"Bill's Politics: Bad for TMP Business?" Topic

gun violence is a way of life

Well, I don't know if I'd put it like that. I mean, more people drown each year than are killed by guns and you wouldn't say drowning or even swimming were a "way of life" in the U.S. at least not for very many people. Olympic hopefuls, lifeguards, drug dealers yes, but very few compared to the overall population.

History…And so we get to own guns.

That's not the argument I consider most compelling. I don't see how you can not have a right, an inalienable right, to self defense. I mean if you don't have that what other right can you have that means anything? If you have a right you must also have a right to all reasonable means to exercise that right. So the argument hinges on whether having a gun is reasonable. People can obviously disagree about this.

The problem comes from people who are pro-gun seeing a gun ban as tantamount to an abridgement of a fundamental right. An inalienable right, by definition, is not a matter for a plebiscite but the definition of reasonable must be. You see the problem? In their eyes it's as though you wanted to have a vote on whether your right to due process of law should apply on odd numbered days, it would not be a reasonable regulation of due process but an effective nullification.

How is c. 4.8 murders out of every 100K people a "way of life"? Many/most of those murders are not by firearms either; further reducing this "way of life" that you imagine to be so common in the USA. What IS common, is that most households have at least one firearm. Here in Utah, the last I heard years ago, it was c. six guns per household. I have not seen anyone even threatened with a gun in my lifetime, much less murdered by one. Once in a great while someone will try and hold up a store or threaten someone in a parking lot with a gun, etc; and just as it happened a couple of months ago, some CC holder will pull out his handgun and stop the perp. That is the way of life, not "The Way of the Gun"….

T Meier I feel the same.I wouldn't put it like that also. I remember reading awhile back about the rise of the British "Knife Culture" and deaths,

guardian.co.uk/uk/knifecrime

link

link

link

link

Robert

Gents;
After thinking about these posts for the last few days, I've decided to respond one final time and I am done with it. This is a very long post and response to Bangorstu and Mal…No hostility is intended. Instead it is simply answering their questions to the best of my ability. I don't expect or plan to change their minds or points of view, but I feel and think that I need to answer these statements…

Bangorstu wrote:

Murphy – violent death may be common in the ISA, but it's not common here.

As another poster said, it depends upon what your definition of "violent death" actually is…Do you include knife murders, strangulations, suicides, auto-accidents, self-inflicted wounds, crimes of passion or stupidity?
Me thinks you have a lot more "violent death" than you want to admit, or are willing to admit, but for the purpose of this debate you seem to have defined it as "death by handgun".

The UK, with a population twice that of California has 600 murders on average a year. California has on average 2500…

Can you provide reference for those statistics?
Yes and many of those murders are committed by violent repeat offenders who have been let out of an already overburdened penal system that simply cannot afford to keep them locked up. Plus many of them are also committed by illegal aliens, which continues to be a problem.

And our gun laws work because we ONLY have one gun massacre every decade.

But you STILL have one gun massacre every decade right? So then I guess if we could ask the dead folks "if the gun law worked" what do you think THEIR response would be? Obviously if you are still having ONE gun massacre every decade, it's still not working the way you wanted it to.

After Dunblane we banned handguns. not had a problem with handguns since – and that was nearly twenty years ago.
You are 40 times more likely to get shot than I am…

Really? References to that statistic that proves your statement please?

Mal Wright wrote:

I've only visited. The people I met were nice friendly ordinary folk. The only guns I saw were on cops and at airports. I didnt see any gun racks in be back window of pick up trucks in Texas. It was all very normal.

You were in Houston Texas Mal…It's the 4th largest city in the nation. The guys with gun racks in their pickups don't live there. In Houston, they don't have gun racks in the back of their pickup trucks. They carry their pistols under the seats, or in the glove compartments…Geez… And believe me, it wasn't all very "normal"… If you knew the number of people that you were probably around you, or traveling around on the road near you that had guns with them, (CC or not), you'd have freaked. Before I moved from Houston back in 2005, we had a local radio DJ lose his job because he was saying (on the air), and warning people…"For all you new folks in Houston, DO NOT honk your horns in anger or frustration at someone on the freeway when they do something stupid and dangerous. Most of them carry guns and they WILL shoot you."
The reason you didn't see any guns on "ordinary people" is because Texas DOES NOT have an "open carry" law. You have to CC…(concealed carry). You are not allowed to open carry, thus you won't "See them"…but they are there…

An argument of fear. If she had had a gun she might have reached into her purse to shoot back and the guy blown her away anyway! Just as likely an outcome. She is arguing one possibility only.

And you yourself Mal, are arguing one possibility only.
Is it an argument of fear Mal? Or is it a declaration of frustration?
Yes, you are right…"IF" she had had her gun with her, she might have reached into her purse to shoot back and the guy would have blown her away anyway.
BUT, at the same time, (which you don't seem to address), she would've HAD a chance to save lives, and prevent more people from being murdered by this SOB, (including both of her parents and others), had she been allowed. But she's never really going to know now is she? She wasn't allowed by "state law" to carry something to defend herself and her loved ones (and others) against some jackwipe….But she DID get to bury both of her parents, and last time I checked, the state didn't help her with that…And obviously the cops didn't get there soon enough to stop him.
But your statement of "an argument of fear" can be dismissed by a well armed citizen that DOES do the right thing, and stops the idiots…

Case in example right here: link

Notice that the perp didn't have a gun…he was using a knife…notice that the person that stopped it wasn't a cop, but a normal "citizen" carrying a pistol CC…
Citizen used gun…lives saved… stopped in his tracks…..number of bullets fired?…ZERO…

The real argument is that the lunatic should not have had access to a weapon like that in the first place.

