If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deseret News)   "Excessively violent movies and their impact on our culture." Because we all know that if we stopped killing each other in movies, then death would just take a holiday   (deseretnews.com) divider line 345
    More: Stupid, Django, Quentin Tarantino  
•       •       •

3275 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Dec 2012 at 9:19 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



345 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-26 11:31:28 AM  
Chemicals in ethnic beauty treatments like hair oil mists.

Preview is my friend, lol
 
2012-12-26 11:32:35 AM  

Blathering Idjut: The problem isn't that that there are too many depictions of fake violence on our airwaves and in our theaters. The problem is that there are too few depictions of actual violence.

Would we have had the same sort of unrelenting, take-no-prisoners in the search for truth reporting of the Vietnam war that demonstrated daily to Mr. and Mrs. America what the consequences of foreign policy decided by amoral men in suits in Washington was to our men in uniform during the Iraq war then that shiat would have ended with George W. Bush being dragged from the White House by an angry mob.

Fake violence isn't the problem. Pretending actual, real-world violence isn't consequential is the problem.


"Showing pictures of flag-draped coffins is unpatriotic, and insensitive to the families of those servicemen."

Yeah. Free press, my ass. There's a reason our government tries to sweep wounded veterans under the rug, and out of sight: they're not good for business.
 
2012-12-26 11:33:02 AM  

letrole: Spree shootings are caused by a lack of personal restraint. In some cases, such as Charles Whitman, the fellow was suffering from madness with an organic cause ie a brain tumour. He left diaries and letters that showed jumbled and irrational thoughts.

But in nearly all cases, this lack of personal restraint comes from the breakdown of society.

1. If suicide is no longer a sin,
2. If public disobedience and defiance against authority are glorified,
3. If fame or celebrity is rewarded without merit,
4. If Right and Wrong are no longer absolute,
5. If erratic behaviour is no longer shameful,
6. If internal or self justification is held as a virtue,

-- then it will all continue along this path until society completely collapses


Since the "path", as dozens of posters have shown, is LESS crime and violence over the past ~20 years, I say, let's keep on that path!
 
2012-12-26 11:34:40 AM  

BronyMedic: You mean one attack in decades versus 61 in the United States since 1982? Gosh, you're right. That one event by a paranoid, racist man who used an illegal weapon to carry out the opening shots of what he thought would be a revolution in his crazed mind invalidates every point about their culture and approach to mental health and altruism being valid.


Considering the US is about 60 Norways as far as population, I don't think your statistic is very meaningful
 
2012-12-26 11:36:02 AM  

thecpt: Bontesla: How far did the book go back into the children's history? What qualified as a request for help? That's kind of my point. We're expecting children to understand the nature of their feelings and articulate this very complicated experience to someone else?

What qualified was seeking help from their school administration or some kind of authority. They kept feelings secret from their parents and school friends. Most times they weren't even kids who were 'singled out" like typical stories of troubled youth. I don't expect children to understand their feelings at all. I'm saying that they usually blend so well and know what feelings to keep secret that conventional and present testing from the the government wouldn't work and would be seen as an infringement on freedom.

I really do completely agree with you on everything else. Maybe sometime parents aren't perceptive and experienced enough to realize that someone is in danger. My argument isn't about suicide (I'm a huge proponent of teen help and counseling for suicide prevention, especially because my friend is in a gay outreach program, aka one of the biggest causes of teen suicide). My argument is that the level of psychiatric assistance needed to catch the children and young adults who go on rampages is almost unfathomable and would most likely be seen as infringing on freedoms.


And I completely disagree with your assertion that help wasn't sought. Yes, absolutely, they ultimately stopped seeking help and conspired in secret. But there was a time prior to that when they realized no one was going to help them. There was a moment before they fell through the cracks. We can do better about watching those cracks.

That's why I pointed to the example of children feigning illness to avoid school. That, right there, may be a request for help. Parental awareness helps but so do counselors that keep an eye out for attendance oddities.

I think we have two different ideas of what constitutes as reaching out for help? Because I fully think help was sought and it was likely sought before the idea of a massacre was borne. And it could have been sought from parents or friends or family members. It could have been sought from a teacher or nurse. It was there but we're not necessarily trained to understand each one of those calls.
 
2012-12-26 11:36:12 AM  
Sounds legit.

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-26 11:37:19 AM  

ringersol: We can require the same background checks at gun shows that we do at gun stores. (A stupid loophole to leave open so long. Background checks aren't perfect, but they *do* work and it's stupid to further disadvantage brick & mortar stores.)


This is already federal law: the *SAME* exact laws on selling and buying guns in a brick and mortar store applies in a gun show.

