MASSIVE Elementary School Shooting in CT *12-24 Maybe be dead

[gturner]

You can call Montserrat many things that are wonderful and descriptive, but "country" isn't one of them.

What else you got?

How much would you want to bet that the European possessors of those islands do NOT include the islands' homicides in the home county's murder statistics?

They need to count somewhere, which is probably why they're listed seperately, along with other countries.

 

[gturner]

It's that idiotic One Drop rule, isn't it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule

No, but perhaps there's a corresponding one word rule.

"You said 'burrito'."
"So? It's a common English word."
"It's a Spanish word. That makes you hispanic."
"No it doesn't."
"Yes it does."
"But I'm Spanish, so I can't be hispanic."
"Oh."

I've read that in the EU, or at least in US dealings with the EU, a person who immigrates to Europe from Mexico or Central or South America is "hispanic", but a Spaniard is not, because they are Europeans. It just gets more confusing from there, as you get into Spaniards who've lived in Mexico for generations, who switch from being Spaniards to being Hispanics by moving to Spain, where they might instead be classified as Americans by everyone but Americans. Who knows?

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

The UK numbers have almost nothing to do with guns (they didn't have much of a homicide problem even before they cracked down on guns, and used to have a fanastically high murder rate with knives when King James was on the throne), but they did see a rise when UK teens got into US gang style coolness. Tiny changes in young male behavior completely dominate murder rates, because that demographic in the US is 20 to 300 homicides per 100,000, rates you can hit without any guns at all if teens decide that knife fighting is cool and manly, as Italians did up through the early 20th century.

MEN.

Overwhelmingly the problem. What's the gender divide on murders?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

A "temporary measure" that lasted, oh, about 70 years, until they collapsed. And the important weapons they banned, the pistols which are used in the vast majority of all gun murders, stayed completely banned, along with a five year waiting period to buy a rifle, of which only about 220,000 have entered circulation. That is about one gun of a type rarely used in gun homicides for every 600 people. Pretty much all of Western Europe has more rifles than that. England and Wales still have more licensed rifles in civilian hands than that, about twice as many, and that number has gone up about 50 percent since 2000.

So if Engand and Wales totally ban civilian gun ownership, as is often implied in this thread, yet they let five times as many people per capita have a rifle as Russia, indicating that Russia has a fifth the UK's rate of gun ownership, why would you be insisting that Russia has guns, and thus its high murder rate is a symptom of guns, while totally ignoring England's far more numerous guns?

I'm not arguing anything else at the moment except that you got the facts wrong about Russia (one of a multitude of things you've gotten wrong in this thread and a tradition of wrongness you've carried on from other threads). Why are you incapable of just admitting you were wrong about there being a complete gun ban in present day Russia? You're calling people fools and five-year-old girls, yet you aren't even "man enough" to admit to making a mistake. I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt and call it an honest mistake rather than deliberate obfuscation.

 

[Squiggy]

And there's an interesting 1967 study that set out to determine if blacks in Chicago would switch more to knives if the city banned guns, and whether their homicide rate would go up or down. They figured it would probably go down, but weren't sure. The murder rate their remains extremely high despite the ban they enacted.

Here's the reason.

ALL THEY HAD TO DO IS LEAVE THE CITY OF CHICAGO TO BUY A GUN.

Likewise, when you ponder as to why Washington, DC's murder rate has always been so high...

ALL THEY HAD TO DO WAS LEAVE THE CITY OF WASHINGTON TO BUY A GUN.

And so forth and so on. You seem to think that Chicago and Washington and really every other example you throw at us is a city surrounded by a vast no-man's land where no human or creature can exist. Sadly for you, this isn't the case.

 

[JarodRussell]

The UK numbers have almost nothing to do with guns (they didn't have much of a homicide problem even before they cracked down on guns, and used to have a fanastically high murder rate with knives when King James was on the throne), but they did see a rise when UK teens got into US gang style coolness. Tiny changes in young male behavior completely dominate murder rates, because that demographic in the US is 20 to 300 homicides per 100,000, rates you can hit without any guns at all if teens decide that knife fighting is cool and manly, as Italians did up through the early 20th century.

MEN.

Overwhelmingly the problem. What's the gender divide on murders?

Women don't shoot, they poison.

 

[cooleddie74]

All residents of the District of Columbia have to do to purchase guns with far greater ease is simply cross the Potomac River into Virginia. We've long been one of the most liberal states in America when it comes to the freedom to purchase, own and carry weapons and all somebody from Washington needs to do to quench his or her thirst for firearms is hop in their car and make a quick trip to the Old Dominion where the pickings are plentiful.