Correct…however, if you know anything about this, there was nothing in his background that prevented him from owning a weapon. Plus don't forget that his first act in all of this was to drive his truck through the window and into the restaurant. Should he have had access to a driver's license?

The reason he did have access and other gun massacre perpetratords did, and the future ones still waiting to happen will have access, is the stupidity…nay the CRASS stupidity of believing that if you have more people carrying guns it wont happen again because they can all shoot back. They can all defend themselves.

Really?…Who says that Mal, (other than you?)
For the record, I have discouraged MORE people from owning handguns than encouraged. Why? Because when someone asks me about owning a gun, I think about what I know about the person, and their views, lifestyle, ethics and morals. What have I seen and know about them? If I can't trust them driving in traffic, how in the world am I going to trust them with a loaded firearm?

Whenever I have someone tell me that they want to own a gun, the first thing I say is "Why?" and if they cannot answer that within the first five seconds, OR if they start with "uh….well….uh…" , then I say, "if you don't have a solid answer and it's taking you that long to answer that question, then you DON"T NEED a gun."

I've discouraged people from getting guns simply because many of them can't keep up with their cell phones, much less carry a 9mm. I've discouraged people from getting guns because most of them say "that they are too busy to take a training class and that "their husband, boyfriend, or best friend, will teach them how to use it."

I've discouraged people from getting guns simply because I've asked them "By carrying a gun, are you willing to accept the issues, responsibilities and consequences that come with it, including the fact that one day you might use it and end someone else's life? Are you ready for the legal consequences of your actions? Are you ready for the social issues if you "friends" find out? Do you have what it takes to kill another human being?" If the answer to these is either "uh", "I don't know", or "no"… any other type of foolish answer, even in jest, I tell them that they aren't ready to own a gun.

How about the argument not of everyone being able to shoot back….but of the gun massacres not happening at all?

We can argue the same about traffic safey Mal….how about instead of making MORE traffic safety laws, we make sure that auto accidents NOT happen at all?
Let's ban cars!
But instead let's focus on your statement…
I guess the people that were killed by Zane Floyd in Albertsons, "weren't allowed to shoot back" either…since none of them were armed.
Oh? You don't know who Zane Floyd is?

Allow me to reference it for you: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zane_Floyd

And how are you going to prevent "gun massacres" from happening at all?

Not happening because th'guvmint elected by the people and for the people, is trusted to take the guns away and trusted to make protecting the people its priority!

Sorry Mal, but US court judgments have said that it is NOT the duty of the police to protect the individual. It's not the responsibility of the police to protect you. In fact 99.9% of the time the cops arrive AFTER it has happened and instead of stopping it, end up making a report on "what happened".

Our government's priority is NOT protecting its people. Take a look at it, and on top of it, WHY should we HAVE to rely on being protected "by the government"?
Why should I have to rely on the defense of my loved ones, my family, my property, and myself to some agency, or governmental entity? Am I not allowed to decide whether or not I should be allowed the right to defend myself and those I love from harm?

Mal, honestly, here's the deal…You live in Australia…good for you. I live in the US…good for me. I've had my house broken into once…they stole a musket…it's almost definitely at the bottom of the small pond up the street because they couldn't figure out "Where da bullets go in"…and you don't see anybody doing a drive by with a 48 in black powder long arm.

You've had your house broken into and come face to face with the baddie…Luckily for you and for him, he turned and fled…but it could've been a lot different. Suppose he had been armed. Would you be here today?

Unfortunately if/when my house ever gets broken into again; I do not want to have to ask that question. I want to be able to defend myself because in my belief, the person that had decided to cross the line of decent society and break the law by violating my home, doesn't care enough about society, the public welfare or the people living in that house, and thus I have to do what I have to do.

Now…when he comes in, do I shoot him no questions asked? By law, technically I can…Will I? Of course not, unless necessary.
Will I hold him at gunpoint if I can, and have 911 on my phone in the other hand getting the cops here ASAP? If I am able to, yes…I will.
If I have to shoot him and kill, will I? To protect myself, my home, and my loved ones…hell yes…I'll make him a corpse.

After an American style gun massacre Australians trusted our Government with a massive and overwhelming support to remove most guns from society. We've not had a gun massacre since. Some murders yes, but on a rationale of head of population to head of population, nothing close to the USA.

Nope nothing like it…But then again there are a lot of cultural differences Mal…this being one of them. I don't expect you to understand that completely, just as you didn't go down to the Fifth Ward in Houston on a Saturday night and watch what happens…

Yes we have Bikie gangs in particular, and some Middle East drug gang immigrants that arm themselves to the teeth despite the laws….but fortunately, they are almost exclusively used in shooting up other Bikie gangs or drug gang immigrants. Of the 500+ weapons found to be smuggled into one state in the past couple of years, they nearly all originated in the USA!

But they do arm themselves to the teeth…which shows that they don't give a flying flip on your guns laws…and the fact that they almost "exclusively" shoot up other gangs or drug immigrants means that you are lucky, and haven't been hit with the predatory home invaders yet.
YouTube link

And at least we know that the Police regularly disarm the Bike gangs, which is why they have to keep trying to smuggle more in.

And here we have a government agency (the type of whom you've discussed should put the "safety of its citizens as top priority"), under investigation for illegally gun-running weapons to drug gangs in Mexico!

