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  
•       •       •

3274 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 12:54:27 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.


Rampage? I loved that game.
 
2012-12-26 12:57:19 PM

Uncle Tractor: 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.


As I showed above, one would expect 63 times more mass shootings in the US based on the population difference alone (we have 63 times more people - 315 million vs. 5 million)

Also, don't get hung up on *FIREARM* homicide rate: Use total homicide rate.

More to the point, is there a place in the US like Norway in terms of population and homicide rate? Yep. It's called Minnesota: Roughly the same population (5 million), and a homicide rate almost as low (1.4 per 100,000 vs. 0.6 per 100,000), despite the popularity of firearms in Minnesota.

Oddly enough, though, Minnesota has a *LARGE* number of people who are descended from Norwegian, Swedish, and Finnish stock, so it's not really surprising that the homicide rate in that area is about the same as the homicide rate for Northern Europe.
 
2012-12-26 01:01:00 PM
Can anyone think of a single big budget movie in the past 10 years that didn't have someone get shot in it?


/Didn't think so
 
2012-12-26 01:01:09 PM
dittybopper: "based upon population figures alone, we should have about (315/5) = 63 times more mass shootings in a given time period than Norway."

Ok. And do you really think we *aren't* notably higher than that?
You can hand-wave that argument a bit, today, based on the subjectiveness of any definition of "mass shooting", and because specific figures aren't easily obtained.
But it's a matter of a time until some researcher compiles them. And there's no reason to expect them to diverge from the overall firearm homicide rates (Norway - 0.19, United States - 2.98).

If anything, rate comparisons for mass shootings will likely make the US look *worse* than our gun policy differences account for, due to being compared against countries with more social safety net and nationalized (mental) health care. Just as our overall gun homicide rates look unduly atrocious for those same reasons.

So... I wouldn't lean too heavily on a numbers-based defense.
 
2012-12-26 01:06:56 PM

born_yesterday: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Good thing we don't all live in medieval Europe. We'd all be serial killers.

/writers is a sniveling wuss

Actually, before we could visually fictionalize our violence, people did some really, really gruesome shiat to amuse themselves.

The Roman games are a perfect example. Killing all manner of beast and finding ways to kill criminals that makes a sword to the gut sound appealing.

Not to mention the plethora of medieval torture devices and techniques.

I'd argue that TV has saved more lives than it has cost.


You make an excellent point. It seems like humans have always had a thirst for bloody "entertainment".
 
2012-12-26 01:10:37 PM

fluffy2097: Can anyone think of a single big budget movie in the past 10 years that didn't have someone get shot in it?


/Didn't think so


the day after tomorrow. That took me a whole second. Oh, Disney exists too.
 
2012-12-26 01:11:02 PM

born_yesterday: Actually, before we could visually fictionalize our violence, people did some really, really gruesome shiat to amuse themselves.


Indeed. I remember reading on some game sight where they tossed a graph of youth violence up against the release of various popular consoles - each release had a fairly sharp downturn in violence afterwards.

While studies showed that violent video 'cartoon'* shows increased the violence of pre-teens due to their imitating what they watched, in older age categories it seems to act more as a stress relief; they become LESS violent.

You get the occasional nut who uses a game/video/song/religion to justify violence, but they were mentally ill and going to fixate on something.

*Quotes because one of the example shows was Power Rangers, which isn't a cartoon.

ChuDogg: It may be the case that letting more people go untreated for their depression/mental illness might be the safer option.


Untreated chemically, perhaps, but there has also been a lot of research into non-chemical options - mental therapies. For example, exercise can treat mild ADD. Only problem is that doing the non-chemical options requires more than half an hour with a doctor, and is thus more expensive.
 
2012-12-26 01:11:59 PM

thecpt: the day after tomorrow. That took me a whole second. Oh, Disney exists too.


just about any romantic comedy.
 
2012-12-26 01:12:13 PM

liam76: 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.


Sure they are. I can name three books that have caused the deaths of hundreds of millions of people collectively: Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, and The Bible.

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


Nice tautology you've got there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it.

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.


Only for purchases from federally licensed dealers. The government can require that you do that as a condition for getting a federal firearms license, and it can enforce it by pulling your license and charging you with a crime.

We also do the second one, for federally licensed dealers: You know the infamous Form 4473? Dealer has to retain them, and their "bound book" where they record purchase information.

This isn't necessarily a significant burden on the Second Amendment legally* because you can still get firearms privately, or you can legally make them yourself if you are so inclined.