You've been *LIED* to, there is no "loophole", other than the "private sale" loophole. If you want to sell one of your personal guns, you don't need to run a NICS check on the person buying it, whether you sell it through a newspaper ad, a 3x5 card tacked up on the bulletin board at work, at a garage sale, through some online site, or at a gun show.
The law is the same for all of those (state law might vary, some do require NICS checks run at gun shows)

Point is, though, that you can't really complain about the gun show "loophole" without requiring that *ALL* such transactions go through a background check.

The problem is, that some states and localities already require that sort of thing for all private transfers (California being the biggest one), and it hasn't shown to be effective in reducing gun violence.

Even if it *WERE*, there is a problem with the idea: It's quite probably unconstitutional, because it makes getting the permission of the government a *REQUIREMENT* before exercising an enumerated constitutional right. No other right in the Bill of Rights requires that. In fact, it's called "prior restraint", and is generally frowned upon.

And we can concede there really *is* no good damn reason for 30 and 100 round magazines for semi-automatic rifles that any tom, dick or harry can own.

Because no sportsman gives two shiats about magazines you can't actually fill and empty at the range or gun club without getting your crazy ass kicked out. The only time that shiat's appropriate is at something like a full-auto shoot; where, as the name implies, the tighter controls and special nature of the event enable people to enjoy those weapons in a responsible way.


And then, after another shooting happens, what then? Europe *HAS* all these sorts of laws. You have to jump through some pretty appalling hoops just to *PURCHASE* a gun in almost all European countries, and they still have mass shootings on a regular basis. They even have school massacres on a regular basis.

And yet in most countries in Europe, you can't own a so-called 'Assault Weapon' at all, and with the possible exception of Switzerland, those that do allow it place a high degree of scrutiny on those who purchase them. So the question is, why do something that has been shown to be ineffective at stopping this sort of thing?

Another data point: We *DID* this in the United States from 1994 to 2004, and it failed to have any measurable effect. From the Department of Justice 2004 study on the effectiveness of the 1994 AWB:

Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at
best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in
gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share
of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on
the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity
limit) without reloading.
...


Plus, you have to add in the fact that laws that would be legal in Europe would almost certainly fail constitutional muster in the United States.

In other words, we had this discussion, we tried it your way, it didn't work, and it likely isn't legal to do now anyway.
 
2012-12-26 11:43:00 AM  

letrole: But in nearly all cases, this lack of personal restraint comes from the breakdown of society.

1. If suicide is no longer a sin, "sin" is an abstract concept inveted by power-hungry psychos as a means of controlling others. Besides, control of one's own life is the ultimate human right, so fark you and your control freak bullshiat.
2. If public disobedience and defiance against authority are glorified, Our country was founded on public disobedience and defiance against authority (most modern countries were). Of course we glorify it...it's how shiat gets done.
3. If fame or celebrity is rewarded without merit, I think you mean "awarded" here. Regardless, how should we define "merit"? Honey Boo Boo is famous and provides entertainment. Is she less deserving of her fame than Keanau Reeves? Megan Fox? Nicholas Cage? If so, why?
4. If Right and Wrong are no longer absolute, Right and Wrong have never been absolute in the history of the human race. Murder, rape, slavery, reality television...anything and everything that is "wrong" has not always been considered so.
5. If erratic behaviour is no longer shameful, You sound....Victorian. "What is different must be shamed!"
6. If internal or self justification is held as a virtue, The only groups that I've ever seen hold that as a virtue have been the very same groups that whould whole-heartedly agree with your other 5 points. Funny how that works.

 
2012-12-26 11:43:52 AM  

Sultan Of Herf: It was not meant as free run to spill whatever crap comes to your mind out of your mouth. it was not meant to spill hate like Westboro, or too bully teenage girls until they commit suicide.


Those are two entirely different things from a speech perspective. The latter most certainly could be equated with yelling fire in a crowded theater as the speech was employed in such a way that it caused physical harm.
 
2012-12-26 11:45:44 AM  
To be fair, any medication that would have helped Lanza, such as an antipsychotic, would have such an assload of side effects as to be unbearable to some people. We also have a psychiatric system that seems to be dependent on the discovery of drugs like Prozac to influence their disease theories far too much, although with our current understanding of the brain I suppose that's necessary to some extent.
 
2012-12-26 11:46:04 AM  

PanicMan: Even young kids can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. If you can't that's not societies fault. That's your problem and you news to get help.


So you're saying that fake violence might affect some people negatively?
 
2012-12-26 11:47:39 AM  

BronyMedic: dittybopper: What, you mean like Norway?

You mean one attack in decades versus 61 in the United States since 1982? Gosh, you're right. That one event by a paranoid, racist man who used an illegal weapon to carry out the opening shots of what he thought would be a revolution in his crazed mind invalidates every point about their culture and approach to mental health and altruism being valid.


Oh, look, it happens in Europe all the time:

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

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

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

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

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

That's just school shootings, btw. Here are the other mass shootings from Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Moscow_shooting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Li%C3%A8ge_attack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphen_aan_den_Rijn_shopping_mall_shooti n g

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Florence_shootings

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Bratislava_shootings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_L%C3%B6rrach_hospital_shooting

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

That list isn't comprehensive, btw, and it's only from the last 5 years (2007 - 2012)

So what was your point again?
 
