Peter Ubel is a *****

[487806]

---

Members don't see this ad.

this x 1000

The guy killed himself after all this. He clearly wanted to go down in a blaze of glory/infamy, and he succeeded. Ditto for the other two terrible school shootings - Columbine and Virginia Tech.

I was thinking in the opposite direction, namely the aftermath of the Newtown tragedy. I am 80%+ sure that this tragedy motivated the NY gunman to kill the two firefighters who responded to the fire that the gunman had created. What's more frustrating is that I read on the news (I admit Yahoo! 😳) that the Newtown gunman's DNA will be tested for mutations... 😕😕 Why still focus on the gunman?

 

[487806]

The main point is banning (or even placing moderate restrictions) on guns = banning alcohol. Both are futile. Criminals will always find ways around the measure. This is obvious, as their aim is to break the law, so placing more laws banning guns will actually spur more attacks.

The main culprit here is the media and their yellow journalism. Didn't NBC slander Zimmerman in the Trayvon case when it hasn't even started? Case in point. Blame it on the folks in 1895 who incited the Spanish-American War See here. The media somehow likes to focus heavily on the killers rather than the victims. Quite unfortunate.

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

The main point is banning (or even placing moderate restrictions) on guns = banning alcohol. Both are futile. Criminals will always find ways around the measure. This is obvious, as their aim is to break the law, so placing more laws banning guns will actually spur more attacks.

The main culprit here is the media and their yellow journalism. Didn't NBC slander Zimmerman in the Trayvon case when it hasn't even started? Case in point. Blame it on the folks in 1895 who incited the Spanish-American War See here. The media somehow likes to focus heavily on the killers rather than the victims. Quite unfortunate.

This is always just a stupid argument to me when arguing against mass murders (although not such a stupid argument when considering everday street violence). The killers in these cases are often socially isolated white (or asian in virginia tech) males of high school/college age. Where exactly are they going to obtain these "underground" weapons? What, drive to the nearest hood and ask the first guy they see on the corner if they have any guns to sell?

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

We also shouldn't forget another part of the decision though:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

 

[487806]

This is always just a stupid argument to me when arguing against mass murders (although not such a stupid argument when considering everday street violence). The killers in these cases are often socially isolated white (or asian in virginia tech) males of high school/college age. Where exactly are they going to obtain these "underground" weapons? What, drive to the nearest hood and ask the first guy they see on the corner if they have any guns to sell?

Or they could steal the guns at night by smashing through windows or such... Or illegally obtain them. They are criminals for a reason...

In the Newtown case, someone else legally purchased them but kept them in close proximity to the previously undetected killer. Maybe it's the same for previous mass shootings?

 

[link2swim06]

It's called the Bill of Rights!

If it sounds like I'm harping on the wording here, it's because you guys are just blatantly ignoring it.

That is where our opinions on the meaning of the 2nd amendment diverge. I don't think handgun ownership for self-protection is a right via the constitution. Everyone has an inherent right for self protection, but that isn't wrote in the 2nd amendment or anywhere else in the bill of rights for that matter. My point is regardless of what the courts think, I am saying from a logical/common sense point of view, the 2nd amendent was wrote for militas NOT for self-defense.

That court case you posted barely got the majority of the supreme court. It is clear there is a large amount of disagreement on whether it is a constitutional right or not.

Guns should still be legal but I don't see this as a constitutional right.

 

[notbobtrustme]

Honestly, what is the big deal about Sandy Hook anyways? Yes, there is the initial shock of the incident, but in the grand scheme of things, Sandy Hook is a rounding error. There are 11,000 homicides in the US every year. There are 36,000 gun-related deaths every year. That's 4 Sandy Hooks every single day. We don't have a gun problem, we have a culture problem.

Look at Canada; they have even higher levels of gun ownership than the US and not even a 10th of the violence.

 

[487806]

Honestly, what is the big deal about Sandy Hook anyways? Yes, there is the initial shock of the incident, but in the grand scheme of things, Sandy Hook is a rounding error. There are 11,000 homicides in the US every year. There are 36,000 gun-related deaths every year. That's 4 Sandy Hooks every single day. We don't have a gun problem, we have a culture problem.

Look at Canada; they have even higher levels of gun ownership than the US and not even a 10th of the violence.