They have almost no local access from which to replentish their arsenal because the public are not armed amd the cant steal any from them. There are no gun shops and gun fairs loaded down with heavy weaponry, into which they can walk in and purchase replacements.

Ever been to a US gun show Mal? Criminals don't walk in and just "buy a gun"…It's not like a shoe store…in fact MANY gun shows DO NOT allow you to buy a weapon there. You can put down a deposit for it, but then you have to GO to the dealer's location and do all the necessary FFL / ATF paperwork BEFORE you get the firearm…

Then there is the Brady waiting period…
Criminals don't want to wait…plus the fact that they are well…criminals…means that legally they can't get weapons…so your gun show argument is a moot point.

The high incidence of attempted smuggling by criminal groups is proof of how successful the handing in of guns was.

You are right…just look at the amount of guns that the ATF sent to Mexico illegally….That's completely criminal right there, but then again, ironically it was done by our own "Department of Justice"…

Sure, if you have a legitimate reason to need a gun and are a fit and proper person, you can get access. We still have people go out hunting. Farmers inevitably need guns, security guards etc. But it is controlled, checked and far from willy nilly.

Okay Mal…Lets look at this:
1: What is the definition of "Legitimate need"?
2: What is the definition of "fit and proper person"? Indiana actually has that phrase in its law on owning a handgun.
3: Most of all Mal…WHO makes the decision what "a legitimate need and a fit and proper person is?"
4: Wait. You want security guards to have guns?…Ummm…WHY?…Most "security guards" positions here are unarmed…And if you've seen some of the "security" guards that I have, I bet you'd think twice about arming them.
5: What about target shooters? What about historical reenactors? What about hunters? What about Cowboy Action Shooting? What about gun collectors?

See Mal, if you come up with that "Well…you have to have a need and are a fit and proper person" then you are opening up a whole can of "Legal worms", and then you are basically allowing your government to "decide" about you; and then honestly? If you give them that power, then well…why stop there? Why not allow them to decide whether or not you should:
A: Own your home?
B: Drive a car?
C: Have the right to vote?
D: Express dissatisfaction with national policies?
E: To go to church, or not go to church, or go to a different church?
F: Have a number tattooed on your arm?

Where does it stop Mal? Where does this "Dependence upon "the government to make the decisions for me" stop with you… (Or others)?

Very recently there was an incident near my home that had me chuckling. Some bikies had been warring with each other over a couple of weeks and although they only shot each other, the public were obviously a bit jittery. I was sitting right where I am now just on dusk when I heard a series of loud bangs and then some so close together that it sounded like automatic fire. I was startled and surprised and looked out of the window, puzzling to myself that I didnt know of any bikies in my part of the city. While looking out the window I noticed several neighbours had come out into the street and were looking about too. Then all of a sudden it all became clear. Up into the darkening sky a skyrocket rose and burst. It was a birthday party. The neighbours laughed and went back inside. Next day one told me he hadnt really believed it would be a shooting, but the stories on the news over recent days, had his wife a bit nervous.
Another point to the story is that not one neighbour rushed out armed and ready to defend. One had called the Police and then laughed at himself later for not checking first.

Good for them Mal!
Smart move on their part…but then again, according to you, and Australian law, most of you don't own guns anyway, so if it had been a biker weapon incident the person would've been "outgunned" literally.
Case in point here. I live across the street from an elementary school on a dead end road. In the past, the back parking lot of the school, used to be a "romantic make out spot for teens"…which was chuckled at by me and our neighbors since we were all teens once…But over the last couple of years, the teens stopped going there, and the druggies and dealers would show up late at night and do their deals. Seems that the neighborhood watch signs didn't deter them. The "School grounds Zero Crime Tolerance Signs" didn't deter them, and none of my neighbors, or myself, (armed or not), were a deterrent. Like you, none of us rushed out "Ready to defend". We didn't go out looking for a fight. Instead we merely called 911 and reported suspicious vehicle activity in the parking lot. The local cops got in good with our folks and made some good arrests of the local scummies and word got out that it wasn't a good place to get your drugs…so like roaches, they scattered to someplace else. Now the only "fireworks:" we might get on the street is the 4th of July stuff that some folks put on…and it's pretty dang good…

The occasional crack of celebratory fireworks is about the most dramatic most Aussies expect to hear and I hope it stays that way.

Same here Mal…
As I've said before…if I carry my weapon with me, and I never ever, have to use it, then it's done its job. If I am OC'ing and someone is thinking of doing something stupid to me or my family, or in the area that I am in, and they see it, and then have second thoughts, and decide NOT to commit violence…then it's done its job by being a visual deterrent. If (God forbid), the day comes when I have to pull it from it's holster and pull the trigger and end the life of someone because they've decided to do harm to me or my loved ones, then sadly enough it will do it's job also…
I honestly hope to never have to use it. I honestly hope that it stays in its holster unless at the range or being cleaned. But I also, want the chance, and the option to be able to defend myself and my loved ones. I want that chance, and for other law abiding honest Americans, to even be able to make that decision to carry a firearm for their own personal defense if they want to or not, and not have to rely upon whether some government political bureaucrat "decides" whether or not "it's in my best interest", or that I should "simply let government "protect" me"….
I'm not trying to change your point of view Mal, and I know I won't; just as you won't change mine. You are happy with what you have for yourselves there, and I am happy with Indiana law allowing me the right that I have. Now we live and let let live…

HAAARRUUMMMMFFF!!!HAAARRUUMMMMFF!

