Why so many murders? by Geezer

I too thought it was a great question and was about to answer Sig in his original thread. What would be interesting would be to get a breakdown of murder by motive. What percentage were

1) Crimes of passion (killing hubby/wife/gf/bf)
2) crimes for gain (ie killing granny for the inheritance, business partner for money)
3) Murder in support of a crime (drugs/robbery)
4) Murder in support of sexually motivated crime (rape, sexual assault, sexual sadism)
5) other. (mainly psychological illness)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 28, 2007 11:40 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I too thought it was a great question and was about to answer Sig in his original thread. What would be interesting would be to get a breakdown of murder by motive. What percentage were

1) Crimes of passion (killing hubby/wife/gf/bf)
2) crimes for gain (ie killing granny for the inheritance, business partner for money)
3) Murder in support of a crime (drugs/robbery)
4) Murder in support of sexually motivated crime (rape, sexual assault, sexual sadism)
5) other. (mainly psychological illness)

Haven't looked at all the multitude of tables available here, but the Uniform Crime Reporting program has tons of data, seemingly a lot more than the last time I checked it a few years ago.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/index.html

And here's an interesting bit about the circumstances behind homicides. Not quite as detailed as your breakdown, but still pretty telling.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/circumst.htm#reasons

This bit caught my eye.

"(homicides)involving adult or juvenile gang violence increased almost 8 fold since 1976."

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 28, 2007 12:21 PM

ALLIETHORN7

8 fold, you say?
That is just plain scary. Maybe America has a habit of attracting all of the psychos from everywhere else. I wouldn't be surprised- most anyone can get in- even with elephants!

-Danny

We move for all mankind,
A million miles from everything we've ever know...
We're on their hearts and minds,
A million heads are bowed to bring us safely home...
Hemmed in by emptiness,
A million ways that everything could be undone...

THRICE RULES!!!!!!!!!
My Master went to the Moon in a Rocket of Flamin' Cheese!
I LIKE CHEESE!!!
http://www.myspace.com/otherrandomdude

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 28, 2007 12:24 PM

I believe this is the table we need.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shr
table_09.html

For this year there were 14,990 victims.
Using general headings

1) Domestic (love triangles murderous babysiters etc) 130 -- 0.9%
2) Robbery/larceny/burglary -- 1149 7.7%
3) sex crimes -- 50 - 0.3%
4) Drink/Drug induced brawls -- 158 - 1%
5) Argument over property -- 198 -- 1.3%
6) Other arguments 3,607 -- 24%
7) Drug crime -- 796 -- 5.3%
8) Juv/ gangland killings 983 - 9.6%

However about half the cases had unknown/unreported reasons.

It seems that the biggest cause of murder are arguments of one kind or another, especially if under the influence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 28, 2007 1:50 PM

Question: "Why so many murders?"

Answer: Unarmed victims.

Case closed.
-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 28, 2007 2:40 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Question: "Why so many murders?"

Answer: Unarmed victims.

Case closed.
-F

If you saw the 'News at Six' vids of gang related shootings here in metro D.C. you wouldn't think so. Tons of brass casings on both sides of the event. The intended victims are usually packing too. Unfortunately, the gangstas, both shooters and shootees, are such poor shots that it's the babies in cribs and grannies in their living rooms who usually end up getting hurt. Maybe we should start a "teach a gang-banger to shoot" program and stop the collateral damage to innocent babies and grannies.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 28, 2007 3:23 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I am an advocate of gun ownership, but I don't think that 'unarmed victims' are the REASON behind so many homicides.

From the chart posted above, it would seem that the largest percentage of all homicides occur due to "Arguments."

This tells me that we, as human beings, really can't abide one another. We don't tolerate each other well, and we don't handle our ire well.

I will offer a postulation: Our society places far less emphasis on social graces than it used to. Please and Thank You are becoming rarer daily. It almost seems that when we became politically correct and threw out harmful stereotypes and hurtful words, we also discarded the antiquated concepts of honor and politeness.

And without that firmly ingrained concept of honor and mutual respect, there is no social buffer to stand between stimulus and response. There is no programmed conditioning to stand between anger and fist. Or knife. Or gun. There is no consideration for others, merely a selfish focus on one's self and one's own desires and need for gratification, glorification, and satisfaction.

