Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: The Spiral of Violence - Page 127







Post#3151 at 12-21-2012 04:42 AM by '58 Flat [at Hardhat From Central Jersey joined Jul 2001 #posts 3,300]
---
12-21-2012, 04:42 AM #3151
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Hardhat From Central Jersey
Posts
3,300

At the time, I favored a two-tiered approach: At .05 or above but less than .15, drunk driving would be a misdemeanor - and at .15 or above it would be a felony, carrying a mandatory minimum 16 months in state prison, with no exceptions; this would also make killing someone while driving at .15 or above first-degree murder en passant, in that the latter would then constitute killing during the commission of a felony.

This I offered as an alternative to age discrimination; i.e., raising the drinking age to 21 (what if statistics showed that people of certain races, religions etc. have higher drunk-driving-related accident rates? Should we then prohibit members of those groups from drinking?).

And as chance would have it, this ties in with the now-rekindled debate over gun control: Why should some 85-year-old woman living alone in a dangerous neighborhood be deprived of her only means of protecting herself because some 20-year-old spoiled brat shot up 26 people in Connecticut? Or, with an eye on "progressives" who opposed the Iraq war because, in their view at least, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, why punish all gun owners by taking a fundamental citizenship right away from them (as was done to 18-to-20-year-olds with their fundamental citizenship right to purchase alcoholic beverages) because of an incident they had nothing to do with?

Constitutional rights are not add-ons, you know.
Last edited by '58 Flat; 12-21-2012 at 07:43 AM.
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.

Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!







Post#3152 at 12-21-2012 08:59 AM by Earl and Mooch [at Delaware - we pave paradise and put up parking lots joined Sep 2002 #posts 2,106]
---
12-21-2012, 08:59 AM #3152
Join Date
Sep 2002
Location
Delaware - we pave paradise and put up parking lots
Posts
2,106

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
Here's an easy amendment that is just as easily enforced, given adequate time to do it. Require that all gun owners and purchasers of firearms, ammunition and reload materials be licensed. This will eliminate all miscreants and the mentally ill. In addition, the license must expire on some prescirbed basis (every five years perhaps), and include a bio-validator (iris scan, fingerprints or similar). This second factor will be required to validate the licensee. Next, firearms will be titled and title must pass with the firearm. Third, harm due to misuse of the firearm will be the respsonibility of the title holder.

Easy peasy.
And I don't think it would take a constitutional amendment to enshrine that, either. You could make the case that Congress's 14th Amendment power includes regulating the "well-regulated militia".
"My generation, we were the generation that was going to change the world: somehow we were going to make it a little less lonely, a little less hungry, a little more just place. But it seems that when that promise slipped through our hands we didn´t replace it with nothing but lost faith."

Bruce Springsteen, 1987
http://brucebase.wikispaces.com/1987...+YORK+CITY,+NY







Post#3153 at 12-21-2012 11:57 AM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
12-21-2012, 11:57 AM #3153
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by '58 Flat View Post
At the time, I favored a two-tiered approach: At .05 or above but less than .15, drunk driving would be a misdemeanor - and at .15 or above it would be a felony, carrying a mandatory minimum 16 months in state prison, with no exceptions; this would also make killing someone while driving at .15 or above first-degree murder en passant, in that the latter would then constitute killing during the commission of a felony.
Insurance lobbies had much to do with the laws that we have.

This I offered as an alternative to age discrimination; i.e., raising the drinking age to 21 (what if statistics showed that people of certain races, religions etc. have higher drunk-driving-related accident rates? Should we then prohibit members of those groups from drinking?).
We have different standards for adult behaviors based in part on predictable effects of maturity. Automobiles are designed to be driven by just about any adult with an IQ of 80, which suggests that the average 16-year-old is capable of driving a car competently. Driving an 18-wheeler is more complicated; in view of the 'trucker' culture an adult with an IQ of 90 is a reasonable minimum. Age 18 is the usual level of high-school graduation, which says something about educational attainment at age 20 and later: high-school dropouts (unless they passed up a senior year of high school to go to college) are generally recognized as dullards, and mediocrities generally don't get to grad school of any kind.
People are not fully adult in their physiology until they are about 25, as I can tell you from my experience in selling men's suits. I cringed when someone 20 years old wanted a men's suit because men that young still do not have adult bodies. From what I have seen in baseball, peak performance by batters is to be found between ages 25 and 29. Anyone could tell that a George Brett or Miguel Cabrera already in the majors at age 20 was going to be a major star if he kept a reasonably-clean life (well, that's a qualification for Darryl Strawberry) as he became stronger and filled out a youthful frame.

