View Full Version : The real gun violence problem you are not allowed to talk about
I’m sure everyone is getting tired of the gun debates. I don’t want to hijack anyone else’s thread so I just thought I would say this once, then we can get back to ignoring the real problem and focus on feel good solutions that won’t solve anything. The real problem is not the number of guns, the number of bullets a gun can hold, or the lack of restrictive gun laws. This is obvious when you look at the relation between gun laws and gun violence.
Why are homicide rates lowest in states with loose gun control (North Dakota 1.1, Maine 1.2, South Dakota 1.7, Idaho 1.8, Iowa 2.0, Montana 2.6) and highest in states and the district with draconian gun controls and bans (District of Columbia 80.6, New York 14.2, California 12.7, Illinois 11.3, Maryland 11.7)?
The real problem is CULTURE. This can be true when you look at it transnationally, but more relevantly it is true when you look at it within the US. So why do we not talk about this? Because the violent subcultures that generate most of the gun problems are not evenly distributed. Many of the people that are caught up in them are minorities. When you start to look at the problem it makes people nervous. Is it racist to look at the cultural aspect? Do racist white people just want guns to protect themselves from minorities? I would content the opposite is true. It’s like the soft racism of low expectations. The victims of most of the violence committed by these subcultures are usually other minorities, so they are the ones that suffer the most from the failure to find a solution. What is racist is ignoring the daily carnage that occurs in our minority communities. Kill some cute little white girls and it’s a media frenzy, but the deaths of young black men aren’t even news any more.
When you take some of these demographic issues into account, the US is no more dangerous than Canada or Europe. I don’t know if these numbers are exactly correct, but my guess is they are directionally correct.
In 2006 the Department ofJustice (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt) issued a report on violent felons in large urban counties. It covered the period from 1990 to 2002, and included the 75 most populous counties in the United States. The study accounted for over half of all the murders in the United States in the covered period. Revealed in the study was a simple breakdown of the demographics of the murderers that is not commonly available. Murderers were divided into three groups. Blacks were the most numerous at 46%. Hispanics were next at 27 percent. Non-Hispanic whites were last at 23 percent. While the study does not account for all murders in the period studied, it accounts for more than half and almost certainly slightly understates the percentages of Black murderers, because the latest FBI statistics (for 2010) (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain) show that when all the murders in the U.S are taken into account, the percentage of Black murderers is over 53 percent...
Where does that lead us? If we take the 23 percent figure for non-Hispanic whites to be representative for the entire population (remember,it is likely a good bit lower), then the number of murders committed by non-Hispanic and non-black people in the United States for 2010 would be 2989. The population of non-Hispanic whites for 2010 was 196.8 million. Applying the 2989 murders to this population gives a murder rate of 1.52 per 100,000 population. We cannot get a more precise figure unless we have more demographic data than that given. Asian-Americans, for example, have historically had very low murder rates, but we do not have the data. The 1.52 per 100,000 murder rate is right in the middle of the murder rate of developed European countries. http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/01/european-murder-rates-compared-to.html
The truth is there are some people or subcultures that will find a way to commit violence even when they are subject to very strict gun laws- see Chicago and Washington DC (the African American teenage male homicide rate in Washington, DC is 227 per 100,000). For other people it doesn’t matter how lax laws are, they don’t tend to shoot anyone- see Vermont with unrestricted gun carry laws and 1.6 per 100,000.
My goal here is not to point fingers, but rather use the collective wisdom of this group to look for ideas that might make a difference. I’m pretty sure there is no quick fix, but whatever time or energy you spend discussing the real issue is better spent than trying to make people reload a few extra times.
Your dealing with two different problems. Your example is definatly one of culture and socio-economic concern.
The shootting in Connecticut was one of mental illness.
There is a huge difference between the causes of the shooting of a young black person in a drive-by and the slaughtering of 20 5-6 year olds inside of a kindergarden classroom.
JMO
Your dealing with two different problems. Your example is definatly one of culture and socio-economic concern.
The shootting in Connecticut was one of mental illness.
There is a huge difference between the causes of the shooting of a young black person in a drive-by and the slaughtering of 20 5-6 year olds inside of a kindergarden classroom.
JMO
I agree that the causes in your examples are far different. We shouldn't ignore either one. At the same time one cause costs maybe 40 or 50 lives a year and one costs tens of thousands. As sensational as some crimes are it does not make you cavalier to remember that because we need to keep our perspective while we consider state and federal level legislation.
My personal soap box in every one of our gun debates is illegal guns. That plays straight into the points Yossarian brought up. FBI statistics on gang activity go back decades. Gangs are where an overwhelming percentage of gun violence begins. Gang membership is predominantly young men, either black or Hispanic. That is exactly the two groups responsible for the highest percentages of murders. I doubt anyone is surprised. Gangs are today's organized crime. Break up their operations, seize their guns and drugs; make it more hassle than its worth at every turn. And give the members a viable way out, some real opportunity. Do that and I bet our gun violence problem gets cut off at the knees.
iris lily
1-12-13, 11:06am
As a dweller in the urban core, yup, doncha know it. Tell me what illegal thing you want and I can get it for you from neighbors in the projects two blocks away.
They don't pay heed to no steenkin' gun laws.
I don't think MS-13, the Crips, and other such social clubs have many members in Norway, Sweden, or some of the other exemplar European countries brought up in the continuing cross-cultural violence statistics comparisons.
iris lily
1-12-13, 11:27am
I don't think MS-13, the Crips, and other such social clubs have many members in Norway, Sweden, or some of the other exemplar European countries brought up in the continuing cross-cultural violence statistics comparisons.
I know, these comparisons always make me roll my eyes. I don't bring it up because like this thread says, ya just don't talk about it.
