Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by Candlelight, May 1, 2013.
I grew up in Los Angeles.
We don't care enough to hurl insults all day.
^ That sounds about right. Fortunately murder rates aren't quite as subject to differences in reporting standards and definitions as most other aspects of crime (a dead body gets more attention than a missing purse or a drunken complaint) but there are still differences enough to complicate comparisons. And of course the numbers bounce all over the place from year to year.
The US has seen its murder rate drop in half after almost all the states approved concealed carry and the number of guns per capita went way up, so obviously guns aren't the driving factor in homicide. In all of Russia there are fewer privately owned rifles and pistols than just my own city, yet their murder rate is about four times higher than the US. Europe's murder rate is overall about two to four times lower, but European firearm laws vary more than the US states' laws do. Some European countries allow teenage open carry, some ban guns almost entirely. They just don't seem to kill each other as much. US states show similar patterns. Some states are highly restrictive and have a low murder rate, and some allow pretty much anything and have a low murder rate. Some are highly restrictive and high very high murder rates, and some have high murder rates while not restricting guns hardly at all.
The determining factor seems to have something to do with the number of killers and potential victims roaming the streets, the number of reasons for violent disputes, the number of violent gangs and drug cartels, and cultural proclivity toward violence.
The proclivity toward violence is probably the main factor. Italy used to have fatal stabbings daily, and Italian women didn't want to date a man who wasn't good in a knife fight. The stabbings would occur between diners in cafes, in bars, between old men playing checkers. Knife control wouldn't have solved the problem because they also killed each other with barstools, lamps, and broken bottles. They just liked to fight to the death at the drop of a hat as a matter of honor. They quit doing that, as did the rest of Europe.
Americans still have subcultures that fight like that, as does most of Central and South America and large parts of the Caribbean, along with Africa. If you really wanted to reduce the murder rate, banning alcohol makes a lot more sense, but as we know, that just gives people another reason to form criminal gangs and kill each other.
Some time ago I ran across a review of gun control/violent crime studies. The authors looked at all of the studies they could find in the US and worldwide that tried to correlate the prevalence of guns with violence and/or murder. The studies varied widely in their conclusions, and what the authors of the paper concluded is basically what you said. There's little to no correlation between gun ownership and the prevalence of violent acts in a society.
I'm sorta skeptical of this. I know it's fun to imagine being some sort of well-honed shooting machine slapping in one clip after another, and you can probably achieve that on the target range.
But, Mr Psycho flipping out in the middle of a room of screaming people? I'd say the more actions he has to take to kill people, the better the chance of fumbling or slipping up or something jamming.
So it won't save everyone in such a situation, but maybe a few? And that would be worth the inconvenience of not being able to have your big impressive action-movie (dakka dakka dakka) magazine.
^A few minutes on Youtube will show you how fast someone can change magazines. Of course a novice won't be so fast, but I did say it took practice. Anyone who has practiced with a gun enough to actually hit their target and kill people in a mass shooting situation will be able to change magazines pretty quickly.
Skeptical of that last assertion also.
It's true. I've never seen a shooter take more than about two or three seconds to change magazines when they had a magazine change as part of the drill, and a good shooter does it in less than a second. Some are good enough to where you barely detect the pause in the shots during aimed fire.
The Newtown shooter reportedly changed magazines frequently, leaving a trail of them, and changed them long before he needed to (he was leaving half-empty ones behind him). It's speculated that he did so because he was used to video games where the screen will flash "reload" long before a magazine is depleted.
In a situation where 30 rounds are aimed and fired, changing magazines once versus changing them five times (six rounders) is going to add about two to four seconds to the elapsed time (going from about 20 seconds to 22, 23, or 24 seconds total). Our murder rate was much worse when people were still using revolvers.
Our first school massacre was done with tomahawks and knifes, I think leaving only one survivor. Our worst school massacre was an inside job by the caretaker, done with explosives carefully placed over a sixth month period.
A lot can happen in those few seconds.
Not in big enough numbers to matter or be statically relevant.
