HALF the reported claims are actual violence - which funnily enough the Info graphic does show - the largest "sub" section (the blue line) is violent crime which had no injuries

you cant compare the data without filtering out that

FBI reports 386.3 per 100k for 2011

Filtering out the crimes the UK counts and FBI doesn't the UK reported 360259 crimes (total divided by half) I am getting 570.19 per 100k for 2011

so we are still higher however I am not sure on the US criteria for aggravated assault and the UK assault - as the UK website clearly states we count pushing and "jostling" (... Jostling? seriously...)

this does show the problem with comparing statistics between different countries - we all count different things

[Sir Moody]

well I am finally at home so can watch that video

as I suspected he fell into the immediate trap of think we were tracking the same thing - Violent Crime as reported by the FBI is not the same as Violent Crime reported by the UK

Murder rate on the other hand is the same across both

this of course doesn't mean he is wrong - just that he was working off non-comparable data

and doesn't even bring in the fact it only tracks recorded crime or approach the topic of unreported crime

that said I do agree somewhat with his overall message - less guns /= less violence - societies can still be massively violent without guns

however with the data he used you could say less guns = less murders (maybe because its harder to actually kill someone without a gun )

[ICantSpellDawg]

"Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force" -

Am I missing something? This is in the first description. The FBI uses both offenses which involve force or threat of force.

[Greyblades]

I think he's right on that point. That said, saying disparity is because of guns, or anything else for that matter, is a dubious claim considering that there are a multitude of differences between the two systems other than the presence of guns.

[Sir Moody]

Am I missing something? This is in the first description. The FBI uses both offenses which involve force or threat of force.

ack I missed that one... touche

still we cannot know without considerable more info how close what the FBI considers a violent crime and what the UK considers a violent crime actually are - primarily in what the definition of Aggrivated assault includes

[Sir Moody]

on a side note... I am seriously impressed by the FBI's website... it is considerable better designed when compared to the Home Office...

[Ironside]

I think he's right on that point. That said, saying disparity is because of guns, or anything else for that matter, is a dubious claim considering that there are a multitude of differences between the two systems other than the presence of guns.

That's why I requoted the data on what weapon that were used in murders. In the US, the weapon of choise for a murderer is a gun, on average. That's not the case in the rest of the west.

For the this far unspoken (but hinted by putting 2 and 2 together) idea that the lower assult rates in the US is because of the deterrent effect of guns, more data is needed, or rather studies so you can properly compare the data.

[ICantSpellDawg]

For the this far unspoken (but hinted by putting 2 and 2 together) idea that the lower assult rates in the US is because of the deterrent effect of guns, more data is needed, or rather studies so you can properly compare the data.

I don't know why the rate is lower. It could be the deterrent effect that people are more likely to face an on-the-spot death penalty for violent crimes committed. This likelyhood is lower in areas where high crime rates exist. In those areas, people committing crimes are more likely to have firearms while law abiding citizens are less likely to be able to threaten effective use of deadly force.

Personally, If my home were burglarized while I was in it, I have fallback plans. It is unlikely that I would venture out of the master bedroom as I do not have dependents that live in seperate bedrooms. I do, however keep most of my valuables in the bedroom. In the event that someone entered my bedroom during a burglary they would have a high likelihood of being killed or seriously injured. In city areas an assailant has the benefit of suprise and overwhelming effective deadly force.

In the event of multiple assailants (more than 1 or 2) my likelyhood of survival is considerably lower. It usually takes 3 or more shots of 9mm ammo to stop someone from what I read. In NY our magazine limits are 10 rounds. My ability to gain access to my locked firearm, coupled with their benefit of suprise, my imperfect aim in a dark environment would be a concern. My plan is to have firearms of multiple type and caliber strategically placed throughout my room behind planned cover. Eventually these strategic locations will be increased rthroughout the house, followed by all-weather wireless cameras and motion sensors which I will set to beep near my bed only.

My neigborhood is pretty safe due to the people who live there, so I'm not actually afraid of anything. This hobby is fun anyway. I think that most people misconstrue interest in weaponry with fear of some kind. I don't think this is fair. People don't plan footbal defense because they are afraid of people breaking into their homes and rushing their quarterback. They do it because they like football.

[Dol Guldur]

This says it all to me...

[ICantSpellDawg]

As per Suffolk County:

The following safety measures will be accepted as standard practice for the safeguarding of firearms:
UNLOADED and locked in a box or metal container.
UNLOADED and secured in a safe.
UNLOADED with a locking device attached and hidden in a secure location.