Murph – all the stats I used can easily be found on
wikipaedia.

We do have a knife culture amongst our gangs. Two advantages of forcing gangs to use knives are:

1) It's harder to kill someone with a knife
2) Bystanders by and large don't get stabbed.

Of course the other problem with the US gun laws is the awful things they are doing to Mexico..

Still. Americans are obviously happy with a state of affairs where an annual cull is made of their youngest and brightest.

That's their call I suppose.

But I still say anyone who feels they need a handgun to feel safe in a high street has issues.

YouTube link

Of course the other problem with the US gun laws is the awful things they are doing to Mexico..

link

Eh tu brute?
Of course according to your arguments, this never happened…

Bystanders by and large don't get stabbed.

link

Me thinks you didn't read the entire post AND examine the link….

"It repeats the bizzare claim …"
I stopped reading here.
If you wnat to ask an objective question, start with an objective presentation of the issue.
However you feel about that issue, it is not your place to comment on the merits of the proponent's opinions when your subject is something else entirely.
It only serves to show your own lack of objectivity and, by extension, credibility.
This is precisely the problem that has come to bedevil all journalism.

Using selective choice, Statistics can often be used to justify whatever you want.

"An old jest runs to the effect that there are three degrees of comparison among liars. There are liars, there are outrageous liars, and there are scientific experts. This has lately been adapted to throw dirt upon statistics. There are three degrees of comparison, it is said, in lying. There are lies, there are outrageous lies, and there are statistics." Robert Giffen, 1882 President of the Statistical Society.

The US gun debate reminds me of the tirade given in The Seven Samurai when it is pointed out that the 'protection' the peasants receive from their Samurai tends to be from neighbouring samurai… hence the peasantry would be better off without samurai altogether.

You think you need guns because everyone else has guns…

Probably you can't get the toothpaste back in the tube but any society where you think you need the ability to carry a concealed weapon to feel safe is a sick one.

You think you need guns because everyone else has guns…

Wow Stu…nice general assumption there…It must be good to know exactly what all 300 million of us are thinking…

Once again, I will reiterate for you.
Not everyone has guns…most people do not…
And of those…there are fewer handgun owners than longarm owners…

I could also rephrase your statement into "You think you need the government to think for you because you are incapable of doing it yourself…"

Probably you can't get the toothpaste back in the tube but any society where you think you need the ability to carry a concealed weapon to feel safe is a sick one.

All of human society is sick. We have (and this includes where you live), people who are bad…people who have heads full of bad wiring, people who are angry, mentally violent and shouldn't be on the street, and that one select breed of human that just doesn't seem to give a flying **** about anyone or anything unless they can use it to get "What they want" at that moment. The majority of these people are usually people so strung out on drugs that they'll do anything and go to any length to get money for their next ride…
Until you learn to control human emotion, (particularly hate, greed, fear, lust, jealousy, insecurity, passion, and love) as well as human desire, weakness for mind altering substances such as drugs and alcohol, and develop a pill for controlling human stupidity, you are going to have a "sick society"…We have a thin veneer that we call "civilization" that supposedly seperates us from the animal kingdom…but many times in a crisis that illusion "goes away" and people act just like the glorified primates that they are…whether it's the Occupy Movement or results from drug use, or just a rush on a grocery store for milk, eggs, cheese, butter, juice and bread because the weatherman says a dangerous snow is coming…or for those in the gulf coast…a hurricane….

I simply want the option to be able to protect myself and my family and property from some jackwipe in case they decide that they are "having a bad day" and feel like they want to make the 10 o'clock news and take some folks with them…
I don't want to be a statistic simply because some political hack who has bodyguards and is probably licensed to carry themselves has decided that "it's not in my best interest" to be an armed citizen responsible for my protection, and that "I should allow "the government" to protect me…"

As you say…you probably can't get the toothpaste back in the tube, but ANY society where you are unable to make decisions for yourself and rely on "the government" to keep you safe and make your choices for you, to feel safe is a sick one…

Murph – all the stats I used can easily be found on
wikipaedia

You made a statement…I requested the references to validate your claim. Telling me that "they are on wikipedia" is poor substance.
If you are going to make objective declarative statements like that and someone asks for reference to validate your claims you should be ready and able to provide it, instead of saying "it's on wiki…go look it up."

Makes a poor case for your argument….

You think you need guns because everyone else has guns…

Not me. I know that we need guns because the Gov't has guns. The day that the Gov't ceases to be inhabited by untrustworthy incompetent dishonest career politicians and their flunkies/appointees, is the first day that I will reconsider my decisions on the matter of individual firearms ownership. I am not worried about my neighbors. The remote possibility that one or more of them might "wig out" and target me and mine, does not keep me awake at night or occupy my thoughts very often and never for very long….

There's been much discussion in social science circles about the reason for the heightened levels of serious physical violence in American society.

The smug Anglo-European answer is usually that Americans have so many guns. It's tempting for me, living here as I do, to agree, but that's pretty clearly not the case. Gun ownership in other cultures is as prevalent as it is in the states, Canada being a handy example as the Canadians own roughly as many guns per capita as are owned in the states. Yet the levels of serious physical violence (the best example of which is homicide) in Canada are greatly lower than in the US.