The problem becomes when you can't legally acquire a firearm without prior government approval. That then becomes prior restraint. A government that has the sole power to approve firearms transactions can also not approve them. At that point, any guarantee that you can own them in the Constitution isn't worth the paper it is printed upon. And if *THAT* 'guarantee' isn't worth anything, neither are any of the others.

*I'd argue otherwise, but I recognize
 
2012-12-26 01:12:53 PM

thecpt: fluffy2097: Can anyone think of a single big budget movie in the past 10 years that didn't have someone get shot in it?


/Didn't think so

the day after tomorrow. That took me a whole second. Oh, Disney exists too.


Pretty much anything made by Pixar...Cars 2 and The Incredibles being the only two I can think of with anyone getting shot.
 
2012-12-26 01:14:00 PM

frazzenrazzen: Because other countries don't have violent movies or video games...Even Michale Moore explored this in "Bowling for Columbine". This ain't it...

I am starting to think it is the culture of ultra-competitiveness. Everything in the U.S. is now judged...Your clothes, your school (your pre-schools, grammar, middle, high school, college, post-grad), your home/apartment/other, your car, where you work, your rank in the org, etc...

Now before I get jumped on, I am not an "everybody gets a trophy" type. I have to say, though, that the more socialist countries that focus more on overall quality of life rather than individual bank accounts seem to have less of this.

This is only a working theory...


I think in those cultures also, the general mindset is "what's best for society as a whole?" not "screw you, I got mine." There's such an impersonal disconnect between most Americans.
 
2012-12-26 01:15:58 PM

Firethorn: in older age categories it seems to act more as a stress relief; they become LESS violent.


Which is pretty similar to the results when comparing behavior and attitudes of adults who watch porn. They tend to have healthier attitudes toward sex and gender relations than those who do not.

Why, it's almost as if people who have no knowledge whatsoever about psychology or sociology are the ones who scream the loudest that sex & violence in media is the cause of sex & violence in real life.
 
2012-12-26 01:17:43 PM

ChuDogg: 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.


Honestly, having dealt with depression and anxiety by throwing pills at it to try to see what stuck, I can see that being totally reasonable. I'm off all meds now and doing as well or better than before. I took gabapentin for anxiety, used also for nerve pain, and it was like feeling emotional desolation on an unbearable level until it left my system. I didn't want to get hooked on Zanax, so it was a crazy ride until I stopped the bus and got off.

And nobody could legally make me get back on it, because I'm not stupid enough to tell someone I'm considering suicide. I'm not the least bit homicidal, but if I was, again, if I don't let it slip I'm not going anywhere.
 
2012-12-26 01:28:25 PM

dittybopper: 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.


memedepot.com
 
2012-12-26 01:28:36 PM

dittybopper: As I showed above, one would expect 63 times more mass shootings in the US based on the population difference alone (we have 63 times more people - 315 million vs. 5 million)


I believe I addressed that in another post. Something about 16 mass shootings in the US in 2012...

Also, don't get hung up on *FIREARM* homicide rate: Use total homicide rate.

It wasn't the homicide rate; it was the rate of deaths by firearms, including suicides and accidents.

More to the point, is there a place in the US like Norway in terms of population and homicide rate? Yep. It's called Minnesota: Roughly the same population (5 million), and a homicide rate almost as low (1.4 per 100,000 vs. 0.6 per 100,000), despite the popularity of firearms in Minnesota.

Oddly enough, though, Minnesota has a *LARGE* number of people who are descended from Norwegian, Swedish, and Finnish stock, so it's not really surprising that the homicide rate in that area is about the same as the homicide rate for Northern Europe.


I was going to say something about Minnesota maybe being saner than the rest of the US. Then I remembered this:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-26 01:29:52 PM

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

Ok. And do you really think we *aren't* notably higher than that?
You can hand-wave that argument a bit, today, based on the subjectiveness of any definition of "mass shooting", and because specific figures aren't easily obtained.
But it's a matter of a time until some researcher compiles them. And there's no reason to expect them to diverge from the overall firearm homicide rates (Norway - 0.19, United States - 2.98).

If anything, rate comparisons for mass shootings will likely make the US look *worse* than our gun policy differences account for, due to being compared against countries with more social safety net and nationalized (mental) health care. Just as our overall gun homicide rates look unduly atrocious for those same reasons.

So... I wouldn't lean too heavily on a numbers-based defense.


Yet, you keep saying "gun homicide" rates when you should be saying "homicide rates".

