Discussion in 'Activism' started by hotajax, Mar 13, 2014.
I did point out that several statements made by others re: murder rates were wrong and i stand by those assertions. These facts are not baitng or trolling, just trying to keep the info accurate.
Justifiable homicides compared to 30,000 deaths (I presume firearms deaths: suicide, homicide and accident).
I think it would be appropriate to compare justifiable homicide numbers to homicide numbers.
The problem is first off we do not have usable justifiable homicide stats. The FBI Justifiable Homicide stat depends on police reports entering a 09C or 090C UCR classification on the incident report. In any given year 15 to 20 states do not use that UCR code. As the FBI UCR Report states, the justifiable homicide table is based on police reports by end of year. It does not represent eventual adjudication of homicide as justifiable, negligent or criminal by coroner, medical examiner, prosecutor, grandjury, trial judge, trial jury or appellate court judges. In my home county police shootings are not adjudicated until the state bureau of investigation presents a shooting review report to the grand jury. In other words, that FBI table is a gross under count. Unlike the British Home Office, the FBI UCR Reports do not track homicides through the judicial system year after year and remove justifiable homicides from the murder statistics.
And there are nowhere near 30,000+ homicides by shooting in the US.
Murder in the United States - 2011
100% 12,664 Total
68% 8,583 Firearm related
Of firearms related homicides -2011
72% 6,220 Handguns
4% 323 Rifles
4% 356 Shotguns
20% 1,700 Unspecified
I suspect strict gun control would inhibit lawful self-defense more than it would restrict criminal access to deadly weapons. Knoxville police have told the newspaper that 80% of crime weapons are acquired from illegal sources and see no benefit from additional gun controls.
Murder in the United States - 2011
100% 12,664 Total
68% 8,583 Firearm related
Of firearms related homicides -2011
72% 6,220 Handguns
4% 323 Rifles
4% 356 Shotguns
20% 1,700 Unspecified
In notices by the Virginia Board of Vital Statistics dated Jan and Dec 1943 my maternal great grandparent's family (and all descendants which would include me) were characterised as "Tennessee "Melungeons"" and "negroid" and "mulatto" and "mongels" with orders to change birth and marriage records from "white" and "indian" to "colored" with huge impact on civil rights of those reclassified. You want my opinion of letting your rights depend on the "scientific" opinion of medical "experts" given more power than can be exercised by judges or courts?
Homicide rate of USA is running about 4.5 per 100,000 per year national average.
If you have 1 million people and 500 murders, thats 50 per 100,000 per year.
What US jurisdiction has 10000 people and 100 murders (rate 1000 per 100,000 per year)? That figure stinks. Where did you pull it from?
I'll dig this out of my archives: El Paso, Texas, has the reputation of the safest US city over 1/2 million population; in 2010 there were 5 murders in a population of over 600,000 people or 0.8 per 100,000 people per year (lower than the 2010 murder rate in England 1.4 per 100,000 per year). El Paso is 80% Hispanic or Latino, 75% Mexican-American. Across Rio Bravo del Norte, the Rio Grande, in Cuidad Juarez, the murder rate in 2010 was 229 per 100,000 per year, where all legal gun sales must be approved by the Mexican Army. Whatever is going on, it is not American gun laws or ethnicity to blame.
Updt: El Paso (pop 675,536) had 14 murders in 2012 and 6 murders in 2013 still below the US national average and below Chicago! A city rating service has projected that El Paso may have 7 by the end of 2014.
Compared to the US national average murder rate, what are the murder rates of NYC, Chicago and LA?
Murthy's Nomination is Dead -- http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=747447
So you may take a moment to dance a little jig before returning to your regularly scheduled debates.
So you want the U.S. to be less ethnically diverse with a homogenous, dominant ethnic supermajority? I thought that kind of thinking was frowned upon these days?
