thank you. and knowing you, your first thought does not surprise me in the least al.
and btw i ALWAYS want to hear the honest answer.
and i know it's sad cate; but when you believe in something; and you're constantly called out and have to defend that belief; you get hardened off. as soon as i heard it; i knew. my second thought was now i'll have to defend my position for a week or two. my third thought was that if i was there; i could've saved those poor people. my forth thought was how sad it was that their families holidays will always be tainted now. every christmas will remind them.
You are asking a bunch of people on a message board what goes through their mind??? What do you want us to say? What do you Think goes through our minds when a random shooting occurs, or someone open fires in a school or in a shopping mall????
Do you think people are all whooping it up and yelling "awesome!!!!!!!!!!! gimme some more beer cleetus! Let's go shoot ourselves some more innocent folk!"
Do we all think ah fuck it??? Please stop defining our country through laws and bills that are so antiquated they barely take women into account.
I'm gonna be frank with everyone. I'm kind of annoyed by threads like this. It seems like every thread I go to has the same people posting on it with authority. I question how someone can know so much. Usually the arguments are from so-called common-sense so it's conceivable that they don't feel like the knowledge is superior. But clearly there is a lot of incongruence in what people consider to be common-sense or these threads wouldn't keep popping up and things like gun and abortion laws wouldn't be a debate.
In any sophisticated political discussion the parties involved are experts in the subject. Arguments are drawn from professionals and data. In terms of crime, criminologists are the experts. They are educated and practiced in psychology and more specifically criminal psychology. The census amongst criminologists on spree killers is that there is a deeply rooted animosity for society.
For example:
More than half of those surveyed in the Criminal Personality Research Project (partially funded by the Justice Department, USA) had mental illness in theier immediate family. Half had parents who had been involved in criminal activities. Nearly 70 percent had a familial history of alcohol or drug abuse. Every single one of the murderers were subjected to serious emotional abuse during their childhoods. All of them developed into what psychiatrists label as sexually dysfunctional adults, unable to sustain a mature, consensual relationship with another adult.
Now I would like to appeal to developmental psychology, since matters of childhood development are well studied in this area. Children who are neglected by their parents typically develop social disorders. It's pretty well established in general psychology that social interaction is a major contributor to self-esteem. Social disorders are poorly understood by the public and people with a disorder will find attempts at interacting will often backfire. The quite kid with no social sense who tries to approach a group will usually be ridiculed and rejected.
Is it any wonder that these people occasionally go on a killing spree? I think not. To me it seems inevitable, excepting that we don't wise up. These aren't opportunistic murders. These people have been brewing in the discomfort of rejection their entire lives, the thought of harming another person is not alien to them. I know exactly how it feels. The problem is the public by and large don't want to accept any responsibility at all. People are shallow and cruel. Evolutionary Psychology explains why that is. It's not all fun and games, that little poke could push someone over the edge.
Has anyone here with an opinion ever thought about spree killing? Has anyone here read a criminology textbook? Has anyone here read the profile of a spree killer? Does anyone have anything to go on besides so-called common-sense?
Personally I have done all of those things. It's not about guns and like OLS I'm tired of hearing about them. I'm tired of it because it's quite frankly a dumb issue to be brought up every time there is a headline. I appreciate that everyone wants to have an opinion but we've heard it all before. Maybe I'm just pissed that there is always the same debates here. More often than not the unique and interesting topics are buried in pile of enraged debates over abortion, gun laws, women's rights and conspiracy theories. None of which are really debatable issues. For all the chirping people do how much time do they spend learning about the issues? What I gather from the AET is that most people work and drink. A few have specialized studies like Baraka, Soulsinging and Scubascott, but who can claim to have spent time studying the criminal mind?
To me, this is the equivelant of Andrea Dworkin saying:
"The incest taboo, because it denies us essential fulfillment with the parents whom we love with our primary energy, forces us to internalize those parents and constantly seek them. The incest taboo does the worst work of the culture ... The destruction of the incest taboo is essential to the development of cooperative human community based on the free-flow of natural androgynous eroticism" (Dworkin 1974, p.189).
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
there are 23 states that allow conceald/carry. i don't have to look it up. i can also tell you which states will honor my conceald weapons permit and allow me to carry conceald.
the crime rate will rise. ahnimus posted the stats for canada and jeanie posted the stats for oz. it may have been on another thread. but you can't stop murder.
violent crimes commited with guns went up in canada and australia when control laws were put into place? no one would ever claim that enacting stricter guns laws would eliminate murder
violent crimes commited with guns went up in canada and australia when control laws were put into place? no one would ever claim that enacting stricter guns laws would eliminate murder
48 states allow you to carry a NON-CONCEALD weapon for self defence. only 23 states offer conceald weapons permits in addition to that.
