Jump to content

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
  • Announcements

    • Dowin

      =ADK= Discord Link   04/24/2017

      Come join us in =ADK= Discord To download the Discord app go here: https://discordapp.com/   Discord is going to have a small learning curve over teamspeak so be prepared, but the fellow members as well as the Admins will gladly help you if you have any issues with installing or using the app. Once you have Discord installed all that's left to do is click the button below.   Welcome to the future of the =ADK= Community.   Click Here To Join! 
AOBLXIX

How to stop mass shootings

Recommended Posts

http://youtu.be/hR3t7j2tUec

 

 

 

"The only one responsible for your safety is you"

 

 

Watch the entire video, it's quite an interesting take and for those of you who are on the side of "banning" selected magazines, guns, etc. .  Please do explain why you feel the need for it.   I know there are a few of you here who are for that so please lets discuss :) 

 

 

Let us keep this discussion on the topic of banning magazines, guns, etc. . and nothing else like mental health, background checks, and any other debate that is going on right now which should be for another topic.

 

 

(Please do not let this discussion get out of hand.   We will monitor it so no flame wars please)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really feel it is practical or reasonable to ban particular weapons except fully automatic or highly unusual weapons. President Garfield, if history has not forgotten about him, was assassinated by a gun that fit into the palm of the shooter's hand and was easily concealed. The caliber and capacity of the weapon would not fit into any of the "most restrictive" gun bans that are currently enacted.

 

Kennedy was assassinated with a bolt-action rifle that was bargain basement cheap and completely legal. It also would not have fit into any of these weapon bans. Gangsters, who use the ILLEGAL gun market to obtain firearms, wouldn't be impacted by any bans. The nature of the crime(s) allows them to use whatever weapon it is they can get their hands on. Six shots coming out of a .44magnum has the ability to do far more damage to tissue than 10 or 15 out of a 9mm.

 

It's really just picking the least politically favorable and sensationalized firearms and curtailing their availability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, these politicians now a days are good at reading the public and manipulating them. They know that most people now a days because of the news and other media sources categorize the word assault into the "bad word" category. Even though they don't always technically fall under the assault category. Take the AR-15 for instance. Used by the military 30 round clips low recoil and semi-automatic, it falls under the definition of assault rifle. But, it also falls under the definition hunting rifle. It can and is commonly is used to hunt varmints small game and even some medium game like deer and hogs. What technically makes this any different than a bolt action rifle that was used in that clock tower, i think it was texas. It could be a sniper rifle, a tool for precise shots primarily used in the assassination of high value individuals. 

I speculate that the liberals know that they can't get away with taking away all guns to start with, but they start by getting the gullible and naive to side with them at first and do a way with any weapons that could start a quarrel with the Democratic Party should they ever decide that they want to do something that infringes on the constitution at some point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh oh. I found the politics forums.

 

Ok, my 2 cents.

 

We cannot stop mass casualty shootings by restricting firearms that non-criminals can carry.

 

The best thing that can stop an active shooter is quite simply, another active shooter.

 

Case in point: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/

 

This still leaves us with people getting killed, but less than would be killed otherwise. This can be mitigated by increasing first aid training for everyone.

 

At Boston a mass casualty event was severely mitigated by the majority of people on the scene having first aid training and the willingness to help people despite the possibility of further bombs.

 

Finally, when it comes to the issue of crime, focusing on mass casualty events is in fact the wrong place to allocate resources. It is the general crime that doesn't make the news where the true tragedy is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I agree with increasing arms rather than repressing (I am pretty traditional GOP).

Living in Colorado with the recent ban on the mags, our sheriffs department basically said it would not enforce it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A long video but one of my favorites. Unrefined but the message/conversation is an important one. Most gun guys are familiar with Travis Haley, if you're not, you should be.

http://youtu.be/yIGzj6eIwWU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really feel it is practical or reasonable to ban particular weapons except fully automatic or highly unusual weapons.


Gangsters, who use the ILLEGAL gun market to obtain firearms, wouldn't be impacted by any bans. The nature of the crime(s) allows them to use whatever weapon it is they can get their hands on.