2012-12-26 11:49:22 AM  

Flaumig: letrole: But in nearly all cases, this lack of personal restraint comes from the breakdown of society.

1. If suicide is no longer a sin, "sin" is an abstract concept inveted by power-hungry psychos as a means of controlling others. Besides, control of one's own life is the ultimate human right, so fark you and your control freak bullshiat.
2. If public disobedience and defiance against authority are glorified, Our country was founded on public disobedience and defiance against authority (most modern countries were). Of course we glorify it...it's how shiat gets done.
3. If fame or celebrity is rewarded without merit, I think you mean "awarded" here. Regardless, how should we define "merit"? Honey Boo Boo is famous and provides entertainment. Is she less deserving of her fame than Keanau Reeves? Megan Fox? Nicholas Cage? If so, why?
4. If Right and Wrong are no longer absolute, Right and Wrong have never been absolute in the history of the human race. Murder, rape, slavery, reality television...anything and everything that is "wrong" has not always been considered so.
5. If erratic behaviour is no longer shameful, You sound....Victorian. "What is different must be shamed!"
6. If internal or self justification is held as a virtue, The only groups that I've ever seen hold that as a virtue have been the very same groups that whould whole-heartedly agree with your other 5 points. Funny how that works.


Boom. Someone just got LeTrolled
 
2012-12-26 11:53:26 AM  

Bontesla: And I completely disagree with your assertion that help wasn't sought. Yes, absolutely, they ultimately stopped seeking help and conspired in secret. But there was a time prior to that when they realized no one was going to help them. There was a moment before they fell through the cracks. We can do better about watching those cracks.

That's why I pointed to the example of children feigning illness to avoid school. That, right there, may be a request for help. Parental awareness helps but so do counselors that keep an eye out for attendance oddities.

I think we have two different ideas of what constitutes as reaching out for help? Because I fully think help was sought and it was likely sought before the idea of a massacre was borne. And it could have been sought from parents or friends or family members. It could have been sought from a teacher or nurse. It was there but we're not necessarily trained to understand each one of those calls.


Depending on the killer, they might actually enjoy school. If you create a list of "symptoms" you're probably not going to get very far and a lot of overreactions. The parents weren't usually active in their children's lives so that list wouldn't go far anyways. As far as attendance goes, in HS we couldn't miss 10 days of school legally, and the counselors would hold a meeting with every child who did.

I'm going off of what I've read, and the kids literally never reached out to the people you listed, nor did those people (teachers were typically interviewed) think that the children were exceptionally different in any way that wasn't positive. They might say "quiet" and such, but if every kid who was ever considered quiet was suspected of having troubles we'd be quite the nanny state.

I know what your saying about what constitutes as reaching out for help. We have probably defined it differently in our postings as I think your definition is normally what is found on suicide awareness posters. Kids who give suddenly give away possessions and things like that (not saying that is included, just things along those lines). My definition is more along the lines of the child saying "okay, I have a problem and I need to seek help before I do something." These children (and young adults) are so crazy that you can't stop them at that point. I don't know what you could do to catch them before this happens that wouldn't be seen as culturally unacceptable or helicopter parenting/teaching/everything.

Yes, you can say the parents sucked. I just don't think that saying that over and over again does any good. But I don't think you in particular are doing that. Its ignorance if a parent doesn't say that there is something wrong, but the fight against ignorance is always a losing one IMO. Especially knowing some people that I grew up with who have children.
 
2012-12-26 11:58:32 AM  
Oh look, the hobbyists are here.

bbygurl.com
 
2012-12-26 11:59:24 AM  
Last time I checked properly stimulated mentally ill people have always killed people.But that does not mean we are not in more trouble today than we have been in the past. Is there any value in the pervasive violence that has desensitized a generation. Endless war is now possible, Unchecked violent Israeli Racism is now more allowable than ever, drone killing barely gets a tut tut. Cops are generally told shoot first and ask questions later, racking up many more kills than they used to - zero prosecutions.
Pervasive violence is not only for the psychos, but for an entire society. It has allowed us all to stumble closer to the moral abyss that scuppered many prosperous but eventually morally bankrupt civilizations. So just because you aren't mowing down a McDonald's, does not mean you have not been affected by the cancer of desensitization. Think about the fact that every level of our government is openly corrupt (from fracking in city limits to Citizens United) and yet we all snickered at the hippies of the occupy movement instead of joining and giving it some momentum. Me thinks the water is getting warmer fellow frogs.
 
2012-12-26 11:59:36 AM  
There is too much sex and violence in our media. Whether it makes you have violent thoughts or devalues sex to an act is really an individual phenomenon, but to be so naive as to think these things, like any environmental stimuli has no impact is wrong.
 