It's a mass murder in a school = Virginia Tech = Columbine. There's a difference between how many per day vs how many per year. But I definitely agree that we have a culture problem. That's what we should focus on and not guns.

 

[duckie99]

It's a mass murder in a school = Virginia Tech = Columbine. There's a difference between how many per day vs how many per year. But I definitely agree that we have a culture problem. That's what we should focus on and not guns.

...part of the culture problem is the love and romanticized nature around guns. Nancy Lanza (the killer's mom) loved guns, kept a lot of them around the house, taught her sick mentally ill child (whom she was aware was a danger) how to shoot, let him play violent video games for hours on end, etc. It was an accident waiting to happen.

Honestly, what is the big deal about Sandy Hook anyways? Yes, there is the initial shock of the incident, but in the grand scheme of things, Sandy Hook is a rounding error. There are 11,000 homicides in the US every year. There are 36,000 gun-related deaths every year. That's 4 Sandy Hooks every single day. We don't have a gun problem, we have a culture problem.

And another part of this culture problem is the caviler attitude people take toward violence. "What is the big deal about Sandy Hook"? Seriously? Wow. 20 1st grade children going to school excited about Chirstmas and Santa were shot 3-11 times each along with 6 teachers/administrators by a madman with an assault rifle and you ask what the big deal is? Jeez man you need to do some soul searching.


I again suggest this article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

Honestly, what is the big deal about Sandy Hook anyways? Yes, there is the initial shock of the incident, but in the grand scheme of things, Sandy Hook is a rounding error. There are 11,000 homicides in the US every year. There are 36,000 gun-related deaths every year. That's 4 Sandy Hooks every single day. We don't have a gun problem, we have a culture problem.

Look at Canada; they have even higher levels of gun ownership than the US and not even a 10th of the violence.

Uh what? The US has more guns per capita than any other country. Canada is almost a third of the US number.

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

 

[rog411]

A $300 fee sounds like $300 of infringement. The 4th Amendment doesn't say "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, as long as they pay a $300 fee."


It's called the Bill of Rights!

If it sounds like I'm harping on the wording here, it's because you guys are just blatantly ignoring it.

I think I have to disagree with this. Having to pay a fee to get a gun license does not infringe on your right to have a gun anymore than having to pay for the gun itself infringes on it. The Amendment does not promise you a free gun. It only promises that you will not be barred from owning one. You can own one, given that you pay for one and you fullfill all the requirements of the background check, age, etc.

 

[rog411]

Or they could steal the guns at night by smashing through windows or such... Or illegally obtain them. They are criminals for a reason...

In the Newtown case, someone else legally purchased them but kept them in close proximity to the previously undetected killer. Maybe it's the same for previous mass shootings?

The thing is that these shooters are not really criminals in the way we think of criminals usually. Usually this is the first crime they have ever committed. They aren't seasoned criminals with access to underground networks of arms. They are just some average guys who snap. If guns aren't in easy access to them, chances are they won't be able to accomplish much because they are not the seasoned cirminals that have access to underground networks and are experienced in robbing homes to get guns.

 

[NickNaylor]

That is where our opinions on the meaning of the 2nd amendment diverge. I don't think handgun ownership for self-protection is a right via the constitution. Everyone has an inherent right for self protection, but that isn't wrote in the 2nd amendment or anywhere else in the bill of rights for that matter. My point is regardless of what the courts think, I am saying from a logical/common sense point of view, the 2nd amendent was wrote for militas NOT for self-defense.

That court case you posted barely got the majority of the supreme court. It is clear there is a large amount of disagreement on whether it is a constitutional right or not.

Guns should still be legal but I don't see this as a constitutional right.

For all intents and purposes, though, your interpretation is wrong. The SCOTUS and the entire judiciary is responsible for telling the executive branch what the law means so that they can enforce it. The judiciary's interpretation effectively becomes the law - it is as if the court's opinion were the statute itself. You are basically saying that the law is wrong because you don't agree with it. The SCOTUS doesn't act as some advisory body that recommends how laws should be read and enforced. It clarifies their meaning, and its interpretation has the same force as if the legislature passed the "interpretation" itself.