Although when you look at it that way, you get right to the root of the problem since dropping just a single ethnicity from the U.S. crime statistics gets you a violent crime rate that would be the envy of the developed world. Anyway, you can read more about problems with international comparisons here: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
The fact (and yes it is a fact) that there are differences between ethnic groups in how they view things and how they act is not something that the gun controllers are ready to admit. It doesn't fit their world view. In their eyes it is the availability of inanimate objects that causes the violence. In their world view, all people are exactly the same and that socioeconomic and ethnic differences in values have nothing to do with violent crime. And to suggest that it does makes one a racist rather then a realist.
The gun control advocates are like bad parents who are convinced they are right in their world view and the problem of violence will be solved if they just don't let the children (those of us mature adults, who understand the real world) play with guns. Take away the bad "thing" and the bad conduct will stop. That's what they espouse. It doesn't work raising children and it won't stop violence.
But we don't accept that sort of blinkered and unenlightened thinking when it comes to solving social problems. Not with ethnicity, not with tools.
!. A society where the basic family structure has been broken down.
2. No economic future except for a government program.
3. A society where despair and depression is dealt with by the use of alcohol and drugs.
You can find these conditions in our inner cities, in black, white and Hispanic ghettos. You will also find them in the rural areas where the jobs are gone and the same government programs that destroyed the families in the inner cities are the main source of income.
There are also ethnic differences, especially among immigrants from countries where violence is a regular part of life in the third world.
Policies that allowed the creation of stable nuclear families and encouraged them to thrive by giving them economic opportunity would do more to stop the violence then the confiscation of every firearm in private hands in this country.
Unfortunately we are on our 4th generation of people living under these conditions in some places in this country. There is an entire mindset that has been the only way of life those people have known for a few generations that will have to be changed.
I'm going to step a little off topic and say that it was The Great Society legislation that brought us here. Not the availability of guns. Before we started tinkering with how people lived their lives in order to "help" them, we didn't have violence like we do now. In those days you could buy a semi-auto through the mail from an ad in the back of a magazine.
Why, with guns so readily available, without background checks or waiting periods didn't we have the violence that we have now?
If guns and access to them was the problem al of the restrictions we have on them now should have solved it, not made it worse.
The gun controllers need to be intellectually honest enough to step away from their failure and be man enough to look at how other policies they support are the real cause of violence in American society.
But I'm sure that even my grandchildren won't live to see that happen.
2010 University of Maryland study looking at the race gap in homicide rates from 1960-2010 and not suprisingly, it reached the exact same conclusions that Jeff White laid out.
The researchers found that racial integration and race in general played almost no part in reducing the homicide rate and that the major issues driving it were: divorce, unemployment and drug abuse.
To enter the melee: So, you want an answer or a solution to "gun" violence? Well in my unlimited genius I have discovered the answer. Ban and confiscate all guns from everyone.
The problem with the study of "gun" violence is that these studies try to use a macroscopic view to analyze microscopic problems. We don't know why Bill killed his wife and kids then himself, we don't know why Tom robbed the bank and killed the tellers. There is no blanket reasoning why people do these things (BUT THERE IS.)
Psuedo intellects and quasi academics have come up with some plausible reasons: mental health, "nature vs. Nurture", poverty, abusive childhoods, culture, tv, violence desensitzation etc. etc. Are they correct? Sure in some cases.
But what EVERYONE seems to leave out of "gun" violence is the HUMAN.
Since the dawn if time humans have been butchering each other and that is an undisputable fact. Even pre-human remains have been found with tool marks in their bones and inturments of death still in the body. Humans are and always will be killers. We are hardwired to kill. The NEED to kill has almost been eradicated from HUMAN society. Territorial borders are in place, food supplies and natural resources have been secured by their respective nations (there are exceptions to those societies that still live tribal.)
In society there is still an element that kills. Be it for drugs, money, insanity, jealousy, poverty, love or necessity. There is nothing that can be done about this, "Minority Report" doesn't exist, though there are psychological patterns behind certain behaviors i.e. a child that tortures animals, there is a good chance the child will be some sort of societal deviant or a female victim is found with excessive post-mortem wounds, one can deduce it was her husband or lover (crime of passion.)
Common sense dictates: if you want to end "gun" violence you have to end gun ownership.
If you want to end violence, you end humanity. Violence and killing is an integral part of our reptile brain, and that my friends you just cannot take away...