How many states allow citizens to carry concealed firearms for self-defense?
A total of 46 states allow concealed carry. There are 38 “shall issue” (Right to Carry) states that have laws virtually identical to the one proposed in the PPA, establishing clear, objective standards a citizen must meet in order to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense. Another eight states have subjective “may issue” systems that allow government officials to arbitrarily deny law-abiding citizens the ability to carry a firearm.
Nebraska and Kansas have since been added to those 46 states
I'm gonna be frank with everyone. I'm kind of annoyed by threads like this. It seems like every thread I go to has the same people posting on it with authority. I question how someone can know so much. Usually the arguments are from so-called common-sense so it's conceivable that they don't feel like the knowledge is superior. But clearly there is a lot of incongruence in what people consider to be common-sense or these threads wouldn't keep popping up and things like gun and abortion laws wouldn't be a debate.
In any sophisticated political discussion the parties involved are experts in the subject. Arguments are drawn from professionals and data. In terms of crime, criminologists are the experts. They are educated and practiced in psychology and more specifically criminal psychology. The census amongst criminologists on spree killers is that there is a deeply rooted animosity for society.
For example:
More than half of those surveyed in the Criminal Personality Research Project (partially funded by the Justice Department, USA) had mental illness in theier immediate family. Half had parents who had been involved in criminal activities. Nearly 70 percent had a familial history of alcohol or drug abuse. Every single one of the murderers were subjected to serious emotional abuse during their childhoods. All of them developed into what psychiatrists label as sexually dysfunctional adults, unable to sustain a mature, consensual relationship with another adult.
Now I would like to appeal to developmental psychology, since matters of childhood development are well studied in this area. Children who are neglected by their parents typically develop social disorders. It's pretty well established in general psychology that social interaction is a major contributor to self-esteem. Social disorders are poorly understood by the public and people with a disorder will find attempts at interacting will often backfire. The quite kid with no social sense who tries to approach a group will usually be ridiculed and rejected.
Is it any wonder that these people occasionally go on a killing spree? I think not. To me it seems inevitable, excepting that we don't wise up. These aren't opportunistic murders. These people have been brewing in the discomfort of rejection their entire lives, the thought of harming another person is not alien to them. I know exactly how it feels. The problem is the public by and large don't want to accept any responsibility at all. People are shallow and cruel. Evolutionary Psychology explains why that is. It's not all fun and games, that little poke could push someone over the edge.
Has anyone here with an opinion ever thought about spree killing? Has anyone here read a criminology textbook? Has anyone here read the profile of a spree killer? Does anyone have anything to go on besides so-called common-sense?
Personally I have done all of those things. It's not about guns and like OLS I'm tired of hearing about them. I'm tired of it because it's quite frankly a dumb issue to be brought up every time there is a headline. I appreciate that everyone wants to have an opinion but we've heard it all before. Maybe I'm just pissed that there is always the same debates here. More often than not the unique and interesting topics are buried in pile of enraged debates over abortion, gun laws, women's rights and conspiracy theories. None of which are really debatable issues. For all the chirping people do how much time do they spend learning about the issues? What I gather from the AET is that most people work and drink. A few have specialized studies like Baraka, Soulsinging and Scubascott, but who can claim to have spent time studying the criminal mind?
To me, this is the equivelant of Andrea Dworkin saying:
"The incest taboo, because it denies us essential fulfillment with the parents whom we love with our primary energy, forces us to internalize those parents and constantly seek them. The incest taboo does the worst work of the culture ... The destruction of the incest taboo is essential to the development of cooperative human community based on the free-flow of natural androgynous eroticism" (Dworkin 1974, p.189).
i actually study criminal psycology as a hobby. including criminal profiling. i go over past cases and study police and forensic procedures. and that's why i'm always singing the same old song. criminals will be criminals. if you wiped every gun from this earth; the murder rate wouldn't go down. we have to fix the people. it's also brought me to another interesting question you may appreciate. "why can't this society be responsable with guns"? in 1967; you could buy a gun without any paperwork. you could carry it on an airplane if you wanted to. in fact; since the invention of the gun; societies have learned to live with guns being readily available; except when kings disarmed the peasants or dictators disarmed their subjects. if you study the wild west; it's nothing like hollywood depicts. murders were rare. there's only 2 documented gunfights outside of the civil war. so why is this the only society that cannot accept the responsabilities?
How many states allow citizens to carry concealed firearms for self-defense?
