Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Cayo Perico Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA VI

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

so the us goverment is blaming video games again for the mass shootings


Quinn_flower

Recommended Posts

Evil empire

Why do the cops commit as many murders for the pleasure whether it is in France where the free sale of fire weapons is forbidden or in the USA where any insane psycho can buy them?

 

Because of the ease people have to buy fire weapons?

Or because any insane psycho can become cop and commit any crime he wants without being denunced or punished?

 

If we only had human beings as cops, if the cops were sure to be automatically denunced and punished if they commit a crime would they keep trampling people's rights the way they currently do it?

 

By the way which means did Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and the Mahatma Gandhi use to respectively end the segregation, apartheid and make India independent?

Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I'd rather have my tools of death readily available in order to deal with those who have malicious intent

Funny how its only ridiculous gun nuts who seem unnecessarily paranoid about this kind of thing. People talk about the threat of school shootings being infinitesimally small. You know what's infinitesimally small? The likelihood that you will ever successfully defended yourself from an armed aggressor with a firearm.

 

There's people out there who'd have no qualms killing you without a second thought if they didn't have to face any consequences.

Frankly this is utterly facile pseudo-macho bullsh*t and you know it. It's a right wing extremists wank fantasy and nothing more, even in the US with its disproportionately high rates of firearm violence.

 

Just hand over all your rights.

If all else fails, descent into hysterical hand wringing and idiotic straw men. That'll get your point across.
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dryspace

@sivispacem

 

I'm not sure what you mean by my working? The data is readily available. Just search for mass shooting deaths in Europe. Pick the year or range that you desire to study. Divide the population by the number of deaths. As you know, European nations are tiny compared to the U.S. For any given year, it is likely that there were no deaths from mass shootings.

 

Also, these are mass shooting deaths only. You didn't respond to the fact that according to the U.N., not a random internet dweller, the U.S. ranked #28 in gun homicides in 2012. That's the only year I saw. Are you suspicious of cherry picking? Then look for information on other years. Let us know what you find.

 

As far as your assertion that I'm counting acts of terrorism...I don't even know what to say to that. You are asserting that the reason a person murders randomly and wantonly matters? That a person cares whether their daughter is massacred by a Muslim or a lunatic, or a 15-year-old angry misfit? Am I misunderstanding you?

 

Of course, you can eliminate the entire part of my post--the only part you addressed--because it doesn't even deal with the core issue: what is the reason these phenomena are occurring now when they didn't before? You can find the data and do the math if you want to know just how the U.S. compares to other nations; I always advise that one do his own research.

 

But what about the seven other points that I made, that deal with the problem everyone is concerned about: What is the reason for this explosion of wanton violence so that we can deal with it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dryspace

Evil empire, I took a look at France, since you told us that the free sale of firearms is forbidden there. I didn't pick the years, they were the only listed for these two nations.

 

According to the World Bank, the United States Census Bureau, and GunPolicy.org, via Wikipedia:

 

FRANCE in 2012

Population: 65,660,000
# of Guns: 20,486,000 (31.2 per 100 people)
Gun-Related Deaths: 1,858.18

U.S. in 2014

Population: 318,600,000
# of Guns: 321,945,300 (101.5 per 100 people)
Gun-Related Deaths: 33,453

 

What can we determine from this data? We can determine that in France, there were 0.9071 gun-related deaths for every 10,000 guns, and in the U.S. there were 1.039 gun-related deaths for every 10,000 guns. That is, gun-related deaths per 10,000 guns was only ~14.5% higher in the U.S. than in France.

 

But the facts are even more interesting: We must take into consideration that the sale of guns is heavily controlled in France, and not in the U.S.

 

What else can we determine from this data? It looks like there are well over 3 times more guns per capita in the U.S. than in France. But gun-related deaths aren't well over 3 times higher--only 14.5%. We must continue to explore all of the available data, but we can see that this data does not support the idea that either the availability or number of "tools of death" is a determiner of gun-related deaths.

Edited by Dryspace
Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I'm not sure what you mean by my working?

What I mean is cite the statistics and post the maths that demonstrate you're correct, because I don't think you are. Point to which ten European countries had a higher per capita mass shooting rate and show these rates.

 

The data is readily available. Just search for mass shooting deaths in Europe. Pick the year or range that you desire to study. Divide the population by the number of deaths.

I'm familiar with the principle, though even this is questionable as an accurately representative methodology as the definitions for "mass shooting" actually vary significantly. For instance, most European nations record "mass shootings" as any incident in which more than 1 person is killed or injured. In the US, the traditional definition has been four or more fatalities. Newer definitions are four or more injuries. The US certainly used to exclude familicide killings from their instances of mass shooting. They still exclude terrorism. So when I say "show your working" I want you to to point to the precise figures you've used to see whether these differences are taken into account.

 

You didn't respond to the fact that according to the U.N., not a random internet dweller, the U.S. ranked #28 in gun homicides in 2012.

There are only a handful of nations for which statistics are recorded where the firearm related death rate per capita is higher than the US. They're almost all in Latin America and the Caribbean. A cursory glance across admittedly mixed years and incomplete figures available seems to confirm this is equally true for firearm related homicides.

 

The US has a higher firearm-related murder rate than all but 2 EU countries has overall murder rate- Latvia and Lithuania. Firearms comprise 80% of US murders, which is a proportionally significantly higher than elsewhere in the developed world.

 

As far as your assertion that I'm counting acts of terrorism...I don't even know what to say to that.

The US doesn't include killings related to terrorism in their mass shooting statistics, so if you did for other nations (as some European ones do) then your figures are wrong.

 

I always advise that one do his own research.

The only people who "advise" this are generally those unwilling or unable to back up their views.

 

What is the reason for this explosion of wanton violence so that we can deal with it?

The same pressures that exist elsewhere- social, political, economic. Increasing societal violence isn't a phenomenon isolated to the US. The main differentiating factor is the ease of access to firearms and the US cultural attachment to them resulting in complete inaction when it comes to denying problem citizens access to them.

 

What can we determine from this data? We can determine that in France, there were 0.9071 gun-related deaths for every 10,000 guns, and in the U.S. there were 1.039 gun-related deaths for every 10,000 guns. That is, gun-related deaths per 10,000 guns was only ~14.5% higher in the U.S. than in France.

This is irrelevant, though. A conversation about the firearm related homicide rate compared to the legal firearm ownership rate is totally meaningless.

 

A far higher proportion of firearm murders in France are committed using illegal firearms than in the US. The same is true elsewhere in Europe. Thus contrasting legal firearm ownership rates with a set of events driven primarily by illegal firearms and trying to extrapolate conclusions from it is utterly without merit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Evil empire

Dryspace --> What your statistics certainly show is the less fire weapons there are in a country the less people risk to be assassinated by them but I'm sure it won't prevent you from keeping defending this criminal trading.

Link to post
Share on other sites
trip

Not to distract from the current conversation above; I just wanted to jump in and claim that the topic title is wrong and misleading. It's Trump not the US government.

 

Continue on.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dryspace

@sivispacem

 

There are a few things you said that don't make any sense to me, but you are right that when comparing different nations, it must not be assumed that identical terms have identical definitions. In my original post, I cited from a study and assumed that the methodology is sound, but I will find the study so that we can verify the data.

 

But as I said before, the part of my post comparing the U.S. to other nations was included in order to show that there are people who are concealing facts or outright lying. If a person is seeking truth, one must ask why it is that he feels the need to lie.

 

I will bring the information you asked for tomorrow, and perhaps address your further responses, but in the mean time, can I ask you to address the bulk of my first post; my questions about the U.S.?

 

You have responded only to the 1/8 of my post that deals with comparisons, but if it is true that the U.S. has no comparison then further enquiries in that direction are pointless, and it makes sense to limit enquiries to within the spatial and temporal scope of the U.S., no?

Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

You have responded only to the 1/8 of my post that deals with comparisons, but if it is true that the U.S. has no comparison then further enquiries in that direction are pointless

I don't agree at all. It's perfectly possible to make reasoned and coherent judgements based on available evidence, you just need to account for the differences in reporting and recording to ensure that you compare like for like.