I think this is the REASON behind homicides. We threw out the baby with the bathwater.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 28, 2007 3:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Question: "Why so many murders?"

Answer: Unarmed victims.

Case closed.
-F

Well as most of the deaths were arguments I'm suspecting more guns will not solve the problem. If you could condense the "average" murder down it would seem somebody gets drunk or high and kills someone else.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 28, 2007 5:37 PM

I suspect that my position on this is not going to well accepted by either side, and it’s largely speculation, but I think it explains the difference between the crime in the US and that in Europe. The reason why there is more violent crime in the US is because the average poor person has too much independence and too much money. Let me explain, most European countries are Welfare States where the poor are heavily dependent on the government for their welfare. Their cooperation has essentially been bought, moreorless. Which isn’t cheap, the cooperation is directly related to the transfer of wealth to the lower classes. The state must provide relatively considerable wealth to the poor in order to disincentivize criminal activity, US welfare is not enough. But the US economy is so much more vibrant then the European economy that the US can afford to provide its poor with substantially better wealth as the standard. The average American poor lives in a bigger house/apartment then the average middle class European. They drive a bigger car, are more likely to own household amenities, such dishwashers and the like. They eat more expensive food, such as meat. The US provides much more wealth to its poor, but this wealth is not seen as coming from the government to compensate for the “injustice” of being poor, it is simply part of the wealthy landscape created by the American economy unburdened by huge taxation needed to run a Welfare state. It’s a little bit ironic, but the American poor are more restless then the European poor.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 28, 2007 6:34 PM

An argument that goes ugly isn't a murder, really.

I define murder as the purposeful slaying of a human being with intent and malice aforethought.

That lets out a lot of the cases mentioned, but it's not murder, as slaying without premeditation is generally considered manslaughter.

Murder is when you have intention to kill someone, means to do it, and act upon that intention - something that's very much more likely to happen if you KNOW your intended victim is unarmed... one of the reasons that many shootings occur on court property, the parking lot, or the steps, is that they know.
A- Where the victim is going to be.
B- That they will be unarmed.

Generally when a criminal assaults or confronts someone, it is because of either desperate need (a jonesing junkie will attack ANYONE) or because they perceive they can successfully victimize the target - and as self defense of ANY kind becomes more and more vilified, this makes it easier and easier for that victimization to occur.

Generally a murderers goal is to get close enough, successfully kill you, and then escape without harm or arrest - something a weapon in the possession of the potential victim greatly complicates.

Now, you wanna discuss social issues relative to gunfire, that's a different thing entire, but outright and intentional murder is directly affected by the intended victims perceived or real ability to forestall it.

That ring it a bit clearer ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 28, 2007 6:48 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

I thought there were 'degrees' of murder, where only one of the degrees was pre-meditated?

I might be wrong. Maybe watch too many courtroom dramas.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 28, 2007 7:04 PM

No. You’re right. Federal Homicide code title18: section 1111 distinguishes two types of murder: first degree and second degree. Each state has its own laws about murder, but I think all or most also distinguish two types of murder as well.

Although I think Alabama does not distinguish between first and second degree murder, now that I think about it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 28, 2007 7:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
An argument that goes ugly isn't a murder, really.

I define murder as the purposeful slaying of a human being with intent and malice aforethought.

That ring it a bit clearer ?

-F

I see what you are saying, that was why I didn't include ugly arguments in my initial list. However, it is surprising how many argument related cases there are. The violent crime stat I gave includes things as diverse as carjackings, burglary and robbery and still doesn't get into the same ballpark.

I know you probably don't want to hear it because the whole underpinning of the gun lobby is that you use weapons for defence against violent crime but it does seem that some drunken ahole shooting you is far more common than the thief in the night or the mugger.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 28, 2007 7:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I suspect that my position on this is not going to well accepted by either side, and it’s largely speculation, but I think it explains the difference between the crime in the US and that in Europe.

....
....
.....

If you will indulge me an alternative explanation.

An American friend of mine said something last week that startled me. He said that many Americans live with an ongoing subconscious undercurrent of fear. Fear that they will get sick and not be able to afford healthcare, fear of losing their job, fear of being robbed, fear of not being able to compete.