Alcohol has different effects upon people based upon age. Someone drinking at age 24 gets different effects from what at such an age is a relatively-tame drug (unless drinking to pathological levels), but on someone 14 years old, alcohol is a hard drug. There is no safe level of drinking for someone in early teens other than zero. An 18-year-old might be marginally tolerable as a drinker as I was -- I spaced them two hours apart and drank them slowly and never got drunk, but that was in a college dorm on a Saturday-night party and I wasn't going to do any driving that night -- many 18-year-olds lacked the judgment about alcohol and might provide it to children in their early-to-middle teens, which is a disaster.

And as chance would have it, this ties in with the now-rekindled debate over gun control: Why should some 85-year-old woman living alone in a dangerous neighborhood be deprived of her only means of protecting herself because some 20-year-old spoiled brat shot up 26 people in Connecticut?
Canis lupus familiaris poses severe and sure danger to any intruder. Nobody wants even one dog bite. I can attest from an unintended and non-hostile scratch from a strong swipe of a paw with large, sharp claws that a dog scratch is to be avoided (I got hospital treatment for an infection that a cocker spaniel inflicted upon me with his cat-like claws). Multiple large dogs make a house as dangerous to a burglar as the Sunderbans, the swamps of the Ganges delta where lurk man-eating tigers. Dogs are as deadly as predators of similar size and in concert are as deadly as a predator similar in size to the group. They simply behave better than any other large predator except for the whale shark.

Or, with an eye on "progressives" who opposed the Iraq war because, in their view at least, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, why punish all gun owners by taking a fundamental citizenship right away from them (as was done to 18-to-20-year-olds with their fundamental citizenship right to purchase alcoholic beverages) because of an incident they had nothing to do with?
Between 1918 and 1933 the manufacture, import, sale, and use of intoxicating liquors -- even the comparatively-mild beer and wine -- was not understood as a fundamental right of Americans of any age.

Constitutional rights are not add-ons, you know.
You are far safer from gun-related violence in Canada than in the United States without having lost any significant rights.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#3154 at 12-21-2012 04:58 PM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
12-21-2012, 04:58 PM #3154
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Well here's one, specifically on topic of driving, but you have to correlate two articles:

http://www.drinkinganddriving.org/Ar...historyof.html



So drunk driving laws were passed mainly in the 1980s.


http://www.prevent.org/data/files/tr...pter%203-1.pdf



In the 1980s and 90s, after the laws were passed, DUI fatalities decreased substantially.


Here's another regulation that worked:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1597746.html

More later, I guess.

"Bans don't work" only in the minds of libertarians and anarchists.
Ah, you apparently missed the part where I asked for...

Quote Originally Posted by Copperfield View Post
...three unrelated sources which display the differences between regulated and unregulated motor-vehicle statistics in the United States. Also present your findings in writing with an analysis that best presents and explains your specific interpretation of the data and I will consider your statement.
Of the two "sources" you posted, only one (the Huffington Post article) even comes close to presenting actual data (and it's not much) and even that fails to analyze the data. Claims like "doing X saved Y many lives" are generally pretty dubious especially when the breakdown of data is not shown. How does one measure the rather unscientific "lives saved" criteria? How did they control for other variables (for instance greater education of risk)?

Actual data analysis looks something like this (since you specifically brought up drinking and driving).







Post#3155 at 12-21-2012 05:23 PM by Bad Dog [at joined Dec 2012 #posts 2,156]
---
12-21-2012, 05:23 PM #3155
Join Date
Dec 2012
Posts
2,156

The NRA just proposed putting armed police in all schools, and suggested that violence in media/culture was the cause of mass shootings. Previously, they had been silent on the Newtown CT shootings.

Reaction is already negative.







Post#3156 at 12-21-2012 07:41 PM by B Butler [at joined Nov 2011 #posts 2,329]
---
12-21-2012, 07:41 PM #3156
Join Date
Nov 2011
Posts
2,329

Left Arrow The Well Regulated Militia

Quote Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch View Post
And I don't think it would take a constitutional amendment to enshrine that, either. You could make the case that Congress's 14th Amendment power includes regulating the "well-regulated militia".
I would look to article I of the Constitution. Congress has the power...