A total of 46 states allow concealed carry. There are 38 “shall issue” (Right to Carry) states that have laws virtually identical to the one proposed in the PPA, establishing clear, objective standards a citizen must meet in order to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense. Another eight states have subjective “may issue” systems that allow government officials to arbitrarily deny law-abiding citizens the ability to carry a firearm.
Nebraska and Kansas have since been added to those 46 states
that's great news. the paper i have is from my conceald carry class so it's a couple years old. the problem must be that people don't know about it; or they don't care enough about their fellow man to get involved. i would have risked my life to save them. then again; maybe the situation couldn't have been contained.
why don't we ban fuckin cars when a drunk driver kills a family?
Because their is no intent when a drunk driver kills someone, its an accident. Cars also serve a useful purpose, guns don't. Guns are designed to kill people. Time to quit with the bullshit circular argument about guns as protection.
Because their is no intent when a drunk driver kills someone, its an accident. Cars also serve a useful purpose, guns don't. Guns are designed to kill people. Time to quit with the bullshit circular argument about guns as protection.
time to grow up and realize guns are here to stay. sticking your head in the sand is useless.
Because their is no intent when a drunk driver kills someone, its an accident. Cars also serve a useful purpose, guns don't. Guns are designed to kill people. Time to quit with the bullshit circular argument about guns as protection.
guns also allow people to participate in interscholastic competition and gain scholarship for their ability to shoot targets. So guns can serve a useful purpose too.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
I was reading this research by synergy blackwell copyright "The Author" and it studied high-school shootings. It listed a common cause in all cases as "availability of guns".
It's pretty obvious to me that if you are gathering statistics on shootings that a gun of some sort is going to be involved every time.
Of course it listed mental illness, child abuse and all these other true causes but asserted that "availability of guns" was the only consistent "cause". But 'tis not a cause at all.
If John Doe goes from Miami to Los Angeles by plane. Who would say that the plane is the cause for his going to LA?
Sigh. A sufficient cause is any set of antecedents that makes an effect occur. A necessary cause is the set of antecedents that are required for the effect. For John Doe, having a meeting with a client in LA is the necessary cause for his going to LA. A sufficient cause of getting to LA would require some form of transportation, but not specifically a plane.
One could easily make the mistake. If all people who go from Miami to LA go by plane, then planes must be the cause for people going to LA from Miami. Stop all flights between the two cities and nobody will ever go from Miami to LA again, right?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
if you wiped every gun from this earth; the murder rate wouldn't go down.
there are no guns in Iceland... murder rate on Iceland is 0.0001 per 100,000
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
there are no guns in Iceland... murder rate on Iceland is 0.0001 per 100,000
The rate of robbery increased from 9.81 to 19.62 an increase of 100%. The rate for aggravated assault increased from 13.80 to 18.16 an increase of 31.6%. The rate of larceny increased from 4.36 to 1951.58 an increase of 44661%. The rate of total index offenses increased from 948.14 to 2764.98 an increase of 191.6%.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The rate of robbery increased from 9.81 to 19.62 an increase of 100%. The rate for aggravated assault increased from 13.80 to 18.16 an increase of 31.6%. The rate of larceny increased from 4.36 to 1951.58 an increase of 44661%. The rate of total index offenses increased from 948.14 to 2764.98 an increase of 191.6%.
thank you. thank you a million times for being there and having the facts at hand. you're the smartest bloke i know. you know right where to find information. the most respect i have for you is your willingness to post the truth; even when it goes against your opinion. you're a pillar amoung men.
The rate of robbery increased from 9.81 to 19.62 an increase of 100%. The rate for aggravated assault increased from 13.80 to 18.16 an increase of 31.6%. The rate of larceny increased from 4.36 to 1951.58 an increase of 44661%. The rate of total index offenses increased from 948.14 to 2764.98 an increase of 191.6%.
i never said CRIME as a whole would go down... the topic at hand was that the murder rate if there were no guns would stay the same (so onelongsong said) and yet you dismissed all the facts on that page and posted the only three crimes that showed any rise..
i'll post the whole paragraph rather than filtering it to suit my needs :rolleyes:
Between 1997 and 1998, according to INTERPOL data, the rate of murder decreased from 0.73 to 0.00 per 100,000 population, a decrease of 100%. The rate for rape decreased from 16.35 to 14.53 a decrease of 11.1%. The rate of robbery increased from 9.81 to 19.62 an increase of 100%. The rate for aggravated assault increased from 13.80 to 18.16 an increase of 31.6%. The rate for burglary decreased from 903.09 to 761.09 a decrease of 15.7%. The rate of larceny increased from 4.36 to 1951.58 an increase of 44661%. The rate of total index offenses increased from 948.14 to 2764.98 an increase of 191.6%. (Note that data for motor vehicle theft were not reported to INTERPOL by Iceland for years 1997 and 1998.)