I wonder if this isnt the dark side of social Darwinism? American society is extremely competative at almost every level, Americans are taught to compete with each other at an insanely early age. There is a morbid fear of losing and a society that sets relatively limited definitions of "success" most of which are unobtainable by the majority of citizens.

I wonder if that low level continual build up of stress doesnt occasionally find explosive release? Maybe that's why so many arguments turn violent. As Frem says this isn't premeditated, this is things getting way out of hand . Add to that relative ease in getting lethal weapons and things go bad very quickly.

By comparison there are fewer stresses in Europe, it's not nearly as competative a culture there is less stigma associated in not being a winner and the consequences of catastrophic loss are less profound.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 28, 2007 7:33 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

I'll be honest...

I'm a gun ownership advocate. I love going shooting in the desert. I enjoy the security I feel, knowing that a weapon is within easy reach that can equalize the differences between a criminal and myself.

Still, if I could press a magic button right now that would eliminate every firearm on the planet forever, I would. I'd really be perfectly content to strap a sword to my side and call it a day.

But since I can't make it so no one has firearms, I insist on the right to have one.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 28, 2007 9:31 PM

Ayep, very true - you are MUCH likely to face potential gunfire from a drunken, stoned, or just plain wacked out shithead than you are to face attempted murder.

I mentioned de-escalation, shadowdancing, and substantial defense tactics in another thread, and even if one doesn't carry some iron, it's still well-worth the knowing as it could save your life one day.

I'll also mention that the better trained someone is with a firearm, the LESS likely they are to draw and fire it, overall - which touches I guess on the whole "undercurrent of fear" mentioned above.

Our society here in the states thrives on it, makes a business on it, the government depends on it - they all want you scared, all the time - and for whatever reason, that Kool-Aid don't work on me, never did... everybody dies, it's just a matter of when and how, and the things they want me to be scared of are laughable threats in the face of real dangers, which are in truth very rare, or at least rare in that you'd never see em coming.

I guess having survived a near-fatal accident, and watching the entire medical establishment write me off as a lost cost who was gonna die anyway kinda poisoned my mind against that kinda fear - if it happens, it happens, but that bastard reaper is gonna hafta CATCH me first!

Social factors leading to gunfire are generally a lack of mutual respect, lack of de-escalation, and lack of training on behalf of the folks involved - having all three reduces the threat value to virtually nil, not to mention there's always running for your life, and most wackos are terrible shots.

I also think vilifying self-defense in any form has substantially contributed to the problem, because people without confidence in a situation because they have no training or proper means of defense enter a fear state, and then ANYTHING can happen... you just never know which way fear is gonna jump when you poke it.

A link for ya, Anthony, when you have the time.
http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn?page=0
Online graphic novel, pretty good story in and of itself, but also proposing a society closer to what I would envision as ideal - not that I agree 100% with it, but I think you'd like it.

Anyhows, that's about all I can say on the topic, really.

Oh, yes, final note in this post, having had to get on and off the turpike repeatedly in Ohio - who's bright idea was it to make the rest stops "UNARMED VICTIMS HERE!" zones ?
(aka weapon-free zones)
Do they really think that stupid little SIGN is gonna stop a criminal ?

I took MY business elsewhere, thanks.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 28, 2007 11:26 PM

I think what you are saying is very true. If you look at Switzerland you see a country where not only do they have more guns than the US they have far less gun crime. I believe that's because everyone there is trined in proper use and storage of the weapon and the discipline needed to use it. Guns dont kill people, impulsive aholes with guns kill people.

Unfortunately any suggestion of certification or licensing is rejected by the gun lobby, so the more ideal situation -- that people know and respect the weapon falls by the wayside.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 1:55 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I tend to think that some of the reason is that we have a relatively new and extremely diverse population, and that we haven't worn all the rough edges off yet, as they have in places where folk have lived thousands of years. I'll have to look into national murder rates in relation to settlement and diversity.

Did a little more poking at this proposition.

Looking here:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-cap
ita

I see that countries with higher murder rates generally share one of two things.

1. They were colonized by Europeans within the past 500 years and have ethnicly diverse population. This would include the US.

