So what’s rationale do you have to explain the figures? Is it genetic?
[/quote]
The post by Lorisco, right under yours explains a lot. That and being involved in drugs. That causes a lot of homicides. Drug warfare.
What about countries in a state of war? Do we include warfare in “gun violence?” There seems to be a lot of “gun violence” going on in Lebanon right now, for example. If we include gun crimes by street gangs in the US, why not gun wielding militias in other countries?
The US with such an extensive welfare program has created generations of people that have no work ethic. They feel they are somehow entitled to money just because they are here, not because of the relative value they have to offer society.
And I know this will piss off some people, but it is predominately the Democrats who use this sense of entitlement to try and get votes every single election. They perpetuate the “something for nothing” mentality and blame those who do work for the plight of those who do not.
[/quote]
Guess what.
The problem with this viewpoint is that there are other countries that have a larger predominance of welfare and much much lower violent crime rates.
While your argument is common, it is one created for political purposes, not in order to look for a solution.
Quit framing me into whatever suits you. I’m as much a disciple of Muhammad, Voltaire than I am of Adam Smith.
I reject any form of authority. What makes you think I would unconditionally follow any intellectual’s stance?
I prefer mine.
Are you serious? I suspect you’re just screwing around with me.
Money is largely dependent on you. Looks, for the most part, aren’t.
If everyone was married (and was monogamous), what are the chances of him being left alone? There is, after all, about as many males than there are females in our specie.
By the way, what evidence do you have that he was not getting any?
[quote]John S. wrote:
Alright first one, What would stop a child or elderly from stabbing you in the back speed wont mean shit when that happens. [/quote]
Nothing. But seriously, what are the chances of a child hitting a vital organ with enough force to cause death?
My point is that it’s easier to kill people with guns than it is with knives.
Hitting an innocent while shooting back at an attacker is irrelevant?
Sorry lad, you’re not convincing anyone. And using the arrogance card is not helping.
Fair enough.
Just so you know, I am not anti-guns. I actually think they are cheap enough nowadays for everyone to pack some. I infer from your tone and defensive arguments that you think I’m after your 2nd amendment. I am not.
[quote]lixy wrote:
John S. wrote:
Alright first one, What would stop a child or elderly from stabbing you in the back speed wont mean shit when that happens.
Nothing. But seriously, what are the chances of a child hitting a vital organ with enough force to cause death?
My point is that it’s easier to kill people with guns than it is with knives.
2nd. That point is irrelevant, They can use a gun to protect themselves which is why in my great country we can carry guns.
Hitting an innocent while shooting back at an attacker is irrelevant?
Sorry lad, you’re not convincing anyone. And using the arrogance card is not helping.
3rd. I thought you where refereing to sniping up on a building in which case you could very easily use a bow.
Fair enough.
Just so you know, I am not anti-guns. I actually think they are cheap enough nowadays for everyone to pack some. I infer from your tone and defensive arguments that you think I’m after your 2nd amendment. I am not.[/quote]
A child could stab you in the back and you could be dead. Shit a lot of people survive gun attacks too.
And yes your second point is irrelevant. What if I’m driving a car and I hit a person, TAKE AWAY ALL THE CARS. If you accidently shoot someone its just that an accident. but if you have any sort of skill your not going to shoot someone else.
[quote]John S. wrote:
And yes your second point is irrelevant. What if I’m driving a car and I hit a person, TAKE AWAY ALL THE CARS. If you accidently shoot someone its just that an accident. but if you have any sort of skill your not going to shoot someone else.[/quote]
[quote]vroom wrote:
John S. wrote:
And yes your second point is irrelevant. What if I’m driving a car and I hit a person, TAKE AWAY ALL THE CARS. If you accidently shoot someone its just that an accident. but if you have any sort of skill your not going to shoot someone else.
Where do you get this shit, off of a cereal box?[/quote]
He said if you accidently shot someone else, In his own fucking question he answered himself.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
florianopolis wrote:
i lived in Japan for years and gun violence was near zero because it is illegal there for people to have them. occasionally a yakuza would pop some caps to scare people to extort money, but to a large extent, it is also prohibitively difficult to acquire a gun there if you are not a cop, a wildlife ranger (for culling/hunting) or be part of the self-defense force (the military).
floripa
I still don’t see why gun violence even matters. Is a murder worse because a gun was used? Is rape not a bad thing because the guy uses a knife? I’ve been part of a group trying to get concealed carry laws to be honored on my college campus but as expected have met serious resistance.
Many would rather see my girl get raped than the rapist get shot. Even if they don’t believe that, had my girl shot the rapist they would chalk it up as an act of gun violence, an accurate but grossly unfair assertion.
It isn’t the gun violence that counts, it is the total violent crime that matters. If you think guns are to blame for that, then argue THAT point instead.
I think you are digging way deaper than what the OP was asking. The thread is why so much (gun) violence? I understood his question as a combination of gun + violence. You are picking these two things apart.
I addressed his question as availability and culture and to contrast what we see in the USA, i used Japan as an example, where naturally as you’d expect, (gun) violence is very very low. Sure, there is violence in Japan, but without guns readily available, there is very little (gun) violence.
What you and a lot of us are talking about here is beyond the intent and depth of this Danish kid’s school project. He threw out a very simple question, which I think has a very simple answer. The kid doesn’t need a thesis.
[quote]TornadoTommy wrote:
Poverty is a poor explanation for high crime rates.