i know ahnimus only posted to try and prove me wrong but he of all people (being so smart as he is) should know that he shuld post a: the whole facts not just the ones promoting his viewpoint and b: he should really read the posts first... this was about murder rates staying the same as a result of guns being wiped off the earth.. no-one mentioned larceny
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
thank you. thank you a million times for being there and having the facts at hand. you're the smartest bloke i know. you know right where to find information. the most respect i have for you is your willingness to post the truth; even when it goes against your opinion. you're a pillar amoung men.
Thanks OLS.
I seriously do not like guns myself. I know of a number of accidents with guns that could have easily been avoided. But it's just not a solution to these problems of homicide. Murder has been around longer than gun powder. Ever since humans could grasp stones we've been killing each other.
The chance of being shot at school is 1 / 2,000,000. It hasn't really increased either, it's simply garnered more media coverage. So it doesn't seem like that serious of an issue. Given the history of the United States, it is perhaps a sufficient sacrifice to maintain civilian rights.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i never said CRIME as a whole would go down... the topic at hand was that the murder rate if there were no guns would stay the same (so onelongsong said) and yet you dismissed all the facts on that page and posted the only three crimes that showed any rise..
i'll post the whole paragraph rather than filtering it to suit my needs :rolleyes:
Between 1997 and 1998, according to INTERPOL data, the rate of murder decreased from 0.73 to 0.00 per 100,000 population, a decrease of 100%. The rate for rape decreased from 16.35 to 14.53 a decrease of 11.1%. The rate of robbery increased from 9.81 to 19.62 an increase of 100%. The rate for aggravated assault increased from 13.80 to 18.16 an increase of 31.6%. The rate for burglary decreased from 903.09 to 761.09 a decrease of 15.7%. The rate of larceny increased from 4.36 to 1951.58 an increase of 44661%. The rate of total index offenses increased from 948.14 to 2764.98 an increase of 191.6%. (Note that data for motor vehicle theft were not reported to INTERPOL by Iceland for years 1997 and 1998.)
i know ahnimus only posted to try and prove me wrong but he of all people (being so smart as he is) should know that he shuld post a: the whole facts not just the ones promoting his viewpoint and b: he should really read the posts first... this was about murder rates staying the same as a result of guns being wiped off the earth.. no-one mentioned larceny
Who is cherry-picking? You claimed that a lack of guns would cause homicide rates to decrease and pasted one stat. You've made a causal inference error by stating that "no guns" equals "0.0001 per 100,000 homicides" so I reiterated that same fallacy by implying that "no guns" equals a "44000% increase in larceny"
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I seriously do not like guns myself. I know of a number of accidents with guns that could have easily been avoided. But it's just not a solution to these problems of homicide. Murder has been around longer than gun powder. Ever since humans could grasp stones we've been killing each other.
The chance of being shot at school is 1 / 2,000,000. It hasn't really increased either, it's simply garnered more media coverage. So it doesn't seem like that serious of an issue. Given the history of the United States, it is perhaps a sufficient sacrifice to maintain civilian rights.
so tell me; is a person more likely to be hit by lightening? i know they're more likely to be killed by a drunk driver or am i wrong?
Who is cherry-picking? You claimed that a lack of guns would cause homicide rates to decrease and pasted one stat.
no i didnt.. i said that there are no guns on iceland yet murder rate was almost 0%.. i never said it decreased nor increased... i just sated how low they actually are and yet they have no guns.. what you infer from that is up to you.
You've made a causal inference error by stating that "no guns" equals "0.0001 per 100,000 homicides" so I reiterated that same fallacy by implying that "no guns" equals a "44000% increase in larceny"
who cares... that massive larceny rise was probably due to achange in their laws or how the police could investigate such a crime.. again it doesnt even matter.. murder rates was the heart of the question... posting filtered stats about the rise in larceny has zero to do with this topic
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
i never said CRIME as a whole would go down... the topic at hand was that the murder rate if there were no guns would stay the same (so onelongsong said) and yet you dismissed all the facts on that page and posted the only three crimes that showed any rise..