The ratio of "gun homicide" rates between the US and Norway that you quote is 2.98 to 0.19, or about 15.7 to 1.

The ratio of homicide rates by all causes is 4.2 to 0.6 respectively, with the difference working out to about 7 to 1.

By concentrating only on *FIREARMS* homicides, you intentionally make the homicide comparisons look worse than they actually are by at least a factor of 2.

If you look at a demographically similar area in the US, like Minnesota with it's homicide rate of 1.4 per 100,000 (lower than Finland!), the difference is only a bit more than 2 to 1, despite Minnesota having much, much looser firearms laws.

Hell, it's more valid to compare New Hampshire to Norway then it is to compare Norway to the United States. In 2009, New Hampshire had a total homicide rate of 0.8 per 100,000, which is only 33% more than Norway, despite having some of the most lax gun laws in the US.
 
2012-12-26 01:33:59 PM
This is dumb. We are still arguing over the same things that we have in the past. If you don't want crazy people shooting up places then do a better job at finding and treating those people before their illnesses worsen.

But no let's keep blaming movies and video games. And then let's make owning a firearm a political movement. This is all dumb, we are just going in circles.
 
2012-12-26 01:36:24 PM

austerity101: dittybopper: 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.

[memedepot.com image 320x240]


Actually, for comparison purposes, YES IT FARKING DOES WORK THAT WAY.

You control for population. That's why we use *RATES* instead of raw numbers. My point was that for a given time period, all else being equal, you'd expect 63 mass shootings in the US for ever single mass shooting in Norway, because the US has 63 times the population. In other words, if the per capita rates were the same, more would happen in the country with the larger population.

Your use of Morbo is totally, and completely wrong. Turn in you meme card.
 
2012-12-26 01:43:35 PM
Everyone give me your wallets! I have a copy of Gigli and I'm not afraid to use it!
 
2012-12-26 01:47:48 PM
As advertisers have learned over the years, Americans -- along with the majority of the human race -- are gullible. The old 'Monkey see, monkey do' condition most certainly applies, especially among those under 30.

Nearly as far back as recorded history goes, we've noticed that governments have to tell their citizens who to hate and millions have died because one leader was pi$$ed off at another
.
Born in the 50's, I was raised on a generation of Cowboys and Indians and WW2 movies. All of us boys had toy guns, BB guns and, later, air guns (BB and pellet guns fired by compressed air or CO2 cartridges). Discrimination was firmly in place and the 'N' word was tossed around commonly. Items shipped from Japan usually had 'Stolen from Japan' stamped on their bottoms.

TV had only 3 channels and was highly censored so we spent a lot of time in the various movie theaters, where we learned to hate the Nazi's, the Japanese and came to the conclusion that the US Military was the best in the world, showing compassion as well as thoroughly stomping out the enemy. (After all, <b>WE</b> won the war for the allies. So said our media and Hollywood.)

It's a proved fact -- proven time and time again -- that what we see on TV, the Movies and the Internet can influence us. Look how fast that stupid 'gangsta' way of holding a gun sideways caught on. Then those belt less, baggy, knee pants took off, along with the 'prison dress'. People got killed over those big, ugly, expensive sneakers when they came out.

Smack in the middle of the worse gas crisis ever, which shook our economic foundation, the car makers introduced the gas guzzling SUV and folks ran out and bought them.

The internet introduced us to SPAM, viruses and stealing our information. It didn't take long before school kids were writing and releasing viruses just because they could and thought it fun. When several Radical sites showed you how to make pipe bombs, -- and kids promptly did so, along with adults.

When the ACLU and Lawyers started going nuts over everyone's 'rights' -- kids picked up on it and were soon getting their authority figures tossed in jail, stripping their parents of control and calling the cops if Mom or Dad slapped them.

The media made it appear that sex offenders were behind every bush and dirt clod in the land. Suddenly, 6 out of 10 kids had been molested -- even though, in some cases, the term molestation was highly exaggerated. Congress passed poorly thought out laws -- meaning you can be classified as a sex offender for nearly any action -- like being drunk and taking a leak in the parking lot. 6 year olds can be expelled from school as sex offenders.
The media disclosed how lawyers could sue anyone for any reason and you could make big bucks -- and the rate of lawsuits exploded so much that it actually hurt our way of doing business and even our lifestyles.

TV produced 'reality shows' where folks found ways to make money off the misery of others and suddenly, everyone is a house flipper, a storage bidder, junk yard raider or 'picker'. Oddities showed folks are willing to pay a couple of hundred bucks for that chunk of Great-uncle Jacks infected intestine he kept in a jar and you inherited.