Living in a city I think one of the "cultural" factors is that law enforcement appears to tolerate violence in some areas much more than others. If the violence that happened in the poorer neighborhoods occurred in the nicer neighborhoods, there would be a much bigger push to stop it. One thing I've always found interesting is how little spillover there is from one area to another.
I always wonder how intentional it is - if one works from a viewpoint that violence cannot be stopped, one strategy would be to segregate it and try to contain it to certain areas.
early morning
1-12-13, 12:37pm
I think one of the "cultural" factors is that law enforcement appears to tolerate violence in some areas much more than others. If the violence that happened in the poorer neighborhoods occurred in the nicer neighborhoods, there would be a much bigger push to stop it. One thing I've always found interesting is how little spillover there is from one area to another.
+1
At the same time, white suburban gang wannabes are dealt with by the cops driving them home and turning them over to the parents, while both poor white and minority kids are turned over to the juvenile court system. Jacks the stats, you know?
Living in a city I think one of the "cultural" factors is that law enforcement appears to tolerate violence in some areas much more than others.
Absolutely. And...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrRA7WMI1ks
It's funny you brought this up Yossarian as I was thinking about crime statistics last night in terms of banning things that are harmful to our society - comparing banning many other preceived harmful things in our society to the proposed semi-auto rifle ban in my mind. My thoughts were this: Statisticly black malkes between the ages of 15 and 25 have the highest crime rate of any demographic. So, to make life safer for us all, then lets just ban ALL black males ages 15 to 25 from our society to reduce crime and violence. It doesn't matter if the majority of those men have never commited a violent or criminal act in their lives, and never would, but since we can't determine which black male will commit which violent act, we need to just ban them all for the betterment of our society. So lets not bother to look at the causes and rational as to WHY black males between 15 and 25 are statisticly more violent and engage in criminal activity - things like poverty, racism, lack of employment opportunities, lack of education opportunities, drugs, gang, racial profiling by law enforcement, more incarceration then whites who commit the same crimes, social and peer pressure in the inner city ghetto, etc... Lets just ban then all - the good and the bad - and be safe without having to actually address the social and justice issues that lead them to behave that way in the first place and try to do something to change them. Easy Feel Good Solution applied! Who's next? Oh yeah, those pesky hispanic people, then the pesky asian people, and the white gang bangers and outlaw biker gangs, then those pesky people who may (or may not) have mental health issues. Banned for the safety of us all!
Let's just say that 20 cute little white (edit: I checked, there was 1 Hispanic girl, but the town is something like 95% white) kids killed makes for better news than black/Hispanic gang bangers killing each other (and the occasional innocent bystander). People get more outraged at the former than the latter. So, the pro-gun control activists are using Sandy Hook for all they can, (figuratively) squeezing every last drop of blood they can out of the tragedy to ram their agenda through.
The above is going to offend someone, but I'm past that point.
ApatheticNoMore
1-12-13, 4:24pm
Spartana, we kind of have banned them, look at the imprisonment rate for young black males.
As for a cultural thing, I do kind of think so: AMERICAN CULTURE. Militaristic, always at war, bragging about it, violence shown as the solution to problems by Hollywood, etc.. American culture is a violent culture.
As for demographics, I had the theory the other day that this is mostly a red-state problem, but I know it's not PC to talk about that (and if it offends you, haha if you are posting on this thread you really don't have the right to offense). But anyway I did some minimal (wikipedia and so on - this is just personal minimal curiosity - this is not an academic paper) research by states. It is true that Southern states have the highest crime rates, New England states have the lowest. So if you can't move to Canada to escape U.S. violence basically move to a state *bordering* Canada! There seems to be a strong connection to poverty of course.
"Almost all of the nation's wealthiest twenty states, which included northern mid-western and western states such as Minnesota and California, had crime rates below the national average. In addition to having the country's lowest crime rates, New England states also had the country's highest median household income, while the Southern states have the lowest."
Of course there is differences depending on where in a state one lives (although violent crime is no longer just an urban problem).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
No offense intended but isn't gun worship and violence primarily a male thing?
I was watching Anderson Cooper last night and he interviewed a guy who wrote a book on people who create conspiracy theories. Apparently there's an absurd one out there that the Newtown shootings were all staged, with "crisis actors" and all.
The author postulated, and I agree, that conspiracy theorists are simply trying to order their world. They can't come to terms with the fact the random violence and evil exists, so they try to find one culpable party; one scapegoat.
So, in terms of the "gun violence problem" I think we all need to go through this period of wrapping our brains around such horror, but it doesn't mean we're going to come up with the right answer with regard to mental illness, gun control, 2nd amendment, etc., whether our kids should wear bulletproof clothing to school, etc.
We're not going to find the right answer for this one random event that was caused by an obviously mentally ill person. Maybe we should pass a law that says that divorced women are forbidden to take their mentally ill children to shooting ranges.
I believe we have an unfortunate culture of violence in this country, and I'll be darned if I know what the answer is. I do believe in a reasonable level of gun control, but that's certainly not going to be the panacea we're looking for.
No offense intended but isn't gun worship and violence primarily a male thing?I don't know what you mean by "worship" but I think traditionally more men then women are interested in guns, and the sports, hobbies and activities that involve guns. That may be changing though as many women are interested in those things too. I don't know about men being more prone to violence or liking violence more then women in general, but there have been many studies linking testostorone to more violent behavior though. I don't know if that's true or not (haven't read up on those studies) but it may be just cultural or social issues that lead more men to engage in violent behaviors then women.