Sorry...couldn't pass up this one.
If no one needs a weapon used by soldiers, then that Glock you posted in post #87 should be turned in.
Glocks are used in the military of many different countries:
Azerbaijani Special Military Services
Columbia's "Gaula EJC" Army anti-extortion and anti-kidnapping group
Denmark's Slædepatruljen Sirius special forces
If you want to add police forces to this, then the list gets longer.
Nowhere has that number that i know of, i was trying to demonstrate to "fallout mike" why rate , not just total number, was important when talking about murders.
Did you drop all the poor immigrant populations from everyone elses rates to? Because guess what... Every country has poor minorities. They all account for more than their expected percentage of crime.
You know what else you can do? Drop ALL the firearm homicides from all the countries rates. Then the US does just as well as all the other countries. Our non-firearm homicide rate is on par with everyone elses, our massive firearm homicides push us into a totally different class all on our own.
None of those countries are anything like the United States demographically or close in terms of cultural diversity. Japan is 98.5% ethnic Japanese. Non-asian ethnicities are less than 1%. You can be second-generation born in Japan and still not qualify for citizenship. The United Kingdom is 87% ethnic majority. France is 85% ethnic majority. German citizens with no immigrant background at all are 80% of that population. Norway - 86.2%.
Now, let's look at the U.S.A...
It isn't called "The Melting Pot" without reason. Putting aside the previous waves of immigrants who brought a mix of different cultures, and ethnicities the Census reports 308 million people in the U.S. in 2010. Of those, 40 million are first generation immigrants - that is 12.5% of the population.
The United States is not like any other country. I think that's a good thing frankly. I like the diversity and strength that brings; but it does mean that there is always a certain churn of cultures meshing.
Personally, I tend to agree with Jeff White that "the Great Society" is to blame for much of the problem. It has steadily destroyed stable family units that are the building block for everything else.
Not going to keep chasing the tangents, back to the question of CDC funding for research into guns.
1. Even if all the CDC did was study "violence" and study ways to prevent/reduce non-accidental deaths, they would STILL be studying guns, because the only instrument used in a large percentage of violent deaths is guns. There is no way around it, if you study violence, and specifically violent deaths, in the US you have to look at guns.
Sam1911, I don't think the CDC is an infallible, amazing organization. But, most of the funding for anything related to death and dying in the US comes from the CDC or private, even more blatantly biased organizations (on BOTH sides... there are ridiculously biased pro-gun studies and anti-gun studies).
If we have any interest in reducing violent deaths, we are going to have to study and understand the causes, influences, effective preventative measures, etc. And the funding is probably going to come from the gov't, which means the CDC.
And guns are going to be included. They are a huge part of the equation when you look at violence in the US, there is no way around that.
So there are basically two choices:
1. CDC funding for understanding violence, which will necessarily include looking at guns.
2. Fight any attempt to study the issue and keep relying on the terribly incomplete information we currently have.
Honestly, I think a lot of pro-gun people want #2 because they fear that more complete information would not support their side of the argument. The NRA certainly does. They saw a study that they didn't like and their response was "Block all attempts to understand anything about guns!"
Are most research scientists anti-gun? At this point, yeah, probably. That is what happens when the leading gun organization says that science about guns is bad. NRA set itself up against science, it is going to take some work to get that balance back. But the solution is not to continue to preach to pro-gun people that research is bad and should be avoided at all costs.
Someone else's thoughts on the topic:
"Scientists don’t view traffic injuries as “senseless” or “accidental” but as events susceptible to understanding and prevention. Urban planners, elected officials and highway engineers approach such injuries by asking four questions: What is the problem? What are the causes? Have effective interventions been discovered? Can we install these interventions in our community?
The federal government has invested billions to understand the causes of motor vehicle fatalities and, with that knowledge, has markedly reduced traffic deaths in the United States. Since the mid-1970s, research has inspired such interventions as child restraints, seat belts, frontal air bags, a minimum drinking age and motorcycle helmets. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 366,000 lives were saved through such efforts from 1975 to 2009.