Along the lines of what Squiggy said, D.C. isn't isolated in the middle of nowhere with a colossal moat full of genetically engineered super crocs and heavily armed Mad Max wasteland survivalists patrolling the territory on the opposite side.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

The UK numbers have almost nothing to do with guns (they didn't have much of a homicide problem even before they cracked down on guns, and used to have a fanastically high murder rate with knives when King James was on the throne), but they did see a rise when UK teens got into US gang style coolness. Tiny changes in young male behavior completely dominate murder rates, because that demographic in the US is 20 to 300 homicides per 100,000, rates you can hit without any guns at all if teens decide that knife fighting is cool and manly, as Italians did up through the early 20th century.

MEN.

Overwhelmingly the problem. What's the gender divide on murders?

Women don't shoot, they poison.

I said murder, not shoot

 

[gturner]

And there's an interesting 1967 study that set out to determine if blacks in Chicago would switch more to knives if the city banned guns, and whether their homicide rate would go up or down. They figured it would probably go down, but weren't sure. The murder rate their remains extremely high despite the ban they enacted.

Here's the reason.

ALL THEY HAD TO DO IS LEAVE THE CITY OF CHICAGO TO BUY A GUN.

Likewise, when you ponder as to why Washington, DC's murder rate has always been so high...

ALL THEY HAD TO DO WAS LEAVE THE CITY OF WASHINGTON TO BUY A GUN.

And so forth and so on. You seem to think that Chicago and Washington and really every other example you throw at us is a city surrounded by a vast no-man's land where no human or creature can exist. Sadly for you, this isn't the case.

And all that killing is done to contol cocaine and heroin grown and imported illegally from... Wisconsin? No. That's not it. Maryland? No, that's not it either. The answer will come to me.

But anyway, before Chicago or DC banned guns, nobody even had to leave the city to by one. Back in 66 or 67 they only used guns in 52 percent of murders, yet could buy them locally, while now they use guns in 83 percent of murders.

People in Montana, Wyoming, and other high gun states don't use guns nearly that often in their murders. They tend to go for knives, even though they all apparently carry guns. Strange, no?

Here's one of the studies from the 1960's. http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/ZimringReduceKillings.htm

Here's two showing how far Chicago has come in analyzing their shootings.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-M...otings-Slightly-Up-Murders-Way-Up-What-Gives/

Year to year accuracy rates, labeled "Marksmanship and effort", single shot kill probabilities, caliber ratings, etc. Everything but style points.

And a recent city report, vastly more detailed and sophisticated than the early efforts.

https://portal.chicagopolice.org/po...s/Statistical Reports/Murder Reports/MA11.pdf

 

[JarodRussell]

It's from a 2000 report, but still...
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/wo.pdf

On page 4: The estimated rate for murder offending by women in 1998 was 1.3 per 100,000 & about 1 murderer for every 77,000 women. The male rate of murder offending in 1998 was 11.5 per 100,000, about 1 murderer for every 8,700 males.

Pretty ugly are the numbers regarding relatives, ugh:
28.3% of females kill their spouses, only 6.8% of males do.
10.4% of females kill their stepchildren or children, only 2.2% of males do that.

 

[gturner]

MEN.

Overwhelmingly the problem. What's the gender divide on murders?

Women don't shoot, they poison.

I said murder, not shoot

We'll, I've just been concentrating on Chicago this last little bit (last link above) and women were 9.x percent of victims, but 10.4 percent of offenders, so, YOU"RE WINNING!

There are some very intesting charts in it. The number of offenders has plummeted five fold (figure 20), while the number of murders has dropped only by roughly half, as if they're winnowing down the number of total players while moving on to semi final contestants, as if they will come down to a handful of key actors. This has been seen many times before as initial chaos gives way to securely established criminal territories, as happened back in 20's and 30's. This might be backed up by figure 30, number of offenders with prior arrests, which trends up, indicating more seasoned, experienced killers. However, part of the drop in offenders might be due to the delay in clearing a case.

Fascinating stuff.

 

[gturner]

Pretty ugly are the numbers regarding relatives, ugh:
28.3% of females kill their spouses, only 6.8% of males do.
10.4% of females kill their stepchildren or children, only 2.2% of males do that.

I saw a bizarre and disturbing statistic that was uncovered from medieval German death records. Researchers were sifting through the old data looking for child mortality predictors, and the leading indicator that popped out was whether the baby's paternal grandmother lived in the home. After much head scratching, they realized that the father's live-in mothers must've been killing the babies, probably if they suspected that their son wasn't the real father. Grimm's Fairytales had old German ladies pegged.

 

[Brolan]

Pretty ugly are the numbers regarding relatives, ugh:
28.3% of females kill their spouses, only 6.8% of males do.
10.4% of females kill their stepchildren or children, only 2.2% of males do that.

I saw a bizarre and disturbing statistic that was uncovered from medieval German death records. Researchers were sifting through the old data looking for child mortality predictors, and the leading indicator that popped out was whether the baby's paternal grandmother lived in the home. After much head scratching, they realized that the father's live-in mothers must've been killing the babies, probably if they suspected that their son wasn't the real father. Grimm's Fairytales had old German ladies pegged.