As for demographics, I had the theory the other day that this is mostly a red-state problem
New England is not known for its diversity. Race and poverty are very intertwined, but hispanics are generally poorer than African Americans but have murder rates closer to whites than blacks. And take Chicago, not exactly a red state, but it famously has neighborhoods that are more dangerous than Iraq. How then do we break the vicious cycle that produces these problems?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DngIPWTtYG0/UDfgj3eZuuI/AAAAAAAAAe4/1qw1iVvsKiY/s1600/Screen+shot+2012-08-24+at+11.51.18+AM.png
[QUOTE=Yossarian;123888]New England is not known for its diversity. Race and poverty are very intertwined, but hispanics are generally poorer than African Americans but have murder rates closer to whites than blacks. And take Chicago, not exactly a red state, but it famously has neighborhoods that are more dangerous than Iraq. How then do we break the vicious cycle that produces these problems?[QUOTE/]
And it may not just be poverty as much as race or social standing. Why did the Kennedy kid get off on rape charge while Mike Tyson didn't? Why did the Kennedy man get off on negligent homicide charges while numerous other people of color don't? Why did the kennedy person get off on charges of...well, you get the picture :-). Money, status, and connections may do more to keep certain types of people (mostly white) from becoming "criminals" irregardless of their activities.
And it may not just be poverty as much as race or social standing. Why did the Kennedy kid get off on rape charge while Mike Tyson didn't? Why did the Kennedy man get off on negligent homicide charges while numerous other people of color don't? Why did the kennedy person get off on charges of...well, you get the picture :-). Money, status, and connections may do more to keep certain types of people (mostly white) from becoming "criminals" irregardless of their activities.
I don't think the issue at hand is who gets away with criminal activity as much as it is what causes violence. The Kennedy's have been getting away with just about anything they can think of for generations, that doesn't mean that all white, Irish Catholic Democrats do.
The point of this thread is a good one, it just makes people uncomfortable. Our gun violence problem has little to do with guns and much to do with the fact that our society is not willing to address the real social problems that result in gun violence.
We're cowards.
I don't think the issue at hand is who gets away with criminal activity as much as it is what causes violence. The Kennedy's have been getting away with just about anything they can think of for generations, that doesn't mean that all white, Irish Catholic Democrats do.
The point of this thread is a good one, it just makes people uncomfortable. Our gun violence problem has little to do with guns and much to do with the fact that our society is not willing to address the real social problems that result in gun violence.
We're cowards.
But we are very earnest cowards, continuing to furrow our brows and talk around the subject. Don't we get any points for that?;)
But we are very earnest cowards, continuing to furr our brows and talk around the subject. Don't we get any points for that?;)
Not if we continually re-direct and look everywhere but the problem. How many gun violence threads have we been subjected to these last few years and where to they always go? To the gun, never to the source of violence.
We should be talking about families and community and morals and social norms but we won't, we'd rather believe in diversity and acceptance of choices and victimization of entire sub-cultures by the power elite.
That's why we always get more of the same.
awakenedsoul
1-12-13, 10:38pm
I don't think there's a pat answer. I think it's complex. I feel there's a connection between technology and violence. I am careful to limit my time using a computer or cell phone to an hour a day. I can feel the difference in my body. I learned how to "butcher a chicken" on line. It all sounded fine when I was reading on the computer. Once I actually did it, I was totally traumatized. People have lost touch with their spirituality and the sacredness of life. Poverty and hunger make you desperate and your mind is racing. You're not in your right mind. I believe that debt does the same thing.
Many young people follow their sexual urges, which leads to unplanned pregnancies, unhappy marriages, and unwanted children. It's a vicious cycle. As you get older your realize what it costs to raise a child. Most teenagers have no idea.
I recently confronted my neighbor about some violence in their family. I took him aside and told him, "Your sons are beating the crap out of that little girl." The boys are in grammar school, and the girl is only two or three. The father was leaving the three of them with the grandparents from 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. (I don't know why the boys aren't in school.) "Your daughter needs to be protected," I told him. "She is too tiny to defend herself." I don't like this guy or his family, but he thanked me. He disciplines his boys with violence, shoving them up against the fence and yelling at them until they are shaking and crying. They, in turn, beat up on their sister and when she cries tell her, "Kiss my ass." It's a mess. The grandfather hugs the boys after the trauma. It's so sick. Nobody ever defends the little girl. She is so sweet, and she is totally innocent. The family is Hispanic. It runs deep. I can see from how they've treated me that they have been raised to dominate and abuse women and children. I think this is part of the root of our violent culture.
My brother was violent. We were raised in an upper middle class white household, but both of my parents are alcoholics. I think it's rage. We had enough to eat, but there were all kinds of other problems. Just because families have money doesn't mean they aren't screwed up emotionally. Prescription drugs are also drugs. The wealthy are just getting their drugs from doctors.
I said this in an earlier thread. I know it sounds simplistic, but exercise, (physical exhaustion is especially healthy for energetic kids and young adults,) healthy sexual release, a good diet, a comfortable home, chores, routine, and personal responsibility go a long way. As a teacher, I've seen accountability at home go out the window. Kids are not being parented anymore. Many people do not practice self care, for a myriad of reasons.
I also hear a lot of verbal abuse, which is also damaging. Televison is full of it. Not everyone sees the power of these influences.
Spartana, we kind of have banned them, look at the imprisonment rate for young black males.
As for a cultural thing, I do kind of think so: AMERICAN CULTURE. Militaristic, always at war, bragging about it, violence shown as the solution to problems by Hollywood, etc.. American culture is a violent culture.
As for demographics, I had the theory the other day that this is mostly a red-state problem, but I know it's not PC to talk about that (and if it offends you, haha if you are posting on this thread you really don't have the right to offense). But anyway I did some minimal (wikipedia and so on - this is just personal minimal curiosity - this is not an academic paper) research by states. It is true that Southern states have the highest crime rates, New England states have the lowest. So if you can't move to Canada to escape U.S. violence basically move to a state *bordering* Canada! There seems to be a strong connection to poverty of course.