Quote Originally Posted by The Constitution
8.15 To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

8.16 To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
These paragraphs have never really been implemented.







Post#3157 at 12-21-2012 09:11 PM by B Butler [at joined Nov 2011 #posts 2,329]
---
12-21-2012, 09:11 PM #3157
Join Date
Nov 2011
Posts
2,329

Left Arrow Multiple Fronts?

Quote Originally Posted by Bad Dog View Post
The NRA just proposed putting armed police in all schools, and suggested that violence in media/culture was the cause of mass shootings. Previously, they had been silent on the Newtown CT shootings.

Reaction is already negative.
Censorship of entertainment, a ban on all weapons that might be used in spree shooting, putting armed good guys everywhere something bad might happen...

All might help. Some movement in any of these directions, save perhaps censorship, seems possible. Implementing some modest amount of all three won't eliminate spree killings. Pushing for large movements in any direction is apt to tick some group or another off enough to make political action very difficult.

I'm more inclined to think news media might be talked into less glorification and attention given to the shooter, but censoring entertainment will be awkward at best. I could see limitations on fully automatic weapons and magazine size, but can't see the right to bear hunting self defense weapons as going away. To some degree more physical security on the site might help, but I doubt we'll get enough people at every school to prevent all future incidents.

One comment I've seen several times was that an armed deputy was present at Columbine. He didn't make a lot of difference. Spree shooting might be seen as similar to an insurgent war problem. The insurgent dresses like a local, announces his presence when he opens fire, and chooses his ground to have an initial tactical advantage. One difference is that spree shooters are often suicidal, where the insurgent often melts back into the population.

I'd like to see modest changes along several fronts. What I see is a stubborn insistence that one's own values shall not be infringed, but the other guy's values are insane, vile and evil and must be rammed where the sun doesn't shine.
Last edited by B Butler; 12-22-2012 at 03:07 AM.







Post#3158 at 12-21-2012 10:11 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
12-21-2012, 10:11 PM #3158
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#3159 at 12-21-2012 10:13 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
12-21-2012, 10:13 PM #3159
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Click on any news about the murders for details.

TO LIVE AND DIE IN AMERICA




3 Shot And Killed In Mich... 18-Year-Old Shot Multiple Times, Dies... Man Kills Wife, Teen, Himself... Man Shoots, Kills Own Son... Cops Shoot Teen Dead...Man Gunned Down In Parking Lot... 5 Dead In Spate Of Shootings... 2 Murdered In Philly... 2 Kansas Cops Shot Dead... Shooter Killed... 4 Die In Apparent Murder-Suicide... Ga. Cop Dies From Gunshot... Argument Leads Teen To Shoot Friend... Man Shot To Death... Teen Dies After Being Tied Up, Shot... Man Shot Dead In Street... Drug Deal Leads To Shooting Death... Mother Of 2 Killed In Road Rage Shooting... Man Shoots, Kills Intruder... 1 Killed In Coney Island...Man Dies From Gunshot Wounds... Cops Investigate Gun Death... Shooting Victim's Body Found On Bike Trail... Man Charged With Shooting Own Brother Dead... Man Dies After Being Shot In Chest... Body Of Shooting Victim Found In Pickup... Teen Arrested For Robbery Shooting Death... Man Carrying 2-Year-Old Son Shot Dead... Man Fatally Shot Near Home... Parolee Dies In Shooting... 1 Killed In Buffalo Shooting... Man Shot Dead In Apartment Complex... Street Gun Battle Kills Grandma Bystander... Man, Woman Dead In Apparent Murder-Suicide... Woman Shot Dead By Intruder... 14-Year-Old Arrested Over Fatal Gun Attack... Man Found Shot Dead In Parking Lot... Woman Shot In Face By Ex-Boyfriend... 1 Woman, 3 Men Shot Dead... 2 Die In Attempted Robbery... Army Reservist Shot To Death In Alley... Man Shot To Death In Bodega... 2 Shot Dead In Burned House... Man Shot During Break-In... Man Fatally Shot... 20-Year-Old Gunned Down... Man Shoots Self During Police Pursuit... 1 Killed In Baltimore Shooting... Cops ID Shooting Victim... 60-Year-Old Man Shot Dead... Shot Man's Body Found In Vacant House.... Woman Shot And Killed Outside Her Home...Shooting Victim Was 'Trying To Turn Life Around'... Slain Shooting Victim Found In Street.... Driving Altercation Leads To Shooting, 1 Dies... 3-Year-Old Dies In Accidental Shooting... Man Turns Self In After Allegedly Shooting Wife... Man Shot Dead Outside Home... 3 Slain In Separate New Orleans Shootings... Cops Investigate Shooting Death... Man Shot Dead In Ohio... Teen Shot To Death... Man Dies After Being Shot Multiple Times... Man Charged Over Son's Shooting Death... Cops Find 2 Men Shot Dead... 1 Dies In Shooting... Man Charged Over Gun Killing... 1 Shot Dead In Confrontation... Man Charged With Murder Over Shooting... Motel-Owner Shot And Killed... Husband Shoots Estranged Wife Dead... Suspect Arrested Over Deputy's Shooting Death... Police Probe Fatal Shooting... Cops Kill 2 Suspects In 3 Shooting Deaths... Man Killed Fighting Back Against Robber... Man Killed In Home Invasion.... Nightclub Shooting Kills 1... Child Brain Dead After Drive By Shooting... Man Charged Over Shooting Of Ex-Wife... Body Found In Vacant House... Teen Fatally Shot...
Last edited by Deb C; 12-21-2012 at 10:16 PM.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#3160 at 12-22-2012 12:59 AM by Kepi [at Northern, VA joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,664]
---
12-22-2012, 12:59 AM #3160
Join Date
Nov 2012
Location
Northern, VA
Posts
3,664