2012-12-26 12:01:14 PM  
If guns somehow only ever killed their owners and their families, the push for gun control probably would not exist in any capacity.
Understand?

xtragrind: Tobacco kills 500,000 people a year including ~10k children who are exposed during pregnancy and second hand smoke in the home. The same folks who are "Outraged" over guns killing 11,000 a year (ARs account for under 500) should literally be marching on D.C. until tobacco was banned in this country.

I support an assault rifle ban or magazine reduction but if these dopes are going to go after movies now without even mentioning the true killer in this country I just don't know what to say anymore....

 
2012-12-26 12:02:44 PM  

Mahhughes: Last time I checked properly stimulated mentally ill people have always killed people.


Last time I checked properly worded tautology have always killed people.
 
2012-12-26 12:05:05 PM  
In my day, we got a lot of Looney Tunes. Laugh at this notion all you want, but I still have nightmares about the kid at my school who tried to roll a boulder onto all of us before jetting away on rocket powered roller skates. It will haunt my dreams forever.
 
2012-12-26 12:05:06 PM  
The problem with every Freakanomics-style correlation with the reduction in violent crime, is that every single theory starts with the same flawed premise: that there was a reduction in violent crime.

For once we begin counting crimes that are comitted in prison, any declines dissapear. While I am sure homicides are more rare due to the controlled environment, some crimes, such as forcible rape, actually have INCREASED in frequency over the past 20 years once we begin counting instances of prison rape, something that wasn't even counted at all until recently.

The brutal truth is that we have taken a segment of our crime producing population and relocated then into modern day concentration camps, complete with for-profit labor. It really has nothing to due with reducing recidivism or even punishment. It's simply population relocation.

We moved crime from one location to another. That is all. Any correlation theory with gun control, ccw proliferation, abortion, policing, economics, etc, all need to factor in this reality.
 
2012-12-26 12:08:07 PM  
i141.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-26 12:09:03 PM  

Emposter: Right, because Europe totally doesn't have the same movies, despite their far lower rates of gun homicides. Gun control doesn't work, I don't believe in the rest of the world, LALALALALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU HERRRRRRRRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPPPPPP


Actually, people of European descent in the US have European-like homicide rates, despite owning guns by the crateful.

The homicide rate for white non-Hispanics in the US in 2010 was 2.52 per 100,000. (Source: CDC WISQARS)
Homicide rate for Europe overall is 3.5 per 100,000.

You would expect that whites in the US would fall somewhere between the lows of Western, Northern, and Southern Europe (1.0, 1.5, and 1.4 per 100,000 respectively), and the high of Eastern Europe (6.4 per 100,000), but biased a bit towards the lower end: It matches historical immigration patterns into the US pretty closely.

Now, it actually has zero to do with race. What it has to do with is culture: We learn our cultural values about many things, including violence, from our parents. And they learned about it from their parents, and so forth back in time. What you are looking at is the echoes of cultural values that likely predate the invention of firearms.
 
2012-12-26 12:10:28 PM  

Captain_Ballbeard: In my day, we got a lot of Looney Tunes. Laugh at this notion all you want, but I still have nightmares about the kid at my school who tried to roll a boulder onto all of us before jetting away on rocket powered roller skates. It will haunt my dreams forever.


the only thing that gets me going is a cross dressing rabbit. Try having a relationship after that.
 
2012-12-26 12:10:37 PM  

ChuDogg: We moved crime from one location to another. That is all.


I'm OK with that.jpg
 
2012-12-26 12:11:39 PM  
dittybopper: "What, you mean like Norway?"

Pretty much exactly like Norway.
Ownership for hunting, self-defense and sport is easy enough, despite sane regulation.
Yet gun rampages are far more rare.

In the US, they're all *just another* gun rampage.
 
2012-12-26 12:12:17 PM  

NannyStatePark: To be fair, any medication that would have helped Lanza, such as an antipsychotic, would have such an assload of side effects as to be unbearable to some people. We also have a psychiatric system that seems to be dependent on the discovery of drugs like Prozac to influence their disease theories far too much, although with our current understanding of the brain I suppose that's necessary to some extent.


There is a very high correlation between mass shooters and taking psychiatric drugs.

It may be the case that letting more people go untreated for their depression/mental illness might be the safer option.
 
2012-12-26 12:14:06 PM  

thecpt: Bontesla: And I completely disagree with your assertion that help wasn't sought. Yes, absolutely, they ultimately stopped seeking help and conspired in secret. But there was a time prior to that when they realized no one was going to help them. There was a moment before they fell through the cracks. We can do better about watching those cracks.

That's why I pointed to the example of children feigning illness to avoid school. That, right there, may be a request for help. Parental awareness helps but so do counselors that keep an eye out for attendance oddities.