Not a personal attack but you, yourself, illustrated the fallacy of your argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejD1Gml-ZGc

 

The only thing that will prevent mass shootings are good guys with guns. Schools are a soft target and that's why these sick individuals target them, along with imo their glorification in the media which focuses more on the shooter then the victims.

In almost every case mass shooters commit or attempt to commit suicide as soon as they're challenge, why do we ensure they have a soft target where they won't be challenged until the first LEO responders show up?

 

Also by supporting fully automatic weapon bans you forget the true reason for the 2nd amendment, but that's a separate debate. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish it wasn't a political issue. I honestly hate the arguments that involve "those naive liberals" or "those gun-nuts conservatives" or "the -only thing- that will fix such and such". When it revolves around 'how to stop mass shootings', both sides tend to give a solution that is just too simple to ever work. If the problem was simple we would've fixed it by now.

 

This is the reason why banning X gun or X magazine won't work. This is the reason why blanket gun banning is a poor solution, and despite the OP not wanting to talk about it, for any type of gun restriction to be effective, it's going to have to be tied in with things like mental health etc.

 

I agree with a lot of the points made about concealed carries having the potential to save lives, but I'd also like to point out that sometimes it works the other way round. Take for instance the shooting of Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield, when they took a man they knew to have PTSD to a gun range. The Trayvon Martin shooting would also have turned out differently were it not for Mr. Zimmerman having a concealed carry, though I don't know (and neither does anyone else) if Zimmerman's life was actually in danger. I reiterate: I don't disagree with allowing concealed carry permits, I just want to point out that there are cases where gun access directly lead to deaths.

 

Video was pretty good.

 

EDIT: OMG I just noticed how old the thread is.

Edited by EulersIdentity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While true that we shouldn't glorify mass shooters because that only gives more reason for it to happen in the future, we can't just put guns into the hands of every single person, there are simply too many stupid people in the world that don't thinks things through before doing them. while mass shootings are terrible and leave bigger marks on history than single deaths to hand held pistols and the sort, they dont account nearly close to what the latter yields. If we should ban anything it shouldnt be the big guns, but the small ones; Pistols, sawed off shotguns, things that can be concealed. the rates of death due to drive-by's and gang violence would drop staggeringly. with both of those in place we might see a better outcome in regards to gun violence, but no matter what you do really there are still messed up people in the world that will get their hands on guns and do damage, whether the media pays attention to it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we should ban anything it shouldnt be the big guns, but the small ones; Pistols, sawed off shotguns, things that can be concealed. the rates of death due to drive-by's and gang violence would drop staggeringly.

Let's assume for a moment that everyone agrees that we need to ban guns, then you're right on the money: small arms are the ones most often involved in violence. The argument made by those against gun control is that banning them would not cause a decrease in criminal usage, that drive-by's wouldn't drop staggeringly. Personally, I could see some decrease a long time after such a law was enacted, if it was stringent enough that there were just less guns around (sort of like in Japan). Here's the problem: ban all guns today. I can find one tomorrow, easy. Can I find one 50 years from now? That's a bit tougher. Now what do we do about the next 50 years?


but no matter what you do really there are still messed up people in the world that will get their hands on guns and do damage

And this is the crux of the argument most often made against gun control. So riddle me this: Ban guns and you might stop some violence by the perps just not having the gun when they want to use it. Or, give everyone the option of concealed carry and stop some violence by armed good guys, or the fear of armed good guys. Now which one stops more crimes? I honestly don't know. Obviously these are the extreme cases, but if we can figure out the extremes, maybe we can find the healthy spot in the middle.

 

Note: I don't think you can legally buy a sawed off shotty in the U.S. At least, I don't know anyone who owns one that was obtained legally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as i know, in California you may own a sawed off shotgun, but it has to be sawed off by a gunsmith and must be re-registered, and must be no shorter than some mystic length.

 

I do see both points of the argument, and while i would very much like to ignore the extremes because both skew results, in the end its the extremes that are written down in history books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as i know, in California you may own a sawed off shotgun, but it has to be sawed off by a gunsmith and must be re-registered, and must be no shorter than some mystic length.