 

Similarly to violent crime statistics, the US has a significant propensity towards massaging figures to make itself appear more favourable. In both these cases, this includes setting bars for categorising events in particular ways much higher. I think we can all agree that requiring four fatalities to count as a "mass" killing and excluding familicide even when more than four due are fairly ridiculous.

 

In response to the salient points of the previous response:

 

I looked over the posts above mine, and noticed a few people either claiming or implying that it is the presence and availability of guns that is the obvious cause of the problem. Frankly, I'm saddened at the lapse of reason, or perhaps basic research, this exhibits.

This isn't a "lapse of reason", it's basic common sense. Firearms comprise 80% of all murder weapons in the US precisely because of the ease of access to, and availability of, them.

 

Why is it that we are used to hearing of mass murders in public schools, but not so much at shooting ranges and pawn shops, where anyone can pick up a gun and stuff it with ammunition from his pocket?

Because mass murderers typically target a location with some kind of emotional importance to them. That's why aggrieved employees shoot up their place of work, and why angry students conduct massacres at their school. In truly indiscriminate shooting incidents, like Texas University or the Vegas one last year, the perpetrators usually choose a location that gives them a vantage point and a large number of unsuspecting potential victims. Neither a pawn shop or a range fit these descriptions; the latter is likely to be particularly unappealing due entirely to the large number of other armed individuals on site (though they're not unheard of, Chris Kyle was killed in a multiple fatality shooting at a range).

 

Why is it that gun-related homicides are highest in large cities, and almost unheard of in small towns, despite the fact that gun ownership per capita is equal or higher in small towns?

Because the majority of violence is related to the comission of other crime (either individual or gang related), which is typically higher in cities? Even this doesn't tell the whole story as there are a myriad of other factors and the trend us nowhere near as clear cut as you suggest. According to the FBI's statistics, the violent crime rate in towns of less than 10,000 is about 20% higher than towns of between 10,000 and 25,000.

 

One factor is likely to economic. Large cities have hotbeds of economic deprivation which are the main locations for violence including murder. Very small rural towns are also often economically disenfranchised compared to larger rural towns which may explain higher violence rates there.

 

Why is it that for decades people brought their guns to high school in their vehicles so that they could go hunting directly after school, but yet "Columbine-style" shootings didn't happen, and have only increased since guns have been banned from school grounds?

This isn't actually true, though. School shootings did happen, albeit at a much lower tempo, before Columbine. If your questions was why that tempo has increased significantly, then I don't have a definitive answer, but pretending they're a new phenomenon is a significant distortion of reality.

 

Also, attempting to draw a correlation between hunting weapons and shootings is never going to work. The primary firearms used in school shootings have been semi-automatic handguns and assault-style rifles; more widely the same is true of any mass shootings. Hunting weapons (by which I mean full power bolt action rifles and full size shotguns) are vanishingly rare as tools of mass murder or even murder.

 

In the 60 years between 1900 and 1960, only one school-related incident occurred which could be considered reasonably similar to the school shootings of today: In 1940, an ex-staff member of South Pasadena Junior High School killed five other staff members after being dismissed.

Incorrect, as was your previous assertion on the first 124 years of US history. The following years have seen school related shootings resulting in at least two fatalities or four injuries (numbers dead in brackets):

 

1764 (2)

1856 (2)

1867 (2)

1868 (3)

1891 (14 injured)

1893 (4)

1894 (2)

1896 (6)

1903 (2)

1904 (2)

1908 (2)

1910 (2)

1922 (2)

1936 (2 + 2)

1940 (5)

1947 (2)

1951 (2)

1960 (3 + 2)

 

Why is it that random mass shootings in public or in schools are nonexistent before the 1960's

They aren't?

 

1929- 7 dead in one incident.

1933- 5 dead in one incident

1934- 5 dead, 25 injured in one incident

1940- 9 dead, 20 injured in one incident

 

Plus several other attacks like the Bath School bombing that used other weapons.

 

It's true to state that these incidents have become dramatically more frequent in recent years. There has been a threefold increase in mass shootings in the US over the last decade. But pretending they were nonexistent prior to this point is simply not credible.

 

Why are school shootings considered a crisis when the chances of a child being murdered at school are statistically insignificant?

Because they're by and large completely preventable incidents of endemic social and political failure. Any body count from a school shooting is too high, because perpetrating mass casualty attacks in schools should be as near practically impossible as can be achieved.

 

The fact they are statistically irrelevant is itself irrelevant. Casualties due to terrorism are statistically irrelevant but that doesn't stop the last two decades of US foreign policy and a good chunk of domestic policy being focused almost solely on it.

 

Food for thought- there has not been a mass casualty attacks of any kind in a British school since 1996. There has not been a spree killing in the UK since 2010, and only three since 2000. The cumulative total number of victims in UK spree murders since 2000 is less than half of that of the Vegas shooting alone.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Andreaz1

Why is it that we are used to hearing of mass murders in public schools, but not so much at shooting ranges and pawn shops, where anyone can pick up a gun and stuff it with ammunition from his pocket?

If you're in this mindset your goal is to kill people. How many people are there around to kill in a pawn shop? Murders that occur there won't even classify as mass killings. As for gun ranges, did you think that one through at all?

 

Why is it that gun-related homicides are highest in large cities, and almost unheard of in small towns, despite the fact that gun ownership per capita is equal or higher in small towns?

Who says the killings have to be where the gun owner lives? Again, your goal is to kill people. Where are there most people to kill? In the cities. Where can you find many unsuspecting victims in one place at one time that will at the same time give you massive attention? Schools.

 

Why are school shootings considered a crisis when the chances of a child being murdered at school are statistically insignificant?

Because they are f*cking preventable but you refuse to even try do anything about them. Both Australia and the UK has had great success in reducing the number of shootings by banning guns in some way but for some reason you refuse to see this. Your right to pack heat - and money, to the politicians bought by the NRA - is more important to you than the lives of your children. What else is insignificant in life? Your odds of dying in a lightning strike or shark attack but you are still taught to stay inside during a thunder storm or out of the water if a shark has been spotted. Pure logic tells you that if guns are used time and time again to kill people you reduce the number of guns but so many Americans don't comprehend this fact, instead choosing to crunch numbers until they somewhat support what you want. You, for instance, choose to include terrorist attacks in your calculations which is how you came to the conclusion about Norway and France.

 

When a child is far, far more likely to die in an automobile accident

Accident. A mass shooting is no accident. The fact that you are comparing the two is so stupid I don't even know what to say.

 

No, I did not reply to everything you've written and I'm not going to so don't bother pointing it out. I've read more than enough from you and I don't want to see any of your drivel ever again.

Edited by Andreaz1
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
feckyerlife

Not to distract from the current conversation above; I just wanted to jump in and claim that the topic title is wrong and misleading. It's Trump not the US government.

 

Continue on.

cmon on man it is the US Gov, Hillary Clinton was one of the first people in the Us Gov to start the war on violent video games.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ned Bingham

This is what happens when 80% of the American male population is circumcised.

Ah, so that's why I could never find any decent cheese in the States.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dryspace

I apologize--I said I would respond yesterday. Here are those links that contain data pertaining to my original post:

Mass Shootings in the US

Mass Public Shootings: US & Europe

International Intentional Homicide Rate (Make sure to re-order list by rate)

The US Does Not Have More Mass Shootings than Europe
US Isn't the Worst


"...the US has a significant propensity towards massaging figures to make itself appear more favourable."

According to whom? And if there is such a propensity, are you saying that it is unique among other places in the world, where, unbelievably, human beings have no such propensity to make themselves appear more favorable?


"I think we can all agree that requiring four fatalities to count as a "mass" killing and excluding familicide even when more than four [die] are fairly ridiculous."