Keeping a loaded firearm, inside or outside of a safe would not be standard. Nowhere in the guide does it say that this is illegal or out of code. Carrying 24/7 with a "sportsman's" permit is not against the law, but it is against code in Suffolk and Nassau county and, although it will not result in prosecution, it will almost certainly result in a loss of your license by the granting authority. I'm pushing for concealed carry without amendment, but it is extremely difficult to attain, unless you are wealthy. Only people with tons of money are authorized, or some people with orders of protection in their favor. Equal protections? What do you expect from a "may-issue" state?

If the situation is other than standard it would stand to reason that other than standard storage was appropriate.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Wooow, that's insane. I literally went to a gun store/range and had my .38 in a half hour. Great place, good prices. If i wanted to get a concealed carry permit it would cost less than 200 bucks and would be very easy.

Oregon is great for gun enthusiasts, yet we have very little crime in general. Little crazy lately, but usually we're a very boring state, despite our evil lax gun laws.

Get the CCW asap. You don't have to carry, but it would be great to have if you ever need to. I had my Sportsman's license for almost a year before I bought a pistol.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This says it all to me...

The problem being - if the madman had not had access to firearms then the lady wouldn't have needed the gun that was in her car.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The problem being - if the madman had not had access to firearms then the lady wouldn't have needed the gun that was in her car.

I've never known or met anyone who has suffered from gun-related violence, other than self-inflicted. I've lived in Illinois, Texas, Michigan, and New York. Gun violence is, no joke, a problem for urban minorities. For everyone else, guns are a hobby and a good idea to protect ourselves in the event that minorities leave urban areas, or that shtf with the government. Gun crime is statistical noise for everyone else. It's not even everyone else who is affected, but mostly minority victims. Sound racist? It is, but so are the stats. I like people who are different from me. I'm sorry that the stats are what they are. I don't mind that the United States is getting darker. I encourage more immigration and can't wait to make friends with people who have unique perspectives on life, cooking, politics. But gun crime is a problem for them. They need education, opportunity and will power to get out of it.

School shootings are a problem for young, anti-social, mostly white or affluent males. But the numbers are akin to school buses exploding.

[Greyblades]

1. What has race got to do with what's been said?
2. That you havent known or met anyone who has suffered from gun related violence is kinda irrelevent, I havent met someone who has malaria, it still happens. It's especially unsurprising as the whole point is that gun related violence is so deadly that finding someone who's suffered it and survived is unusual.

This says it all to me...

I'd say the problem there is that the texan gun control should have been tougher so a lunatic wouldnt be able to get his hands on guns in the first place, they cant be so half assed about gun control if they want to stop such an occurance.

[ICantSpellDawg]

1. What has race got to do with what's been said?
2. That you havent known or met anyone who has suffered from gun related violence is kinda irrelevent, I havent met someone who has malaria, it still happens. It's especially unsurprising as the whole point is that gun related violence is so deadly that finding someone who's suffered it and survived is unusual.
I'd say the problem there is that the texan gun control should have been tougher so a lunatic wouldnt be able to get his hands on guns in the first place, they cant be so half assed about gun control if they want to stop such an occurance.

Race/Ethnicity
White, non-Hispanic	3,669	3.7	(3.6--3.8)	1,843	1.8	(1.7--1.9)	5,512	2.7	(2.7--2.8)
Black, non-Hispanic	7,477	41.4	(40.4--42.3)	1,269	6.4	(6.0--6.8)	8,746	23.1	(22.6--23.6)
American Indian/Alaska Native	147	11.8	(9.9--13.6)	52	4.0	(3.0--5.3)	199	7.8	(6.7--8.9)
Asian/Pacific Islander	236	3.4	(3.0--3.9)	105	1.5	(1.2--1.7)	341	2.4	(2.2--2.7)
Hispanic	2,926	12.5	(12.0--12.9)	540	2.5	(2.2--2.7)	3,466	7.6	(7.4--7.9)
Total§	14,538	9.8	(9.6--10.0)	3,823	2.5	(2.4--2.6)	18,361	6.1	(6.0--6.2)

Race definitely has a place in discussions about Homicide. So does poverty and education.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6001a14.htm

This chart illustrates that even if we compare White Homicide rates it is still about a point higher than other like communities, so I cede some ground there.

[Greyblades]

I'm confused, what exactly are you trying to prove/say with racial statistics?