2. They are parts of the former Soviet Union.

Countries with lower murder rates tend to have either been around longer, or have a great preponderence of European colonist descended population (Canada, Australia, NZ)

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 5:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I wonder if that low level continual build up of stress doesnt occasionally find explosive release? Maybe that's why so many arguments turn violent. As Frem says this isn't premeditated, this is things getting way out of hand . Add to that relative ease in getting lethal weapons and things go bad very quickly.

I think it’s more complex than either interpretation, but I wouldn’t be surprised if either was a contributor.

I think geezer has touched on something though. One obvious thing that characterizes the American murder rate is that most of it comes from African-Americans, which make up a minority of the population. If you remove the 52% of murders committed by the 12.6% of the population, then the murder rate drops considerably. It doesn’t drop all the way down to the European average, but it does drop down to a high ballpark below Finland. So I think the diversity of the population is certainly a contributor.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 6:59 AM

"Unfortunately any suggestion of certification or licensing is rejected by the gun lobby, so the more ideal situation -- that people know and respect the weapon falls by the wayside."

I don't think Gov't regulation is the way to go with this, but certification I would like to see, it would benefit the firearm manufacturers and gun shops by limiting their liability and be a positive social force overall, so best case would be the shops and manufacturers hammering out some kind of agreement on a minimum training standard without which they'll not sell to you, and possibly an additional price knockoff for better training as you are further reducing your liability to them as a potential lawsuit and they should reward you for it.

That's really NOT a hard thing to do, if they wanted to - what I do not wanna see, is them sit on that ball till the Gov sticks it's hands in it and does the same job for fifty times the money, one tenth as effectively, combined with favoritism and abuse typical of any Gov't action.

I won't deal directly with the "Gun Lobby" cause while individuals may or may not be - as a whole they come off to me like a bunch of extreme right racist haters who think anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do should be dragged behind a pickup truck, even THR has had substantial problems with trying to overturn or defy that image, cause there really ARE a lot of people like that in the collective.

When you use someones physical location, political stance, or ethnicity as a slur, you've gone beyond the point of reason and into hate, which presents a very bad image to me personally, as the concept of a rigid-thinking intolerant hater with a firearm bothers me, you know ?

Anyhows, the industry COULD self-regulate, they're fully capable of it.

Ponder this potential conversation.
At the gun shop

Customer: Um, I wanna buy a gun.

Owner: Sure, have a certificate of training ?

Customer: Uhh, no ?

Owner: Why not ?

Customer: Why should I need one ?

Owner: A gun is a pretty expensive investment there fella, not to mention like any tool, it can be a hazard if you don't know what you're doing.

Owner: Wouldn't it be smart to know best how to operate and maintain it properly ? I mean, you wouldn't buy a power drill without knowing how to chuck a bit, would you ?

Customer: Oh.. can you reccommend someone ?

Owner: Sure, here's a list, the guys marked with a star can take care of you for less than the price of a decent sized box of ammo, just the basics, and the guys at the top do some basic defense training as well.

Customer: Would I need that ?

Owner: Up to you, but it would hurt to have a little, and if you bring me a cert from one of those guys I'll kick 10% off the top for ya.

Customer: Sweet, hey, can I put a deposit on a piece and come back later with the cert ?

Owner: You mean to reserve it ? sure, it's not refundable though, if you change your mind, and you have to come back within 30 days or you'll lose the deposit.

Customer: Yeah, I gotcha, lemme see that Sig-Sauer there...

Etc,etc...
It's a logical, fully workable concept, and after Katrina and the door-to-door jackbootery, the LAST thing I think is a good idea is the Gov having a list of who has what, you know ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:11 AM

The argument that private ownership of firearms prevents violent crimes is one I think makes sense, and John Lott has done a lot research to demonstrate that this can be the case. In certain parts of the US gun ownership is probably a deterrent against crime. But I think it’s more complicated than some want to make it. For instance, it’s not the actual proliferation of firearms that acts as a deterrent to violent crimes as it is the impression within the community that the “unjust” use of firearms will be met with a responsible defense of lethal force or retribution by lethal force. That’s a bit more complicated than I think many pro-gun arguments allow, because the deterrent is derived from the cultural conception that certain common social norms can be defended with lethal force then it is simply that guns are available. So in order for a gun-owning society to be a deterrent to violent crime it must be a “moral” society, in that it is responsible and has a common sense of social justice, which is the case in certain parts of the US, particularly in conservative rural areas. But, small arms are heavily proliferated about the Middle East, and one would be hard pressed to argue that in this case, the existence of so many guns necessarily constitutes a determent to violent crime. And the reason is because many Middle Eastern societies have elements within them that are so “rotten” or unsympathetic to the common social sense of justice, that many would rather die than not kill someone, and there’s no way to pull a deterrent out of that. So it’s not as simple as pushing guns onto the society for defense if that society has no common sense of justice.