i'll post the whole paragraph rather than filtering it to suit my needs :rolleyes:
Between 1997 and 1998, according to INTERPOL data, the rate of murder decreased from 0.73 to 0.00 per 100,000 population, a decrease of 100%. The rate for rape decreased from 16.35 to 14.53 a decrease of 11.1%. The rate of robbery increased from 9.81 to 19.62 an increase of 100%. The rate for aggravated assault increased from 13.80 to 18.16 an increase of 31.6%. The rate for burglary decreased from 903.09 to 761.09 a decrease of 15.7%. The rate of larceny increased from 4.36 to 1951.58 an increase of 44661%. The rate of total index offenses increased from 948.14 to 2764.98 an increase of 191.6%. (Note that data for motor vehicle theft were not reported to INTERPOL by Iceland for years 1997 and 1998.)
i know ahnimus only posted to try and prove me wrong but he of all people (being so smart as he is) should know that he shuld post a: the whole facts not just the ones promoting his viewpoint and b: he should really read the posts first... this was about murder rates staying the same as a result of guns being wiped off the earth.. no-one mentioned larceny
since when did the topic become murder rates? the title still says gun control. if someone proves you wrong; be a man and admitt it.
no i didnt.. i said that there are no guns on iceland yet murder rate was almost 0%.. i never said it decreased nor increased... i just sated how low they actually are and yet they have no guns.. what you infer from that is up to you.
who cares... that massive larceny rise was probably due to achange in their laws or how the police could investigate such a crime.. again it doesnt even matter.. murder rates was the heart of the question... posting filtered stats about the rise in larceny has zero to do with this topic
And the stat you posted has ZERO to do with the topic. It's a totally useless statistic because it's not clear how the homicide rate and the gun laws are related. If you want to see an effect you need a larger sample size, preferably cross-cultural to rule out cultural influences. You posted mindless rhetoric and I countered it with mindless rhetoric.
I went into details of the ciminal psychology and made quite a lengthy argument for some half-wit alcoholic to come along and counter it with the useless shit you posted. Personally it's insulting to my intelligence to read arguments like that. Now, let's look at a truly comparitive study instead of the cherry-picking.
If gun control laws have any effect, it may be to increase crime. For instance:19
New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.
In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.
Defenders of the Washington law say it isn't working because criminals are getting guns in Virginia, where the laws are more relaxed. But just across the Potomac River, Arlington, Va., has a murder rate less than 10 percent of that of Washington (7.0 murders versus 77.8 per 100,000 population). Can the difference be explained by the fact that Washington is a large city? Virginia's largest city, Virginia Beach, has a population of nearly 400,000, allows easy access to firearms - and has had one of the country's lowest murder rates for years (4.1 per 100,000 population in 1991).
An analysis of 19 types of gun control laws concluded that not only do they fail to reduce rates of violence, they even fail "to reduce the use of guns or induce people to substitute other weapons in acts of violence."20 For example:21
When Morton Grove, Ill., outlawed handgun ownership, fewer than 20 were turned in.
After Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982, it experienced no decline in violent crime.
Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.
20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.
New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation - and 20 percent of the armed robberies. Even more troublesome is the fact that the places where gun control laws are toughest tend to be the places where the most crime is committed with illegal weapons:22
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
so tell me; is a person more likely to be hit by lightening? i know they're more likely to be killed by a drunk driver or am i wrong?
Yea, probably more likely to be hit by lightning. Definately more likely to suffer death by a lamp or falling down.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
no i didnt.. i said that there are no guns on iceland yet murder rate was almost 0%.. i never said it decreased nor increased... i just sated how low they actually are and yet they have no guns.. what you infer from that is up to you.
why did you pick iceland? because of the low population?
who cares... that massive larceny rise was probably due to achange in their laws or how the police could investigate such a crime.. again it doesnt even matter.. murder rates was the heart of the question... posting filtered stats about the rise in larceny has zero to do with this topic
but he also posted the rise in other crimes to show that the absense of guns does not decrease crimes.
(this bit is my opinion) if you would compare different countries as a whole; you'll see that the murder rate did rise. ie: canada; the uk; austrailia; etc.
also keep in mind that the last school shooting was in finland. school shootings are not isolated to the us.
if you wiped every gun from this earth; the murder rate wouldn't go down.
i then said Iceland has no guns and yet its murder rate is almost non-existent.
he never proved me wrong... if you had said "banning guns means other violent crimes rise" then i might have looked at the facts and acquisced.. but if there were no guns on this planet then the murder rate would go down... and i firmly believe that... i actually find it hard to see the correlation between banning guns and violent crime... i would say banning guns in scotland meant a rise in violent crimes cos of societal reasons... the banning of the guns was just co-incidental.
at least 9 people who died in the mall recently would probably be here... ok some shitty frug dealer in South Central might stab 6 more people than he meant to but i really couldnt give a fuck if criminals kill each other... its when innocents get shot at in schools, malls, etc then it becomes an issue...