Another pat theory is that Americans are constantly subjected to a culture of fear, and that leads to increased violence. Again, living here as I do it is abundantly clear that Americans are quite regularly manipulated by hysterias, for economic or political reasons, many more or less concocted, but that simply cannot explain why so many aggressive crimes are committed -- they are not all done out of paranoia or the military/industrial complex. Sorry Michael Moore.

This has been a source of some puzzlement in academic circles for some decades. The latest theories seem to be getting closer to a meaningful answer. It appears to have something to do with the evolution of society as opposed to the political systems put in place after the revolution. (Revolution deserves air quotes but that's a discussion for a different day.) The theory has it that Americans were granted social and political freedoms before the evolution of the modern Western concept of social duty and responsibility, which developed gradually in the West throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, but had not really taken hold in the 18th century, when Americans were given wide-ranging civil liberties.

The contrast would be in Europe, in which a sense of public and social obligation developed in progression with the often slow and painful accumulation of political rights by the common people. By the time these gained meaningful political rights, the idea of social responsbility was already engrained in the consciousness of Europeans.

Of course, this is not to place Europeans on a different plane of consciousness than Americans, as everything has its down side, and this sort of social obligation can badly backfire if the pressures are too great. For instance, one need not look much further than Germany, a country with an extremely oppressive set of stifling social mores that caused them to blow a gasket, thus unleashing the Nazi demons that were so destructive to all of Europe in the mid 20th century. Britain had a rigid social class system, and what has been reaped? Yob culture.

But it's clear to a semi-outside observer that Americans often do look to the self more than to the group, and see attempts to work in a social group as some sort of dark conspiracy. This is a concept often taken to the level of derangement, as was so hilariously lampooned by Stanley Kubrick in his "Dr. Strangelove" in the character of General Jack D. Ripper, who feared communist infiltration of our precious bodily fluids.

Just my two pence, cashed in long ago as cents.

…heightened levels of serious physical violence in American society

But they aren't, America has relatively low levels of violence we just have a high kill rate. If you compare like to like demographically our level of violence is even lower. So I don't think the problem is to do with any ubiquitous cultural characteristic like individual rights.

Violence in America is disproportionately found in subcultures as it is in any society. It's a chicken or egg question whether the subcultures foster the violence or violent people are attracted to the subcultures. You must also ask why the subcultures formed in the first place.

we just have a high kill rate.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

Yes, they are -- serious physical violence = homicide, attempted homicide, manslaughter. Rates for those in America are far and away the highest in the developed world.

Violence in America is disproportionately found in subcultures as it is in any society.

Yes, as it is in any society, which makes the distinction irrelevant. Unless of course you are insinuating that you are somehow able to disown the subcultures, which isn't really possible -- we reap the subcultures we have sown.

Yes, they are…

Read the United Nations Crime Survey I posted, assault and rape are less than half in the U.S. per capita than Australia or Britain and less than most European countries. The only violent crime rate which is higher is murder and that is the least common of the three violent crimes.

which makes the distinction irrelevant.

Not at all. One society can have all sorts of reasons, historical, geographic as well as cultural for having more people in a subculture than another. If you assert 'America is a violent culture' and quote crime statistics and a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by people in a subculture which exists for reasons other than the influence of the main culture then your assertion doesn't hold up. If for example (and I don't know if this is true, I'm merely making an example) people in a drug use subculture commit disproportionate crime and for geographical reason it is harder to interdict the supply of drugs to the U.S. than another country and so the drug use is greater and that subculture larger, this can hardly be blamed on the main culture.

I've always though comparing the U.S. to European countries a bit like apples and oranges, America is as much like Brazil as it is a Western European country.

…assault and rape are less than half in the U.S. per capita than Australia or Britain and less than most European countries. The only violent crime rate which is higher is murder and that is the least common of the three violent crimes.

Well.

That's certainly looking on the bright side, isn't it?

That's certainly looking on the bright side, isn't it?

This was in answer to the assertion of the U.S. having a 'culture of violence', I do not mean to give the impression I think it is a good thing or even a better thing than less murder and more rape/assault, only that it's an odd sort of culture of violence which is less violent in most ways than cultures not considered violent.

So perhaps it would be more constructive and enlightening to look at something else to explain these statistics. Experience has taught me to be wary of simple or sweeping explanations, particularly ones that appeal to prejudice, stereotypes and cultural chauvinism.

I saw this today, some food for thought:

link

Violence in America is disproportionately found in subcultures as it is in any society.

And these subcultures are typically the least likely to be regulated by gun laws.

Well, Robert Evans has leaped to the head of my very short list of very funny and informative people….

You all ignore the problem, the easy of aqusition of guns or number of guns have little effect on gun crime, yes it might make it easier to get random massacres and school shootings.
But 30 dead kids every 3 years has no stastical bearing when 15-30 000 people get killed by guns each year.

30 vs 30 000, it has no bearing. and even when it's harder to get guns it does not stop mass shootings. Brevik had to go through quite a few hoops to get his Mini 14 he used to kill kids with.

And just to point out something, 30 dead kids in america has no statical effect of 30 000 dead. But 60+ kids is a huge effect on murder statisics in norway as we usualy have about 40 muders a year max.

But the real thing that effects number of murders is economics, the pooror the place the more tanked the econemy is, the more crime, no other thing effect crime more then econemy. In the 80s murder and violance was rampant in almost all western cities, New York, LA, London and even Oslo, as the economy improved, standards of living improved, crime lowerd, and now New York is actualy quite safe for it size.

This can be seen now, The pooror parts of america has more crime and more violent crime, the richer parts less.