Through the same scientific, evidence-based approach, our country has made progress understanding and preventing violence. Once upon a time, law-abiding citizens believed that violence generated by evil always had existed and always would exist. By the mid-20th century, that sense of fatalism was yielding to discoveries by social scientists, physicians and epidemiologists. Now a body of knowledge exists that makes it clear that an event such as the mass shooting in Aurora, Colo., was not a “senseless” occurrence as random as a hurricane or earthquake but, rather, has underlying causes that can be understood and used to prevent similar mass shootings.
We also recognize different types of violence, including child abuse and neglect, sexual assault, elder abuse, suicide and economically and politically motivated violence. Like motor vehicle injuries, violence exists in a cause-and-effect world; things happen for predictable reasons. By studying the causes of a tragic — but not senseless — event, we can help prevent another.
Recently, some have observed that no policies can reduce firearm fatalities, but that’s not quite true. Research-based observations are available. Childproof locks, safe-storage devices and waiting periods save lives.
But it’s vital to understand why we know more and spend so much more on preventing traffic fatalities than on preventing gun violence, even though firearm deaths (31,347 in 2009, the most recent year for which statistics are available) approximate the number of motor vehicle deaths (32,885 in 2010)."
Medical errors kill more than a quarter million people every year in the United States and injure millions. Add them all up and "you have probably the third leading cause of death" in the country, says Dr. Peter Pronovost, an anesthesiologist and critical care physician at Johns Hopkins Hospital.
Physician, heal yourself...
Whoa...... now wait a minute.
You have (had) some fairly good points but this is a post that, IMO, really undermines your own argument and shows that you're debating only to come to your own conclusion rather than the true conclusion.
You sound as if youre now expecting this debate to be framed around what you have self determined to be acceptable despite your own supporting documents.
The link you provided shows Russia as being in the "High Human Development" category.
It also shows that of the countries you listed, about 1/2 of them have fallen down the list, and a few are stagnant, and only a couple have risen up the list by 1-2 positions.
Conversely, Russia, climb up the list 11 positions.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Russia.
However, trying to frame the debate to fit your predetermined conclusion is the same 'problem' everyone has with the CDC framing the data to fit their predetermined conclusion/agenda.
That 'problem' is that when only the evidence that supports ANY predetermined conclusion is looked at, the evaluation process is flawed and the outcome biased.
And there's nothing wrong with discussing guns as an avenue by which violence is carried out. No one, including the NRA (see post 114) is saying that the role of weapons, including guns, cannot be considered in studies of violence.
What has been said is that the CDC can't advocate for gun control.
I strongly contend that setting out to study "Gun Violence" forces, leads, predetermines, conclusions that can only be GUN solutions, because that would be lumping together many disparate types of violence into one pool and then studying them in light of the one aspect that -- very tenuously -- strings them together.
Setting out to do that shows irrefutable bias toward a pre-determined conclusion: "This is a GUN problem. Ergo: there is a GUN solution."
Like the analogy I made before: "This is a BLACK problem. Ergo: the solution has to do with their race."
Start out with a conclusion formed, and it isn't hard to find the data that will support it, especially in these soft sciences.
But you're dodging here, and I think you know it. Studying the causes of violence, knowing that guns will be involved in the means and methods aspect of the study, is not a problem. Setting out by pre-deciding that the problem is a "GUN Violence" matter is not acceptable. That is pre-loading the study to provide a certain desired conclusion. To wit, advocating for gun control.
Certainly, many would feel that way. That doesn't change the fact that a study which says, "The problem here is 'X.' Now, let's study the problem so we can say that the problem is 'X' and work to get 'X' off our streets..." is not really a study, but a propaganda tool.
And this leads us to another bone of contention.
Many of us understand the concept of rights, specifically as protected by the 2nd Amendment, to be sacrosanct above the concerns and efforts of urban planners, elected officials, or even highway engineers! The old idea that we hold dear is that freedom isn't safe, and promises of safety in exchange for freedom are either woefully mislead or are outright lies, and that the right to bear arms should not be curtailed merely because some members of society choose to use arms to harm others. Therefore, we object to even starting these efforts toward study/propaganda that will be used to erode our rights. Doubly so as they are so clearly misguided in their very foundation.