TV showed us how to avoid police radar, how to question the radar gun operators skills, how to sue a store or business over almost everything and how to capitalize on the poor.

The Internet shows you how to make weapons at home from common goods and how to convert semi-automatics into full auto. You can buy assorted rounds for guns designed to explode, to release scores of razor sharp bits of steel and be incendiary. Some shotgun shells hold tiny ball and chain shot, designed to rip the target up.
TV showed us how to make grenades out of clay pots and gunpowder and even how to make gunpowder.

Plus, since the 1979's we have been treated to real images of various battles around the world, with millions laying in pools of real blood, dead or dying. We've suddenly seen various religions become corrupted and blood thirsty. We play realistic video games where we can slaughter friend and foe alike and those where we can become criminals and fight the law.

We see the aftermath of disasters in real time, watch the dead wash up on shores, see people being killed and others being brutalized. We can easily find a dozen rather nasty ways to kill someone and we've watched the bad guys get riddled with bullets on scores of TV shows and movies.

We get to learn about the real horrors going on in prisons and even get to see interviews with cold blooded killers. Reality TV has shown us how to make jailhouse weapons and even how to dispose of them. It also informed us that most prison guards are unarmed, unlike when I was growing up.

Does that desensitize us?

You f**king better believe it.

Decades ago, a little girl, dying of cancer, wrote a book and it became a huge sensation. Since then, other kids dying of cancer have written books and no one cares anymore. Actually, we've found that nearly everything causes cancer so those affected with it -- being so very many -- no longer elicit the sympathy of 30 years back. Plus we've discovered there's big money to be made in treating cancer and that assorted institutions will exaggerate and lie about their cure rate to get our business.

Before the massive homeless explosion in the 70's, if you fell over in the street, folks cared and stopped to help. Now, it happens so often that folks just keep on walking. We've recordings of folks watching someone get hit by a car and just walking off and traffic doesn't even stop, it just slows to avoid the bloody body.

We've had to create laws forcing people to help.

So, if you think the media doesn't influence people, you must have been hiding under a rock for decades.
 
2012-12-26 01:49:50 PM

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

Ok. And do you really think we *aren't* notably higher than that?
You can hand-wave that argument a bit, today, based on the subjectiveness of any definition of "mass shooting", and because specific figures aren't easily obtained.
But it's a matter of a time until some researcher compiles them. And there's no reason to expect them to diverge from the overall firearm homicide rates (Norway - 0.19, United States - 2.98).

If anything, rate comparisons for mass shootings will likely make the US look *worse* than our gun policy differences account for, due to being compared against countries with more social safety net and nationalized (mental) health care. Just as our overall gun homicide rates look unduly atrocious for those same reasons.

So... I wouldn't lean too heavily on a numbers-based defense.

Yet, you keep saying "gun homicide" rates when you should be saying "homicide rates".

The ratio of "gun homicide" rates between the US and Norway that you quote is 2.98 to 0.19, or about 15.7 to 1.

The ratio of homicide rates by all causes is 4.2 to 0.6 respectively, with the difference working out to about 7 to 1.

By concentrating only on *FIREARMS* homicides, you intentionally make the homicide comparisons look worse than they actually are by at least a factor of 2.

If you look at a demographically similar area in the US, like Minnesota with it's homicide rate of 1.4 per 100,000 (lower than Finland!), the difference is only a bit more than 2 to 1, despite Minnesota having much, much looser firearms laws.

Hell, it's more valid to compare New Hampshire to Norway then it is to compare Norway to the United States. In 2009, New Hampshire had a total homicide rate of 0.8 per 100,000, which is only 33% more than Norway, despite having some of the most lax gun laws in the US.


All those data show are that the correlation between "access to firearms" as a general sort of principle, and homicide rates, as another sort of amorphous concept, is not strong enough to warrant decreased access to firearms.

It does not, however, imply that if we removed the other sources of variance in the equation, rates of mental illness, quality of education, median income vs cost of living... that this correlation would not be entirely significant. I'd wager that it isn't so much access to guns as it is the elevation of guns from tools to lifestyle, combined with decreased access to mental healthcare and an overall drop in the quality of life in general over the last several decades.

If you ask me, though, I'd say there's no reason to not require 100% background checks on all buyers and sellers of firearms. If it makes everyone feel better, records of these checks must be retained for 7 years and then be destroyed unless the check resulted in a classification that prohibits gun ownership. Bans are dumb. Some kind of licensing test? Not dumb.
 