The drunk driving comparision is not apt on a few points. Firstly, nobody means to be driving drunk. It's not like someone goes out to the bar intending to get sloshed and drive into oncoming traffic. The regulation therefore reinforces a value that preexists in virtually all people at large.

Next up, even if people wanted to drive drunk, cars travel upon directed routes. Most cars can't handle going off road with any expectation of handling correctly. Your options are drive on the road or you don't drive at all. That there is a black market ensures products don't have the same problems. Alcohol, drugs, even state minimums on cigarettes all prove that prohibition just doesn't work.







Post#3161 at 12-22-2012 02:25 AM by Bad Dog [at joined Dec 2012 #posts 2,156]
---
12-22-2012, 02:25 AM #3161
Join Date
Dec 2012
Posts
2,156

Shaming might help. Make Wayne LaPierre, Rush Limbaugh, and Mike Huckabee attend the funerals.







Post#3162 at 12-22-2012 02:49 AM by Bad Dog [at joined Dec 2012 #posts 2,156]
---
12-22-2012, 02:49 AM #3162
Join Date
Dec 2012
Posts
2,156

Repeat DUI offenders do not mean to drive drunk. Check. Keeping large numbers of automatic weapons in a household with a disturbed person does not present a threat. Check. Having large numbers of automatic weapons present in the house gives you the tactical advantage when the disturbed individual snaps- you will never be surprised, and ambushed. Check.
Last edited by Bad Dog; 12-22-2012 at 04:26 AM.







Post#3163 at 12-22-2012 04:30 AM by '58 Flat [at Hardhat From Central Jersey joined Jul 2001 #posts 3,300]
---
12-22-2012, 04:30 AM #3163
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Hardhat From Central Jersey
Posts
3,300

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
We have different standards for adult behaviors based in part on predictable effects of maturity. Automobiles are designed to be driven by just about any adult with an IQ of 80, which suggests that the average 16-year-old is capable of driving a car competently. Driving an 18-wheeler is more complicated; in view of the 'trucker' culture an adult with an IQ of 90 is a reasonable minimum. Age 18 is the usual level of high-school graduation, which says something about educational attainment at age 20 and later: high-school dropouts (unless they passed up a senior year of high school to go to college) are generally recognized as dullards, and mediocrities generally don't get to grad school of any kind.
People are not fully adult in their physiology until they are about 25, as I can tell you from my experience in selling men's suits. I cringed when someone 20 years old wanted a men's suit because men that young still do not have adult bodies. From what I have seen in baseball, peak performance by batters is to be found between ages 25 and 29. Anyone could tell that a George Brett or Miguel Cabrera already in the majors at age 20 was going to be a major star if he kept a reasonably-clean life (well, that's a qualification for Darryl Strawberry) as he became stronger and filled out a youthful frame.