The point being that the only way to make gun ownership a viable universal deterrent against crime is for people to be trained in their responsible use, something that requires us to first enforce the laws we have on the books and then to impose certification on gun owners.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:22 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Here's another weirdness- not only do we have the highest incarceration rate, we have the highest percent of "religious followers" along with the highest murder rate. Clearly, neither religion nor law enforcement are the answer to our problems!

Americans live with fear, uncertainty and doubt on an every -day basis, and we KNOW that should we fail in any way there is absolutely no safety net for us. All I need to do is drive to the center of any mid-sized American city to see the schizophrenics, drug-addled, brain-damaged, disabled, and just plain unlucky existing like less than animals in the detritus of success. Jails are OUR mental-health, drug rehab, and occupational therapy systems. How fucked-up is THAT???

Not only do we live with FUD every goddamn day of our lives, we also live with self-hate because we are taught from day one that since success is there for the taking, every failure is a personal failure. (Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse 5had an extended quote from a German General on American POWs about that. If I can find it again I'll post it. It's just so bang-on).

Not only do we have we created a hostile society (Every man for himself and God against all. Hows' THAT for an oxymoron?) we have little support from family or friends- less than other developed nations. According to surveys, the poorer you are the fewer people you will cite as close friends.

And then you add an extremely violent media. It's like a friend at works say: "Kiss a breast you get an X-rating. Cut off a breast you get an R."

This all comes to a boil in American black society, then add a couple of giant ladles of prejudice (heaped on the from outside and absorbed), poor education, general availability of liquor store and fast-food outlets- but no grocery stores or doctor's offices- adn what you get is what you see.

Here's an interesting fact that I just learned from a recent workshop - on pollution, of all things: The HIGHER the segregation rate, the HIGHER the pollution levels FOR EVERYBODY. Yes, whites experience less pollution than non-whites, but they experience MORE pollution than if they lived in less-segregated cities. The same statistic apply across the board to all negative environmental factors.

And take a step back, then, from why things are the way they are. WHO BENEFITS?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:35 AM

Actually I think both law enforcement and religious belief can reduce crime. Much like gun ownership, the issue comes down to how it’s defined. Law enforcement that focuses on arresting criminals after they have committed a crime will never be as effective in reducing crime as law enforcement that also focuses on preventing behavior that leads to crime. Policing and fighting crime are two different parts of law enforcements, but unfortunately in many American societies, the policing aspect has been de-emphasized, which often results in social degradation leading to increased crime.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:39 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Frem,

I think that certification and training in the use of firearms makes perfect sense. We certify people to drive, after all.

The problem is that lawmakers are NOT trying to take away people's rights to drive. They aren't going to manufacture a driver's license system that is difficult or impossible to achieve. Their goal is safe driving, not no driving.

On the other hand, a significant portion of lawmakers ARE trying to take away people's rights to own firearms. The system of certification that they might create or manipulate may have very different goals than the certification system for automobile use.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:56 AM

Anthony: I think that's the NRA's fear. I think they see this as a thin edge of the wedge deal and that once they allow any kind of regulation it can be expanded into a ban.

One of the things I found interesting after 9/11 and the Patriot act was the governments insistance that background check records for firearms purchases should JUST be used for that and not correlated with any other data. So you live in a society where a secret court order can be issued to see what you take out from your local library but guys buying weapons are not being run through any additional screening.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 8:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Anthony: I think that's the NRA's fear. I think they see this as a thin edge of the wedge deal and that once they allow any kind of regulation it can be expanded into a ban.