2012-12-26 01:51:44 PM

Hobo Jr.: This is dumb. We are still arguing over the same things that we have in the past. If you don't want crazy people shooting up places then do a better job at finding and treating those people before their illnesses worsen.


I'm 100% with you.

But no let's keep blaming movies and video games. And then let's make owning a firearm a political movement. This is all dumb, we are just going in circles.


Too late, by, oh, what is it? Something like 40 years now? This was recognized back in the mid-1970s:

But underlying the gun control struggle is a fundamental division in our nation.
The intensity of passion on this issue suggests
to me that we are experiencing a sort of low-grade war going on
between two alternative views of what America is and ought to
be. On the one side are those who take bourgeois Europe as a
model of a civilized society: a society just, equitable, and democratic;
but well ordered, with the lines of responsibility and
authority clearly drawn, and with decisions made rationally and
correctly by intelligent men for the entire nation. To such people,
hunting is atavistic, personal violence is shameful, and uncontrolled gun
ownership is a blot upon civilization.

On the other side is a group of people who do not tend to be
especially articulate or literate, and whose world view is rarely expressed
in print. Their model is that of the independent frontiersman
who takes care of himself and his family with no interference from
the state. They are "conservative" in the sense that they cling to
America's unique pre-modern tradition-a non-feudal society with a
sort of medieval liberty writ large for everyman. To these people,
"sociological'" is an epithet. Life is tough and competitive. Manhood
means responsibility and caring for your own.

This hard-core group is probably very small, not more than a few
million people, but it is a dangerous group to cross. From the point
of view of a right-wing threat to internal security, these are perhaps
the people who should be disarmed first, but in practice they will
be the last. As they say, to a man, "I'll bury my guns in the wall
first." They ask, because they do not understand the other side,
"Why do these people want to disarm us?" They consider themselves
no threat to anyone; they are not criminals, not revolutionaries.
But slowly, as they become politicized, they find an analysis
that fits the phenomenon they experience: Someone fears their having
guns, someone is afraid of their defending their families, property, and
liberty. Nasty things may happen if these people begin to feel that they
are cornered.

It would be useful, therefore, if some of the mindless passion, on
both sides, could be drained out of the gun-control issue. Gun control is
no solution to the crime problem, to the assassination problem, to the terrorist
problem. Reasonable licensing laws, reasonably applied, might be marginally
useful in preventing some individuals, on some occasions, from doing violent
harm to others and to themselves. But so long as the issue is kept at white heat,
with everyone having some ground to suspect everyone else's ultimate intentions,
the rule of reasonableness has little chance to assert itself.

The Great American Gun War - Barry Bruce-Briggs, 1976.

That was written 36 years ago.

Sound familiar?

Oh, and since that was written, we tried national waiting periods for handguns, and dropped it as useless. We tried an assault weapons ban, and dropped it as useless. We now have two Supreme Court decisions that explicitly state the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to be armed.
 
2012-12-26 01:52:34 PM

dofus: And before some wag goes gaga over the 1st amendment


Nothing you've said has anything to do with the first amendment. Not everything has to be followed to its logical conclusion. We've managed to become more health-conscious and more environmentally aware in this country without having to resort to banning things. Same could happen with violent content if we gave a shiat.
 
2012-12-26 01:57:12 PM

dittybopper: austerity101: dittybopper: 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.

[memedepot.com image 320x240]

Actually, for comparison purposes, YES IT FARKING DOES WORK THAT WAY.

You control for population. That's why we use *RATES* instead of raw numbers. My point was that for a given time period, all else being equal, you'd expect 63 mass shootings in the US for ever single mass shooting in Norway, because the US has 63 times the population. In other words, if the per capita rates were the same, more would happen in the country with the larger population.

Your use of Morbo is totally, and completely wrong. Turn in you meme card.


Population density is a thing. Fewer murders in Wisconsin than New York CITY.

New York City has about 8.25 million people in it and had 485 murders last year.

Wisconsin has about 5 million people in it and had 136 murders last year.

New York City is about 470 square miles.

Wisconsin is about 65 thousand 600 square miles.

If we were to ignore that, it might appear that NYC has more violence because of restrictions on handgun ownership than Wisconsin does.

That would, however, be retarded.
 
2012-12-26 01:58:10 PM
Flaumig: WARRGARBL

trappedspirit: Boom. Someone just got LeTrolled


Boom. Looks like somebody might be an exact profile match
 
2012-12-26 02:03:53 PM
All of these movies are seen around the world. Why are only Americans turned into homicidal maniacs?
 