Alcohol has different effects upon people based upon age. Someone drinking at age 24 gets different effects from what at such an age is a relatively-tame drug (unless drinking to pathological levels), but on someone 14 years old, alcohol is a hard drug. There is no safe level of drinking for someone in early teens other than zero. An 18-year-old might be marginally tolerable as a drinker as I was -- I spaced them two hours apart and drank them slowly and never got drunk, but that was in a college dorm on a Saturday-night party and I wasn't going to do any driving that night -- many 18-year-olds lacked the judgment about alcohol and might provide it to children in their early-to-middle teens, which is a disaster.

But if someone is "mature" enough to get blown to bits by an IED in Iraq or Afghanistan at 18, then they are "mature" enough to consume alcoholic beverages at 18 - and since it's the car that kills people in a DUI accident and not the shot glass, etc. or its erstwhile contents, if anything there should be a higher age for driving, not drinking.



Between 1918 and 1933 the manufacture, import, sale, and use of intoxicating liquors -- even the comparatively-mild beer and wine -- was not understood as a fundamental right of Americans of any age.

And as recently as 1959 having consensual sex with a fellow adult member of one's own gender was not understood as a fundamental right in a single solitary state. So just because a human right wasn't recognized in some dimly-remembered era, that means said right doesn't exist, or shouldn't exist?



You are far safer from gun-related violence in Canada than in the United States without having lost any significant rights.

You are no doubt even safer in Iceland than in Canada; yet in Iceland, the following scene could never unfold: Say you are entering a downtown office building, and someone cuts in front of you, and as a result, you get stuck in a revolving door. You might be tempted to say something nasty to the person who cut you off - and if (s)he happened to be of some different racial or ethnic background, you might throw in some slur to that effect. Then the fight is on: A fight that might plausibly end with one of you in the hospital - or even the morgue.

That's why comparing rates of violent acts in the U.S. with those of Iceland or even Canada is worse than comparing apples and oranges. It's comparing apples and beef-jerky sticks.
Last edited by '58 Flat; 12-22-2012 at 07:14 AM.
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.

Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!







Post#3164 at 12-22-2012 10:16 AM by Joral [at Acworth, GA joined Feb 2009 #posts 152]
---
12-22-2012, 10:16 AM #3164
Join Date
Feb 2009
Location
Acworth, GA
Posts
152

Quote Originally Posted by Bad Dog View Post
Shaming might help. Make Wayne LaPierre, Rush Limbaugh, and Mike Huckabee attend the funerals.
And this would work how exactly?
"On the day the storm has just begun I will still hope there are better days to come."







Post#3165 at 12-22-2012 11:07 AM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
12-22-2012, 11:07 AM #3165
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

Quote Originally Posted by '58 Flat View Post
That's why comparing rates of violent acts in the U.S. with those of Iceland or even Canada is worse than comparing apples and oranges. It's comparing apples and beef-jerky sticks.
You will notice that no one ever compares violent crime rates between the United States and Great Britain...







Post#3166 at 12-22-2012 11:11 AM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
12-22-2012, 11:11 AM #3166
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Copperfield View Post
You will notice that no one ever compares violent crime rates between the United States and Great Britain...
Hmm... according to the one-off near the end of that article, even Canada has a significantly higher per-capita incidence of violent crime than the USA. That's kind of unexpected...
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc ętre dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant ŕ moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce ętre dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#3167 at 12-22-2012 11:12 AM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
12-22-2012, 11:12 AM #3167
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Quote Originally Posted by Bad Dog View Post
Having large numbers of automatic weapons present in the house gives you the tactical advantage when the disturbed individual snaps- you will never be surprised, and ambushed. Check.
Guns didn't save the gun collecting mother of Adam Lunz. She was his first victim. Check.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#3168 at 12-22-2012 11:26 AM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
12-22-2012, 11:26 AM #3168
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