I don't agree. The term is 'mass killing'. If it were 'multiple killing' I would agree that the number four instead of three or two would be fairly ridiculous. Upon reflection, I would say that your assertion is closer to ridiculous. I believe that most people would not imagine a 'mass killing' as a killing of 2 or 3 people. A number had to be picked, and I don't think four unreasonable. I believe it was recently changed to three, and I maintain that many if not most people would be surprised to find, after being informed of a mass killing, that the total number of deaths is three.

As for familicide, I don't in my ignorance presume to question the reasoning. I would guess it was related (uggh, lol) to the issue of perception, which is fundamental to issues of semantics. What I do agree with--again, in my ignorance--is that the reason for omitting familicides that otherwise meet the definition of 'mass killing' is not obvious to me.


"...mass murderers typically target a location with some kind of emotional importance to them."

This is a part of your last post that I do not dispute, and I admit that I did not consider that when I posited my question.

However, do you acknowledge that you made a valid point, but that that valid point is not a refutation of my point? I have no problem assuming yours is legitimate; I don't see how you can reject the legitimacy of mine. Surely you don't believe that the knowledge that a school is populated with firearm-carrying guardians, rather than the knowledge that due to the law there are almost certainly no firearms on the premises, would have no effect on the decision to target that school?

Your reference to Chris Kyle was in error. The remote outdoor range in which the three men were alone is not similar to schools, where there are a lot of people, nor to the kind of establishments that I mentioned, where there are both a lot of people and a stock of readily accessible firearms. The spontaneous double murder of Chris Kyle and his friend during a planned mutual activity do not fit any definition of 'mass shooting' I am aware of.


"Even this doesn't tell the whole story as there are a myriad of other factors and the trend [is] nowhere near as clear cut as you suggest."

Yes, there are factors of large statistical significance which correlate with violent crime, unlike quantity of and/or access to firearms. For example, this international ranking of estimated number of guns per capita shows the U.S. at #1. This international ranking of intentional homicide rate (Make sure to re-sort by rate) shows the U.S. at #94.

There are likely many factors which could alter the exact rankings. I don't dispute America's #1 spot. As for the other list, do you think that a re-examination of data would suddenly move the U.S. from #94 to #1?


"This isn't actually true, though. School shootings did happen, albeit at a much lower tempo, before Columbine."

sivispacem, I didn't ask why such shootings didn't happen before Columbine. I asked why Columbine-style shootings didn't happen over the many decades when guns were regularly brought to school. To me, Columbine is the term most associated with school shootings.


"...pretending they're a new phenomenon is a significant distortion of reality."

A significant distortion of reality? In the first 184 years of American history, only 3 incidents which could reasonably be considered similar occurred. And it is at this point that I have to correct the assertions that you then followed with.

"Incorrect, as was your previous assertion on the first 124 years of US history. The following years have seen school related shootings resulting in at least two fatalities or four injuries (numbers dead in brackets):"

What made you decide to use the requirement of "at least two fatalities or four injuries"? It neither matches the old 4-death or new 3-death U.S. definition, nor is it reasonably similar to the majority of modern school shootings. But further, you ignored my qualification and selected incidents which no reasonable person would consider similar to a Columbine-style shooting, or any typical modern school shooting.

As I feel the need to defend my character, please allow me to briefly direct myself to GTA Forums in general. For those reading this, here are examples of what sivispacem posted as being reasonably considered similar to the school shootings of today, making it look like I was careless or dishonest--though I do not assume it was willful. (Source information can be found here):

1764: During the Pontiac's War, a band of Delaware Indians entered a schoolhouse, shot the schoolmaster, and killed several children with melee weapons.

1856: A schoolmaster had a tame pet sparrow, and warned the children not to harm it, threatening death. A boy stepped on and killed it. The schoolmaster then strangled the boy. The boy's father went to the school and shot the schoolmaster.

1867: Mr. McGinnis was killed by his daughter's teacher after threatening him for expelling his daughter. McGinnis' son then went to the school and killed the teacher.

1868: A boy refused to be whipped by his teacher. The next day he, his brother, and his friend looked for the teacher at the school, and not finding him, went to his house where a gun battle ensued. The boy was the only survivor.

1891: This is one of the two that I listed as being reasonably similar, although there were zero deaths. You can read the description on my original post and see that my standards for inclusion were very accommodating indeed.

1893: During an evening school dance a fight broke out. Gunfire was exchanged and four students were killed. Given the resemblance to gang activity, I did not see this as being reasonably similar, but on second thought I wouldn't argue over its inclusion as an example.

1894: After school was let out, a boy was shot to death and his brother stabbed to death in a fight among a group of boys.

This post is overlong already (alright, epic)--one can peruse the list if he desires. As for his four examples of "random mass shootings in public or in schools" between 1900 and 1960, here are his examples:

1929: No firearms involved whatever. A crazy man planned a revenge, so it wasn't random. He blew up his house and a school.

1933: The Kansas City Massacre: A shootout between law enforcement officers and a gang led by Vernon Miller in order to free Frank "Jelly" Nash from custody. "Pretty Boy" Floyd was identified by the FBI as involved, but this is not known for certain.

1934: Kelayres Massacre: Republican "Big Joe" Bruno and members of his family fired on a Democrat parade as it passed in front of his house. Five people died.

1940: I was unable to locate this example.

I trust I have demonstrated my point. sivispacem has made a grievous error here. In the first 184 years of American history, there are only 3 incidents which could reasonably be considered similar to the school shootings of today. And since I readily admit that I have not performed an exhaustive study, perhaps the actual number is 6 or 9. Even if it is 20 over the first 184 years, I am not 'pretending' they're a new phenomenon. My assertion is not a significant distortion of reality. I didn't pretend "they were nonexistent prior to [1960]", I demonstrated that the difference in occurrence is, to understate things, so statistically significant that refusing to study changes over time in the U.S. in favor of placing blame on the existence of firearms is willful blindness and blatant reality denial. I now address sivispacem once more.


"Because [school shootings are] by and large completely preventable incidents of endemic social and political failure."

And here--well, except for not knowing quite what 'by and large completely' means--we agree. I assume you don't mean that anything can be considered 100% preventable, but history shows us that you speak the truth.

It sounds like we should study history instead of perpetrating magical thinking such as that the presence of guns is a cause of murder and is anything but a facilitator. I'm sure I speak for you as well when I say that every firearm that exists in the U.S. (every one, including law enforcement) could be confiscated and placed in a warehouse at your or my sole disposal, and it would have no effect on the will to murder for either of us. Unfortunately, it wouldn't stop homicide, and it wouldn't stop gun-related homicide either, as just with alcohol, drugs, and Cuban cigars, the situation would quickly be rectified via obliging sources outside and within. And then, by and large (but not completely), the only people wielding guns in the U.S. would be those who are not particular about obeying the law.

Edited by Dryspace
Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I apologize--I said I would respond yesterday. Here are those links that contain data pertaining to my original post:

 

None of those sources are authoritative, and as I suspected the primary source you seem to refer to (the CrimeResearch one) reads as nothing more than an intentional attempt to massage the figures. One is from a pro-firearms blog, and the other an editorial. The selection of an arbitrary time period that doesn't really conform to any sensible norms does appear to be an intentional massaging of the figures to maximise European casualties in terrorist incidents whilst minimising US ones.

 

Moreover, the figures that are used for Europe are factually wrong. Take the France attack in 2015, which comprises more than half of the total recorded casualties in the arbitrariky chosen years. These figures are all counted as "mass public shooting" fatalities, even though a significant proportion of the fatalities were not caused by firearms but either by suicide vests or hand grenades.

 

Their definition also narrows the scope solely to "public" mass shootings. It excludes instances of familicide, and workplace mass killings. All, given the editorial stance of the piece, likely designed to flatter the US figures. A quick checks shows at least 32 dead in familicide rampages (versus 6 in Europe in the same timeframe), 12 dead I'm home invasion rampage killings (versus 0 in Europe), though it should be noted that in both instances figures were only recorded for incidents resulting in at least six fatalities.

 

Instead of the arbitrary 6 year period, look at the longer term trends over the last 10-20 years. They're much more informative and paint a very different light on events.