 

I do see both points of the argument, and while i would very much like to ignore the extremes because both skew results, in the end its the extremes that are written down in history books.

I don't understand the pro gun control argument at all, it has no factual backing, and the whole "The founding fathers wouldn't want us to own assault rifles argument" doesn't hold water either. Ever heard of privateers? Ya know, those privately owned ships equipped with cannons that sailed around pirating the British. (not directed at you)

Regardless of your stance this book http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391569404&sr=8-1&keywords=more+guns%2C+less+crime is an excellent read that supplies nothing but facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also dont agree trying to ban guns, it simply wouldnt work even if you could succeed in enacting the ban.  I am however, all for the idea of some sort of better screening process on buying guns.  But even that will not manage to stop alot of crimes, because many of these people had very few warning signs before they ended up going off and murdering people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because many of these people had very few warning signs before they ended up going off and murdering people.

On July 17, 1984, the day before the massacre, James Oliver Huberty called a mental health center.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald%27s_massacre

 

The Binghamton Police Chief Joseph Zikuski said, "From the people close to him ... this action he took was not a surprise to them."  Wong had allegedly made comments such as, "America sucks," and talked about assassinating the president to his former co-workers at Shop Vac.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binghamton_shootings

 

On October 16, 1991, 35-year-old George "Jo Jo" Pierre Hennard, an unemployed merchant mariner or able seaman who was described by others as angry and withdrawn, with a dislike of women

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre

 

In middle school, he was diagnosed with a severe anxiety disorder known as selective mutism, as well as major depressive disorder. During Cho's last two years at Virginia Tech, several instances of his abnormal behavior, as well as plays and other writings he submitted containing references to violence, caused concern among teachers and classmates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho

 

One of the deadliest if not deadliest school killings (perp used bombs) was in 1927...

Some time between May 16 and the morning of May 18, 1927, Kehoe murdered his wife. Then on the morning of May 18 at about 8:45 a.m., he set off various incendiary devices on his homestead that caused the house and other farm buildings to be destroyed by the explosives' blast and the subsequent fires.

Almost simultaneously, an explosion devastated the north wing of the school building, killing 36 schoolchildren and two teachers. Kehoe had used a timed detonator to ignite hundreds of pounds of dynamite and incendiary pyrotol, which he had secretly planted inside the school over the course of many months. As rescuers began working at the school, Kehoe drove up, stopped, and used a rifle to detonate dynamite inside his shrapnel-filled truck, killing himself, the school superintendent, and several others nearby, as well as injuring more bystanders. During rescue efforts at the school, searchers discovered an additional 500 pounds (230 kg) of unexploded dynamite and pyrotol connected to a timing device set to detonate at the same time as the first explosions; the material was hidden throughout the basement of the south wing. Kehoe had apparently intended to blow up and destroy the entire school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

 

My point these people all exhibited signs, and mass killings at schools are not unique to now, increasing in rate, or even unique to the US. According to the media if you got shot at 3am and stumbled onto school property and died it would be a "school shooting."

 

March 13, 1996
Dunblane, Scotland

16 children and one teacher killed at Dunblane Primary School by Thomas Hamilton, who then killed himself. 10 others wounded in attack.

 

March 1997
Sanaa, Yemen

Eight people (six students and two others) at two schools killed by Mohammad Ahman al-Naziri.

 

April 28, 1999
Taber, Alberta, Canada

One student killed, one wounded at W. R. Myers High School in first fatal high school shooting in Canada in 20 years. The suspect, a 14-year-old boy, had dropped out of school after he was severely ostracized by his classmates.

 

The list goes on and on..http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

The solution to stopping mass shootings is blatantly obvious. Don't have soft targets. School shootings happen in a gun free school zone, shooter commits suicide upon arrival of force. DC shooting happened in a federal building where employees minus whatever mall cops were there can not be armed.

 

You know what's even more appalling then sandy hook as tragic as it was, that no one ever talks about?