Standard of living and econemy has much more effect on gun crimes, then the actual guns.

Gunfreak has it right. But the hollering is all about "the children"; even one death by violence, by gun, is unacceptable. Ignore the masses of "children" killed every day by automobile. That is an "acceptable risk". Guns? No amount of risk is acceptable to gun haters….

Gunfreak has it right.

Actually I'd say, based on the evidence, he has it wrong. Violence in western societies is down since the 1980's for just about every reason but economics. The economic circumstances seem to have no more effect than a host of other factors, less than many of them such as the aging of western societies. According to the more poverty means more crime idea societies with the most disparity in wealth should have the most property crime but they do not.

The hecatomb the world has offered to the god of internal combustion I don't dispute, 1.2 million killed each year, millions more injured, at the rate it's going it's going to catch up with the Black Death by mid-century and Smallpox not long after. By best estimates total world firearm deaths per year, including suicide (which are generally much higher than the gun murder rate and are of course included in 'gun death' statistics), are 150,000 to 300,000 depending on how many wars are going on.

the easy of aqusition of guns or number of guns have little effect on gun crime

Well Canada is certainly less violent than the USA so you might have a point.

But Japan has almost zero gun crime, and a low murder rate even when compared to the UK.

And there I understand it's almost impossible to privately own a gun.

Similarly here it's very hard to get hold of guns and hence we have very little gun crime compared to the USA.
year…

Maybe gun violence will go away if LE's just run away
link

Baldrick and I were chatting last night when he paid me a visit. We happened to be looking at the coming programs to be shown of Foxtel in the next 12 months.

American. (Typical)
Post opocalypse survivalists. After the aliens have landed civil resistance. After society has broken down civil resistance survivalists. Weapons of war. Drug crime police. Zombies. Alien investigations. What is Government planning to fight off aliens from outer space….What is the population planning to fight off aliens and or the govmnt. After climate change wipes out America survivalists…. Swat team police. Destruction of American by falling meteors…..Cops. Border drug patrols. Crime gangs of LA. etc etc etc…..with traaa laaa…CSI here there and everywhere else…..and amazingly some new episodes of the thankfully non violent 'Big Bang Theory' and Bizzare foods.

British. (Typical)
The antiques roadshow. River Cottage. Ready steady cook. The UK from above. New series of Time team (Archeology). The Windsors. New age of Upstairs Downstairs. Last series of Taggart. Last series of The Bill. Tony Robinsons London. The last war heroes. Mud Men. 3rd season of The Game of Thrones. The Vikings etc etc.

Australian. (Typical)
More tourism in 'Get away'. Adventures in Kakadu national park. A new quiz show. Yet another football show to join all the others. The Great Barrier reef. Deep sea fishing sport. Something about pre human ages of Australia.

There were others from Europe and Asia, much of a line to those of Britain. Even one from Russia that looks to be about the era of Catherine the Great.

Yep. All very convincing stuff that America as a nation or at least its TV and Movie Producers….are paranoid about their own government, zombies, aliens the weather, meteors and (from shorts of one about survivalists) protecting their 'stuff' from people who want to steal it.

And you wonder WHY the rest of the world looks on with amazement?

The story gets reported on Fox, the Agent is from the Goverment. We would never hear of it on the Main Stream media

All very convincing stuff that America as a nation or at least its TV and Movie Producers….are paranoid

The most popular types of books are romances, fantasy and science fiction, I don't think that's because most people live in country manors frequented by tall dark mysterious strangers, have magical powers or live in the future. Rather entertainment is an escape from the regular experience of life. Americans watch frightening television precisely because their lives have little conflict or excitement. Television is a roller-coaster ride, not a trip to the store to pick up some groceries.

Back in the 60's when people were really afraid from the threat of nuclear war, riots in the streets and the disintegration of society television was full of calming, nostalgic programming, not unlike the kind you describe as typical of Britain and Australia.

Mal, it is unfortunate for you that Aussie and UK television is so bland. Please complain to your local telecommunications carrier if you want better programming. But I guess if you were bombarded by such propaganda and didn't have the wherewithal to think for yourself such programming might change your country for the worse.

It seems to be obvious to some that all of our problems in the U.S. stem from the fact that we blindly believe everything we see on TV. Why can we Americans not see this problem for what it truly is? Why do allow ourselves be mentally programmed by Zombie Apocalypse media? Perhaps we need more Antiques Roadshow programming so we can all get more than six hours of sleep every night.

Just spent the last couple of days watching some of the old TV programs of the 60s-70s from my youth. Adam-12,Dragnet,Lost In Space,Voyage To The Bottom of The Sea,ECT . Ahhhhh…The Good Old Days . Robert

Wow this is a great thread, wish I'd found it sooner so just to catch up;

Climate change, yep, man-made no (historical changes bigger, quicker and entirely natural, volcanic activity the prime mover)

WW2-We (brits) paid through the nose (but then we think the french are ungrateful, totally ignoring the fact they had made terms with their invaders (for good or bad their war was over)so go figure.

Guns-Used to have a franchi SPAS 12 shotgun and a member of a gun club (one practical pistol competition we beat the local police firearm team) and damned good fun it was too, personally I think the government was wrong to persecute all the law abiding gun community for the actions of 2 deeply troubled men (if the media is to believed the police had enough reasons to have taken their firearms certs away) interesting that in northern ireland the law wasn't changed alledgedly the police commissioner said "he didn't have a problem with the legally owned weapons, it was the illegal ones he worried about" and yes I do have children, strangely it's the dog owning people I worry about. Anyhoo I think that covers it………….