I think we have two different ideas of what constitutes as reaching out for help? Because I fully think help was sought and it was likely sought before the idea of a massacre was borne. And it could have been sought from parents or friends or family members. It could have been sought from a teacher or nurse. It was there but we're not necessarily trained to understand each one of those calls.

Depending on the killer, they might actually enjoy school. If you create a list of "symptoms" you're probably not going to get very far and a lot of overreactions. The parents weren't usually active in their children's lives so that list wouldn't go far anyways. As far as attendance goes, in HS we couldn't miss 10 days of school legally, and the counselors would hold a meeting with every child who did.

I'm going off of what I've read, and the kids literally never reached out to the people you listed, nor did those people (teachers were typically interviewed) think that the children were exceptionally different in any way that wasn't positive. They might say "quiet" and such, but if every kid who was ever considered quiet was suspected of having troubles we'd be quite the nanny state.

I know what your saying about what constitutes as reaching out for help. We have probably defined it differently in our postings as I think your definition is normally what is found on suicide awareness posters. Kids who give suddenly give away possessions and things like that (not saying that is included, just things along those lines). My definition is more along the lines of the child saying "okay, I have a problem and I need to seek help before I do something." These children (and young adults) are so crazy that you can't stop them at that point. I don't know what you could do to catch them before this happens that wouldn't be seen as culturally unacceptable or helicopter parenting/teaching/everything.

Yes, you can say the parents sucked. I just don't think that saying that over and over again does any good. But I don't think you in particular are doing that. Its ignorance if a parent doesn't say that there is something wrong, but the fight against ignorance is always a losing one IMO. Especially knowing some people that I grew up with who have children.


You're mistaking my examples as as something much more central to my point. My point is these kids have likely sought help but didn't receive it either because they didn't ask clearly enough or didn't ask the right person. They slipped through cracks and we can be better about watching those cracks.

So when you say some killers liked school - it doesn't negate my point that school officials can help prevent teenage violence by having more resources, being better paid, and paying attention. Will that alone prevent all future massacres? Of course not but it is helpful if part of an overall effort to do better in creating a mental health system.

Having a checklist of things to look out for is a great guideline but if you focus on the list then you miss the person in many cases. We shouldn't be looking for the next killer or suicide victim. We should be looking for children having trouble adjusting or coping. We should also be looking for a break in behavior as something to pay attention to.

If you're a teacher and a student hangs out after class to specifically ask you a trivial question and it's uncharacteristic of that student- that can be an invitation that the student is looking to find someone they can reach out to.

If you're a coach and your star athlete suddenly doesn't want to play the game or participate in locker room rituals after the game then that's something you may want to pay attention to.

Those are just examples and not a to do list. They won't work in every situation but no approach should be so rigid that it must work everywhere.

The problem is that there isn't a checklist one can use to determine the next victim of violence and most people aren't equipped to respond to being approached for help (especially indirectly). That's why I said it's entirely likely the shooters sought help. Requests come in unusual forms and aren't always verbal in nature.

You want to separate the killers from those who commit suicide but their stories are often more similar than different. And why should we look for specific mental problems when we can simply look for those who seem to be struggling? A wider net catches more fish.
 
2012-12-26 12:20:41 PM  

ChuDogg: The problem with every Freakanomics-style correlation with the reduction in violent crime, is that every single theory starts with the same flawed premise: that there was a reduction in violent crime.

For once we begin counting crimes that are comitted in prison, any declines dissapear. While I am sure homicides are more rare due to the controlled environment, some crimes, such as forcible rape, actually have INCREASED in frequency over the past 20 years once we begin counting instances of prison rape, something that wasn't even counted at all until recently.

The brutal truth is that we have taken a segment of our crime producing population and relocated then into modern day concentration camps, complete with for-profit labor. It really has nothing to due with reducing recidivism or even punishment. It's simply population relocation.

We moved crime from one location to another. That is all. Any correlation theory with gun control, ccw proliferation, abortion, policing, economics, etc, all need to factor in this reality.


That...that's some of the most idiotic logic I've ever encountered in my life.

"I was showing a kindergarten class the Pixar movie Cars, and they seemed to be enjoying it, but one or two were crying as well. Then I took a group of them and locked them in the closet. The ones in the closet ALL started crying, so obviously Cars contributes to kids crying!"
 
2012-12-26 12:23:11 PM  

dittybopper: Emposter: Right, because Europe totally doesn't have the same movies, despite their far lower rates of gun homicides. Gun control doesn't work, I don't believe in the rest of the world, LALALALALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU HERRRRRRRRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPPPPPP

Actually, people of European descent in the US have European-like homicide rates, despite owning guns by the crateful.

The homicide rate for white non-Hispanics in the US in 2010 was 2.52 per 100,000. (Source: CDC WISQARS)
Homicide rate for Europe overall is 3.5 per 100,000.