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
I went into details of the ciminal psychology and made quite a lengthy argument for some half-wit alcoholic to come along and counter it with the useless shit you posted. Personally it's insulting to my intelligence to read arguments like that. Now, let's look at a truly comparitive study instead of the cherry-picking.
hey brainboy.. do you think i seriously give a fuck about insulting your intelligence... you carry on believing your some sort of oracle on here... you never post anything other than "copy and paste" from some other smart fuckers work... anyone can do that.. havent you got some algebraic equations to talk about on youtube instead of calling me a half-wit alcoholic..
did i post anything derogatory about you (well until this post at least) NO.. i didnt... so why have a go at me.. a poor go but a go nonetheless...
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
And the stat you posted has ZERO to do with the topic. It's a totally useless statistic because it's not clear how the homicide rate and the gun laws are related. If you want to see an effect you need a larger sample size, preferably cross-cultural to rule out cultural influences. You posted mindless rhetoric and I countered it with mindless rhetoric.
I went into details of the ciminal psychology and made quite a lengthy argument for some half-wit alcoholic to come along and counter it with the useless shit you posted. Personally it's insulting to my intelligence to read arguments like that. Now, let's look at a truly comparitive study instead of the cherry-picking.
wow; that was some lesson for me. i lived in chicago in the 80's and knew people who moved out of morton grove and evanston. a few other suburbs followed in their footsteps so the criminals actually traveled to those towns because they knew they wouldn't be met by an armed homeowner. i believe it was the town of glenco which has the richest population; had home invasions and robberies go through the roof. i don't know about it's murder rate though.
Comments
and i know it's sad cate; but when you believe in something; and you're constantly called out and have to defend that belief; you get hardened off. as soon as i heard it; i knew. my second thought was now i'll have to defend my position for a week or two. my third thought was that if i was there; i could've saved those poor people. my forth thought was how sad it was that their families holidays will always be tainted now. every christmas will remind them.
cheers
should have a poll.
THANK YOU!
franch; where did you post that joe horn story you removed? can you pm me the link if you didn't repost it?
In any sophisticated political discussion the parties involved are experts in the subject. Arguments are drawn from professionals and data. In terms of crime, criminologists are the experts. They are educated and practiced in psychology and more specifically criminal psychology. The census amongst criminologists on spree killers is that there is a deeply rooted animosity for society.
For example:
More than half of those surveyed in the Criminal Personality Research Project (partially funded by the Justice Department, USA) had mental illness in theier immediate family. Half had parents who had been involved in criminal activities. Nearly 70 percent had a familial history of alcohol or drug abuse. Every single one of the murderers were subjected to serious emotional abuse during their childhoods. All of them developed into what psychiatrists label as sexually dysfunctional adults, unable to sustain a mature, consensual relationship with another adult.
http://www.criminalprofiling.ch/character.html
Now I would like to appeal to developmental psychology, since matters of childhood development are well studied in this area. Children who are neglected by their parents typically develop social disorders. It's pretty well established in general psychology that social interaction is a major contributor to self-esteem. Social disorders are poorly understood by the public and people with a disorder will find attempts at interacting will often backfire. The quite kid with no social sense who tries to approach a group will usually be ridiculed and rejected.
Is it any wonder that these people occasionally go on a killing spree? I think not. To me it seems inevitable, excepting that we don't wise up. These aren't opportunistic murders. These people have been brewing in the discomfort of rejection their entire lives, the thought of harming another person is not alien to them. I know exactly how it feels. The problem is the public by and large don't want to accept any responsibility at all. People are shallow and cruel. Evolutionary Psychology explains why that is. It's not all fun and games, that little poke could push someone over the edge.
Has anyone here with an opinion ever thought about spree killing? Has anyone here read a criminology textbook? Has anyone here read the profile of a spree killer? Does anyone have anything to go on besides so-called common-sense?
Personally I have done all of those things. It's not about guns and like OLS I'm tired of hearing about them. I'm tired of it because it's quite frankly a dumb issue to be brought up every time there is a headline. I appreciate that everyone wants to have an opinion but we've heard it all before. Maybe I'm just pissed that there is always the same debates here. More often than not the unique and interesting topics are buried in pile of enraged debates over abortion, gun laws, women's rights and conspiracy theories. None of which are really debatable issues. For all the chirping people do how much time do they spend learning about the issues? What I gather from the AET is that most people work and drink. A few have specialized studies like Baraka, Soulsinging and Scubascott, but who can claim to have spent time studying the criminal mind?