Mal, it is unfortunate for you that Aussie and UK television is so bland. Please complain to your local telecommunications carrier if you want better programming.

Complain? Hardly! Its great to see something that does not rely on smash 'em up car chases, dramatic explosions and exchanges of gunfire between the characters that is well in excess of anything that would take place in real life.

If we want to watch a great Sci-Fi we might watch Doctor Who, or if we wanted a good flag waving belly laugh, then 'Independence Day' is worth a good giggle. If we want something to bring tears to our eyes from out of control laughter at historical nonsense, we'd watch 'The Patriot'.

If we feel in the mood for death and destruction, blood guts, smashed up cars and lots of gunfire without the need of a clever story line…pretty well any American movie.

For good story lines, British, French or Italian movies are great. They can tell a good story, make you laugh, feel entertained….and not even reach for gunfire sound effects. Our Aussie movies for local consumption are much the same, but unfortunately those that have to be sold in the US come under the rules of what is considered entertainment there. The movie AUSTRALIA was made for an expected US audience. It was historically embarrassing and involved ridiculous blow them up secnes….but apparently flopped because it didnt have enough dramatic violence for American audiences and was just too downright stupid in the story line for Aussie audiences!

In Hollywood a good plot, seems to have given way to expectations of lots of violent special effects and no real story line.

Just spent the last couple of days watching some of the old TV programs of the 60s-70s

Wasnt it amazing how they were able to tell a good story and keep the shoot 'em up, smash 'em up,blow 'em up, blood and guts to a bare minimum. Good guys used to shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand, not pump him full of lead and shove him out of a 20 story building just to be sure, as happens these days!

Some of the stories were a little weak…but at least they tried to tell a story instead of illustrating it with death and destruction!

In Hollywood a good plot, seems to have given way to expectations of lots of violent special effects and no real story line.

No argument there. The acting is generally inferior as well. I have always put this down to the lingering influence of the British class system. The BBC produced the sort of programs the mandarins thought people ought to watch rather than what would have been most popular. Even after the addition of ITV, Channel 4, Sky, cable and the internet this paternalistic attitude still resonates enough to be noticeable and indeed is a point of cultural pride.

Americans went straight for the lowest common demographic denominator, everyone understands an explosion.

I regard it as an example of how a thing considered mostly bad, the class system, can have many good effects, just as things considered mostly good, like free markets and democracy, can have bad effects. The moral is distrust simple moral judgements, explanations and characterizations. This doesn't mean you can't characterize, judge or explain, only bear in mind Occam's Razor doesn't work as well in the human realm as it does in the physical one.

Here is a list of the 50 top rated American shows from midway through the 2010-2011 TV season.

link

As is plain to see from this list almost all of these shows are violent programs designed by the media to make all Americans paranoid gun-toters.

Ofcourse they are, I know if I had to watch Idol I would get paranoid and violent.

I know if I had to watch Idol I would get paranoid and violent.

Second that!

As is plain to see from this list almost all of these shows are violent programs designed by the media to make all Americans paranoid gun-toters.

We see a few of those. But the rest are obviously not considered export material as they have little relationship to what gets sent outside the US.

not considered export material as they have little relationship to what gets sent outside the US.

That's not how it works. Shows are not withheld form export, why would anyone do that? Rather your country's broadcast executives choose which American shows to buy based on what they think their audience would like to see.

So you aren't so much looking through a window at the U.S. with these programs as at a mirror, or at least the minds of the people choosing your TV.

"Violence in America is disproportionately found in subcultures as it is in any society."

And these subcultures are typically the least likely to be regulated by gun laws.

Bill,

Precisely which sub-cultures would those be in your opinion?

The one that chose to wage war in Iraq recently?

The one that voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution?

The one that supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, the Kurds, or Iraq's Shia majority?

Are we talking about folks who support the torture of those who may have simply been sold to US forces in Afghanistan due to a clan dispute?

How about the one that reveled in the killing of Harvey Milk? (that would be a sub-culture in which I grew up…Irish Catholic.)

The one that defended slavery and segregation until quite recently in our history?

The one whose politicians have made jokes about killing president Obama?

Lots of sub-cultures in the US.

link

Climate change, yep, man-made no (historical changes bigger, quicker and entirely natural, volcanic activity the prime mover)

Indeed. Now explain what is causing the current climate change in the total absence of any natural phenomena which caused changes in the past….

All climate change deniers should look at this series

YouTube link

So which is it? MEEthane, or methane? Why is this erudite-sounding Brit more reliable than the other talking heads that he criticizes? How do we know that his assertions are any more accurate than the many pieces of the massaged presentations of the past?…

Actually besides the recent, Icelandic eruptions which had an immediate effect on weather patterns, there's also underwater eruptions a recent article in one of the broad sheets, said that they discovered much more activity than previously thought, especially in the pacific ocean where a cluster of volcanos are being triggered due to tectonic pressure. So there may well still be a lot of volcanic action that due to its location goes unnoticed, this I know this isn't evidence, but non of the experts have proved the case one way or another and as previously mentioned by others, I remember back in the 70s we were being told of a new ice age, just around the corner, and energy "brown outs" and "black outs" due to the excesses of man, non of which have happened and thats the problem the doomsayers (who may have a point) have "over egged the pudding" alternative energy is a great idea but enviromental tax is not, since man-made climate change is not proven why should we pay for it? prove the case, fine no problem. Otherwise all governments can levy a tax without showing any return for it, indeed this backs up the need "to do more" and raise tax still further. The hypocrisy is the UK government faced with a forecast 13 billion pound shortfall in tax due to people buying greener cars are now thinking of raising tax on the same enviromentally friendly cars, which for me proves its all about the money.