 

Chicago:

Final 2013 Totals
Shot & Killed: 372
Shot & Wounded: 1778
Total Homicides*: 448

 

Again the problem in Chicago is blatantly obvious but if you point it out you're a racist.

race1.png

gender.png

age.png

These morons that are my age are waging a self sided genocidal war on each other and no one f-ing cares. Chicago every year has the same amount of gun fatalities as was caused by Iraqi insurgents in 2003. http://icasualties.org/

Again, gun control laws don't work. They're either brought up as a feel good, knee jerk, emotional response, or by those in power who want to maintain their control.

 

Sorry kind of went off on a little tirade there, so lastly:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

According to the declaration of independence we are all created equal with inalienable rights, and according to the constitution the U.S. Government needs to sod off when it comes to dictating what kind of firearms I can own.

 

Edited by Dalriaden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution to stopping mass shootings is blatantly obvious. Don't have soft targets. School shootings happen in a gun free school zone, shooter commits suicide upon arrival of force. DC shooting happened in a federal building where employees minus whatever mall cops were there can not be armed.
...

Again, gun control laws don't work. They're either brought up as a feel good, knee jerk, emotional response, or by those in power who want to maintain their control.

You say it's blatantly obvious, but there are large groups of people who disagree. It's easy to shrug it off and say they're all idiots, but consider for a moment that some of them might have a good reason (some may still be idiots).

Now, your argument about soft targets is reasonable, deductively speaking, but inductively does not hold up. Take for example, US vs. UK. In the UK guns are tightly restricted, and many police officers do not carry firearms.

Officer gun deaths:
2011 - US: 67, UK: 0 (1 from a bomb)
2012 - US: 47, UK: 4
2013 - US: 31, UK: 0
Gun homicides per 100,000 population:
US: 3.6 (2011), UK: .04 (2010)
Intentional homicides per 100,000 population:
US: 4.7, UK: 1.2

Evidence actually suggests that we should have stricter gun control, like the UK. Now, your reasoning wasn't flawed, the problem is, real life isn't that simple. While there IS a correlation between gun control and a decrease in gun violence, anti-gun-control people are somewhat right in thinking that it's not just taking guns away from people that causes reduced violence. Consider that UK officers are given their authority not by force, but by the consent of the public, how does that affect their likelihood to get shot on the job? There are obviously other factors at work too, which I can't and won't enumerate.

So I ask: what is a better argument against gun control? You made the point yourself:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


This is why. I think the people in general need enough force to prevent some kind of governmental overthrow that would cause a military state type situation. Furthermore, having guns should be a privilege to people who can prove that they are responsible, for no other reason than the pursuit of happiness. Bill should not be barred from target shooting or hunting because Fred murders someone.

This is all the argument you need against overly strict gun control. I don't see the need to argue that guns prevent gun violence until we get really good evidence to the contrary, by which I mean non-circumstantial evidence. One case does not a proof make.

...these people all exhibited signs, and mass killings at schools are not unique to now, increasing in rate, or even unique to the US.


Exactly. I loathe the idea of strict gun control as much as anyone, so if we want to preserve that privilege, it is absolutely necessary to fix the problem through other means. Clearly arming vigilantes is NOT the answer, the proof of which I have given above. We need to put in the work to solve what is a seriously complex problem.

You know what's even more appalling then sandy hook as tragic as it was, that no one ever talks about?
Chicago every year has the same amount of gun fatalities as was caused by Iraqi insurgents in 2003.


Yep, but this has a lot in common with Sandy Hook. Fixing the problem would best be solved by addressing the complex social issues that are causing violence.

Long story short: Evidence seems to suggest that strict gun control has and currently does reduce gun homicide rates. That doesn't mean it's the best solution. If you want to save your guns, figure out how to solve violence problems through social means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, your argument about soft targets is reasonable, deductively speaking, but inductively does not hold up. Take for example, US vs. UK. In the UK guns are tightly restricted, and many police officers do not carry firearms.

Officer gun deaths:
2011 - US: 67, UK: 0 (1 from a bomb)
2012 - US: 47, UK: 4
2013 - US: 31, UK: 0
Gun homicides per 100,000 population:
US: 3.6 (2011), UK: .04 (2010)
Intentional homicides per 100,000 population:
US: 4.7, UK: 1.2

It's from 2009 but I'll just leave it here:

 

The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

 

NSW police commissioner Andrew Scipione explained: "There is no single source of gun violence... guns have fallen into the hands of organized crime, outlaw motorcycle gangs, mid-level crime groups and petty thieves and the lines are often blurred."