No political system is going to be perfect. There is never going to be a consensus on any public policy - even things that you think are slam dunks. The SCOTUS seems to be the best alternative we've come up with. Just because there is dissent doesn't invalidate the opinion. In many policy matters there are difficult decisions to be made. You could even argue that two entirely opposing views are "right." But one must be decided. For better or worse, this is how it works.

I also don't see how this isn't a constitutional right. It's in the damn Constitution in the Bill of Rights!

There's also some confusion on the words "well-regulated" and "militia." When the Constitution was drafted, they did not mean what they mean now. "Well-regulated" did not mean "execute significant control over." Well-regulated meant "well-prepared," ie, armed and trained in the use of those arms. In addition, a "militia" had a broader meaning than it does now - basically any male was a member of the local militia. In colloquial terms, the 2nd amendment has been interpreted to mean: "because it is important to the security of the nation for the people to be trained and armed, the right to own weapons will not be infringed upon."

Now you might rightly argue that attempting to interpret the INTENT of the text is a silly way of going about things. There are many constitutional scholars that would agree with you. But that's really a whole different discussion that has much broader implications than gun ownership rights.

(sent from my phone)

 

[NickNaylor]

The thing is that these shooters are not really criminals in the way we think of criminals usually. Usually this is the first crime they have ever committed. They aren't seasoned criminals with access to underground networks of arms. They are just some average guys who snap. If guns aren't in easy access to them, chances are they won't be able to accomplish much because they are not the seasoned cirminals that have access to underground networks and are experienced in robbing homes to get guns.

But as someone else mentioned, the number of people that die in these shootings versus the number of gun deaths overall is ridiculously small. Because of how they are covered, however, they are easier to remember and are more at the forefront of the public consciousness. How many other murders get two weeks and counting of NATIONAL news coverage? Looking at Wiki, there have been a total of just over 200 deaths in school shootings since the 1930s. In 2008, there were more than 80,000 gun deaths total, a majority of which were suicides.

By no means am I arguing that there isn't a problem of gun violence in this country. Not at all. And school shootings, when they do occur, are extremely tragic. However, it is a complete fallacy to use school shootings for ANY foundation of general gun policy - if only because they are so exceptional and so rare relative to gun violence generally.

(sent from my phone)

 

[rog411]

But as someone else mentioned, the number of people that die in these shootings versus the number of gun deaths overall is ridiculously small. Because of how they are covered, however, they are easier to remember and are more at the forefront of the public consciousness. How many other murders get two weeks and counting of NATIONAL news coverage? Looking at Wiki, there have been a total of just over 200 deaths in school shootings since the 1930s. In 2008, there were more than 80,000 gun deaths total, a majority of which were suicides.

By no means am I arguing that there isn't a problem of gun violence in this country. Not at all. And school shootings, when they do occur, are extremely tragic. However, it is a complete fallacy to use school shootings for ANY foundation of general gun policy - if only because they are so exceptional and so rare relative to gun violence generally.

(sent from my phone)

That is a fair assessment, Nick. However, the majority of those 80,000 gun deaths that were not suicides were probably crime-related.. meaning criminals killing other criminals.. gang violence against other gangs, etc. That kind of thing is expected among crime rings and criminals. It comes with the territory and the people involved know that. The problem is when gun deaths happen amongst innocent people who are not involved in any criminal activity... particularly young children. That is a much bigger problem and does definitely deserve much more attention than gang members killing each other.

 

[notbobtrustme]

"What is the big deal about Sandy Hook"? Seriously? Wow. 20 1st grade children going to school excited about Chirstmas and Santa were shot 3-11 times each along with 6 teachers/administrators by a madman with an assault rifle and you ask what the big deal is? Jeez man you need to do some soul searching.

Just over the 4th of July weekend this summer, something like 40 people were shot including young kids just in Chicago. Just about everyday on the news, you can hear about some 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 year old kid caught in the crossfire. At least once a week, you can hear about a new mother being gunned down in the streets. And this is just in Chicago.

The news has a way of sensationalizing big time events when it's all the other events that really matter. Yes, Sandy Hook is a tragedy, but we have 4 Sandy Hooks every ****ing day.

 

[Dave89]

Just over the 4th of July weekend this summer, something like 40 people were shot including young kids just in Chicago. Just about everyday on the news, you can hear about some 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 year old kid caught in the crossfire. At least once a week, you can hear about a new mother being gunned down in the streets. And this is just in Chicago.