 

 

 

According to whom? And if there is such a propensity, are you saying that it is unique among other places in the world, where, unbelievably, human beings have no such propensity to make themselves appear more favorable?

I'm comparing specifically with other nations; it is self evident from the specific way the US records its statistics. From defining mass killings as four or more fatalities, to limiting the definition of "violent crime" to four specific offenses (murder and attempted murder, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault), and only recording the most serious crime in any single incident rather than all of them, pretty much all US crime recording measures are transparently and unequivocally designed to reduce overall reported rates of societal violence.

 

 

 

I believe that most people would not imagine a 'mass killing' as a killing of 2 or 3 people.

I think most people would argue that, say, 3 dead and 15 injured, for instance, is a "mass killings". I appreciate you need to draw the line somewhere but I personally think any single murder incident involving the deaths of two or more people and a total casualties, I'd say, of maybe 5 dead or injured, is a "mass killing". The UK definition for a mass shooting, for instance, is four or more killed or injured in a single incident.

 

 

 

Surely you don't believe that the knowledge that a school is populated with firearm-carrying guardians, rather than the knowledge that due to the law there are almost certainly no firearms on the premises, would have no effect on the decision to target that school?

To some degree possibly, assuming a degree of rationality behind the planning and perpetration of these attacks. But I think we can probably agree the perpetrators of mass shootings don't necessarily act rationally and may well have no qualms about throwing themselves into a situation where they're pretty much guaranteed to die.

 

 

 

Your reference to Chris Kyle was in error.

It wasn't- I wasn't meaning to draw a direct comparison, I was simply highlighting that your assertion that mass killings don't occur at places like shooting ranges is not quite true. That aside, I don't think the distinction is hugely different.

 

 

 

Yes, there are factors of large statistical significance which correlate with violent crime, unlike quantity of and/or access to firearms.

This is a basic failure to compare like with like, though. If you are to believe US figures, other violent crime rates are broadly similar to comparable, wealthy European countries, but homicide rates are four to five times higher. Broadly the same economic, social, political and criminal pressures exist, but the US murder rate per capita is much higher. Attempting to draw comparisons with third world countries that aren't broadly economically or socially equivalent does nothing to counteract the assertion that the US murder rate is anomalously high compared to that of equivalent Western wealthy nations, which is the point I've been making all along.

 

 

 

sivispacem, I didn't ask why such shootings didn't happen before Columbine.

No, you stated such events wete unheard of, which is categorically untrue.

 

 

 

What made you decide to use the requirement of "at least two fatalities or four injuries"?

My view that this was a reasonable interpretation of what constitutes a mass shooting, more in line with how such events are recorded outside of the US.

 

 

 

But further, you ignored my qualification and selected incidents which no reasonable person would consider similar to a Columbine-style shooting, or any typical modern school shooting.

Of course I did- the modern school itself is a relatively recent phenomenon only really coming to prominence outside or large urban areas across much of the US in the early postwar period, therefore the stipulation of "events broadly similar to Columbine" appears to be an artificial and meaningless distinction in the wider historical context.

 

 

 

1929: No firearms involved whatever.

Right year, wrong event.

 

 

 

1940: I was unable to locate this example.

Apologies, typo. It should have read 1945.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_prisoner_of_war_massacre

 

Allow me to clarify. I am not blaming the significantly higher instance of murderous violence in the US on the number of firearms in circulation in isolation. I never have, and never will. I'm blaming it on US firearm culture, the lack of proper vetting and background checks, the availability of unsecured weapons in the homes of individuals who pose a significant risk, the failure to remove firearms from people who are accused of violent criminal actions or judged to be a danger to spouses or family members, lack of mandatory licencing, training and record keeping, etc cetera.

 

The raw number of firearms isn't a problem- places like Iceland have a high ownership per capita and exceptionally low violence rates- its the cultural phenomenona that surround guns in the US.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Leftist Bastard

In any reasonable solution buy backs absolutely have to happen, though. Gun control is completely and utterly ineffective if you don't reduce the number of guns in circulation - and that means stripping people that don't fit the new quota of their firearms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
feckyerlife

In any reasonable solution buy backs absolutely have to happen, though. Gun control is completely and utterly ineffective if you don't reduce the number of guns in circulation - and that means stripping people that don't fit the new quota of their firearms.

 

Gun buy back programs don't work here in the US. DC/Baltimore has one every month and their homicide rates are going up. I believe if they got rid of privatized/strawman sales it would help prevent a lot of this. Background checks work, but the purpose is defeated if i can go buy a gun off guntrader from a private individual who just requires 2 forms of id. If you start stripping guns in a new quota in the US, you going to have a civil war

Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Gun buy back programs don't work here in the US. DC/Baltimore has one every month and their homicide rates are going up.

That isn't evidence they don't work, though. Correlation != Causation

Link to post
Share on other sites
Raj The Rager

This isn't the first time those idiots attempted something like this. But it always fails, because there's not enough research and studies to link video games to violence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
trip

 

Gun buy back programs don't work here in the US. DC/Baltimore has one every month and their homicide rates are going up.

That isn't evidence they don't work, though. Correlation != Causation

Related/unrelated; I love gun buy back programs. The pictures of the piles of guns are great because you can see all the weird old rusted up muskets and sh*t people turn in for an Applebees(or whatever) gift card. It always looks like you might scrounge one working gun from the pile of 100.

 

Anyway...i can't believe this topic is alive. The govt isn't coming after(or blaming) video games. Certainly no more now than ever in the past...not even close to some of the fever in th e past.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dryspace

@sivispacem

I very much appreciate your ability to engage in discussion, and to do so without belligerence or ad hominem. That is anything but patronization, as you are in my experience a member of a minority.

Having come this far though, I don't feel that you are adequately addressing my points. I believe that I have addressed your points to the best of my ability, and have admitted it when you have legitimately countered one of my points.


"None of those sources are authoritative"

I never claimed any such thing, probably because there is no such thing as an authoritative source. The entire idea of an information authority is as dangerous as it is ridiculous. Data speaks for itself, and it is up to an invididual to ultimately verify legitimacy. You must be aware of the human proclivity for declaring a source to be 'authoritative' or 'legitimate' or 'trusted' based upon its alignment with one's own beliefs. This leads to anything from a particular source being rejected out of hand in the same way that one might reject the postulate "one plus one equals two" because "a child molester said it". An honest person rejects nothing out of hand. Period.


"The selection of an arbitrary time period that doesn't really conform to any sensible norms does appear to be an intentional massaging of the figures to maximise European casualties in terrorist incidents whilst minimising US ones."

It's not arbitrary. It is stated that the year 2009 was chosen as the starting point because that was when the Obama administration began, and matches the starting point of another study by Bloomberg. 2015 is the end point because data from the future wasn't available. So again, you are in error.


"Moreover, the figures that are used for Europe are factually wrong...These figures are all counted as "mass public shooting" fatalities, even though a significant proportion of the fatalities were not caused by firearms but either by suicide vests or hand grenades."

If this is factually wrong, then why, when attempting to refute my assertion regarding pre-1960 incidents that could reasonably be considered similar to the school shootings of today, did you include multiple incidents in which a significant portion or overwhelming majority of the fatalities were not caused by firearms, as well as those involving no firearms at all? How do you answer to this?


"pretty much all US crime recording measures are transparently and unequivocally designed to reduce overall reported rates of societal violence."

sivispacem, I don't have time at the moment to research the specifics referred to, but this is not a responsible assertion at all. I can think of many things I once knew were transparent and unequivocal--until I found out I was ignorant.


"I think most people would argue that, say, 3 dead and 15 injured, for instance, is a ["mass killing"]"

Even if that were true it wouldn't make it legitimate. It would be a mass attack. You and I both know that it would not be a mass killing. Words have meanings. The only reason for using words is the exchange of ideas. It is of the utmost importance that we not be sloppy with semantics lest we become sloppy in our thinking.


"[My reference to Chris Kyle] wasn't [in error]- I wasn't meaning to draw a direct comparison, I was simply highlighting that your assertion that mass killings don't occur at places like shooting ranges is not quite true. That aside, I don't think the distinction is hugely different."

