Gun violence is at an all time high...right?

berzirk

berzirk

CAGiversary!
Feedback
2 (100%)
Anybody else see the Department of Justice Report, or Pew Study that says gun violence, and accidental shootings are at the lowest they've been in 20 years? I was pretty surprised considering the amount of coverage, and talk about how this problem is completely out of control.

I agree that gun violence is a HUGE problem in America, but it was interesting to see the timing of these stories, especially the one from the Department of Justice, considering the President and many others are calling for tighter gun control, background checks, etc.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-past-20-years-justice-dept-report-finds?lite

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun-deaths-u-dropped-nearly-50-percent-over-211424998.html

I'll admit, I thought it had raised significantly during that time period. Any legitimate political ramifications?
 
Violence, overall, has been on a downward trend for the last 20 years, but we've been seeing an increase on certain types of gun violence like mass shootings. Personally, I'd be more interested to see the results a little more disaggregated, but I'm going to be honest and say that I can't ass myself to read the report any time soon.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Violence, overall, has been on a downward trend for the last 20 years, but we've been seeing an increase on certain types of gun violence like mass shootings. Personally, I'd be more interested to see the results a little more disaggregated, but I'm going to be honest and say that I can't ass myself to read the report any time soon.[/QUOTE]

Yah, it would be nice to see a greater level of detail for sure, but with mass shootings on the rise, it seems like there should be more victims than before, not fewer, right? Like I said, I'm stunned it's down, and was surprised at what poor timing this came to light politically, especially from a government source.
 
Mass shootings are relatively rare to begin with, so no, they wouldn't necessarily be making a significant enough difference to skew the results.

Do you mean it's poor timing because you think it weakens the case for stricter gun laws and enforcement? I don't think it's poor timing at all when we're seeing increases in certain types of violence especially given the profile of the victims of a few of these crimes. Personally, I'd love to see harsher penalties for straw purchases, but I'm just a gun grabber shooting his mouth off with zero clue about guns.
 
Long-term, I think abortion has cut crime rates down to size as generations of criminals were never born in the first place.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Long-term, I think abortion has cut crime rates down to size as generations of criminals were never born in the first place.[/QUOTE]

Lol, I don't even know how you came to this conclusion. Only way that's true is if you believe there's a higher ratio of future criminals getting aborted. Which then means you can determine criminal activity before birth.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Long-term, I think abortion has cut crime rates down to size as generations of criminals were never born in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Seriously, man? Do you even know which economic group tends to have the most abortions?

How the hell do you square the circle of the poor being leeches that breed like bunnies while aborting themselves out of criminality? That study you're referencing has been trashed left and right.
 
Someone need to read up on FREAKonomics or watch the documentary... Instead of being left / right and conservative religious nutty ideology.. The information is actually based on facts..
 
http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/

I love Freakonomics, but am not for abortion. It is interesting to see the arguments over "facts and figures", which are often thought of as absolute constants. It sucks that taking ANY study at face value is so hard these days, and finding "confirmable" links in data is almost always based in bias. Anyway, I think this answers some of the points made that refute the Freakonmics' claim.
 
[quote name='itachiitachi']Would you have a source from a place not called "life news"?[/QUOTE]

I didn't catch the domain until I was reading the article and saw this gem of a line
He theorized that the babies who were victimized by abortion would have been more likely to commit crimes.
Click to expand...
That's when I realized it was an anti-abortion website.
 
[quote name='itachiitachi']Would you have a source from a place not called "life news"?[/QUOTE]


Hehhehehehehee...I thought it funny that he would cite that website also. Heaven forbid you find info on a site that posters here deem....controversial.;)

I thought most liberals would love the legalized abortion=less crime theory. As long as you don't count every abortion as a murder, then I think it has merit.
 
[quote name='itachiitachi']Would you have a source from a place not called "life news"?[/QUOTE]

Original link is from Boston.com with hysterical commentary.

I'm personally okay with abortion but it's way too easy to be seduced by Freakonomics. I'm not saying they are wrong per se but I need more than one source
 
A disproportionate share of violent crime in the United States comes out of the group classified as black. Basically, individuals from a group comprising 13% of the population commits a proportion of crime much larger than 13%. If you consider that black men are more criminal than black woman (men in general are more criminal than women), then 6% of the population commits an absurd amount of crime.

Black women tend to seek a disproportionate share of abortions despite being 6% of the population. In Wisconsin alone, 6.2% of the population is black and female, but get 24% of the abortions. In New York City, black women received 60% of abortions but are 25% of the population.