The news has a way of sensationalizing big time events when it's all the other events that really matter. Yes, Sandy Hook is a tragedy, but we have 4 Sandy Hooks every ****ing day.

Sandy Hook is a tragedy because the children were shot in cold blood in a sleepy, innocent neighborhood (relatively speaking, of course). Let's not pretend that there is an entirely different culture in inner cities - one that facilitates violence. The point is that nobody could see this coming, whereas it's quite expected in Chicago.

Try this: take a walk on the streets in both Newtown and Chicago. Listen to the music the cars are playing. Then ask yourself which place is more likely, by objective measure, to experience violence.

 

[loveoforganic2]

Sandy Hook is a tragedy because the children were shot in cold blood in a sleepy, innocent neighborhood (relatively speaking, of course). Let's not pretend that there is an entirely different culture in inner cities - one that facilitates violence. The point is that nobody could see this coming, whereas it's quite expected in Chicago.

Try this: take a walk on the streets in both Newtown and Chicago. Listen to the music the cars are playing. Then ask yourself which place is more likely, by objective measure, to experience violence.

It's a tragedy because it's unexpected? No, it's NEWS because it's unexpected. It's tragedy that the inner city culture of violence is such that little kids dying there isn't news.

 

[link2swim06]

For all intents and purposes, though, your interpretation is wrong. The SCOTUS and the entire judiciary is responsible for telling the executive branch what the law means so that they can enforce it. The judiciary's interpretation effectively becomes the law - it is as if the court's opinion were the statute itself. You are basically saying that the law is wrong because you don't agree with it. The SCOTUS doesn't act as some advisory body that recommends how laws should be read and enforced. It clarifies their meaning, and its interpretation has the same force as if the legislature passed the "interpretation" itself.

No political system is going to be perfect. There is never going to be a consensus on any public policy - even things that you think are slam dunks. The SCOTUS seems to be the best alternative we've come up with. Just because there is dissent doesn't invalidate the opinion. In many policy matters there are difficult decisions to be made. You could even argue that two entirely opposing views are "right." But one must be decided. For better or worse, this is how it works.

I also don't see how this isn't a constitutional right. It's in the damn Constitution in the Bill of Rights!

There's also some confusion on the words "well-regulated" and "militia." When the Constitution was drafted, they did not mean what they mean now. "Well-regulated" did not mean "execute significant control over." Well-regulated meant "well-prepared," ie, armed and trained in the use of those arms. In addition, a "militia" had a broader meaning than it does now - basically any male was a member of the local militia. In colloquial terms, the 2nd amendment has been interpreted to mean: "because it is important to the security of the nation for the people to be trained and armed, the right to own weapons will not be infringed upon."

Now you might rightly argue that attempting to interpret the INTENT of the text is a silly way of going about things. There are many constitutional scholars that would agree with you. But that's really a whole different discussion that has much broader implications than gun ownership rights.

(sent from my phone)

You don't need to lecture me on how the government works, I get the purpose of the courts.

While the words on the constitution and bill of rights are fixed, the interpretations over time are dynamic and fluid. Supreme court cases get overturned and amendments get passed, etc.

A lot of people don't have the same interpretation of the 2nd amendment as you do. It seems pretty obvious to me 2nd amendment was to create a mechanism to overthrow the government if it got out of control (aka revolutionary war which had just concluded). Not to stop joe blow from mugging you while you walk down the street.

Regardless even if it is a right, the government has carved out a whole host of exceptions to about every amendment contained in the bill of rights. For example, I have the right to free speech but have to pay the FCC for a radio transmission license, which is limiting my potential free speech. (there are a million exceptions/fees limiting your 'rights').

It isn't unreasonable to have fees/mandatory programs for gun ownership. It certainly exists in other forms relating to constitutional rights.

 

[NickNaylor]

You don't need to lecture me on how the government works, I get the purpose of the courts.

While the words on the constitution and bill of rights are fixed, the interpretations over time are dynamic and fluid. Supreme court cases get overturned and amendments get passed, etc.