Not ironically, Australia implemented a massive purge of guns in 1996, which included bans on "assault weapons" and other semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. They also did forced buybacks and then entered into a strict licensing and registration agreement where certain single-shot rifles and similar firearms could be owned but only if the owner provided justification for the possession of such a weapon. 

Yet 17 years after the implementation of gun control schemes that are very similar in many ways to those being pushed by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the NSW police department is launching a new operation to rein in gun violence.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/08/21/Aussie-Politician-Complains-About-U-S-Gun-Laws-But-Gun-Crime-In-Sydney-Is-Out-Of-Control

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's from 2009 but I'll just leave it here:

2009 Homicide rate
UK: 1.17; US: 4.46 (3.8x US)
2009 Total Violent Crime rate:
UK: 1318.58; US: 460.57 (2.7x UK)

Because of categorization differences, it's harder to compare other stats :(
Sources: www.gov.uk/government/publications/historical-crime-data http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html
Population data for rate calculation from Wikipedia.

Yeah, higher violent crime rate in the UK, though it's not as extreme as that article says, so I checked the source they listed. Eurostat says total violent crimes in the UK is 827,122 where the article says 1.15 million. Note that the article states that they are using data compiled by "the Conservatives," so the author clearly didn't check the raw data. I'm not sure where to find the compilation done by the Conservatives. This puts the Eurostat violent crime rate at 1560.24, a little higher than the UK government source I found but way lower than the rate of 2,000 list in the article. The article lists US rate at 466, much closer to what I found. Eurostat raw data gives 427.

Enough numbers, your point is still valid. So what do the numbers tell us? Let's look at the correlations:

- Stricter gun control correlated to more violent crimes
- Stricter gun control correlated to less gun crimes
- Stricter gun control correlated to less homicides

So what can we infer? Do you believe that stricter gun control is causing the increase in violent crimes? What if the violent crime rate was tied to something else besides guns? What would that imply?

I don't mean to sound patronizing, but I'm really interested in peoples' thoughts on it. I didn't know the UK had more violent crimes than the US and I find it interesting. I'm inclined to think that the violence comes from factors unrelated to gun availability. That would imply that increased gun availability would make that violence lead to more homicides, instead of assaults; however, there's the possibility that many of these crimes are just scuffles (alcohol related?) that would likely not get any more dangerous regardless of whether guns were more available or not.

Back to that article:

The UK had a greater number of murders in 2007 than any other EU country – 927 – and at a relative rate higher than most western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

Germany: Among strictest gun control in the world. Wrist braced slingshots are illegal in Germany.
France: Limits on cartridges allowed to be purchased per year. Assault weapon ban. Don't know if it's stricter than UK.
Italy: Seems less strict than UK. Limits on amount of guns owned by type. Concealed carry requires proof that there is a real threat to life.
Spain: Requires training course for a gun license. Full auto illegal. Similar to UK laws.

So the less violent countries had around equal or more restrictive gun laws.


On Australia: Be advised the article is published by a Conservative opinion site.

The most recent homicide rate I could find was from the United Nations in 2011, being 1.1. The US was more than 4 times that. http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html says that in 2003 (most recent stats) the percentage of homicide caused by firearms was about 16%. That's a rate of .176, a tiny fraction of the US rate.

From the article: "The lesson: criminals do not pay attention to gun bans. They never have and they never will."

I would be inclined to agree intuitively, but the stats are pretty damning evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@E

 

2009 Homicide rate
UK: 1.17; US: 4.46 (3.8x US)
2009 Total Violent Crime rate:
UK: 1318.58; US: 460.57 (2.7x UK)

Because of categorization differences, it's harder to compare other stats :(
Sources: www.gov.uk/government/publications/historical-crime-data http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html
Population data for rate calculation from Wikipedia.