Whether you want to blame the white-black crime gap on poverty, education, culture or whatever, it's clear to me that many criminals are now never born in the first place. You cannot determine with 100% certainty the penchant of an unborn baby to commit crime in the future, but you can apply the group statistics we already have to determine a probability.

For black men, the probability of going to jail in his lifetime is 1 in 4. Even if you discount non-violent drug offenses, the level of crime saturating black neighborhoods and communities blocks economic growth and prosperity. Abortion, in my view, simply provides a little bit of relief and without legal abortion it would be even worse.

The effect is probably true for all other racial and ethnic groups as well. If you look at, for example, homicide trends in the United States, black/white/brown/whatever crime rates tend to rise and fall together, though the gaps persist between them. If 2/3rds of drug-related homicides are committed by black offenders, the only hope is that ending the war on drugs quells the violence, the theory being that the gang member who sells drugs could now rely on police for protection instead of themselves or their crew.

I think the difficulty in measuring the effect of abortion on crime rates is deciding on what the lag time is. It's generational, so we're talking effects occurring 15 to 20 years later. There are also other things going on at the same time. The original research attributed about 30-40% of the drop in crime on abortion. They said that 40% was caused by locking up a million more criminals, 10% by putting more officers on the streets and 15% by the end of the crack epidemic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interestingly, the Pew study finds that 56 percent of respondents believe that deaths caused by guns are more frequent than they were 20 years ago, compared with just 12 percent who accurately said the rates had declined.
Click to expand...

Where is all of this belief coming from that gun violence was on the rise?

Maybe the media going on and on about it. Or the highly televised school shootings.

At least most states didn't push through ridiculous gun control legislation that doesn't make sense. Unfortunately I live in the one that did.....:wall:
 
People from a lower socioeconomic level of the country commit a larger number of crimes than people form the highest socioeconomic level? You don't say?

I've got other earth shattering news for you. As inequality grows and the socioeconomic gap keeps widening, what do you think is going to happen? If you think that people who are typically poor and undereducated commit a lot of crimes, what will happen when that group grows larger? Take away what little they get in welfare, what do you think will happen?

So sick of trying to explain the obvious to people as if it's some sort of revelation. This isn't rocket science, it's easy to understand once you get past your refusal to do so.
 
[quote name='Clak']People from a lower socioeconomic level of the country commit a larger number of crimes than people form the highest socioeconomic level? You don't say?

I've got other earth shattering news for you. As inequality grows and the socioeconomic gap keeps widening, what do you think is going to happen? If you think that people who are typically poor and undereducated commit a lot of crimes, what will happen when that group grows larger? Take away what little they get in welfare, what do you think will happen?

So sick of trying to explain the obvious to people as if it's some sort of revelation. This isn't rocket science, it's easy to understand once you get past your refusal to do so.[/QUOTE]

Those for-profit prisons ain't gonna fill themselves.
 
[quote name='Clak']People from a lower socioeconomic level of the country commit a larger number of crimes than people form the highest socioeconomic level? You don't say?

I've got other earth shattering news for you. As inequality grows and the socioeconomic gap keeps widening, what do you think is going to happen? If you think that people who are typically poor and undereducated commit a lot of crimes, what will happen when that group grows larger? Take away what little they get in welfare, what do you think will happen?

So sick of trying to explain the obvious to people as if it's some sort of revelation. This isn't rocket science, it's easy to understand once you get past your refusal to do so.[/QUOTE]

I've got some groundbreaking news for you as well kid... Everyone knows. People differ on opinion on how to fight class inequality. You want more benefits, we want more opportunities.
 
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']I've got some groundbreaking news for you as well kid... Everyone knows. People differ on opinion on how to fight class inequality. You want more benefits, we want more opportunities.[/QUOTE]

Yup. Give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish.
 
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']I've got some groundbreaking news for you as well kid... Everyone knows. People differ on opinion on how to fight class inequality. You want more benefits, we want more opportunities.[/QUOTE]

sorry but that's bullshit. You want "opportunities" for yourself and if it happens to benefit someone eles , that's cool but not a requirement. But it's adorable that you've convinced yourself.

[quote name='UncleBob']Yup. Give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish.[/QUOTE]

why does it have to either or?
 