[/quote]
Yes, it’s an easy generalization to make but statistically speaking there is quite an accurate way to predict where crimes are going to happen and who are going to commit them. It’s not racial or social profiling, it’s math. Ask an insurance agent, he’ll use $64 words like ‘actuarial’.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Yes, it’s an easy generalization to make but statistically speaking there is quite an accurate way to predict where crimes are going to happen and who are going to commit them. It’s not racial or social profiling, it’s math. Ask an insurance agent, he’ll use $64 words like ‘actuarial’.[/quote]
I believe you meant violent crimes. Economic status makes no difference in the rates of crime, merely the methods of crime committed. People with more money tend to commit white collar crimes, which are arguably more damaging to society as a whole than violent, ‘blue-collar’ crimes.
The problem with this thread is that everyone here is an amateur sociologist, and that even the real sociologists can’t answer the question “what causes crime”?
Seriously guys, if it was as simple as poverty, race, or geography, then we would’ve figured out how to stop crime a long time ago.
Truthfully, I would tell the OP to pick a different topic. This is like writing a report on why the Big Bang happened.
If anybody truly knew why the U.S. has a slightly higher crime rate than some other countries (and a lower rate than some; the U.S. isn’t the worst industrialized country w.r.t. violent crime), you’d think that we would’ve been able to curb the violence, no?
In the end, your report is going to be a rehashing of a theory that someone pulled out of the sky that is just as wrong as it is right.
Quit framing me into whatever suits you. I’m as much a disciple of Muhammad, Voltaire than I am of Adam Smith.
[/quote]
Neither Smith, nor Voltaire…
To think what Voltaire wrote about Rosseau…
Nah, not Voltaire…
Besides, Smith was that economics guy?
But if I make money, because I am really bright or can sing and dance very well how is that different from looks that I can also only improve inside my genetic parameters?
OMG, what if I make my money WITH my looks?
So your answer is indeed to socialize the problem?
[quote]lixy wrote:
TornadoTommy wrote:
Poverty is a poor explanation for high crime rates. My dad (and many others of his generation) grew up dirt poor and never killed anyone. He improved his life by hard work and ambition, which are two things that seem to be lacking in high crime areas. The entitlement mentality so prevalent in low income/high crime areas is the main culprit.
So what’s rationale do you have to explain the figures? Is it genetic?
[/quote]
That depends on where you’re getting your figures. Some “figures” have justifiable homicides included in them, which is just another way the gun control proponents twist the truth. What they ignore is the fact that guns prevent crime much more than is reported. The availability of guns has nothing to do with it.
If you want to kill someone, you don’t need a firearm to do it. I have a safe full of guns, which includes a couple of AK-47 variants, a Mini-14, a tactical shotgun, 4 semi-automatic handguns of various calibers, high capacity magazines and bullets to spare. Guess what? Not a single one of them has ever jumped up and killed or maimed anyone. Guns are inanimate objects, incapable of violence. Firearms ownership comes with responsibility. They can be used for good or evil. I’m just glad that I live in a country, even with all it’s faults, that recognizes my right to self defense.
[quote]TornadoTommy wrote:
If you want to kill someone, you don’t need a firearm to do it. I have a safe full of guns, which includes a couple of AK-47 variants, a Mini-14, a tactical shotgun, 4 semi-automatic handguns of various calibers, high capacity magazines and bullets to spare. Guess what? Not a single one of them has ever jumped up and killed or maimed anyone. Guns are inanimate objects, incapable of violence. Firearms ownership comes with responsibility.[/quote]
A firearm is making the killing as easy and convenient as possible. If I wanted to kill someone, I’d definitely choose a firearm.
[quote]karva wrote:
TornadoTommy wrote:
If you want to kill someone, you don’t need a firearm to do it. I have a safe full of guns, which includes a couple of AK-47 variants, a Mini-14, a tactical shotgun, 4 semi-automatic handguns of various calibers, high capacity magazines and bullets to spare. Guess what? Not a single one of them has ever jumped up and killed or maimed anyone. Guns are inanimate objects, incapable of violence. Firearms ownership comes with responsibility.
A firearm is making the killing as easy and convenient as possible. If I wanted to kill someone, I’d definitely choose a firearm.[/quote]
Which is exactly what makes firearms the great equalizer.
[quote]orion wrote:
karva wrote:
TornadoTommy wrote:
If you want to kill someone, you don’t need a firearm to do it. I have a safe full of guns, which includes a couple of AK-47 variants, a Mini-14, a tactical shotgun, 4 semi-automatic handguns of various calibers, high capacity magazines and bullets to spare. Guess what? Not a single one of them has ever jumped up and killed or maimed anyone. Guns are inanimate objects, incapable of violence. Firearms ownership comes with responsibility.
A firearm is making the killing as easy and convenient as possible. If I wanted to kill someone, I’d definitely choose a firearm.
Which is exactly what makes firearms the great equalizer.[/quote]
If we are going to kill, why not do it as comfortable as possible? The best thing would be to hire someone to do the ugly work, though. As long as some people can rent a hitman and the rest have to do the killing themselves, we are not truly equal, are we? Hey, I want to propose a new tax for the rich.
Indeed, in societies with relatively uniform distribution of wealth, or at least within cultures that don’t exacerbate the gap by constantly rubbing the nose of the poor in it (ever watch MTV’s cribs?), a young kid is less likely to get worked up and channel his/her impotence by sticking molten lead in other people’s flesh.
Good post.
But what conclusion do you draw from this?
Because you do not want them to do the violence themselves, you want the government to steal for them?[/quote]
This is very thought provoking, Orion. In any society, the have-nots cannot plunder the haves w/o giving the government the power to do their plundering for them. This attracts scum into government, those who enjoy destruction through power over others. Hence the spirals of history.
Until and unless we seperate government and economics, much like church and state, every society is doomed to first fall into tyranny, then collapse.