You would expect that whites in the US would fall somewhere between the lows of Western, Northern, and Southern Europe (1.0, 1.5, and 1.4 per 100,000 respectively), and the high of Eastern Europe (6.4 per 100,000), but biased a bit towards the lower end: It matches historical immigration patterns into the US pretty closely.

Now, it actually has zero to do with race. What it has to do with is culture: We learn our cultural values about many things, including violence, from our parents. And they learned about it from their parents, and so forth back in time. What you are looking at is the echoes of cultural values that likely predate the invention of firearms.


And American culture is much more similar to Mexico or Brazil than it is UK or Norway. Both of which have very strict gun control as well.

I dont know why we always want to look at western european countries for a comparison but if you mention Mexico's gun control it is always met with "oh we are better than those third world shiatholes". Well now they are one of the largest demographics here, and the US has an extremely low Human Development index. Parts of the US certainly look like brazillian havelas than any bad neighborhood in Norway. While some suburbs of Mexico City could put Connecticut to shame.

No, the US is not exceptional, and gun control here would certainly look more like Mexico than England after a hundred million firearms flood the black market.
 
2012-12-26 12:27:29 PM  

Bontesla: So when you say some killers liked school - it doesn't negate my point that school officials can help prevent teenage violence by having more resources, being better paid, and paying attention. Will that alone prevent all future massacres? Of course not but it is helpful if part of an overall effort to do better in creating a mental health system.


You know I would like that more than anything. Okay, so when you say mental health system you're more talking about additions to current systems than something that is supposed to operate independently? When I read typical threads on it, people seem to think that professional doctors are need which is of course nearly impossible considering possible resources. But anyways, we need to pay principals a shiat ton of money to run our schools while we spend huge amounts of money on a war that's been going on for over a decade. Don't talk about paying more to those people who spend more time with our kids than we do.

Half of my teachers cared, half didn't. The one time I outright quit something, a teacher pulled me aside and asked why. I imagine others weren't so lucky.
 
2012-12-26 12:29:38 PM  

Gunther: Holocaust Agnostic: Yes, witnessing on average 80000 killings before you hiiit middle school probably has no effect on anyone subs.

if you're correct we should see an increase in violent deaths once modern media became established, but despite all the wars in the 20th century, you were still less likely to be killed by someone else then than in any previous century, a trend that continues to the modern day, and is observable throughout history.

People in pre-agricultural societies have something like a 4% chance of dying violently; obscenely high compared to any modern society. Clearly hunter gatherers played too much GTA.


Not to even mention the staggering stupidity of a statement like "witnessed 80000 deaths before middle school.". Really? That's the idiotic logic people are trying to use? Who's devaluing the average human life now, Mr. Equates Pixels to Real People? Because unlike you, the vast majority of gamers knows the difference between real life and video games.
 
2012-12-26 12:30:15 PM  

Teufelaffe: ChuDogg: The problem with every Freakanomics-style correlation with the reduction in violent crime, is that every single theory starts with the same flawed premise: that there was a reduction in violent crime.

For once we begin counting crimes that are comitted in prison, any declines dissapear. While I am sure homicides are more rare due to the controlled environment, some crimes, such as forcible rape, actually have INCREASED in frequency over the past 20 years once we begin counting instances of prison rape, something that wasn't even counted at all until recently.

The brutal truth is that we have taken a segment of our crime producing population and relocated then into modern day concentration camps, complete with for-profit labor. It really has nothing to due with reducing recidivism or even punishment. It's simply population relocation.

We moved crime from one location to another. That is all. Any correlation theory with gun control, ccw proliferation, abortion, policing, economics, etc, all need to factor in this reality.

That...that's some of the most idiotic logic I've ever encountered in my life.

"I was showing a kindergarten class the Pixar movie Cars, and they seemed to be enjoying it, but one or two were crying as well. Then I took a group of them and locked them in the closet. The ones in the closet ALL started crying, so obviously Cars contributes to kids crying!"


It would be more like if you took the two kids who were crying and put them in the closet, and told us that abortion was the reason nobody is crying any more.
 
2012-12-26 12:32:27 PM  

BronyMedic: Has anyone touched on the obvious demon in the room? Every school shooting and Mass killing in the history of ever has been done by someone on weed.

Watch the documentary "Reefer Madness". It will really open your eyes!


Watched it on Netflix the other night. Laughed really hard at how seriously they took themselves.

It WAS an interesting glimpse into how the 30's society could be manipulated though. The "Er-mer-Gerd" level in that movie was simply amazing.
 
2012-12-26 12:33:34 PM  

ringersol: dittybopper: "What, you mean like Norway?"

Pretty much exactly like Norway.
Ownership for hunting, self-defense and sport is easy enough, despite sane regulation.
Yet gun rampages are far more rare.

In the US, they're all *just another* gun rampage.


Norway: Population 5 million.
US: Population 315 million.

So, based upon population figures alone, we should have about (315/5) = 63 times more mass shootings in a given time period than Norway.
 