"Almost all of the nation's wealthiest twenty states, which included northern mid-western and western states such as Minnesota and California, had crime rates below the national average. In addition to having the country's lowest crime rates, New England states also had the country's highest median household income, while the Southern states have the lowest."
Of course there is differences depending on where in a state one lives (although violent crime is no longer just an urban problem).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
I think you could make a strong case for ignorance/low IQ/lack of education being positively correlated with violence of all kinds, independent of race or ethnic background.
I don't think there's a pat answer. I think it's complex. I feel there's a connection between technology and violence. I am careful to limit my time using a computer or cell phone to an hour a day. I can feel the difference in my body. I learned how to "butcher a chicken" on line. It all sounded fine when I was reading on the computer. Once I actually did it, I was totally traumatized. People have lost touch with their spirituality and the sacredness of life. Poverty and hunger make you desperate and your mind is racing. You're not in your right mind. I believe that debt does the same thing.
Many young people follow their sexual urges, which leads to unplanned pregnancies, unhappy marriages, and unwanted children. It's a vicious cycle. As you get older your realize what it costs to raise a child. Most teenagers have no idea.
I recently confronted my neighbor about some violence in their family. I took him aside and told him, "Your sons are beating the crap out of that little girl." The boys are in grammar school, and the girl is only two or three. The father was leaving the three of them with the grandparents from 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. (I don't know why the boys aren't in school.) "Your daughter needs to be protected," I told him. "She is too tiny to defend herself." I don't like this guy or his family, but he thanked me. He disciplines his boys with violence, shoving them up against the fence and yelling at them until they are shaking and crying. They, in turn, beat up on their sister and when she cries tell her, "Kiss my ass." It's a mess. The grandfather hugs the boys after the trauma. It's so sick. Nobody ever defends the little girl. She is so sweet, and she is totally innocent. The family is Hispanic. It runs deep. I can see from how they've treated me that they have been raised to dominate and abuse women and children. I think this is part of the root of our violent culture.
My brother was violent. We were raised in an upper middle class white household, but both of my parents are alcoholics. I think it's rage. We had enough to eat, but there were all kinds of other problems. Just because families have money doesn't mean they aren't screwed up emotionally. Prescription drugs are also drugs. The wealthy are just getting their drugs from doctors.
I said this in an earlier thread. I know it sounds simplistic, but exercise, (physical exhaustion is especially healthy for energetic kids and young adults,) healthy sexual release, a good diet, a comfortable home, chores, routine, and personal responsibility go a long way. As a teacher, I've seen accountability at home go out the window. Kids are not being parented anymore. Many people do not practice self care, for a myriad of reasons.
I also hear a lot of verbal abuse, which is also damaging. Televison is full of it. Not everyone sees the power of these influences.
Your post has been really bothering me. Your neighbor is abusing, or allowing his sons to abuse the young daughter. I mean, is she really only 2 or 3? Child protective services needs to be involved in this family. If she is truly being abused and she is only 2 or 3, you need to get totally involved, and so does child protective services. This very young child, baby really, needs protection. Clearly the parents aren't providing it. Someone else needs to step in and protect this young person from a life time of damage.
I'm sorry. But this is in your hands now. At least this young life is in your hands. You need to tell someone in authority about this situation. Someone who can maybe make this father think about what his daughters life is like, and change it. Or remove him from it, if that's what's best for this baby.
Sometimes we can't wait for 'the government' or 'someone else' to make the difference. We ARE 'the government', and the difference is us. If we are unwilling to accept the challenge, then there is no hope. Please make a difference in this young girls life.
... The family is Hispanic. It runs deep. I can see from how they've treated me that they have been raised to dominate and abuse women and children. ...
I missed this. When you say "they" I assume you mean this particular family and not "Hispanics" (a vast, diverse group) in general. My Mexican-American partner absolutely worshiped his mother, gets along well with all his many sisters, and has never bullied or threatened me (I expect he would guffaw at the thought). I haven't seen or heard evidence of violence in his huge extended family, either. His father has been described to me as a kind, quiet, gentle man who was happiest in his garden.
I said this in an earlier thread. I know it sounds simplistic, but exercise, (physical exhaustion is especially healthy for energetic kids and young adults,) healthy sexual release, a good diet, a comfortable home, chores, routine, and personal responsibility go a long way. As a teacher, I've seen accountability at home go out the window. Kids are not being parented anymore. Many people do not practice self care, for a myriad of reasons.
Others have responded to other parts of your post, but I just wanted to say yes, yes, yes, to all of this. I didn't have enough of all this stuff growing up and I was so angry and sometimes violent. As an adult I was able to take control of my own life to put those things into my life, but only because I'm smart and did have some foundation for proper behaviour. I think it's even worse today. No exercise, no responsibility for anything anymore. Society is in a sad place and people don't seem to recognize the need for these supposedly basic things.
I don't think there's a pat answer. I think it's complex. I feel there's a connection between technology and violence. Prescription drugs are also drugs. The wealthy are just getting their drugs from doctors.
I said this in an earlier thread. I know it sounds simplistic, but exercise, (physical exhaustion is especially healthy for energetic kids and young adults,) healthy sexual release, a good diet, a comfortable home, chores, routine, and personal responsibility go a long way. As a teacher, I've seen accountability at home go out the window. Kids are not being parented anymore. Many people do not practice self care, for a myriad of reasons.
I agree. No matter how much people look at demographics and the cause and effect of gun control, much of it comes down to this. I think some of the mental distresses in our society are a result of improper diet, lack of excersize and time spent out of doors and is inappropriately treated by doctors doling out drugs as if from a candy jar. It doesn't sound simplistic to me. It's actually complex problems with elusive solutions.