I find it interesting as to how it appears that the main defenders of having an over abundance of guns and ammunition in one's possession, are males.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#3169 at 12-22-2012 11:53 AM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
12-22-2012, 11:53 AM #3169
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
Guns didn't save the gun collecting mother of Adam Lunz. She was his first victim. Check.
Silly, guns don't save any more than they kill. They are merely tools which can be used to try to achieve either of those ends.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc ętre dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant ŕ moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce ętre dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#3170 at 12-22-2012 02:20 PM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
12-22-2012, 02:20 PM #3170
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Hmm... according to the one-off near the end of that article, even Canada has a significantly higher per-capita incidence of violent crime than the USA. That's kind of unexpected...
If I recall a significant chunk of the difference in "violent crime" between the US and Canada is theft and burglary. Yes, most crime statistics include burglary as a violent crime even though the crime may not technically involve actual violence against an individual. Canada has burglary rates (I believe specifically auto-theft) that are quite a bit higher than the US, and end up skewing the numbers a bit. Also of note; Canada has nearly identical homicide rates using rifles and shotguns as the United States but do not have many homicides using handguns. Not a surprise since handguns are nearly impossible to own in Canada. I read a pretty decent report on crime in Canada some time ago. I will have to see if I can locate it again.

This can be contrasted with Great Britain which has high rates of what we would consider more traditional violent crime (assault, rape and yes even homicide). Britain's numbers are also down from peak violent crime rates that were double the current rates. There was an enormous spike in these crimes shortly after Britain's gun ban/confiscation.

A good report on recent crime rates can be found here. Note that they separate out England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in this particular report. All three are usually added together in other statistics. Generally speaking, the United States is not the hotbed of violent crime that it is often portrayed as.







Post#3171 at 12-22-2012 02:34 PM by JohnMc82 [at Back in Jax joined Jan 2011 #posts 1,962]
---
12-22-2012, 02:34 PM #3171
Join Date
Jan 2011
Location
Back in Jax
Posts
1,962

Quote Originally Posted by B Butler View Post
These paragraphs have never really been implemented.
Actually, these passages were used to justify draft laws as far back as the Civil War. The militia is the able-bodied, armed adult population, and the Congress has the authority to call them up and organize them. It has happened several times in our history, but it is not taken lightly.
Those words, "temperate and moderate", are words either of political cowardice, or of cunning, or seduction. A thing, moderately good, is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice.

'82 - Once & always independent







Post#3172 at 12-22-2012 03:31 PM by Kepi [at Northern, VA joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,664]
---
12-22-2012, 03:31 PM #3172
Join Date
Nov 2012
Location
Northern, VA
Posts
3,664

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
I find it interesting as to how it appears that the lmain defenders of having an over abundance of guns and ammunition in one's possession, are males.
Historically, banning has been the favored tactic of females. It's why they got the right to vote... Because the prohibition supporting protestants, Klan and the religiously affiliated or communist labor unions could count on them to back prohibition and without them it would never pass. It's also probably why bans don't usually make it out of the 4T, because it's generally when men see a rise in proportional power.







Post#3173 at 12-22-2012 03:42 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
12-22-2012, 03:42 PM #3173
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Bad Dog View Post
Shaming might help. Make Wayne LaPierre, Rush Limbaugh, and Mike Huckabee attend the funerals.
Fred Phelps attends those funerals, too, for his own perverted purposes.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#3174 at 12-22-2012 06:04 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
12-22-2012, 06:04 PM #3174
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
I find it interesting as to how it appears that the main defenders of having an over abundance of guns and ammunition in one's possession, are males.
If you can't get it up any other way, it will have to do.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#3175 at 12-22-2012 06:09 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
12-22-2012, 06:09 PM #3175
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Copperfield View Post
Ah, you apparently missed the part where I asked for...



Of the two "sources" you posted, only one (the Huffington Post article) even comes close to presenting actual data (and it's not much) and even that fails to analyze the data. Claims like "doing X saved Y many lives" are generally pretty dubious especially when the breakdown of data is not shown. How does one measure the rather unscientific "lives saved" criteria? How did they control for other variables (for instance greater education of risk)?

Actual data analysis looks something like this (since you specifically brought up drinking and driving).
Cato Institute is a biased, libertarian organization. Don't bother with them, or with "Reason" either.

You asked, I delivered. As usual, when you materialists and reactionaries ask me for evidence, and I present it, you dismiss it. Nothing new there.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece
-----------------------------------------