Yeah, higher violent crime rate in the UK, though it's not as extreme as that article says, so I checked the source they listed. Eurostat says total violent crimes in the UK is 827,122 where the article says 1.15 million. Note that the article states that they are using data compiled by "the Conservatives," so the author clearly didn't check the raw data. I'm not sure where to find the compilation done by the Conservatives. This puts the Eurostat violent crime rate at 1560.24, a little higher than the UK government source I found but way lower than the rate of 2,000 list in the article. The article lists US rate at 466, much closer to what I found. Eurostat raw data gives 427.

Enough numbers, your point is still valid. So what do the numbers tell us? Let's look at the correlations:

- Stricter gun control correlated to more violent crimes
- Stricter gun control correlated to less gun crimes
- Stricter gun control correlated to less homicides

So what can we infer? Do you believe that stricter gun control is causing the increase in violent crimes? What if the violent crime rate was tied to something else besides guns? What would that imply?

I don't mean to sound patronizing, but I'm really interested in peoples' thoughts on it. I didn't know the UK had more violent crimes than the US and I find it interesting. I'm inclined to think that the violence comes from factors unrelated to gun availability. That would imply that increased gun availability would make that violence lead to more homicides, instead of assaults; however, there's the possibility that many of these crimes are just scuffles (alcohol related?) that would likely not get any more dangerous regardless of whether guns were more available or not.

Back to that article:
Germany: Among strictest gun control in the world. Wrist braced slingshots are illegal in Germany.
France: Limits on cartridges allowed to be purchased per year. Assault weapon ban. Don't know if it's stricter than UK.
Italy: Seems less strict than UK. Limits on amount of guns owned by type. Concealed carry requires proof that there is a real threat to life.
Spain: Requires training course for a gun license. Full auto illegal. Similar to UK laws.

So the less violent countries had around equal or more restrictive gun laws.


On Australia: Be advised the article is published by a Conservative opinion site.

The most recent homicide rate I could find was from the United Nations in 2011, being 1.1. The US was more than 4 times that. http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html says that in 2003 (most recent stats) the percentage of homicide caused by firearms was about 16%. That's a rate of .176, a tiny fraction of the US rate.

From the article: "The lesson: criminals do not pay attention to gun bans. They never have and they never will."

I would be inclined to agree intuitively, but the stats are pretty damning evidence.

It is hard because of the differences in catagorization of crime between UK and US but:

 

 

As we were conducting our research, we stumbled across a thoughtful critique of this claim on a blog called the Skeptical Libertarian that was written by Daniel Bier, a master’s degree candidate in economics at Rutgers University. (Bier fact-checked a claim that’s similar, though with slightly different wording than the meme we’re checking.)

Bier’s primary concern about comparing crime rates in the United Kingdom and the United States is that the definitions of crimes in each country are significantly different. This was not reflected in news coverage in British newspapers that appear to have been the source of the meme. This oversight produced a misleading comparison.

As Bier put it, "The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a ‘violent crime’ as one of four specific offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault." By contrast, "the British definition includes all ‘crimes against the person,’ including simple assaults, all robberies, and all ‘sexual offenses,’ as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and ‘forcible rapes.’ "

Once you know this, Bier wrote, "it becomes clear how misleading it is to compare rates of violent crime in the U.S. and the U.K. You’re simply comparing two different sets of crimes."

We thought Bier’s points were reasonable, so we tried to replicate his approach. We looked at the raw violent crime numbers for each country, using statistics for England and Wales for 2012 and for the United States for 2011, in a way that sought to compare apples to apples. (We should note that the United Kingdom includes Scotland and Northern Ireland, but the numbers in the meme appear to be based only on crime in England and Wales, which are calculated separately.)

For England and Wales, we added together three crime categories: "violence against the person, with injury," "most serious sexual crime," and "robbery." This produced a rate of 775 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

For the United States, we used the FBI’s four standard categories for violent crime that Bier cited. We came up with a rate of 383 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

This calculation suggests that there is a higher rate of crime in England and Wales, but the discrepancy is not anywhere near as wide as the one cited in the meme.

However, before we put too much credibility on these calculations, we should note that criminologists say there is actually no good way to compare violent crime rates in these two countries.