Just last night speaking of the effects of media...I watched the movie Beasts of the Southern Wild so awakeneds post brought to mind the feeling of helplessness the little girl as she was tossed around by her father and life in general. The backwoods "teacher" in the film reminded us that it is our responsibility to look out for the small and helpless among us. So hard to change culture though. DD works in child abuse area and it really crosses all lines of ethnicity and income.
awakenedsoul
1-13-13, 1:23pm
I missed this. When you say "they" I assume you mean this particular family and not "Hispanics" (a vast, diverse group) in general. My Mexican-American partner absolutely worshiped his mother, gets along well with all his many sisters, and has never bullied or threatened me (I expect he would guffaw at the thought). I haven't seen or heard evidence of violence in his huge extended family, either. His father has been described to me as a kind, quiet, gentle man who was happiest in his garden.
Jane,
I'm sorry. Yes. I meant this particular family. (And to be fair, it's not the whole family.) I didn't mean the entire race.
awakenedsoul
1-13-13, 1:42pm
I was talking with a friend of mine about problems I've had with this family. He was saying that in most of the rest of the world, (unfortunately,) it is okay to treat women and children this way. A lot of families flee those countries and come here. But, the habits and patterns persist.
As I've said in some of my other posts, I've taken this family to court for harassment, threatening an animal, and other violations. They have a huge network that they employ and they know how to make my life miserable. I have tried to sell my home and they have sabotaged the sale.
peggy,
The little girl hasn't been back since then. I live next door to the grandparents. I worry if I were to contact CPS that the little girl might end up somewhere worse. I don't think the adults are abusing her. They actually seem very loving towards her. She's a very sweet, easy child. It's the brothers. They are idle, bored, hanging around all day with nothing to do, and their grandparents provide no structure or order.
I think a lot of the shootings are done by boys with the same problems. I agree that it crosses all cultures. I made a choice not to have children, because I didn't want to repeat my mother's rage filled actions. I think we have deep seated family problems in America and an inability to deal with negative emotions. There are healthy ways to discharge negative emotions.
I agree with all of you who responded. Parents don't realize how important the basics are to emotional balance and stability. I would have these boys running laps, playing soccer, delivering newspapers, helping with chores, and attending school. Their time needs to be used constructively. They don't do any of that. No homework, etc.
The police department in my city has identified, out of 1,000 police reports, 17 very bad guns that have been fingered in ballistics tests to be responsible for many shootings. This is interesting to see how often these few guns are passed around from bad guy to bad guy.
http://tinyurl.com/bwnthmd
The police department in my city has identified, out of 1,000 police reports, 17 very bad guns that have been fingered in ballistics tests to be responsible for many shootings. This is interesting to see how often these few guns are passed around from bad guy to bad guy.
http://tinyurl.com/bwnthmd
In the future, we'll all have DNA on file and implanted RFID/GPS chips, and it will make short work of identifying bad guys in our midst. Which is comforting or scary or both.
ApatheticNoMore
1-13-13, 3:32pm
I agree with all of you who responded. Parents don't realize how important the basics are to emotional balance and stability. I would have these boys running laps, playing soccer, delivering newspapers, helping with chores, and attending school. Their time needs to be used constructively. They don't do any of that. No homework, etc.
They themselves were/are? abused, thrown up against a fence, verbally, and they are in turn abusing. The abuse from the adults needs to stop first and yes they need to stop abusing the little girl. But it doesn't take much to figure out where they learned it from, if they were in school, they would probably be the class bullies. By the way just thinking about how dysfunctional this family is beyond even the abuse: here are a bunch of kids not even going to school. Now I have no problem with homeschooling or unschooling by responsible parents who can offer their kids something through it, but if the kids aren't going to school just because the parents are too off in thier own heads to even make sure the kids get up and go to school that is a whole nother story (and I thought my parents could have won an off in their own heads prize! but really even they took care of this).
In the future, we'll all have DNA on file and implanted RFID/GPS chips, and it will make short work of identifying bad guys in our midst. Which is comforting or scary or both.
Hmmm. Interesting idea Jane. When you read the statistics regarding how many crimes are committed by repeat offenders it makes you wonder if controlling that group might not be low hanging fruit. If you're convicted of a felony you automatically give up some rights (legal gun ownership, voting, etc.). Why not require a tracking chip to be implanted in felons? It's not inhumane, my dog has one and it doesn't bother her. Food for thought.
awakenedsoul
1-14-13, 12:40pm
They themselves were/are? abused, thrown up against a fence, verbally, and they are in turn abusing. The abuse from the adults needs to stop first and yes they need to stop abusing the little girl. But it doesn't take much to figure out where they learned it from, if they were in school, they would probably be the class bullies. By the way just thinking about how dysfunctional this family is beyond even the abuse: here are a bunch of kids not even going to school. Now I have no problem with homeschooling or unschooling by responsible parents who can offer their kids something through it, but if the kids aren't going to school just because the parents are too off in thier own heads to even make sure the kids get up and go to school that is a whole nother story (and I thought my parents could have won an off in their own heads prize! but really even they took care of this).
I completely agree with y ou. I saw the school principal yesteday and asked her if the kids were still out of school. Turns out they go back today...so I was wrong. I'm relieved.
Hmmm. Interesting idea Jane. When you read the statistics regarding how many crimes are committed by repeat offenders it makes you wonder if controlling that group might not be low hanging fruit. If you're convicted of a felony you automatically give up some rights (legal gun ownership, voting, etc.). Why not require a tracking chip to be implanted in felons? It's not inhumane, my dog has one and it doesn't bother her. Food for thought.
Why stop there? Why not require a chip in everyone? Knowing you can be indentified would be a good deterrent for first time offenders - and like you said, it's not inhumane. And it's good way to tell all the law biding citizens who have their chips from the felons who had theirs illegally removed or disabled.
Of course you have to worry about identity theft, which could become more ... surgical.