Everything about the Chris Kyle incident is different. Everything. You meant to show that random public shootings at "shooting ranges and pawn shops, where anyone can pick up a gun and stuff it with ammunition from his pocket" are not unheard of.

This did not happen at a facility such as I describe. It happened at a remote chunk of land designated as a "shooting range". It was unpopulated, it contained no stock of firearms which anyone can pick up and stuff with ammunition. The murderer did not target the shooting range, he was not seeking revenge, he had zero plans to kill anyone that day. He suffered from schizophrenia. It was a planned outing. He arrived with the two people he murdered. He decided to murder them spontaneously because they wouldn't talk to him on the ride there.

Do you maintain that you did not inadvertently err? To the point, do you concede that you did not at all succeed in refuting my assertion that locations with people and firearms are not targeted, either at all, or to a degree that is as statistically significant as it gets?


"If you are to believe US figures, other violent crime rates are broadly similar to comparable, wealthy European countries, but homicide rates are four to five times higher. Broadly the same economic, social, political and criminal pressures exist..."

No, actually this is far from correct...


"but the US murder rate per capita is much higher...US murder rate is anomalously high compared to that of equivalent Western wealthy nations."

This is a basic failure to compare like with like, though. You can't think of anything that is, in fact, very different about the U.S. compared to wealthy European countries? First, let's make sure we don't commit the error of repeatedly comparing fifty sovereign states together with single European states.

 

Here is Wikipedia's Murder in the United States by state.

And here is an entirely separate measurement whose correlation with the former is as plain as can be: List of U.S. states by African-American population.

The truth is out there, sivispacem. Just make sure you are seeking truth and not just defending your beliefs. Leave that to the religious folk.

 

What about Arizona, which American leftists love to defecate all over as the "Wild West" because of the ability to carry a firearm openly--and now even concealed without a permit--being #26 on the list? And Arizona contains America's 5th largest city, that's right...so that very likely explains the attainment of even that level on the list.


"No, you stated [Columbine-style shootings] [were] unheard of, which is categorically untrue."

I asked why Columbine-style shootings are unheard of over the many decades when guns were regularly brought to school. I did not ask why they were unheard of before Columbine. I understand that you may have simply misread me, and I could have been clearer, but you are attempting to refute something that I categorically did not say.


"My view that "at least two fatalities or four injuries" was a reasonable interpretation of what constitutes a mass shooting, more in line with how such events are recorded outside of the US."

Then I guess it was just a mistake on your part. You see, I wasn't attempting to research U.S. history for mass shootings. My assertion was that in the first 184 years of the U.S. there were only three incidents that "could reasonably be considered similar to the school shootings of today". That was my assertion and methodology. So your decision to look for incidents "more in line" with European definitions of 'mass shooting' makes no sense, as I did not assert that there were no incidents that qualify as mass shootings, either under the definitions of the U.S. or elsewhere.


"the modern school itself is a relatively recent phenomenon only really coming to prominence outside or large urban areas across much of the US in the early postwar period, therefore the stipulation of "events broadly similar to Columbine" appears to be an artificial and meaningless distinction in the wider historical context."

A school is a place where children congregate in order to learn (unless we're talking about the U.S., lol) What in the world is different about a school 60 or 90 or 150 years ago compared to today that makes a kid walking in and killing as many people as possible impossible, or different, or irrelevant? The guns were there. The schools were there. The kids were there. What? Is it the average student body size? Mixed-grade classes versus separate? I doubt it of course, but I do know that leftists refuse to look at the past, to study these things--what was and what wasn't, what happened and what didn't happen in the past. All. I. Hear. From. Leftists. Is. Guns.

This is stretching, arbitrary, and uncalled-for. I don't get your point. At all. I really am having a hard time comprehending that you are actually attempting to dispute the bald fact that the type of incident under scrutiny by the media is very, very modern and has no historical trail. It is the flattest hockey stick with the sharpest blade.


"its the cultural [phenomena] that surround guns in the US."

The problem is, I have no idea what that even means. And I assure you I am absolutely earnest. A pretty small minority of Americans own guns. I still have never owned one, though I told myself I would change that after a man shot a 17-year old girl point-blank and an innocent bicycler in the face right outside my apartment after setting her up to be robbed. Yes your wager on skin color is correct. The way extremely prejudiced people speak, you would think every other American plays with his guns every day. There is no culture that I'm aware of. And I have lived for many years in both the 5th largest city and a town of 10,000.

Is it a type of code for unwillingness to abandon the Second Amendment?

Edited by Dryspace
Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Data speaks for itself, and it is up to an invididual to ultimately verify legitimacy.

This is my exact point, though. If the authors of these pieces wished to provoke honest and balanced debate, then they would have included a clear methodology and avoided editorialising. As it stands, the lack of defined methodology makes it hard to replicate their conclusions from independent data sets, leaves unanswered questions on exactly how figures are calculated, and heads me to question the accuracy and validity of the piece. Broadly, as far as these pieces of reporting go, it seems broadly accurate, but I'm wary of some statistical anomalies and, despite the reasoning for the date range you've explained, still believe that a broader time period (or in fact pretty much any other time period selected) would result in different conclusions being reached.

 

Even extending the time period to now (IE 2018) entirely reverses the broad trend they claim exists. I count another 163 dead in US mass shootings mid 2015 to present, and that's only including those with more than 10 fatalities. Conversely I'm struggling to find a single mass shooting incident to speak of meeting your "four or more fatalities" definition anywhere in the European Union in that three year period.

 

This makes a massive difference to the figures. 1.43 per 1m to 0.62 per 1m. More than double that of the EU.

 

 

 

If this is factually wrong...How do you answer to this?

I'm afraid this is a tu quoque. The question of whether or not I'm being hypocritical in my approach to historic incidents of school violence (which I'd argue I'm not given that I never once asserted these were broadly similar to later incidents you highlighted) is entirely distinct from the concerns about the factual accuracy of their reporting. Alleged hypocrisy does not constitute a counterargument.

 

 

 

sivispacem, I don't have time at the moment to research the specifics referred to, but this is not a responsible assertion at all.

I would argue it is. The mechanisms that the US uses to record crime, especially violent crime, are dramatically different than those used in other comparable nations. These differences result in lower figures for obvious reasons I have already described. It makes like-for-like direct comparison difficult, and the net result of this is that cursory comparison always flatters the US because of what they omit and how they record.

 

If you can volunteer a coherent alternative hypothesis for why the US would diverge so wildly from the rest of the developed world on its recording of crime figures then I'd be keen to hear it.

 

 

 

You and I both know that it would not be a mass killing. Words have meanings.

In this instance, as I've already pointed out, the definition of "mass killing", "spree killing", "rampage killing" etc cetera vary significantly from nation to nation. They're not as clearly defined as you seem to believe and yes, under some definitions, two killings along with 2/4 etc additional injuries would be categorised as a "mass" incident.

 

 

 

You meant to show that random public shootings at "shooting ranges and pawn shops, where anyone can pick up a gun and stuff it with ammunition from his pocket" are not unheard of.

This is a straw man. I cited a specific example of a multiple murder taking place at a gun range. I never stated, suggested, insinuated or implied it was directly comparable to other instances of public mass shooting.

 

 

 

he was not seeking revenge, he had zero plans to kill anyone that day. He suffered from schizophrenia. It was a planned outing. He arrived with the two people he murdered. He decided to murder them spontaneously because they wouldn't talk to him on the ride there.

Random shootings conducted by individuals with mental illnesses, targeting associates, random victims or both of the above, with no preplanning, can and do occur. Should these be excluded from wider discussion on mass shootings?

 

 

 

do you concede that you did not at all succeed in refuting my assertion that locations with people and firearms are not targeted, either at all, or to a degree that is as statistically significant as it gets?

Again, not really. Mass shootings often target armed individuals such as police officers or soldiers, particularly when religiously or politically motivated. There's a certain degree of correlation between the absence of firearms and chosen targets by preplanned mass shooters, but I struggle to see evidence of a causal link, and various other correlations also exist.