I don't know who wrote that, but it is one of the most misleading, obtuse, and pie-in-the-sky statements I've ever read about violence. The author has an utterly unrealistic, nerfed, view of what human society IS or will EVER be. Nothing following such an opening statement can be trusted or even contemplated as worthy of exploration. This author is someone who will not, probably CAN not, see the world for what it is and would lay his fellow man vulnerable to every abuse from those unhappy souls who disprove his naive beliefs.
No problem with any of that. And that's my point. CAUSES. Guns are not a CAUSE. And if the studies start out by saying they are, thats superstition and everything flowing forthwith is poisoned.
Ooooh, boy. A real deep thinker, this one.
If the author feels it is "vital to understand why" -- as in he cannot see on the very face of it WHY traffic fatalities are so incredibly, vastly, irreconcilably different from deaths via. firearms -- then he is fundamentally incapable of performing critical analysis of whatever data he does manage to collect. If he can't even grasp the very basics, can't think through even the most obvious questions one must answer to begin to set up a meaningful study, then he's too stunted and blinkered to accomplish anything of value once he does get his research off the ground.
Those paragraphs don't jive and really point out the contradicting flaw in your argument.
1st para - That's just simply not true and the next 2 paragraphs clearly expose it.
Violence is its own study. Non-accidental violence upon another is an emotion based action.
The study of what causes a person to lose control and resort to violence is the only thing that will reduce violence regardless of the type of violence it is.
In the 2nd paragraph, the last sentence, you agree with what I just said and contradict the 1st paragraph.
You say: "....has underlying causes that can be understood and used to prevent similar mass shootings."
If we understood the underlying cause, it could also have been used to prevent all of the other mass killings in the past whether it be by gas, chemical, or kool-aid (Jim Jones) all over the world.
In the 3rd paragraph, you again expose the flaw in your argument.
For ex., we don't study wieners in order to reduce sexual violence.
Do you know what the #1 cause of non-accidental deaths of children under 1yr is?
Its head trauma. (essentially shaking babies)
Are we studying the hands because they were used to shake the baby?
No. We're studying why the caretaker shook the baby and purposely not studying the "mechanism" that was used to shake the baby.
You're proving yourself wrong and you don't even realize it.
I'm coming back to this because I'm still reeling from reading something so ... gross and self-congratulatory and childishly naive.
I won't debate the true nature of evil. Some believe in spirits and demons and a great tempter who leads men astray. Some simply say that the way the minds of sentient beings are developed, in their endless quest for security, food, safety, procreation, and fulfillment, creates the possibility/probability for frustration, fear, anger, hate, lust, envy, greed, and also compelling malfunctions of the mind which are actuated in violence.
If neurologists and psychologists and endocrinologists and their fellows in the study of brain and mind and bio-chemistry want to say they now understand and can control fear, hate, lust, envy, greed, frustration, anger, AND brain chemistry (if that's what it really is) malfunction, well ... that's an announcement I must have missed.
(And would we give someone the reigns if they promised to "fix" our minds that way? )
But I have a suspicion that that's not what this author is hinting at with his easy and confident statement about "preventing" violence.
I don't trust the government to study anything related to guns objectively, and therefore oppose it studying them at all.
As for the naivete of the 'Star Trek' model that all violence in humanity can be discovered and rooted out at its source, I can only offer a very slightly used bridge for sale, at WELL below market prices, to those who give that ANY credence.
If you know your history, you'll know this scene.
...and if know the scene, you'll know the story... and the point.
but if not:
The first written account of the Canute episode was in Historia Anglorum
(The History of the English People) by chronicler Henry of Huntingdon, who
lived within 60 years of the death of Canute (1035 AD).
According to the story, the king had his chair carried down to the shore and
ordered the waves not to break upon his land.
When his orders were ignored, he pronounced: "Let all the world know that
the power of kings is empty and worthless and there is no King worthy of the
name save Him by whose will heaven and earth and sea obey eternal laws,"
The account shows Canute setting out to demonstrate that the tide would
come in regardless...
... as does true Evil
Separate names with a comma.