There was a recent court case that said students can be forced to carry their RFID implanted id's or face expulsion. So we're starting down that road.
Why stop there? Why not require a chip in everyone? Knowing you can be indentified would be a good deterrent for first time offenders...
...So we're starting down that road.
Kind of like banning guns will deter all those law abiding citizens who were thinking about shootin' up the town? And yea, it looks like we've already taken a few steps on that road.
Why stop there? Why not require a chip in everyone?
Morals.
What moral foundation is there to *require* someone to submit to this, when they have done no harm?
That requires the initiation of the use of force against another, which is wrong.
They, however, would have a perfect moral foundation to resist such efforts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKnEAC-7WVo
ApatheticNoMore
1-14-13, 2:42pm
Even the criminals: have they done their time or not? (no not getting into a discussion of how few serve the full sentence here) If there is a concept of them having done their time then aren't they free afterward?
Even the criminals: have they done their time or not? (no not getting into a discussion of how few serve the full sentence here) If there is a concept of them having done their time then aren't they free afterward?
This "concept" is more from elementary school playgrounds and bad movies than real life.
In real life, we don't reform criminals in prison, in fact we provide them with a shockingly-good education in how to be *better* criminals. We release them generally on probation/parole as part of managing their release into society, in lieue of simply executing them or keeping them locked up forever away from non-violent citizens. So they haven't "done their time" at all, we as a society are simply choosing to take a risk in releasing them, with conditions, in an attempt to be more merciful, or to reduce costs, or to give someone another chance at reform.
Like the fellow who killed the 4 Lakewood police officers here a couple of years ago. We gave this guy *lots* of chances to reform...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Clemmons
I don't think the issue at hand is who gets away with criminal activity as much as it is what causes violence. The Kennedy's have been getting away with just about anything they can think of for generations, that doesn't mean that all white, Irish Catholic Democrats do.
.True. The Kennedys were probably a bad choice for comparision but what I was trying to say is that, while lower income male blacks and hispanics in inner cities statistically are involved in, charged and incarcerated for more crimes then their white middleclass suburban peers, there may be more reasons for that difference then merely the number of crimes committed. White middle and upper income people who commit crimes do historicly get better treatment when it comes to avioding being charged and/or convicted - reducing charges to lessor degrees, sending them to diversion programs that keep them out of the system and/or expunge any criminal record, sending them to things like mental health, drug and acohol treatment, etc... Lots of ways that people with money can hire lawyers to keep their young folks from going to jail or prision or even being charged and convicted. And it's more likely that a middleclass family has the means to make sure that someone is cared for after incarceration, to give them a home and shelter and even some way to improve their lives (like education or job opportunities) that are not available to an impoverished person. Thus reducing recidivism rates and future crimes and incarcerations.
Morals.
What moral foundation is there to *require* someone to submit to this, when they have done no harm?
That requires the initiation of the use of force against another, which is wrong.
They, however, would have a perfect moral foundation to resist such efforts.
"Moral" is not in the Constitution.
The Japanese internment was immoral, they had a perfect moral foundation to resist such efforts, and the ones that did were sent to prison.
They would not have to "require" anyone, though - just set things up so that one either has the chip or they deal with the consequences of not having one (modern version of not "having your papers"). Most would voluntarily comply.
Even after "doing their time" felons can't legally purchase a gun or vote. Those privileges are taken away permanently. I'm not sure privacy (or the ability to operate in the shadows) should not also be taken away. The chip idea was a little tongue in cheek, but for convicted felons, especially those who committed violent crimes or are habitual offenders, it might not be such a bad idea.
"Moral" is not in the Constitution.
I wasn't talking about the Constitution, so that is a bit of a red herring, eh?
I was talking about morals. I strive to live an ethical life, no matter what the law says...
I like to think that next time they start rounding up my neighbors because of their religion or ethnicity, I'll quietly say to myself "never again", as some nice old gentlemen with tattoos taught me in my youth, and Do The Right Thing.
I wasn't talking about the Constitution, so that is a bit of a red herring, eh?
I was talking about morals. I strive to live an ethical life, no matter what the law says...
I like to think that next time they start rounding up my neighbors because of their religion or ethnicity, I'll quietly say to myself "never again", as some nice old gentlemen with tattoos taught me in my youth, and Do The Right Thing.
Actually bringing up "morals" was the red herring - I was arguing legalities. Two very different and unfortunately unrelated things. Morally I agree with you. But I don't know if I could be that courageous.
People do not have to get vaccinated. But it can make life difficult if one doesn't submit to it. Like I said, it could be made completely voluntary.
Actually bringing up "morals" was the red herring ...
No, it was the honest answer to the questions you asked.
Why stop there? Why not require a chip in everyone?
As I included in the original reply to you.
Morally I agree with you. But I don't know if I could be that courageous.
It's simple duty, not courage.
TTFN
In the future, we'll all have DNA on file and implanted RFID/GPS chips, and it will make short work of identifying bad guys in our midst. Which is comforting or scary or both.Maybe we could somehow imprint our guns with microchips that will only work if they recognise our DNA. Sort of a person-specific device that "locks out" the trigger mechanism on a gun if anyone else tries to shoot it. That would make stealing them for use in crimes or any kinds of shootings basicly useless. So even if the Adam Lanza's of the world got someone else's guns, they wouldn't fire. And that wouldn't require a tracking device in the gun - or the owner. THAT's a little too Big Brotherish for me. There are shutters of fear running down my spine at the idea of being microchipped and tracked involuntarily by "THEM"! YIKES!!
Maybe we could somehow imprint our guns with microchips that will only work if they recognise our DNA. Sort of a person-specific device that "locks out" the trigger mechanism on a gun if anyone else tries to shoot it. That would make stealing them for use in crimes or any kinds of shootings basicly useless. So even if the Adam Lanza's of the world got someone else's guns, they wouldn't fire. And that wouldn't reqire a tracking device in the gun - or the owner. THAT's a little too Big Brotherish for me. Tjere are hutters of fear running down my spine at the idea of being microchipped and tracked involuntarily by "THEM"! YIKES!!