2012-12-26 02:03:56 PM

OhioKnight: Sigh.

Rewatch "Bowling for Columbine". Like/hate Micheal Moore, at least he did the fine service of taking every STUPID idea about the cause of mass killings and ran sanity tests against them -- they all failed.

If violence in media was the cause of mass killings, then societies like South Korea and Japan, which have much higher levels of violent media should have the same problem... but they don't.

Next idiot idea?


blessthe40oz.com
 
2012-12-26 02:04:14 PM

fireclown: I love this graphic SO much! And it gives it's data source (the DOJ) to boot!


Saved.

I know correlation =/= causation, but I wonder if, for some people, violent games give them an outlet to release aggression without actually hurting anybody. (I know the more likely reason is the overall drop in this country.)
 
2012-12-26 02:08:22 PM

OhioKnight: Sigh.

Rewatch "Bowling for Columbine". Like/hate Micheal Moore, at least he did the fine service of taking every STUPID idea about the cause of mass killings and ran sanity tests against them -- they all failed.

If violence in media was the cause of mass killings, then societies like South Korea and Japan, which have much higher levels of violent media should have the same problem... but they don't.

Next idiot idea?


The flipside to that is the gun-fetishists' argument that more guns = safer people. If that were the case, since the US has the highest number of guns per capita, we would have the lowest instances of violent crime on Earth.
 
2012-12-26 02:09:08 PM

dittybopper: austerity101: dittybopper: 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.

[memedepot.com image 320x240]

Actually, for comparison purposes, YES IT FARKING DOES WORK THAT WAY.

You control for population. That's why we use *RATES* instead of raw numbers. My point was that for a given time period, all else being equal, you'd expect 63 mass shootings in the US for ever single mass shooting in Norway, because the US has 63 times the population. In other words, if the per capita rates were the same, more would happen in the country with the larger population.

Your use of Morbo is totally, and completely wrong. Turn in you meme card.


I don't even need to rebut other than to point out the above bolded text, and say that I'm just going to sit by and watch the other people who've been responding to your very same post and explaining in many more words why you are wrong. No need to gild that lily.
 
2012-12-26 02:13:15 PM
uploads4.wikipaintings.org
 
2012-12-26 02:14:42 PM
www.examiner.com
 
2012-12-26 02:15:54 PM

BeesNuts: If you ask me, though, I'd say there's no reason to not require 100% background checks on all buyers and sellers of firearms.


We didn't ask you.

But requiring that, and keeping the records for anything over a couple minutes runs the risk of building up a list of gun owners, something that is expressly forbidden by federal law.

Keeping lists and requiring government approval for *ALL* acquisitions of firearms is antithetical to one of the usually unstated, but nonetheless core purposes of the Second Amendment: To guarantee that the people have the ability to resist, and even overthrow the government, violently if necessary, should the government ever become tyrannical. It's a kind of 18th Century version of "Mutually Assured Destruction": No government that respected the right of the people to be armed could become tyrannical, and the people can be safe in the knowledge that they live in a country that is free, so long as there weren't any encroachments upon that right.

It is the ultimate in checks and balances.

As for the ability of people armed with rifles, shotguns, and pistols in the age of jets, tanks, and nuclear weapons to resist government, I would point out that happened in Iraq, and we weren't winning there until we co-opted the leadership of those opposed to use, and we are *STILL* in Afghanistan, 11 years after we invaded, and we are still taking casualties. We left Vietnam with our tails between out legs.

You don't have to be able to actually win, you just have to make it so expensive that the other side won't try in the first place, or, failing that, so expensive that they eventually give up.
 
2012-12-26 02:16:46 PM
You're right. Hollywood makes us violent.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-26 02:17:01 PM

Bucky Katt: [www.examiner.com image 450x447]


The bronze fez is no match for the dried turd.
 
2012-12-26 02:18:47 PM

BeesNuts: That would, however, be retarded.


Kind of like comparing Norway to the US, without pointing out the differences?
 
2012-12-26 02:23:33 PM
www.bethspage.us

cdn.twentytwowords.com

www.wagnerstudios.org
 
2012-12-26 02:24:38 PM
www.conservapedia.com
 
2012-12-26 02:26:11 PM

austerity101: dittybopper: austerity101: dittybopper: 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.

[memedepot.com image 320x240]

Actually, for comparison purposes, YES IT FARKING DOES WORK THAT WAY.