"Follow the money" is arguably the most sage piece of advice when trying to crunch the countless assertions into something like the truth. And as has been said already many times, scientists are just humans with self interest trumping anything else. A few genuine altruists in their company do not change the self serving of the majority: and what is most important when the financial crunch comes is retaining employment and growing prestige/usefulness. If the individual scientist begins to find him/herself marginalized because of a perceived maverick status, most of those same individuals will pull back from going alone, and look for where the consensus is, and join it. Safety in numbers, remaining anonymous, is the desire of MOST people, including scientists.

If climatologists observe that world governments are in favor of "meeting the crisis" by raising punitive taxes on "the haves", then most scientists are going to appear favorable toward their own government's efforts to cooperate with the world community, i.e. "punish" the advanced and developing nations for destroying our planet. It is, after all, overwhelmingly, gov't grants that keep scientists employed.

Gunfreak's linked video series makes that point clear enough: the scientists have been busily engaged in answering their respective gov't's questions vis-a-vis global warming as a threat, for over a generation. The Medía's hungry mining for sensational stories of doom and gloom have turned genuine research into public fare; which resulted in the 70s in the Ice Age scare; and now we see its opposite, the global warming scare. The scientists are not to blame for any of this exaggeration of their research. Now that global warming has been shown with no apparent cause outside of human injection of CO2 into the atmosphere, said-gov'ts are banding together to blame the USA and China and Europe for it. As there is no provable refutation of the assertion that fossil fuels being fed into the atmosphere is the trigger of GW, rich people like Gore can safely agree and pontificate on the "evils" of the Western Lifestyle; while they pay for their individual "carbon debt" to prove what wonderfully "Green" guys they are. This makes them friends among the fast majority of the world's leaders. But it does not sound or look good to the main mass of common mankind who live in the West and do not want to start paying their Gov'ts more taxes so that the wealth can be stolen and given to "third world" countries: whose rich people will get the money and pocket it as they always have done.

Besides, how exactly is a carbon debt taxation of "the haves" going to benefit the poor elsewhere? Nobody has outlined a battle plan to turn carbon debt into life-saving strategies. If the taxation went directly into ONLY research and development of alternate, "green" energy sources, then I might feel slightly, grudgingly, in agreement with a new tax on everybody, including Al Gore: the bigger the carbon footprint, the bigger the added tax: and I mean a LOT bigger, not just a token increase. Make the richest people everywhere hurt, as they "sacrifice" to help us all save Mother Earth for future generations (as the video series also quite convincingly showed, that none of this CO2 pollution is going to ruin the world in the lifetimes of anyone living right now).

As long as the talk about "carbon debt" goes on without positive plans being implemented to develop new energy for everyone in the world at the exact same time as the new taxes come into play, I will, with great reservation, agree to said-tax on EVERYONE with a carbon footprint bigger than an agreed upon minimum. This whole contraption ought to galvanize the world economy, as the amount of increased infrastructure – to monitor individual carbon footprints and manage the resulting tax status, not to mention the industrialization realized as the natural outcome of scientific research and development – ought naturally to involve a huge percentage of the world's population!…

I don't pretend to know about climate change generally, there is a tremendous amount of data and obviously not all of it is equally reliable, compiling and assessing it is a job that boggles my mind.

Having said that I test out as at least as academically intelligent as any climate scientist, I scored in the 99.9 percentile on my college examinations and at the beginning of this whole controversy I did study one aspect of the picture quite deeply.

I was curious as to how, exactly, they could determine how much CO2 there was in the atmosphere in previous geologic ages. This was part of a question to which I have never been able to get a definitive answer, namely: all the oil, coal and natural gas and much of the limestone and metamorphic versions of limestone in the earth's crust are, according to accepted theory, derived from free CO2 gas in the air or ocean. We have not returned more than a couple percent of this fixed CO2 to the atmosphere, most oil and coal is not economically recoverable and there is a lot of limestone, 4% of the earth's crust. So how does this square with the idea that a relatively modest amount of CO2 (compared to the total) can cause a large shift in the atmospheric temperature?

The standard explanation is the CO2 was dribbled into the atmosphere by volcanoes and taken out by plants and animals at about the same rate but this is so unlikely as to beggar belief. It's as if someone held a tap on the CO2 for a billion years keeping the rate of release just right to match the rate of fixing, otherwise the temperature goes up to 200 degrees and everything dies.

Anyway the part I studied deeply, this was fifteen years ago, was the air bubbles trapped in arctic ice. My first question was, doesn't CO2 disperse through ice, as helium migrates out of a balloon from a higher to a lower concentration? Turns out it does. So how do they know how much migration occurs over geologic spans of time? There's no way to test such a thing, you can't extrapolate from a couple years in a laboratory to a few million in the field, or at least it didn't seem to me like you could, though that was what they were doing.

So I examined their science and crunched their numbers through their equations and this is what I came to:

In the end they just made up a number and stuck it in. Actually they manipulated several numbers for no discernible objective reason but it amounted to just sticking a cosmic constant in the equation to make it come out a certian way.

This doesn't mean all the rest of the data supporting the CO2 climate change model is wrong, much less the theory itself but it left me nonplussed.