How about just being forced to carry one on your person, then? In some case a girl lost recently, her school could expel her because she refused to carry an RFID implanted ID.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2013/January/Girl-Expelled-for-Refusing-RFID-Badge-Loses-Appeal/
"
They would not have to "require" anyone, though - just set things up so that one either has the chip or they deal with the consequences of not having one (modern version of not "having your papers"). Most would voluntarily comply.Resistence is futile! Yep, we'll just send those who don't comply to the Ministry of Love (Orwell's "1984").
How about just being forced to carry one on your person, then? In some case a girl lost recently, her school could expel her because she refused to carry an RFID implanted ID.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2013/January/Girl-Expelled-for-Refusing-RFID-Badge-Loses-Appeal/Time to change schools! At the gym I go to - 24 Hour Fitness - they have a finger print ID machine (biometeric scanners) that you are required to use upon entering. I found found this to be HIGHLY invasive (as did my sister who also goes there) and we both refuse to use it. We make them check our (non-trackable as far as I know) photo ID cards. Really ticks them off but I refuse to submit to having myself finger printed and then having to use a fingerprint machine everyday to gain access to a place I pay to use.
Resistence is futile! Yep, we'll just send those who don't comply to the Ministry of Love (Orwell's "1984").
Just threaten to send them to the "other" line- they'll comply. Give them a choice of being scanned or waiting a long time to be groped, they'll happily get scanned.
Time to change schools! At the gym I go to - 24 Hour Fitness - they have a finger print ID machine (biometeric scanners) that you are required to use upon entering. I found found this to be HIGHLY invasive (as did my sister who also goes there) and we both refuse to use it. We make them check our (non-trackable as far as I know) photo ID cards. Really ticks them off but I refuse to submit to having myself finger printed and then having to use a fingerprint machine everyday to gain access to a place I pay to use.
What a ridiculous idea. If that gym ever has a network security breach and those fingerprint files are stolen they will be legally responsible, both in terms of notifying all the effected customers and also potentially to dealing with the resulting lawsuits. And since it's not possible to change one's fingerprints the potential exposure is much greater than it is for something like stolen credit card numbers. Smart businesses know to keep as little personally identifiable information as is necessary to do their business. Fingerprints of all of a gym's customers definitely doesn't fall into that category. There are plenty of other methods of confirming membership that don't require sensitive information to be stored.
ApatheticNoMore
1-15-13, 1:30am
I was a member of that gym and refused to do the biometric identification as well, never got fingerprinted for them, made them use the photo id :). I eventually quit the gym though as I wasn't going near enough to justify the expense.
We don't know what causes gun violence in the US because the NRA and the gun lobby has been able to stop government funded studies. In 2011 the gun lobby even got the following put into the 2011 defense bill. Armed forces commanders can not even ask a suicidal solider if he has access to a private firearm. Keep in mind more troops committed suicide last year than died in our wars.
"speech grounds and currently remains blocked pending continuing court action. A similar "gag rule" remains in effect in the military, however, thanks to a provision in the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act that prevents commanders and noncommissioned officers from asking even suicidal service members if they have access to private firearms. [5 Biggest Gun-Control Milestones in History]"
Edited to add link. Please read the link it goes into detail how the NRA and the gun lobby has been able to stop gun violence studies.
http://news.yahoo.com/government-stifled-gun-research-235107279.html
Yes yes, gun violence is all the NRA's fault. The premier firearms safety training organization in the world. Got it.
We don't know what causes gun violence in the US...
I completely disagree free. Sure, there are isolated incidents that we don't know the cause of, but overall I think we have a decent handle on several causes that stem from larger issues.
Poverty and lack of opportunity, which leads directly back to the OP here. By far the highest incident of gun crime is among minorities in economically challenged settings. It's not hard to see the allure of gangs and crime in general in that kind of setting. No one is more dangerous than someone with nothing to lose.
Drug pipelines. Users, dealers, cartels...all the way through. Obviously closely related to the point above. As long as there are profits in the drug trade this will be a problem because the people involved are already criminals so gun laws offer very little deterrent.
Mental illness. You won't convince me that this is a large scale problem when it comes to gun crime, but guns in the hands of an unstable person can certainly produce horrific results. The way the media sensationalizes such events insures us that they will remain front and center even if its only a very small part of the actual problem.
Depictions of graphic violence in entertainment media (movies, TV, video games, music, etc.). This is arguable. I happen to be one who thinks it may not be a cause, but can add fuel to the fire. Is there a relationship in a kid's mind when they go from watching shooters in a movie or shooting people in a video game to doing it for real? I don't know. Is it possible? I don't see how it can be ruled out.
As far as the NRA goes it would absolutely be in their best interests to bring the root causes of violence to light because their membership is not responsible for it. Their membership is made up of legal, responsible gun owners. They are further supported by manufacturers who sell their product to those members. Anything they can do to shift the blame away from the guns themselves and preserve the rights of their members would be hugely beneficial to the organization. Suppressing the real story would only serve to focus negative attention on their members. That makes no sense.
Why then does the NRA do all it can do to stop government programs studying gun violence in the US.
Just threaten to send them to the "other" line- they'll comply. Give them a choice of being scanned or waiting a long time to be groped, they'll happily get scanned.And I'd probably WANT to stand in the long line to get groped :-)! Just teasing. But why would I be groped anyways if I can show proper ID?