2012-12-26 12:34:02 PM  

cretinbob: I'm OK with shootings in movies, as long as they are required to make them realistic That means no one gets back up after being shot in the chest or head. Wounds need to be realistic as well.


That's a big problem with the MPAA: One character in a film shoots another? That's a PG13.

One character shoots another, with a realistic depiction of the consequences, including blood and a wound? That's an R, accompanied by a significant hit to your box office.
 
2012-12-26 12:35:36 PM  

mooseyfate: the vast majority of gamers knows the difference between real life and video games.


And that right there points to the biggest failure of the "violence in media contributes to violence in life" argument. To equate the witnessing of a real death with witnessing a fake one is just stupid.
 
2012-12-26 12:36:37 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Sounds legit.

[24.media.tumblr.com image 791x1000]


To be fair... Able WAS kind of a dick.
 
2012-12-26 12:36:58 PM  
Waitaminnit.... Disregard last post. According to Fark Rules of Etiquette TM, because Brony and I disagree on a couple things, I am supposed to hate his stinking guts and never ever EVAR find commonalities in which we agree to....

So, Brony, you're a big poopiehead and you are WAY off base here ya freak!!!

/does this mean we have to start fighting now?
 
2012-12-26 12:39:12 PM  
Biggest problem with society by far is the issue of fistfights being treated as a horrible crime and punish indiscriminately in schools. Gone are the days you can get into a fight, work out some anger and then talk to the guy afterwards.
Everyone takes it so seriously now and noone steps up to defend weaker people anymore because
 
2012-12-26 12:39:46 PM  

ChuDogg: Teufelaffe: ChuDogg: The problem with every Freakanomics-style correlation with the reduction in violent crime, is that every single theory starts with the same flawed premise: that there was a reduction in violent crime.

For once we begin counting crimes that are comitted in prison, any declines dissapear. While I am sure homicides are more rare due to the controlled environment, some crimes, such as forcible rape, actually have INCREASED in frequency over the past 20 years once we begin counting instances of prison rape, something that wasn't even counted at all until recently.

The brutal truth is that we have taken a segment of our crime producing population and relocated then into modern day concentration camps, complete with for-profit labor. It really has nothing to due with reducing recidivism or even punishment. It's simply population relocation.

We moved crime from one location to another. That is all. Any correlation theory with gun control, ccw proliferation, abortion, policing, economics, etc, all need to factor in this reality.

That...that's some of the most idiotic logic I've ever encountered in my life.

"I was showing a kindergarten class the Pixar movie Cars, and they seemed to be enjoying it, but one or two were crying as well. Then I took a group of them and locked them in the closet. The ones in the closet ALL started crying, so obviously Cars contributes to kids crying!"

It would be more like if you took the two kids who were crying and put them in the closet, and told us that abortion was the reason nobody is crying any more.


Your whole argument is this:

When measuring the levels of violent crime in society, we need to factor in the violence being perpetrated by the people who have been removed from society.

It's a dumb argument and you should feel bad for making it.
 
2012-12-26 12:41:37 PM  

somedude210: cryinoutloud: It might make a difference, especially with all those hyper-realistic VIDEO GAMES that we have now. Yes, I said it. How do we know? Has anyone done a comprehensive study, or any kind of study at all, about how these things might affect us as a society? No, of course not, and we never will.

I'm a firm believer that advertising and the consumer culture has harmed us a great deal. Same sort of thing ---it's just words and pictures. We don't have to participate. And yet our country is much, much different than it would have been if we weren't inundated with messages to buy, buy, buy 24 hours a day. How do you know that a lot of exposure to fake violence hasn't somehow affected our way of thinking about things?

I actually did an experiment like that for my sociology class in High School. I had a group play a "violent game" (Freedom Fighters, school only allowed a T rated game) and a non violent (racing game of some kind, I think) and we asked them to measure their anger, stress and happiness before and after.

Guys ended up being calmer, less stressed and less angry after playing the violent game whereas the women got more pissed and angry after playing the violent game.

But hey, it was just a shiatty high school project, nothing more.
/science!


I get pissed off and stressed playing racing games more than violent games. For me it's all about timing. Dirt 2 forced me to steer in real time. GTAIV was all about sniping people from cover, setting traps with satchel charges, and patiently rolling through their ranks.

I play video games to do things I can't do in real life. I can play soccer or stack boxes whenever I want. I only get to battle zombies or do 150 down the streets of San Francisco on the XBox.
 
2012-12-26 12:41:53 PM  

thecpt: Bontesla: So when you say some killers liked school - it doesn't negate my point that school officials can help prevent teenage violence by having more resources, being better paid, and paying attention. Will that alone prevent all future massacres? Of course not but it is helpful if part of an overall effort to do better in creating a mental health system.