To me, this is the equivelant of Andrea Dworkin saying:
"The incest taboo, because it denies us essential fulfillment with the parents whom we love with our primary energy, forces us to internalize those parents and constantly seek them. The incest taboo does the worst work of the culture ... The destruction of the incest taboo is essential to the development of cooperative human community based on the free-flow of natural androgynous eroticism" (Dworkin 1974, p.189).
so you're saying that the NRA are liars then huh? Only two states—Wisconsin and Illinois—prohibit carrying firearms for protection http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=18
violent crimes commited with guns went up in canada and australia when control laws were put into place? no one would ever claim that enacting stricter guns laws would eliminate murder
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
48 states allow you to carry a NON-CONCEALD weapon for self defence. only 23 states offer conceald weapons permits in addition to that.
you're wrong. http://www.nraila.org//Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=1861
Thursday, January 19, 2006
How many states allow citizens to carry concealed firearms for self-defense?
A total of 46 states allow concealed carry. There are 38 “shall issue” (Right to Carry) states that have laws virtually identical to the one proposed in the PPA, establishing clear, objective standards a citizen must meet in order to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense. Another eight states have subjective “may issue” systems that allow government officials to arbitrarily deny law-abiding citizens the ability to carry a firearm.
Nebraska and Kansas have since been added to those 46 states
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
i actually study criminal psycology as a hobby. including criminal profiling. i go over past cases and study police and forensic procedures. and that's why i'm always singing the same old song. criminals will be criminals. if you wiped every gun from this earth; the murder rate wouldn't go down. we have to fix the people. it's also brought me to another interesting question you may appreciate. "why can't this society be responsable with guns"? in 1967; you could buy a gun without any paperwork. you could carry it on an airplane if you wanted to. in fact; since the invention of the gun; societies have learned to live with guns being readily available; except when kings disarmed the peasants or dictators disarmed their subjects. if you study the wild west; it's nothing like hollywood depicts. murders were rare. there's only 2 documented gunfights outside of the civil war. so why is this the only society that cannot accept the responsabilities?
that's great news. the paper i have is from my conceald carry class so it's a couple years old. the problem must be that people don't know about it; or they don't care enough about their fellow man to get involved. i would have risked my life to save them. then again; maybe the situation couldn't have been contained.
Because their is no intent when a drunk driver kills someone, its an accident. Cars also serve a useful purpose, guns don't. Guns are designed to kill people. Time to quit with the bullshit circular argument about guns as protection.
time to grow up and realize guns are here to stay. sticking your head in the sand is useless.
http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/public/83.cfm
guns also allow people to participate in interscholastic competition and gain scholarship for their ability to shoot targets. So guns can serve a useful purpose too.
I was reading this research by synergy blackwell copyright "The Author" and it studied high-school shootings. It listed a common cause in all cases as "availability of guns".
It's pretty obvious to me that if you are gathering statistics on shootings that a gun of some sort is going to be involved every time.
Of course it listed mental illness, child abuse and all these other true causes but asserted that "availability of guns" was the only consistent "cause". But 'tis not a cause at all.
If John Doe goes from Miami to Los Angeles by plane. Who would say that the plane is the cause for his going to LA?
Sigh. A sufficient cause is any set of antecedents that makes an effect occur. A necessary cause is the set of antecedents that are required for the effect. For John Doe, having a meeting with a client in LA is the necessary cause for his going to LA. A sufficient cause of getting to LA would require some form of transportation, but not specifically a plane.
One could easily make the mistake. If all people who go from Miami to LA go by plane, then planes must be the cause for people going to LA from Miami. Stop all flights between the two cities and nobody will ever go from Miami to LA again, right?
there are no guns in Iceland... murder rate on Iceland is 0.0001 per 100,000
The rate of robbery increased from 9.81 to 19.62 an increase of 100%. The rate for aggravated assault increased from 13.80 to 18.16 an increase of 31.6%. The rate of larceny increased from 4.36 to 1951.58 an increase of 44661%. The rate of total index offenses increased from 948.14 to 2764.98 an increase of 191.6%.