Seriously, I have no problem (but don't like it) with institutions, like the school that girl went to, requireing ID cards with trackable chips to use while in that (and only that) facility, but only if those devices can be deactiviated or left at the facility once the person is no longer on school or business property. The idea of either a permanent implantable tracking device in a person's body (I shudder at the mere thought of this!), or requirering us to carry a trackable ID card everywhere we go (which can be left anywhere anyways so useless), is something I would fight extremely hard agaisnt. To me, my whereabouts and doings in this world are no one's business and to ask me, or anyone, to be trackable 24/7 anywhere on the planet for absolutely no reason is just about the most highly invasive and totalitarian thing I can imagine.
As for a facility (like my gym) wanting to do either biometeric/fingerprint scans for ID purposes to use their facilities, I am also OK with that as long as it is on a voluntary basis and , if I choose not to participate, there is another way to be IDed. I have no problem with them requirering that I show a photo ID along with my gym card, but I will not submit to being fingerprinted and have to have them scanned everytime I go there. Like JPL pointed out above, the potential risk factor for ID theft not only is great, but just the personal invasivness is down right scary to me.
ETA: My sister works for a large defense contractor. This defense contractor makes and runs biometeric scanners for use in US post offices (and worldwide too) for fingerprint and eye scans for certain people (foreign nationals usually) looking to get passports and visas. It is an anti-terrorist tool. At that level I have no problem with required biometeric scannings for ID purposes of forgieners applying for a visa - to the US or other countries (Britain and other countries uses them also). However, there is a movement by the gov. to increase the use of biometeric testing in other areas - like traffic stops for example - to check ID, as well as would be part of a program for a required National ID card. So while these scans do not have tracking capabilities (yet!), your 4th ammendment rights could be violated by the pervasive required use of these scans in the future.
I completely disagree free. Sure, there are isolated incidents that we don't know the cause of, but overall I think we have a decent handle on several causes that stem from larger issues.
. plus one to everything you said Gregg.
Why then does the NRA do all it can do to stop government programs studying gun violence in the US.
I don't know free. I did read your link and it is disappointing in several ways. The NRA isn't exactly Boy Scout Troop 101, I'll give you that. I don't know the results of any of the studies so can only speculate why the NRA would work to suppress them. I agree with the author in your link when he says we should mount an effort comparable to the Manhattan Project. What worries me about the government taking this on is that the effort (and the money) might all be put into studies rather than action. We need both. We need to aggressively go after the things we already know are problems (illegal guns, drug trafficking, gangs, etc.) while we study and try to figure out the rest. If the NRA can't get behind that I will withdraw my support.
A few rays of truth popping up like this one from Chicago, but my guess is people would still rather play the security theater game than tackle the hard issues....
The sad reality is that while terrible mass shootings like the ones at Aurora and Newtown shock the nation’s conscience, pull at the public’s heartstrings, and garner wall-to-wall media coverage, they represent a tiny fraction of the number of gun homicides in the country every year. Consider this, Mr. President: During the first 16 days of January, 26 people have been killed by guns in Chicago -- the exact same number as at Sandy Hook Elementary School. By the time this year is out, the south and west sides of the city we both call home will have endured, in terms of sheer numbers of people killed, the equivalent of 20 Sandy Hook massacres. That’s on top of the equivalent of the 19 Sandy Hooks the city experienced in 2012.
Yet there has been little outcry by the national media, and not much public attention paid to Chicago’s crucible by either national political party. Just the sterile news stories in the local papers every morning recounting the details of yet another young person’s life cut short and another family ripped apart thanks to senseless violence.
The other sad reality, Mr. President, is that almost nothing proposed this week in Washington, D.C., by your administration will do anything to stem the tide of gun violence in our inner cities. Most of these crimes were not committed with semi-automatic assault weapons, they weren’t committed by the mentally ill, and they won’t be stopped by universal background checks.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/01/18/mr_president_chicagos_gun_victims_need_you_now.htm l
Has anyone seen any signs that policy makers are willing to consider addressing the real problems?
Has anyone seen any signs that policy makers are willing to consider addressing the real problems?
Nope. The current approach seems similar to banning flame decals from the side of a car in order to cut down on speeding
We don't know what causes gun violence in the US because the NRA and the gun lobby has been able to stop government funded studies. In 2011 the gun lobby even got the following put into the 2011 defense bill. Armed forces commanders can not even ask a suicidal solider if he has access to a private firearm. Keep in mind more troops committed suicide last year than died in our wars.
"speech grounds and currently remains blocked pending continuing court action. A similar "gag rule" remains in effect in the military, however, thanks to a provision in the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act that prevents commanders and noncommissioned officers from asking even suicidal service members if they have access to private firearms. [5 Biggest Gun-Control Milestones in History]"
Edited to add link. Please read the link it goes into detail how the NRA and the gun lobby has been able to stop gun violence studies.
http://news.yahoo.com/government-stifled-gun-research-235107279.html
+1, freein05. Tackling the issue involves collecting data - all of it. Emergency room data, soldier suicide data, gang violence - all of it. The only entity large enough to collect and review all of that from the entire U.S. is the federal gov't.
If the NRA continues to politically block that, then its words of sympathy are hollow.
+1, freein05. Tackling the issue involves collecting data - all of it. Emergency room data, soldier suicide data, gang violence - all of it. The only entity large enough to collect and review all of that from the entire U.S. is the federal gov't.
If the NRA continues to politically block that, then its words of sympathy are hollow.
Ordinarlily I would have no problem collecting data, but after the shenanigans up in NY posting everyone's info online I am a little more circumspect these days. I'm curious what data you think we don't have that would make a difference?
Has anyone seen any signs that policy makers are willing to consider addressing the real problems?
No.
Added: Of the President's 23 Executive Orders only one seems to, however vaguely, address the problems of criminals (and especially gangs) owning and using illegal guns. It reads:
"Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."
Nothing like a clear and direct statement of policy so solve a problem.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.