Our rough effort to equalize the definitions improved the quality of the comparison, but what we did is not enough to fix the comparison entirely, said James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University. "Once you get away from clearly defined terms like homicides, all kinds of problems come in," Fox said. "You have to take comparisons not just with a grain of salt but with the entire shaker."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/24/blog-posting/social-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/

of course not all crime gets reported, and I'm not sure if it factors in false reports so its pretty much a guessing game.

Ultimately what we have, isn't a gun problem but a violence problem that needs to be addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple do away with all this embracing weirdness, crazy disorders and medicating children. Go back to the days of spanking when your kid screwed up, telling them their weird when they do something weird and for god sakes make them play outside for hours and get hurt from time to time. Many many generations grew up that way and look we are all fine it's only when the government stepped in and started telling you how you can and cannot raise kids is where stuff has went downhill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple do away with all this embracing weirdness, crazy disorders and medicating children. Go back to the days of spanking when your kid screwed up, telling them their weird when they do something weird and for god sakes make them play outside for hours and get hurt from time to time. Many many generations grew up that way and look we are all fine it's only when the government stepped in and started telling you how you can and cannot raise kids is where stuff has went downhill.


Ugh...Welp I'm back to this lovely part of the forums.

Ok..uhmm...first point, can you please elaborate on the embracing weirdness part. I feel like our definition of weirdness is completely different, mine being cool shit, yours being anything different from your way of life.

Ok crazy disorders...um I don't really get what your saying there, those don't really just not exist...whether you follow the medical model, or you follow a more behaviorist veiw, they exist and the only way to treat them are either through medication, albeit some disorders are over medicated and don't need to be, but some need the medication to live a normal life, or through shaping and reinforcement and all that lovely jazz

Ok medicating children, um yeah....bitch about it next time your kid is sick and needs the medication. I feel like the reason you said that was because you think that vaccines cause autism, I could be wrong, but that's my guess...well...they don't plain and simple, every scientific study says other wise.

Ok umm corporal punishment time, this hasn't been completely forgone, the child's psychology association thingy hasn't said it is wrong to do but they don't embrace it. The best time to use this form of punishment is when the child is I think 4ish to 8ish somewhere around there, and always give reasons for the punishment and explain to the child.

Ok playing outside....you're in a gaming community....and kids still play outside.

Yes many generation grew up the way that you have, but also a generation has grown up the way I have, with less corporal punishment, albeit I was spanked when I was a kid, with embracing "weirdness," and with playing video games over going outside, yes I'm a nerd and I'm damn proud of it! But we've turned out great, albeit a little bit weird, but sill great.

It's not the way a generation was raised that caused these shooting, your generations and the generation before you had their fair share of fuck ups and creeps, you just wanted a place to bitch about the government and everything that changing from when you were a kid so you came here.

Ok sorry about bringing this back, sorry about bringing it a little off topic, but I had to address his post. So yeah, reply back and we can start this lovely debate! : )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uhmm...yeah he's not really in my generation this one post is useless thought his post count was his age...bla bla bla ignore this...can I delete this or just edit it. Edited by Phreaktaco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh...Welp I'm back to this lovely part of the forums.

Ok..uhmm...first point, can you please elaborate on the embracing weirdness part. I feel like our definition of weirdness is completely different, mine being cool shit, yours being anything different from your way of life.

Ok crazy disorders...um I don't really get what your saying there, those don't really just not exist...whether you follow the medical model, or you follow a more behaviorist veiw, they exist and the only way to treat them are either through medication, albeit some disorders are over medicated and don't need to be, but some need the medication to live a normal life, or through shaping and reinforcement and all that lovely jazz

Ok medicating children, um yeah....bitch about it next time your kid is sick and needs the medication. I feel like the reason you said that was because you think that vaccines cause autism, I could be wrong, but that's my guess...well...they don't plain and simple, every scientific study says other wise.

Ok umm corporal punishment time, this hasn't been completely forgone, the child's psychology association thingy hasn't said it is wrong to do but they don't embrace it. The best time to use this form of punishment is when the child is I think 4ish to 8ish somewhere around there, and always give reasons for the punishment and explain to the child.