You control for population. That's why we use *RATES* instead of raw numbers. My point was that for a given time period, all else being equal, you'd expect 63 mass shootings in the US for ever single mass shooting in Norway, because the US has 63 times the population. In other words, if the per capita rates were the same, more would happen in the country with the larger population.

Your use of Morbo is totally, and completely wrong. Turn in you meme card.

I don't even need to rebut other than to point out the above bolded text, and say that I'm just going to sit by and watch the other people who've been responding to your very same post and explaining in many more words why you are wrong. No need to gild that lily.


OK, I can see the stupidity quotient is high on Fark today.

I pointed out that mass shootings do happen in countries that have much stricter laws than the US. Norway was the first one I picked, largely because when you look at casualty count, it's worse than any shooting in the United States, by more than *DOUBLE*.

This was countered by saying rampages in Norway are much more rare, which I pointed out that they should be: Norway is *MUCH* smaller than the US, so they should have fewer rampage shootings.

That's *ALL* I was saying.
 
2012-12-26 02:29:00 PM

dittybopper: I pointed out that mass shootings do happen in countries that have much stricter laws than the US. Norway was the first one I picked, largely because when you look at casualty count, it's worse than any shooting in the United States, by more than *DOUBLE*.

This was countered by saying rampages in Norway are much more rare, which I pointed out that they should be: Norway is *MUCH* smaller than the US, so they should have fewer rampage shootings.

That's *ALL* I was saying.


And you'll find that the rates of gun violence and mass shootings are lower per capita, making population differences moot.
 
2012-12-26 02:34:10 PM
Old news is old

Tipper Gore Widens War on Rock

Two years after beginning a campaign against sexually explicit and violent lyrics on record albums, Tipper Gore has moderated her tone but expanded her scope to include music videos, television programming and video cassettes.

She and her husband, Senator Albert Gore Jr., Democrat of Tennessee, met with members of the recording industry in Los Angeles in late October to discuss her record-labeling campaign. Few of the meeting's participants expected to find common ground.

While Mrs. Gore said the meeting was ''a chance to clear the air,'' she said she was under no illusion that it would change the opinion of industry officials, some of whom have said her campaign is tantamount to censorship. A New Platform for Views

Some entertainment officials said the Los Angeles meeting was an attempt by Senator Gore to make peace as he campaigns for the Democratic Presidential nomination. In fact, Senator Gore's campaign has given his wife a new platform for her views. ''It's a marvelous opportunity to make the statement I want to make,'' Mrs. Gore said recently in a telephone interview from her home in Washington.
 
2012-12-26 02:40:46 PM

Teufelaffe: Why, it's almost as if people who have no knowledge whatsoever about psychology or sociology are the ones who scream the loudest that sex & violence in media is the cause of sex & violence in real life.


No kidding. Heck, look at 'abstinance only' sex ed being proven to cause MORE teen pregnancy than having NO sex ed. DARE programs being shown in studies to increase illegal drug use.

Kids might be ignorant, but they're generally not stupid. Honesty is generally the best policy with them. Give them the facts and they'll generally make good decisions.

Rik01: Smack in the middle of the worse gas crisis ever, which shook our economic foundation, the car makers introduced the gas guzzling SUV and folks ran out and bought them.


Actually, during the gas crisis the reason the domestic car makers all went broke is that they had a line-up of gas guzzling SUVs and nobody was buying them. BEFORE the gas crisis, tightening EPA gas standards and the fact that SUVs fit into a commercial class(so didn't count in the standard gas mileage requirements) rather than personal meant that cars were built smaller, lower to the ground, and were actually more expensive such that with an SUV you got more bang for the buck, despite the lower gas mileage.

My mother ended up in a small SUV not because of hauling needs, but because of minor disability she has a hard, hard time getting out of a low lying seat. My grandfather suffers from after-effects of polio, and couldn't get out of standard height car seats decades before that. Heck, I look at my family and nearly half suffer from some condition that the higher seat height of trucks/SUVs help with. Ergo, we end up in them.

The Internet shows you how to make weapons at home from common goods and how to convert semi-automatics into full auto.

Just as a note that if you have the tools to do this you probably knew how to do it anyways, or could figure it out without much trouble.

You can buy assorted rounds for guns designed to explode, to release scores of razor sharp bits of steel and be incendiary. Some shotgun shells hold tiny ball and chain shot, designed to rip the target up.
TV showed us how to make grenades out of clay pots and gunpowder and even how to make gunpowder.