You know I would like that more than anything. Okay, so when you say mental health system you're more talking about additions to current systems than something that is supposed to operate independently? When I read typical threads on it, people seem to think that professional doctors are need which is of course nearly impossible considering possible resources. But anyways, we need to pay principals a shiat ton of money to run our schools while we spend huge amounts of money on a war that's been going on for over a decade. Don't talk about paying more to those people who spend more time with our kids than we do.

Half of my teachers cared, half didn't. The one time I outright quit something, a teacher pulled me aside and asked why. I imagine others weren't so lucky.


Well, if we leave screening up to doctors we're excluding everyone who doesn't make it that far. We operate our mental health services like many baby boomers operated their families: kids bully each other, buck up, my father was harder on me, you'll survive and so on.

At this point we have enough research to know our system is broken and that expecting our children to "toughen up" is a very poor approach when the football team threatens to release a sex tape you didn't know they had (recent suicide case).

We need to adapt. Scores of adults are interacting with our children every day. Why can't we teach them to throw a life jacket? And not only to those that will take a life (be it their own or someone else's) but to everyone? One bad month can create a drug addiction. One bad school year can create teen pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted infections and diseases.

If our society paid more attention and responded appropriately - we would be healthier and happier. We expect these kids to navigate away from ice bergs without any tools to help.
 
2012-12-26 12:41:59 PM  
dittybopper: "n other words, we had this discussion, we tried it your way, it didn't work, and it likely isn't legal to do now anyway."

Talking points, straw-men and arguing by association are all fine and dandy on the internet. But I truly hope you don't try to navigate real life this way.
Not everyone who disagrees with you holds the same positions as other people who disagrees with you. Not everyone who disagrees with you is out to get you or make your life difficult for no reason. Not everyone who says "hey, go ahead and take the 30 round magazines back, there ain't a responsible gun owner who'll miss 'em" is secretly looking to forcibly confiscate all guns in the pursuit of a socialist utopia. Just, ya know, food for thought.

Anayway: the "assault weapon ban" was not "my way". The existence of gun crime under the "ban" does not somehow validate that we can and should do nothing about high capacity magazines any more than it validates that we can and should do nothing about goddamm high explosives or fully automatic weapons.

When people who are not ideologues talk about gun shows, they're talking about the personal swaps and 'straw purchases' that are rampant there. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you know pretty damn well that a person with a rap sheet could walk into a gun show --today-- and walk out with a weapon without so much as a hassle, let alone a background check.

And, once again, we're talking about *rates* of crime, not *existence* of crime. The continued existence of gun crime in more-heavily-regulated European nations does not counter the point that our rates of gun violence and rampages are far beyond theirs.
 
2012-12-26 12:42:08 PM  

dittybopper: The problem is, that some states and localities already require that sort of thing for all private transfers (California being the biggest one), and it hasn't shown to be effective in reducing gun violence.

Even if it *WERE*, there is a problem with the idea: It's quite probably unconstitutional, because it makes getting the permission of the government a *REQUIREMENT* before exercising an enumerated constitutional right. No other right in the Bill of Rights requires that. In fact, it's called "prior restraint", and is generally frowned upon.


Something like that will only be effective if it is nationwide and tracks who is buying what.

If the burden is placed on the seller there is no constitutional problem. Your right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and making people jump through some pretty minor loops to sell dangerous weapons doesn't do that.
 
2012-12-26 12:42:18 PM  

physt: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Sounds legit.

[24.media.tumblr.com image 791x1000]

To be fair... Able WAS kind of a dick.


His real name was Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher.
 
2012-12-26 12:44:19 PM  

dittybopper: What, you mean like Norway?


Yeah, one mass shooter since forever. Meanwhile, the firearm-related death rate of the US is more than five times that of Norway.
The problem isn't the number of guns in itself. The problem is that the US has some deep cultural issues, of which the bizarre US gun culture is a symptom.
 
2012-12-26 12:44:30 PM  

liam76: If the burden is placed on the seller there is no constitutional problem.


If the burden is placed on the publisher, then there is no constitutional problem with censorship either. At least, that's the equivalent of what you are saying.
 
2012-12-26 12:50:38 PM  

dittybopper: So, based upon population figures alone, we should have about (315/5) = 63 times more mass shootings in a given time period than Norway.


In what given time period?

Sixteen US Mass Shootings Happened in 2012, Leaving at Least 88 Dead
 
2012-12-26 12:52:19 PM  

dittybopper: liam76: If the burden is placed on the seller there is no constitutional problem.

If the burden is placed on the publisher, then there is no constitutional problem with censorship either. At least, that's the equivalent of what you are saying.


It is the equivalent if you think books or newspapers are like guns.

They aren't.

One you can leave around, or hand out, while the other has laws making doing so illegal.

The fact is that saying if you want to sell a gun you have to check with the FBI or ATF to see if they can pass a background check, and that you have to record what you are selling isn't unconstitutional. We already do the first one.
 
Displayed 50 of 345 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report