I do too. As soon as we require gun certification, the usual suspects will begin immediately demanding to expand that into a ban. It’s a bit of pickle. The net result is that gun ownership may decrease crime under certain circumstance, but it may be impossible to implement that on a national scale the way Switzerland has, given the current political environment.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 8:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

To reiterate: compared to the EU and Commonwealth nations the USA has not only the THE HIGHEST rate of incarceration and THE HIGHEST RATE of people who believe in God, we also have THE HIGHEST murder rate.

I have a general theory that also applies to the "police state" thread: People turn to authoritarianism times of fear and uncertainty. That's why the Japanese were rounded up during WWII- not b4 or after. It may seem an obvious point but is often forgotten.

What is authoritarianism? Reliance on strict enforcement of the current rules through punishment.

It think our religiosity and incarceration rate is neither the cause of nor the cure for, but a product of our economic and social instability. But if you want to reduce the instability you have to go to the root causes for the answer.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 10:20 AM

That is why I believe it vitally important that the industry SELF regulate, that the shops and manufacturers do so, rather than the government.

It's not at all a perfect solution, but the two primary alternatives suck ass.

-F

Edit: "Hostile Society", ayep, one I refer to wholeheartedly with every derogatory word imagineable, if you've not noticed before, I despise the entirety of it, it's sick, twisted, insane and destroys the humanity that is the very foundation civilisation is based upon by crushing it out of our young before it has a chance to grow.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 10:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
To reiterate: compared to the EU and Commonwealth nations the USA has not only the THE HIGHEST rate of incarceration and THE HIGHEST RATE of people who believe in God, we also have THE HIGHEST murder rate.

post hoc, ergo propter hoc

Amish communities are deeply religious, with social norms and laws centered on the church, but almost no crime, violent or otherwise.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
To reiterate: compared to the EU and Commonwealth nations the USA has not only the THE HIGHEST rate of incarceration and THE HIGHEST RATE of people who believe in God, we also have THE HIGHEST murder rate.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Amish communities are deeply religious, with social norms and laws centered on the church, but almost no crime, violent or otherwise.

Wait a second, Finn. Doesn't that lend more support to SignyM's argument? The Amish take extreme measures to separate themselves from US culture. They're not a great exemplar of the vast majority. About as far from it as you can get.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 8:05 PM

Personally, I believe it's because we have the largest concentration of assholes per capita here. But then again, I don't get out much....

Where are all of the Brits and Aussies to tell us it's because we have handguns?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 8:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Wait a second, Finn. Doesn't that lend more support to SignyM's argument? The Amish take extreme measures to separate themselves from US culture. They're not a great exemplar of the vast majority. About as far from it as you can get.

Pretty confident you missed Finn's point there Soup.

Unless I'm getting Signy's point wrong, which I took to be Belief in God = Murderousness.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 8:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Pretty confident you missed Finn's point there Soup.

Unless I'm getting Signy's point wrong, which I took to be Belief in God = Murderousness.

I took SignyM's point to be, if you believe that more religiosity leads to less violence and you believe that more incarceration leads to less violence, how do you reconcile that with the US where we have high violence rates and high incarceration rates and high religiosity?

I took Finn's point to be: here's an example of high religiosity and low violence. What I think was completely absent from Finn's example was that the Amish are doing everything in their power to stay separate from US culture. And I found that really humorous.

Now, as far as your interpretation that the point was belief in God = murderousness, I think that came more from your lens than from anywhere else.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 9:32 PM

When explained that way, it makes a bit more sense Soup. It's just the way you had those two quotes lined up that way. It kinda read to me as one person saying that faith leads to murder and the other person showing an extreme example against that thought.

Though I did leave it open for Signy to explain that to me. I wasn't sure if I was getting that point right or not.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 9:45 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I was out for most of the day. What I said was:

I think our religiosity and incarceration rate is neither the cause of, nor the cure for {murder} but a product of our economic and social instability.

To put it another way, I think we have a high murder rate because of other economic/ social factors. And while people may turn to religion and/ or the police as a reaction to the problem, neither really resolves the problem.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 9:47 PM

Actually when Siggy first put forward his theory I read it the same way that Jack did. However from Sigs second post I think it what he actually means is that the added violence and belief in religion are both symptoms of a society that has too much fear and doubt. Two human reactions to the unknown are to appeal to a higher power and to respond violently towards it. Sig is suggesting that as these "symptoms" are both present then this uncertainty and fear is the cause.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 9:47 PM

There ya go

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 9:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
When explained that way, it makes a bit more sense Soup. It's just the way you had those two quotes lined up that way. It kinda read to me as one person saying that faith leads to murder and the other person showing an extreme example against that thought.