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rwinslow/europe/iceland.html
people are too damn cold to murder anybody there...though i hear random hugs for warmth were on the rise
thank you. thank you a million times for being there and having the facts at hand. you're the smartest bloke i know. you know right where to find information. the most respect i have for you is your willingness to post the truth; even when it goes against your opinion. you're a pillar amoung men.
i never said CRIME as a whole would go down... the topic at hand was that the murder rate if there were no guns would stay the same (so onelongsong said) and yet you dismissed all the facts on that page and posted the only three crimes that showed any rise..
i'll post the whole paragraph rather than filtering it to suit my needs :rolleyes:
Between 1997 and 1998, according to INTERPOL data, the rate of murder decreased from 0.73 to 0.00 per 100,000 population, a decrease of 100%. The rate for rape decreased from 16.35 to 14.53 a decrease of 11.1%. The rate of robbery increased from 9.81 to 19.62 an increase of 100%. The rate for aggravated assault increased from 13.80 to 18.16 an increase of 31.6%. The rate for burglary decreased from 903.09 to 761.09 a decrease of 15.7%. The rate of larceny increased from 4.36 to 1951.58 an increase of 44661%. The rate of total index offenses increased from 948.14 to 2764.98 an increase of 191.6%. (Note that data for motor vehicle theft were not reported to INTERPOL by Iceland for years 1997 and 1998.)
i know ahnimus only posted to try and prove me wrong but he of all people (being so smart as he is) should know that he shuld post a: the whole facts not just the ones promoting his viewpoint and b: he should really read the posts first... this was about murder rates staying the same as a result of guns being wiped off the earth.. no-one mentioned larceny
Thanks OLS.
I seriously do not like guns myself. I know of a number of accidents with guns that could have easily been avoided. But it's just not a solution to these problems of homicide. Murder has been around longer than gun powder. Ever since humans could grasp stones we've been killing each other.
The chance of being shot at school is 1 / 2,000,000. It hasn't really increased either, it's simply garnered more media coverage. So it doesn't seem like that serious of an issue. Given the history of the United States, it is perhaps a sufficient sacrifice to maintain civilian rights.
Who is cherry-picking? You claimed that a lack of guns would cause homicide rates to decrease and pasted one stat. You've made a causal inference error by stating that "no guns" equals "0.0001 per 100,000 homicides" so I reiterated that same fallacy by implying that "no guns" equals a "44000% increase in larceny"
so tell me; is a person more likely to be hit by lightening? i know they're more likely to be killed by a drunk driver or am i wrong?
no i didnt.. i said that there are no guns on iceland yet murder rate was almost 0%.. i never said it decreased nor increased... i just sated how low they actually are and yet they have no guns.. what you infer from that is up to you.
who cares... that massive larceny rise was probably due to achange in their laws or how the police could investigate such a crime.. again it doesnt even matter.. murder rates was the heart of the question... posting filtered stats about the rise in larceny has zero to do with this topic
since when did the topic become murder rates? the title still says gun control. if someone proves you wrong; be a man and admitt it.
And the stat you posted has ZERO to do with the topic. It's a totally useless statistic because it's not clear how the homicide rate and the gun laws are related. If you want to see an effect you need a larger sample size, preferably cross-cultural to rule out cultural influences. You posted mindless rhetoric and I countered it with mindless rhetoric.
I went into details of the ciminal psychology and made quite a lengthy argument for some half-wit alcoholic to come along and counter it with the useless shit you posted. Personally it's insulting to my intelligence to read arguments like that. Now, let's look at a truly comparitive study instead of the cherry-picking.
Yea, probably more likely to be hit by lightning. Definately more likely to suffer death by a lamp or falling down.
why did you pick iceland? because of the low population?
but he also posted the rise in other crimes to show that the absense of guns does not decrease crimes.
(this bit is my opinion) if you would compare different countries as a whole; you'll see that the murder rate did rise. ie: canada; the uk; austrailia; etc.
also keep in mind that the last school shooting was in finland. school shootings are not isolated to the us.
i then said Iceland has no guns and yet its murder rate is almost non-existent.
he never proved me wrong... if you had said "banning guns means other violent crimes rise" then i might have looked at the facts and acquisced.. but if there were no guns on this planet then the murder rate would go down... and i firmly believe that... i actually find it hard to see the correlation between banning guns and violent crime... i would say banning guns in scotland meant a rise in violent crimes cos of societal reasons... the banning of the guns was just co-incidental.
at least 9 people who died in the mall recently would probably be here... ok some shitty frug dealer in South Central might stab 6 more people than he meant to but i really couldnt give a fuck if criminals kill each other... its when innocents get shot at in schools, malls, etc then it becomes an issue...
hey brainboy.. do you think i seriously give a fuck about insulting your intelligence...
did i post anything derogatory about you (well until this post at least) NO.. i didnt... so why have a go at me.. a poor go but a go nonetheless...
wow; that was some lesson for me. i lived in chicago in the 80's and knew people who moved out of morton grove and evanston. a few other suburbs followed in their footsteps so the criminals actually traveled to those towns because they knew they wouldn't be met by an armed homeowner. i believe it was the town of glenco which has the richest population; had home invasions and robberies go through the roof. i don't know about it's murder rate though.