[quote name='Clak']People from a lower socioeconomic level of the country commit a larger number of crimes than people form the highest socioeconomic level?[/QUOTE]
The level of crime in a neighborhood has more to do with the racial and ethnic makeup of that neighborhood than poverty, education or unemployment. There is a culture of crime in black communities. This is being caused less by racism in the modern world and more on the penchant of government to meddle with individual groups. This is why when black women embraced abortion, this helped cause the crime rate to go down.

I fear that Latinos are at a crossroads, and could either go the way of blacks (hopeless and endless cycle of poverty) or become like other immigrant groups (Vietnamese where I live) that ended up prospering. This is going to depend partially on how much Latinos embrace government handouts and set-asides.

On one hand, Mexicans tend to be more collective, and I fear that may lead them to embrace progressive policies that destroy families. On the other hand, many 3rd, 4th and now 5th generation Mexican-Americans are hard working and could embrace fiscal conservatism. Anaheim, CA is a good example of a city with a strong Latino middle class where not everyone believes everything should be handed to you.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']No, I pretty much like my answer.[/QUOTE]

HAHAHahahahaahhaha:applause:. I like Bob's answer, but I'll raise you incentive, complacency, and fairness.
 
[quote name='usickenme']sorry but that's bullshit. You want "opportunities" for yourself and if it happens to benefit someone eles , that's cool but not a requirement. But it's adorable that you've convinced yourself.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry but you could not be more wrong but good try. I suggest you leave the life of palm reading and go read a book, maybe educate yourself.
 
LOLZ

tl;dr: "I'm a vet and a cop so I'm a super-citizen, fuck those dead white kids, no one gives a shit about dead black kids(I don't either), I want my gunz." Mic drop.
 
So Constitutional rights should be changed because a few madmen kill people while breaking laws and regulations that are already in place?

 
I'm not advocating gun control. I just recognize someone who needs help when I see him.

I do find it funny how much these people come out to defend the 2nd amendment while they don't  seem to care about the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th or 8th.

 
Buzz_Killington.jpg


Let me tell you a story about abridge.

 
willardhaven said:
I'm not advocating gun control. I just recognize someone who needs help when I see him.

I do find it funny how much these people come out to defend the 2nd amendment while they don't seem to care about the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th or 8th.
Click to expand...
w/r/t the 5th - Isn't it mostly right wingers who are upset about the whole NSA Spying thing? While the lefties on here are saying "both sides do it", "it's no big deal", and "don't commit crimes"...?
 
Haha yeah the same right wingers who were okay with racial profiling and spying when it was happening under Bush. I guess they thought it would only apply to Muslims (or people who "look" Muslim).

The NSA spying scandal is unacceptable, but it isn't surprising.

 
Amongst certain races I'm sure its at all time high. You know the ones breaking murder records in a certain windy city. A city a president forgot about but still donates billions to muslim countries. I'm not saying names.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dohdough said:
So tell me, when was the last time you screamed "FIRE!" in a crowded theater?
Click to expand...
Please tell me that you see the intellectual inequality of your example versus a US citizen's right to own a firearm for protection. Someone who intentionally misuses a gun should be punished, someone who intentionally causes injury due to inciting a panic in a crowded place should be punished. We already have a ton of laws covering that.

 
gunnm said:
Amongst certain races I'm sure its at all time high. You know the ones breaking murder records in a certain windy city. A city a president forgot about but still donates billions to muslim countries. I'm not saying names.
Click to expand...
lolwhut?

Muslim countries like Israel, the largest recipient of US foreign aid, or were you thinking of a different Muslim country.

 
egofed said:
Please tell me that you see the intellectual inequality of your example versus a US citizen's right to own a firearm for protection. Someone who intentionally misuses a gun should be punished, someone who intentionally causes injury due to inciting a panic in a crowded place should be punished. We already have a ton of laws covering that.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is that there are limits? WHO KNEW!

berzirk said:
lolwhut?

Muslim countries like Israel, the largest recipient of US foreign aid, or were you thinking of a different Muslim country.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure he's thinking about Chicago and black people. I haven't decided if that's worse or just as bad.
 
dohdough said:
So what you're saying is that there are limits? WHO KNEW!

Pretty sure he's thinking about Chicago and black people. I haven't decided if that's worse or just as bad.
Click to expand...
Gun Rights advocates deal with a lot of limits. (we know from before, you don't agree). The problem is the diminishing returns in imposing more limits. If gun rights advocates accept your arguments now, and when gun violence does not decline, they will be forced to continuously accept your arguments or else they will be hypocrites......Oh wait this isn't the 20th century, you are doing that to them now.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top