Of course, you have a source for that. Because otherwise, we would have to think that you pulled it out of your arse. Again.
As a matter of fact, almost nothing that you say is.
This. Well said.
Iguana, surely you're not implying that you know more about behavior in Italy than he does, are you?
Sources and links, dear....or you get no hard candy or Freedent.
I think the whole "friendly" thing is BS. I lived in Louisiana for almost a year. I've lived in Cincinnati, DC area and New England. I think those places are more friendly than Baton Rouge.
I'd use the word nice more than friendly to describe most people I knew down there. I don't miss it though. I don't even check their news outlets. I still check washingtonpost.com and cincinnati.com time to time
Apparently he's shockingly ignorant about the subject, even though scholars have written books on the subject, famously breaking the homicides down by relationship, weapon type, lethality, and every other aspect that could be teased from all the police reports and court documents.
Such is part of a long series of studies of historical European homicide rates, such as this one (pdf). Europeans kept records of criminal cases, from which we learn a great deal. Italy in particular was studied because it was among the last countries to have its homicide rates fall from medieval levels to modern levels (a big S-curve that took centuries to drop rates from 30 to 70 per 100,000 to 1 to 3 per 100,000).
That was discussed in the PBS Frontline two-part special on Adam Lanza, and on CNN. Four of his "spent" magazines were found to contain 10, 11, 13, and 14 rounds remaining (plus one in the chamber in the last one that held 14-rounds). He was swapping when they were 1/3 to 1/2 full, self-limiting his magazine capacity.
You are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity.
Not talking about drills here. Or assuming every crazy school shooter is going to be an expert or function so well in the crisis situation he's created.
I wasn't really talking about overall murder rates, but at any rate rather a lot else has changed since the days of six-shooters so that doesn't tell you a lot.
And it's probably a fallacy to assume every crazy gun shooter will, if he can't be so well armed with guns, will carry out a massacre with explosives. Some will, yeh. But we're not talking perfect solutions here, just what steps can be taken.
Of course, that's starkly different from what you said earlier. While I don't spend my days deeply fascinated by murder, weapons, and violence, even my untrained eyes can see the difference between a scholarly discussion about homicide rates in medieval history and a slanted narrative about those knife-crazy Italians, full of hyperbole and soaked in stereotypes. But that's exactly what we have come to expect from you.
Social differences by region can be rather perplexing. Maybe that's why I don't get where gturner is coming from.
About 8 years ago, I had a work duty assignment in Atlanta GA (I'm from the NY area... a "Yankee"). I was working with a bunch of guys who were born and raised in the local area. We got along great at work. But then a few days into the assignment, when we went out for dinner together, someone decided to bring up The Civil War as a discussion topic. It was focused towards me, specifically. They were curious to know if I was aware of why the war "really" happened.
Uhhhh.... OK. Well, of course I began to sense what they were on about. There's a vast number of people in the North who think the Civil War was all about slavery, when in fact slavery was only part of it. It was really about economics, and of course eliminating free labor meant a huge economic impact, something that would much more greatly affect the South. So, I kind of played along a bit. They were looking to find me as one of the stereotyped northerners and then have an opportunity to educate me.
In any case... WTF? Who the hell cares at this point? The Civil War is the past, a long ago done deal. We've moved on. Nobody who was alive then is alive today, and any lingering gripes about it have long since faded away (obviously not completely, but enough to be inconsequential).
BUT, these guys were still "into it"... I don't get it. And maybe that's why I don't get why people from the rural southern states wouldn't have any problem buying a gun made for a 5 year old kid and teaching him how to use it. It's not like there's a manpower shortage for hunting food. Most shooting these days is done for sport. SPORT. Not defense. Not for necessary sustenance. So, teaching a child to use a dangerous weapon is not a necessity. Sure, a carefully raised obedient and mindful child may be capable of learning to use a gun and never misuse it. BUT, I'd say that's an extreme exception. Laws are for the majority, not the exceptions. And that's a fact.
Separate names with a comma.