Gunpowder you can learn in history books, along with the clay pot grenades. I don't remember any real problem with clay pot grenades or even home made gun powder, so it's not that big of an issue. Shotgun shells with 'tiny ball and chain shot' isn't anyworse than shooting the person with a slug or buckshot. It's a marketing/'neato' item.

Before the massive homeless explosion in the 70's, if you fell over in the street, folks cared and stopped to help. Now, it happens so often that folks just keep on walking. We've recordings of folks watching someone get hit by a car and just walking off and traffic doesn't even stop, it just slows to avoid the bloody body.

What caused the homeless explosion? The closing of the Asylums. Why were the Asylums closed? A series of TV specials highlighting the worst asylums out there. All tarred with the same brush, you had a lot of mentally ill kicked out onto the streets without family, help, or life skills.

So, if you think the media doesn't influence people, you must have been hiding under a rock for decades.

Yep.

BeesNuts: If you ask me, though, I'd say there's no reason to not require 100% background checks on all buyers and sellers of firearms. If it makes everyone feel better, records of these checks must be retained for 7 years and then be destroyed unless the check resulted in a classification that prohibits gun ownership. Bans are dumb. Some kind of licensing test? Not dumb.


Already mostly done in the USA - NICS check? In order to be a commercial seller you have to have a FFL license, which includes a background check. I'm not sure about the retention of those checks, but every gun sold is kept in the bound book of the FFL for some huge length of time, and that includes the result of the check. There are some issues with the check - not all states provide the mental health information, for example, but it's more in need of tuning and a few fixes than some radical overhaul.

All that's left is the 'gun show loophole', which is more the 'private sale' loophole - IE I'm a private owner of a firearm, it's my right to sell it without going through an FFL. I don't have access to NICS though, partially because the government doesn't want to hand out free background checks - I can guarantee that if individuals could access it, various business owners/managers would use it to check all their employees. Personally, I only sell to those I trust - having a valid CCW license, for example, but it's an issue I'd like to see a solution for, even if it's just voluntary. Even with that a statistically insignificant number of crime guns are traced to private sales, so it's not as big of an issue as the media makes it out to be.
 
2012-12-26 02:41:02 PM

Rik01: So, if you think the media doesn't influence people, you must have been hiding under a rock for decades.


You've been watching way too much internet
 
2012-12-26 02:50:45 PM

Teufelaffe: Why, it's almost as if people who have no knowledge whatsoever about psychology or sociology are the ones who scream the loudest that sex & violence in media is the cause of sex & violence in real life.


What, like child psychologists and psychiatrists and their professional organizations, which pretty much universally agree that violent media has an effect on people?
 
2012-12-26 03:06:31 PM
As advertisers have learned over the years, Americans -- along with the majority of the human race -- are gullible. The old 'Monkey see, monkey do' condition most certainly applies, especially among those under 30.

W ...

It is interesting that you use the word gullible...it is an ersatz word and can not even be found in the dictionary.
 
2012-12-26 03:06:40 PM

Charles Martel: It makes as much sense to blame Tarantino for mass killings as it does to blame AR-15s for mass killings.


No it doesn't. If those guns had been exclusive to the military, those kids would still be alive. If Tarantino never made a movie, those kids would still be dead.
 
2012-12-26 03:07:40 PM

whatshisname: Teufelaffe: Why, it's almost as if people who have no knowledge whatsoever about psychology or sociology are the ones who scream the loudest that sex & violence in media is the cause of sex & violence in real life.

What, like child psychologists and psychiatrists and their professional organizations, which pretty much universally agree that violent media has an effect on people?


"has an effect" ≠ "causes"

Oh, and [citation needed].
 
2012-12-26 03:17:50 PM

verbaltoxin: Stupid Mormons.


Came here for this, now its time to go back to work, satisfied.
 
2012-12-26 03:30:41 PM

Teufelaffe: "has an effect" ≠ "causes"

Oh, and [citation needed].


Google it. There's lots of information out there.
You might also want to check a dictionary or two.
 
2012-12-26 03:36:39 PM

whatshisname: Teufelaffe: "has an effect" ≠ "causes"

Oh, and [citation needed].

Google it. There's lots of information out there.
You might also want to check a dictionary or two.


Sorry, but you're the one making claims about what psychologists "universally agree" upon, so the burden of citation falls to you. Don't worry though, we already know you don't have anything. That's why you're trying to get me to look up supporting information for your argument.

As for your dictionary comment...WTF are you even talking about?
 
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