 

 

 

No, actually this is far from correct...

Care to explain, rather than simply denying this is the case? My comparison is broad, not specific; applied to the EU, we're comparing a federation of 28 sovereign states with their own local laws and cultures, economic/social/political factors with a federation of 50 sovereign states with the same diversity of policy and society.

 

 

 

I asked why Columbine-style shootings are unheard of over the many decades

This necessarily requires that these incidents are, in fact, unheard of. I don't get your objection to my disputing this; it's a required assumption of your comment.

 

 

 

"could reasonably be considered similar to the school shootings of today"

This seems to be the core of our disagreement, because I believe that the definition of "considered similar" is entirely subjective, arbitrary and contributes very little. I'm trying to have an honest and open discourse about US societal violence compared to that in the rest if the developed world, and unnecessarily specific categorisations of events in my view constitute cherry-picking, which I believe misses the whole point of the discussion we're trying to have. I implore you to ensure you are responding to my actual points rather than what you believe my points might be, and to ask for clarification if you're unsure, as I feel you've mischaracterised my argument several times now.

 

 

 

I really am having a hard time comprehending that you are actually attempting to dispute the bald fact that the type of incident under scrutiny by the media is very, very modern and has no historical trail. It is the flattest hockey stick with the sharpest blade.

It's not a "bald fact", you've conceded that comparable incidents have happened, but still seem to be insisting they're unheard of. If you go back and read my previous comments, you'll probably realise I'm agreeing with you with regard to the frequency and severity of these incidents being a modern phenomena.

 

 

Arguments from anecdote are nice and all, but one only need examine the hysterical reactions of the NRA and American Right to the merest suggestion of additional regulation to see the embodiment of the problem. Firearms are treated as an inalienable right to own without question if competence, capability or suitability; because there are no mandatory training and licensing requirements social attitudes to responsible firearm use are lackadaisical. Any attempt to institute reasonable controls that might actually help reduce these incidents, or even close obvious loopholes in existing laws, is portrayed as a sensationalist, totalitarian gun grab.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HeavyDuke

I honestly blaming it on games is just seeking for a scapegoat. Its like blaming fossil fuel damage on our ecosystem to racing games.

 

Only when enough generations live on long enough without bloodbaths and fear of being shot, there will be harmony and people themselfs will feel like no longer needing to have a gun. However because almost nobody really feels safe, everybody wants to have a gun. Especially with the high rate of mentally ill people around that like to go out in a ball of flame and glory. Its a vicious circle.

 

If i was in a place where sh*t like this happend, and the only way to keep my family safe was to have a gun. I would get one. Legal or illegal. And remember that moving isn't always an option for everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Star-Lord

Meanwhile...

 

The President can't wait for the trailer of Grand Theft Auto Six. :p

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dryspace

"Alleged hypocrisy does not constitute a counterargument."

 

I asked you why you dismissed figures as factually wrong by taking exception with a methodology that you yourself used. I put forth no argument; I only asked you to explain yourself.

 

 

"If you can volunteer a coherent alternative hypothesis for why the US would diverge so wildly from the rest of the developed world on its recording of crime figures then I'd be keen to hear it."

 

Because of the plethora of different jurisdictions, from local to county to state for each of the fifty U.S. states and D.C., plus federal law, and then however many books there are in each nation of the rest of the developed world, I don't have time to perform that research now so that I can even begin to analyze the data and then finally attempt to draw honest conclusions.

 

As you are already familiar with all of the relevant data, can I ask you to provide links sufficient for me to at least get a basic idea?

 

 

"In this instance, as I've already pointed out, the definition of "mass killing", "spree killing", "rampage killing" etc cetera vary significantly from nation to nation. They're not as clearly defined as you seem to believe..."

 

Again, you are arguing a point I did not make. I was not talking about the definition of terms, I was talking about the definition of words. 'Mass', 'multiple', 'killing', and 'attack' have definitions. I maintained that two deaths and fifteen injuries is not a mass killing for the reason that it is not a mass killing. If two deaths is a mass killing then so is two deaths and fifteen injuries. If it isn't, no amount of injuries changes the fact. I categorically reject your willingness to stretch or reassign the meaning of words, for any reason whatever.

 

 

"This is a straw man. I cited a specific example of a multiple murder taking place at a gun range. I never stated, suggested, insinuated or implied it was directly comparable to other instances of public mass shooting."

 

You were addressing my question, "Why is it that we are used to hearing of mass murders in public schools...". So you are asserting that mass murders at shooting ranges are "not unheard of" by providing an example that is not directly comparable. You formerly insisted:

 

"I was simply highlighting that your assertion that mass killings don't occur at places like shooting ranges is not quite true"

 

I underlined to highlight that you are moving the goal post in order to admit error, which is far more harmful than just admitting it, but do as you must. You cited Chris Kyle in order to avoid having to actually answer my question. You used Chris Kyle to show that, in your own words, mass killings aren't unheard of at shooting ranges. I just...Eh...You have to know that the Kyle incident has nothing to do with a mass shooting except for a gun....Egad...

 

 

"There's a certain degree of correlation between the absence of firearms and chosen targets by preplanned mass shooters, but I struggle to see evidence of a causal link..."

 

There is no causal link. When a person wants a coffee and he is experiencing anxiety, he is very likely to choose a place with as few people as possible, because the presence of people exacerbates his anxiety. The dearth of people did not cause him to go to the location, he caused himself to go, in response to his desire for coffee. The reason he chose it rather than a location full of people is obvious. To me, anyway.

 

And please--no. Both the strong correlation--not "a certain degree"--and logic show that mass shooters clearly desire locations devoid of firearms, regardless of whether or not they want to die. Because if they only want to die, they would get it over with, and whether they want only to kill as many as possible, or they want posthumous fame by killing as many as possible, armed resistance is a wholly needless complication when peaceful pens of fluffy sheep are readily available.

 

 

"Care to explain, rather than simply denying this is the case?"

 

I did, hence the ellipses...In the following section I demonstrated that there are in fact differences between the U.S. and the EU, especially wealthy European nations, that are so large as to make comparisons much more difficult than you are led to believe. I provided the data that shows there is a massive, indisputably consistent correlation between homicide rate and race.

 

You are sorely misinformed if you think both the EU and U.S. have the "same diversity of society". Please review my previous post, and then these additional facts:

 

World Ethnic Diversity

 

Of 159 nations, the EU looks like this in level of diversity of society (higher = less diversity):

 

Austria 145

Denmark 144

Finland 142

Germany 148

Greece 152

Hungary 130

Ireland 134

Italy 155

Netherlands 151

Poland 153

Portugal 154

Slovenia 123

Sweden 128

 

The U.S. ranks #85 aggregate (It is distressing that the EU is broken down but not the U.S.)

 

There is NO correlation in the U.S. between gun ownership and homicide rate.

 

The 10 states with the highest murder and non-negligent manslaughter rates (9.6/100K avg.) had a gun ownership of 35.9%, while the 10 lowest states (1.9/100K avg) had an ownership of 31.9%.

 

The 10 states with the highest gun ownership rates (52.9%) had a murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate of 4.3, while the 10 lowest ownership states (14.3%) had a [murder] rate of 4.2.

 

One other thing: U.S. Democrats are as always utilizing demagoguery, propaganda, and lies, blaming Republicans in the most vile and despicable manner for not doing anything about the supposed "gun problem". When it comes to the children, nothing else matters.

 

Yet, during 2009 - 2011 when for many months the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the Executive branch, they declined to act for the children, even though there was not a damned thing that anybody in the Milky Way could have done to stop them. They did manage to socialize 1/5 of the U.S. economy though, and drastically increase health insurance costs after basing most of the propaganda on the insistence that something had to be done about rising healthcare costs.

Edited by Dryspace
Link to post
Share on other sites
Leftist Bastard

I honestly blaming it on games is just seeking for a scapegoat. Its like blaming fossil fuel damage on our ecosystem to racing games.