Well, I think that's the frame that Finn was trying to set up with his reply to that particular quote from SignyM. I simply split the two quotes apart so it was crystal clear who said what.

I just found it hilarious that Finn would use an example, in a thread about things that are unique to US culture, of a group who are trying to stay separate from that same culture with every fiber of their being.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 10:05 PM

Well now... that all makes quite a bit more sense now. Thanks for clearing that up ya'all. No arguments here.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 10:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
To put it another way, I think we have a high murder rate because of other economic/ social factors. And while people may turn to religion and/ or the police as a reaction to the problem, neither really resolves the problem.

So how do we resolve the underlying problems? I buy what you're selling but it seems like institutions that have grown more powerful and influential because of the problems have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 10:23 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

That's a good question. One of the problems that MUST be overcome is the corrosive effect of money on elections. The high cost of getting elected virtually guarantees that those who don't hustle for corporate contributions will be winnowed out of the process. If politicians are free from that influence, they may stop allowing lobbyists to write legislation and actually be responsive to the people who elect them.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 10:41 PM

Doesn't most of the money spent by candidates during an election cycle go to advertisements or costs associated with advertisements? How much money would a candidate need to spend if they didn't buy television spots? And it's not just a matter of working to minimize advertising costs. Something would have to be done about ad quality (maybe Madison Avenue companies getting tax credits to do pro bono work for third party candidates or something like that).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 29, 2007 10:51 PM

The war on drugs will never end because the economy will go down the shit tubes.

Child pornography, online or otherwise, will never come to an end, because there is far too much money generated making it and combatting it.

We will never, ever be free from disease, even if the techincal knowledge to make this happen exists today or some other day, because the very people making this technology would be putting themselves out of business.

Just a few examples of how nothing good will ever be provided for us if it were left up to governments and corporations without the proles demanding change. My guess, is if any one of those three scenarios were to just magically happen by the beginning of 2008... the war on drugs being won, no more child pornography being created, or all diseases being cured, the economy of the world would implode so grossly that it would make the Great Depression look like a holiday.

They're putting on a good show... but nobody who has any money invested in the market for retirement would enjoy what happened to their portfolio on the day any one of those things were to happen.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 30, 2007 6:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

6IX- Very cynical but most likely true. Power begets power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

SOUP: I propose that every entity with an FCC license MUST provide free air time to all national candidates who meet a minimum test for viability, a time of the candidates' choosing (not Sunday 2 AM). Just provide each one 15 minutes every month for two months prior to an election. It's up to the candidates to decide whether they want to pool their time, make long speeches, or have a bunch of 15-second clips. With a maximum of about 2000 candidates that's about 48 hours of programming a month. Two days in 30. Compared to the advert and crap on TV and radio, I figure it's a small investment in our collective future.

The OTHER thing I would do is place a moratorium on free access and political advertising one-two weeks ahead of any election. The way things are now, the adverts degenerate into hysteria about a week and -a half before any election. I think the campaign and all the points the candidates have made need some time to "settle"; people need a chance to reflect on and consolidate what they've heard.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 30, 2007 6:45 AM

It's a nice idea but it will be struck down as a first amendment violation. Seriously the biggest chalenges to the campaign finance regulations came from first amendment cases I can see a court injunction 30 seconds after the legislation passes (if it ever does remember the people voting for it are the ones that benefit from the existing system and you dont see many turkey's voting for Thanksgiving.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 30, 2007 7:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

There are two parts to my proposal. The first part is requiring the entities with FCC licenses be required to provide free time to all viable candidates. The idea has been floated before, and none of the objections have ever been centered in First Amendment rights. The broadcast spectrum is considered a "public good", and the law requires that those who make use of this spectrum prove to the FCC, on license renewal (each two years) that they have served the "public good". It should be a simple matter to make this requirement part of their license.

The second part- a moratorium on political advertising two weeks ahead of election- would almost definitely run afoul of the Fist Amendment. It prolly wouldn't work, but.... hey, one can dream!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 30, 2007 11:47 AM