Ok playing outside....you're in a gaming community....and kids still play outside.

Yes many generation grew up the way that you have, but also a generation has grown up the way I have, with less corporal punishment, albeit I was spanked when I was a kid, with embracing "weirdness," and with playing video games over going outside, yes I'm a nerd and I'm damn proud of it! But we've turned out great, albeit a little bit weird, but sill great.

It's not the way a generation was raised that caused these shooting, your generations and the generation before you had their fair share of fuck ups and creeps, you just wanted a place to bitch about the government and everything that changing from when you were a kid so you came here.

Ok sorry about bringing this back, sorry about bringing it a little off topic, but I had to address his post. So yeah, reply back and we can start this lovely debate! : )

By embracing weirdness i don't mean being unique I mean just plain weird like crazy.

 

And by disorders i mean ADD ADHD things that have been made up for excuses to medicate our kids with psychological drugs that were developed for truly crazy people. It has nothing to do with treating your kid if they are sick or vaccinations of any kind. FYI my girlfriend is a Nurse Practitioner who treats many sick people and growing up with the Mayo clinic here in town i have nothing bad to say about the medical community or the correct treatments of illness.

 

As far as punishment goes i don't mean beat your child to death i agree fully that they need a explanation etc it works plain and simple if used correctly. I think we can all agree and have seen it a kid that gets no punishment for wrong doing ends up being self entitled and think that there is no consequence for any wrong doing.

 

Playing outside anyone can look around and see that it's rare and it has caused some social issues because of it. I am at blame myself for that one as well my kids had smartphones at 12 and that's all they want to do is be on the phone, computer, or video games. There needs to be a controlled balance of it all is what i am getting at.

 

And for bitching about the government well that's a bold statement or assumption to put out there considering i have served in both Iraq and Afghanistan also having a long line of family members including my 3 brothers as well as me being a state chairman in a political party it seems like a very crazy statement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By embracing weirdness i don't mean being unique I mean just plain weird like crazy.

And by disorders i mean ADD ADHD things that have been made up for excuses to medicate our kids with psychological drugs that were developed for truly crazy people. It has nothing to do with treating your kid if they are sick or vaccinations of any kind. FYI my girlfriend is a Nurse Practitioner who treats many sick people and growing up with the Mayo clinic here in town i have nothing bad to say about the medical community or the correct treatments of illness.

As far as punishment goes i don't mean beat your child to death i agree fully that they need a explanation etc it works plain and simple if used correctly. I think we can all agree and have seen it a kid that gets no punishment for wrong doing ends up being self entitled and think that there is no consequence for any wrong doing.

Playing outside anyone can look around and see that it's rare and it has caused some social issues because of it. I am at blame myself for that one as well my kids had smartphones at 12 and that's all they want to do is be on the phone, computer, or video games. There needs to be a controlled balance of it all is what i am getting at.

And for bitching about the government well that's a bold statement or assumption to put out there considering i have served in both Iraq and Afghanistan also having a long line of family members including my 3 brothers as well as me being a state chairman in a political party it seems like a very crazy statement.


Ok first point, I agree that ADD and ADHD are over diagnosed into oblivion, but there are actual cases of it where it interferes with a child's life. The medication for ADD and ADHD wasn't made by crazy people, it was made by scientists who wanted to better a child's life, of course the drug was then over prescribed but don't call them crazy for what we did with it.

Ok don't have to talk about punishment because we agree on that

The playing outside part, Welp this is just a preference in all honesty I don't go outside nearly as much as I should, I'm the classic anti social college kid, the only time I leave is to go to classes and hang out with friends, of course my campus is Western so it is covered in snow for the majority of year, but still I'm kinda a shut in. And through all of this I haven't wanted to go and shoot up a school or some other place. I highly doubt your kids are going to go out and shoot up a school simply because they have smart phones and don't down as much time outside as you did.


Dude I've pissed off plenty of army personal while here what's one more. I appreciate your service, but just saying you served in the military means jack shit to me, you can serve and love your country but still not love your government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

This website uses cookies to provide the best experience possible. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use