 

Only when enough generations live on long enough without bloodbaths and fear of being shot, there will be harmony and people themselfs will feel like no longer needing to have a gun. However because almost nobody really feels safe, everybody wants to have a gun. Especially with the high rate of mentally ill people around that like to go out in a ball of flame and glory. Its a vicious circle.

 

If i was in a place where sh*t like this happend, and the only way to keep my family safe was to have a gun. I would get one. Legal or illegal. And remember that moving isn't always an option for everyone.

This is an incredible misinterpretation of the situation in America. Plenty of people own guns for safety, sure - but gun culture in the US goes beyond what is practical and necessary and is a straight up fetish. It is a nation wide fascination; built on very outdated principals and ideas.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I asked you why you dismissed figures as factually wrong by taking exception with a methodology that you yourself used.

Which is the very definition of a tu quoque, not that I actually did make the assertion you're alleging I did.

 

 

Because of the plethora of different jurisdictions, from local to county to state for each of the fifty U.S. states and D.C., plus federal law, and then however many books there are in each nation of the rest of the developed world, I don't have time to perform that research now so that I can even begin to analyze the data and then finally attempt to draw honest conclusions. As you are already familiar with all of the relevant data, can I ask you to provide links sufficient for me to at least get a basic idea?

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not asking you to produce a detailed, quantified analysis of how the US differs specifically from individual European nations, I'm asking you to provide a broad justification for your assertion that the US is fundamentally different in its drivers towards violence and criminal behaviour that broad comparisons with the European Union are impossible. From a statistical perspective, the US is broadly comparable in terms of GINI coefficient, Human Development Index, overall violent crime rates (except homicide), political, economic and individual freedoms, nominal and PPP GDP per capita. Even in political structure, as from memory there are at least three federal republics in Europe.

 

 

Again, you are arguing a point I did not make. I was not talking about the definition of terms, I was talking about the definition of words.

"Mass" is defined as "involving or affecting large numbers of people or things". "A large number" is inherently a subjective term, and therefore entirely useless in a discussion of this nature as no preexisting "large number" is defined. I think we've both agreed on "at least four fatalities" in principle, but one could equally argue five, six or more. "Mass killings" aren't recorded, because "mass killings" aren't a thing. Mass murders, spree murders, rampage killings etc are all things, with differing technical definitions depending on jurisdiction and recording method. If you're going to resort to an argument from semantics, we should at least be using terms that have actual technical meanings rather than vagaries.

 

 

I underlined to highlight that you are moving the goal post in order to admit error, which is far more harmful than just admitting it, but do as you must. You cited Chris Kyle in order to avoid having to actually answer my question.

In case you failed to read, I did answer your question. Moreover, your assertion I'm "moving the goalposts" simply doesn't hold water in the context of the actual comment I made.

Let's put aside the fact that I used the term "mass killing", as you had, as, as is outlined above, it's totally meaningless. My original comment, verbatim was:

 

 

Because mass murderers typically target a location with some kind of emotional importance to them. That's why aggrieved employees shoot up their place of work, and why angry students conduct massacres at their school. In truly indiscriminate shooting incidents, like Texas University or the Vegas one last year, the perpetrators usually choose a location that gives them a vantage point and a large number of unsuspecting potential victims. Neither a pawn shop or a range fit these descriptions; the latter is likely to be particularly unappealing due entirely to the large number of other armed individuals on site (though they're not unheard of, Chris Kyle was killed in a multiple fatality shooting at a range).

As you can see, I never assert the incident involving Chris Kyle was directly comparable to incidents such as school shootings (a point I've reiterated several times now, and one you seem keen to press despite it being, as I've already mentioned, a straw man). I simply mentioned the Kyle incident in passing as a multiple fatality shooting that took place at a range, which is categorical fact.

 

 

There is no causal link...and logic show that mass shooters clearly desire locations devoid of firearms

These two statements are inherently contradictory. First you agree there's no clear causal link, then you state there's a causal link? I'm really struggling to understand your point here- first you agree with me, then you contradict me by making a vague assertion that as far as I can tell is purely speculative and not based on any empirical study of mass shooting incidents. What you seem to be saying is that mass shooters choose locations that have a low likelihood of containing armed individuals intentionally to maximise casualties, but I see no empirical evidence presented to justify that reasoning, and it rather overlooks the fact that places with large numbers of possible targets typically also have a low likelihood of armed responders being present. Your assuming their thought pattern is driven by one factor (absence of firearms), when in reality it might just be a happy coincidence of another (the desire to target a large number of people).

 

 

I did, hence the ellipses

You absolutely, categorically did not. You alluded to (and continue to allude to) a correlation between race and violent crime rate, which I didn't address in the last post, but that plus your following comment which basically amounts to "I'm not going to provide an explanation, you go look it up yourself"- poor form in a discussion I must say- does not constitute any kind of coherent rebuttal. Moreover, your pointing to racial aspects and saying "well there's your correlation" completely ignores the wider socioeconomic context. Violent crime rates amongst minorities are generally higher than the average in most nations, but this is substantively due to a great many other factors such as increased deprivation in these populations, lower incomes and education levels, forced ghettoisation and other factors, most of which are derived from government action in the first place (just look at the history of redlining in the US, or the fact that even in 2018 blacks and latinos are still subject to endemic and institutionalised mortgage discrimination). The correlation between socioeconomic status and violent crime is far stronger than that of ethnicity and violent crime.

 

 

You are sorely misinformed if you think both the EU and U.S. have the "same diversity of society".

One, this argument would only be relevant if your assertion was that societal diversity was the root cause of violence.

Two, even this is hugely misleading as numerous European or EU nations appear significantly ahead of the US in terms of ethnic diversity. Spain, Estonia, Belgium, Switzerland, Moldova and Latvia all top the US by significant margins, and if you look specifically at ethnic fractionalisation you can add Luxembourg, Liechtenstein and Serbia. Then there's your Canadian neighbours, who are some twenty-five places higher in the index than the US. I'd not even mentioned Canada so far in this discussion but they're probably the single strongest rebuttal of these assertions.

 

 

 

There is NO correlation in the U.S. between gun ownership and homicide rate.

 

The 10 states with the highest murder and non-negligent manslaughter rates (9.6/100K avg.) had a gun ownership of 35.9%, while the 10 lowest states (1.9/100K avg) had an ownership of 31.9%.

The 10 states with the highest gun ownership rates (52.9%) had a murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate of 4.3, while the 10 lowest ownership states (14.3%) had a [murder] rate of 4.2

Firstly, you are aware the above statistics do actually contain, although mild, a clear correlation?

Two, you're yet again making straw man arguments, attempting to address a point I never actually made.

 

Food for thought, I'm making no conclusions from the below statistics, simply demonstrating how easy it is to selectively choose different metrics to twist the results with a small sample size:

> The average intentional homicide rate of the lowest 10% of states by firearm ownership rate is 2.72 per 100,000

> The average intentional homicide rate of the highest 10% of states by firearm ownership rate is 4.28 per 100,000

 

I'm noting several rebuttals in my last post you roundly ignored. Given that you went to great lengths to voice your displeasure at my skipping over aspects of one of your previous posts, I can't help but wonder why you decided not to address either the US methodology for recording violent crime, or the difference that adding a mere three years worth of mass shooting statistics make to the overall picture when comparing US with EU.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dryspace

I don't have time now, sivispacem. But I will correct you on your first reply: 'Tu quoque' is the claim that a person's actions or character do not correspond with his arguments. That he is not doing as he says. Or that something that he says proves this is the case.

 

I pointed out that you, in your argument, attempted to invalidate a determination of mass shooting with a definition that you yourself used to determine a list of mass shootings. This is a simple, blatant example of invalid methodology. You claimed yourself that one must be careful of using different definitions, that a comparison must use the same definition. You say, "The U.S. has x mass shootings" under this definition and then say "Europe doesn't have x mass shootings" under a different definition. For crying out loud.

 

Are you even capable of admitting this as an error?

