Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
Sam1911, you gave a well thought out reply with lots to think about and respond to. Unfortunately, i am heading out and don't have time for an equal reply. Hopefully tonight.
Pizzapinochle:
somewhere between 300-400 firearm deaths a year are ruled justifiable homicides. Out of 30,000+ deaths.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc....-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-14
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
If you have 1 million people and 500 murders, you are doing much better than a place with 10000 people and 100 murders.
PizzaPinochle said:Personally, I would like for the US to be in the same neighborhood as UK, Germany, France, Switzerland, Japan, Spain, Norway, Australia, New Zealand and pretty much every other wealthy, stable nation in the world.
So you want the U.S. to be less ethnically diverse with a homogenous, dominant ethnic supermajority?
I'm sure if I tried to tell you that there is a big problem with "black violence" and we should study how to limit the violence that blacks bring to our society you would be appalled that I'd swallow such a cheap and obviously prejudiced, biased, and unenlightened distortion of reality.
No one needs a weapon used by soldiers...
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?
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
PizzaPinochle said: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.
Boy.... High road for sure.
Here is a list based on the Human Development index.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
Of the top 40 countries, the US (at #3 overall) probably has the highest murder rate. Haven't checked against all the smaller countries, but all the major ones i know for sure.
If your big moral victory is "at least we aren't as bad as Russia!" And THAT is your standard for the US, then so be it.
Personally, I would like for the US to be in the same neighborhood as UK, Germany, France, Switzerland, Japan, Spain, Norway, Australia, New Zealand and pretty much every other wealthy, stable nation in the world. But, if looking up from the bottom of the heap with Russia is good enough for you, then that is your call.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
And this leads us to another bone of contention."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?
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.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.
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.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.
Ooooh, boy. A real deep thinker, this one.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.
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.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).
Alright, got a minute.
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.
....
....
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.
...
...
...
I'm coming back to this because I'm still reeling from reading something so ... gross and self-congratulatory and childishly naive.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.
If you know your history, you'll know this scene.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.