Ok, that sent a chill down my spine.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

All that makes me think is "If only guns had been invented then, those medieval German babies could have shot their grandmas first." Won't someone think of using time travel to arm the medieval children?

 

[beamMe]

Pretty ugly are the numbers regarding relatives, ugh:
28.3% of females kill their spouses, only 6.8% of males do.
10.4% of females kill their stepchildren or children, only 2.2% of males do that.

I saw a bizarre and disturbing statistic that was uncovered from medieval German death records. Researchers were sifting through the old data looking for child mortality predictors, and the leading indicator that popped out was whether the baby's paternal grandmother lived in the home. After much head scratching, they realized that the father's live-in mothers must've been killing the babies, probably if they suspected that their son wasn't the real father. Grimm's Fairytales had old German ladies pegged.

You'd do anything to shift this discussion away from the US and the actual topic, don't you?

 

[Hound of UIster]

Pretty ugly are the numbers regarding relatives, ugh:
28.3% of females kill their spouses, only 6.8% of males do.
10.4% of females kill their stepchildren or children, only 2.2% of males do that.

I saw a bizarre and disturbing statistic that was uncovered from medieval German death records. Researchers were sifting through the old data looking for child mortality predictors, and the leading indicator that popped out was whether the baby's paternal grandmother lived in the home. After much head scratching, they realized that the father's live-in mothers must've been killing the babies, probably if they suspected that their son wasn't the real father. Grimm's Fairytales had old German ladies pegged.

One, the study set the authors derived wasn't from "medieval Germany", it was from 17-18th century Germany and what was then the Kingdom of Hanover. Two, if you actually read the paper, you'd know that mass infanticide was never a conclusion made by the author. Their suggestion was rather that it was due to pressure, stress and conflict between the in-law and the mother, the same effect which latter papers has also observed in several countries including Japan and Canada

 

[MacLeod]

The US has a lower murder rate than all but a handful of countries in the Western Hemisphere, which would be:


Martinique, Canada, Chile, and Argentina.

Last I checked these countries had lower murder rates per capita than the US and also fall within the Western Hemisphere

The UK
Ireland
Spain
Portugal,
Parts are France are also with the Western Hemisphere Algeria also has parts within the Western Hemisphere
Morocco

So the list is longer than you make it out to be.

In political discussions, the Western Hemisphere almost always excludes old world countries. Sometimes it's even defined to start at 20 longitude for clarity, though it really should be smaller than a half-sphere for that to work out right.

But if you do include those countries, the US would rank about 12th lowest out of around 40 countries.

And out of the countires that are considered the developed world the US ranks at number 1 in murder in rate.

Depending on which list you go by, I don't think we're ever at the top. Which list are you using? OECD?

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

In geographical terms any places west of the Prime Meridian, up to the International Date line are in the Western Hemisphere.

Now the wikipedia article does say in political rhoteric it is used to apply to the Americas,

Lets look at one of the more commonly used definitions of Rhoteric

1.(in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetoric

 

[MacLeod]

You can call Montserrat many things that are wonderful and descriptive, but "country" isn't one of them.

What else you got?

How much would you want to bet that the European possessors of those islands do NOT include the islands' homicides in the home county's murder statistics?

They need to count somewhere, which is probably why they're listed seperately, along with other countries.

Perhaps you don't understand how overseas territories work, they are basically self-governing, but allow another nation to act on their behalf at an International level.

 

[gturner]

Pretty ugly are the numbers regarding relatives, ugh:
28.3% of females kill their spouses, only 6.8% of males do.
10.4% of females kill their stepchildren or children, only 2.2% of males do that.

I saw a bizarre and disturbing statistic that was uncovered from medieval German death records. Researchers were sifting through the old data looking for child mortality predictors, and the leading indicator that popped out was whether the baby's paternal grandmother lived in the home. After much head scratching, they realized that the father's live-in mothers must've been killing the babies, probably if they suspected that their son wasn't the real father. Grimm's Fairytales had old German ladies pegged.

One, the study set the authors derived wasn't from "medieval Germany", it was from 17-18th century Germany and what was then the Kingdom of Hanover. Two, if you actually read the paper, you'd know that mass infanticide was never a conclusion made by the author. Their suggestion was rather that it was due to pressure, stress and conflict between the in-law and the mother, the same effect which latter papers has also observed in several countries including Japan and Canada

That might be the same study I was thinking of, or a different analysis of the data. What I'd read was from the Economist back in 2002. Your take seems more in line with this blog post from 2005 talking about perhaps the same study, or perhaps a subsequent one, where other reseachers were dismissing some of the author's conclusions, which seemed to be more about the maternal mother-in-law's role, though that was an aspect in the first article, too.

But it definitely wasn't medieval as I had thought. I must've spent too many years studying medieval German violence and now it's sticking in my head.

 

[cooleddie74]

I must've spent too many years studying medieval German violence and now it's sticking in my head.

What's the definition of "too few years" ?

Wait. Wait. You know what....I do not want to know.