Edited by Dryspace
Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

But I will correct you on your first reply: 'Tu quoque' is the claim that a person's actions or character do not correspond with his arguments. That he is not doing as he says. Or that something that he says proves this is the case.

Which is exactly your rebuttal. You have no interest in actually exploring whether or not my assertions regarding the misrecording of European fatalities attributed to shootings is valid, but only wish to highlight a (nonexistent) hypocrisy in my statements in an attempt to counter this point. As I've already stated, this is the very definition of a tu quoque.

 

I pointed out that you, in your argument, attempted to invalidate a determination of mass shooting with a definition that you yourself used to determine a list of mass shootings.

...again, you industry on misinterpreting my initial comments. At no point did I ever say or suggest that the list of school related shootings I provided consisted of incidents directly comparable to your examples. In fact I clearly explained exactly what that list constitutes, if you would only so much as read the preamble. You have already conceded that the number of incidents occurring in the first 124 years of US history was incorrect by conceding additional incidents, so my assertion you were incorrect on this matter is true.

 

Moreover, your failure to define what constitutes "reasonably similar" makes it basically meaningless in the context of discussion. There are specific examples I've given which I would argue are reasonably similar to more modern events, but because your definition of this is entirely arbitrary you may not see it the same way.

 

To be honest all of this feels like a semantic distraction from the meat of my last two or three responses, which you haven't actually addressed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dryspace

"You have no interest in actually exploring whether or not my assertions regarding the misrecording of European fatalities attributed to shootings is valid"

That's exactly what I did: I asked you to explain WHY you assert that the European statistic is "factually wrong" when you used the same definition you take exception with in order to establish the number of school-related mass shootings in the U.S.. This is EXACTLY what you established earlier is illegitimate when attempting to refute my points. In lieu of simply answering and clarifying, you chose to accuse me of improperly attacking you.


"At no point did I ever say or suggest that the list of school related shootings I provided consisted of incidents directly comparable to your examples. In fact I clearly explained exactly what that list constitutes, if you would only so much as read the preamble"

So then you are saying: "Your assertion that, over period x, only three school-related incidents reasonably similar to the school shootings of today occurred is incorrect BECAUSE.....over period x, all of these incidents that match my Reddy-Made Reddit definition and are not directly comparable to the school shootings of today occurred." Gotcha.


"You have already conceded that the number of incidents occurring in the first 124 years of US history was incorrect by conceding additional incidents"

Additional incidents? I agreed to allow a fight at a school dance to count, though I take that back, as it just is in no way similar to a person or persons murdering innocent people at a school.


"Moreover, your failure to define what constitutes "reasonably similar" makes it basically meaningless"

I don't have to define 'reasonably similar' to a reasonable person. Any incident in which one or more persons targets a school for the purpose of murdering people with a gun is reasonably similar to the school shootings of today...n'est-ce pas?

None of the examples you listed are even close, not even the fight at the dance. As for my two examples before 1900, one was an incident in which two boys shot into a school, harming no one. I considered that incident to be 'reasonably similar'. Let's get something clear: If my inclusion of that incident is unreasonable, it would make my intent the opposite of that existing in your imagination. So please stop. You're not making a point and you're not making any sense.


"I think you misunderstand me. I'm not asking you to produce a detailed, quantified analysis of how the US differs specifically from individual European nations..."

Apparently you misunderstand me. If you want me to give you an alternative hypothesis, I asked you, since you are already familiar with the data, to provide me with info on the definitions used for the U.S. and for other places in the world so that I can peruse it and attempt to provide that hypothesis you asked for. Apparently you sorely misunderstood me. Almost as if willingly.


""Mass" is defined...as no preexisting "large number" is defined."

I admit, I can't rebut nonsense.


"I think we've both agreed on "at least four fatalities" in principle, but one could equally argue five, six or more."

This is nonsense that I am reading. What happened to "we can all agree that requiring four fatalities to count as a "mass" killing and excluding familicide even when more than four due are fairly ridiculous."?

What about "I think most people would argue that, say, 3 dead and 15 injured, for instance, is a "mass killings"?

What about "I personally think any single murder incident involving the deaths of two or more people and a total casualties, I'd say, of maybe 5 dead or injured, is a "mass killing"?

Don't worry, I no longer expect anything resembling a coherent, honest acknowledgement of error.


"If you're going to resort to an argument from semantics..."

There's no such thing as an argument from semantics--that is, if you meant a logical fallacy. There is no invalidity in arguing that another is using a word incorrectly.


"I never assert the incident involving Chris Kyle was directly comparable to incidents such as school shootings"
"I simply mentioned the Kyle incident in passing as a multiple fatality shooting that took place at a range, which is categorical fact."

No, that's simply not what you simply mentioned.

I asked why mass murders are unheard of at shooting ranges.

You replied, "Because mass murders typically target a location..." "...though they're not unheard of, Chris Kyle..."

Forgive my abysmal ability to parse plain English, but can you clarify the antecedent that the pronoun "they're" refers to? Again, forgive me..I guess my reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.

And further, your own words: I asserted that your reference to Chris Kyle was in error, and you replied: "It wasn't- I wasn't meaning to draw a direct comparison, I was simply highlighting that your assertion that mass killings don't occur at places like shooting ranges is not quite true"

And my focus on Chris Kyle as your example of a mass murder is a straw man?


"What you seem to be saying is that mass shooters choose locations that have a low likelihood of containing armed individuals intentionally to maximise casualties, but I see no empirical evidence presented to justify that reasoning"

I can't explain why you see no empirical evidence, but at any rate, logic alone suffices. And it's more a near-certainty of a total absence of armed individuals.

Do people accidentally carry out mass shootings? Do they accidentally kill many people instead of one or none? Or is the mass nature of a shooting intentional? If it is intentional, then it is logical to assume that a shooter will not prefer a location with a high likelihood of defenders who put him in the Game Over screen before he even clears the first level. What other reason do you suggest for the avoidance of armed defenders?


"You alluded to (and continue to allude to) a correlation between race and violent crime rate"

I didn't allude to a correlation, I pointed to the massive correlation.


"Violent crime rates amongst minorities are generally higher than the average in most nations"

Generally higher? I'm talking about a shockingly massive difference. Many multiples higher than representation.


"but this is substantively due to a great many other factors such as increased deprivation in these populations, lower incomes and education levels, forced ghettoisation and other factors, most of which are derived from government action in the first place (just look at the history of redlining in the US, or the fact that even in 2018 blacks and latinos are still subject to endemic and institutionalised mortgage discrimination). The correlation between socioeconomic status and violent crime is far stronger than that of ethnicity and violent crime."

Show me the data. This is a truckload of fiction, period. A complete inversion of cause and effect. No one is deprived, except through the very action of welfare itself.

 

No one is oppressed in modern America. Let me state here and now that anyone who suggests such an absurdity has not the slightest clue what oppression is. I only hope for his sake he never finds out. If someone told me that in Otherlandia People X were oppressed, but when we arrived there, I saw members of People X representing the wealthiest of the society and occupying the highest and most culturally influential positions in television, movies, music, sports, and most importantly by far, government, I would of course be polite and laugh at his nice little joke.

Poverty doesn't cause crime. No one in the entire U.S. lives in poverty. Because the very notion defecates all over the millions of people in the world whose wealth is 1/100 or 1/000 of the poorest person in America. Historically in the U.S. before urbanization, millions of black and white people lived in "poverty", scratching a living out of a measly plot of land. Are you afraid to look up the related crime stats? (Sneak peek: black figures are far lower than today's)

If you would open your eyes, you would see that it is envy and greed that are primary causes of crime, which are exacerbated by population density of course. It is people deciding that they have a right to someone else's property or life. All I did was show you a fact. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR MURDERING A HUMAN BEING. So I'm not sure what the point of what seemed like a whole bunch of fiction-based justification is.

I'll be back, but that's all for now. The good news is that I'm very close to admitting defeat. I don't consider you a straight shooter. Ironically, you've shown that, no matter the evidence, you have decided to stick to your guns.

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
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.