A lot of people don't have the same interpretation of the 2nd amendment as you do. It seems pretty obvious to me 2nd amendment was to create a mechanism to overthrow the government if it got out of control (aka revolutionary war which had just concluded). Not to stop joe blow from mugging you while you walk down the street.

Regardless even if it is a right, the government has carved out a whole host of exceptions to about every amendment contained in the bill of rights. For example, I have the right to free speech but have to pay the FCC for a radio transmission license, which is limiting my potential free speech. (there are a million exceptions/fees limiting your 'rights').

It isn't unreasonable to have fees/mandatory programs for gun ownership. It certainly exists in other forms relating to constitutional rights.

I didn't mean to lecture you, but what you were saying seemed to fundamentally reject the core purpose of the judiciary (at least the way I interpreted your post), thus my post.

(sent from my phone)

 

[NickNaylor]

Sandy Hook is a tragedy because the children were shot in cold blood in a sleepy, innocent neighborhood (relatively speaking, of course). Let's not pretend that there is an entirely different culture in inner cities - one that facilitates violence. The point is that nobody could see this coming, whereas it's quite expected in Chicago.

Try this: take a walk on the streets in both Newtown and Chicago. Listen to the music the cars are playing. Then ask yourself which place is more likely, by objective measure, to experience violence.

This is a pretty racist and frankly ridiculous opinion. I love listening to hip hop. That's probably what I'm listening to 80% of the time. Sometimes I even blast it in my car. That doesn't mean I'm rolling with a Glock in my console ready to light someone up.

And as someone else mentioned, there are many reasons why inner cities struggle. It's much more complicated than "oh, those kids are minorities and come from families where violence is worshipped, ergo they're destined to become gangbangers." When there are no opportunities for advancement and basic things like education are failing to perform their mission, it's likely that people will resort to more dubious ways of getting by. That doesn't make it right by any means, but if you gave most people in ****ty situations the opportunity to live in a safe neighborhood and support their families and all they had to do was go to school and/or work a 9-5 job, they probably would. Your caricature makes the assumption that people WANT to live in unsafe neighborhoods. That's ridiculous.

It's not as simple as "lol just try hard and go to college dummy."

(sent from my phone)

 

[duckie99]

Just over the 4th of July weekend this summer, something like 40 people were shot including young kids just in Chicago. Just about everyday on the news, you can hear about some 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 year old kid caught in the crossfire. At least once a week, you can hear about a new mother being gunned down in the streets. And this is just in Chicago.

The news has a way of sensationalizing big time events when it's all the other events that really matter. Yes, Sandy Hook is a tragedy, but we have 4 Sandy Hooks every ****ing day.

I am not denying that there is a lot of violence and that children are killed by guns one way or another all too often. I am also not denying that we should have been having these conversations about gun violence, cultural attitudes, mental health care, etc regardless of what has happened in Newtown...

But Sandy Hook is a big deal. It's not every day some madman guns down 26 helpless victims (20 of whom are children) in an elementary school near Christmas in a seemingly nice town in america out of pure hate or mental illness with no clear motive with an assault rifle shooting each 3-11 times. That's 1st graders (5-6 years old) running around a small classroom getting murdered by being shot at close range with an assault rifle... shooting each child 3-11 times. It's not the same as a child getting caught in gang crossfire or one accidentally shooting himself. So to ask "what's the big deal" is totally insulting to the families and victims of the massacre and shows your caviler attitude towards violence that I think should give you pause.

 

[loveoforganic2]

I am not denying that there is a lot of violence and that children are killed by guns one way or another all too often. I am also not denying that we should have been having these conversations about gun violence, cultural attitudes, mental health care, etc regardless of what has happened in Newtown...

But Sandy Hook is a big deal. It's not every day some madman guns down 26 helpless victims (20 of whom are children) in an elementary school near Christmas in a seemingly nice town in america out of pure hate or mental illness with no clear motive with an assault rifle shooting each 3-11 times. That's 1st graders (5-6 years old) running around a small classroom getting murdered by being shot at close range with an assault rifle... shooting each child 3-11 times. It's not the same as a child getting caught in gang crossfire or one accidentally shooting himself. So to ask "what's the big deal" is totally insulting to the families and victims of the massacre and shows your caviler attitude towards violence that I think should give you pause.

It's a thing that's terrible beyond my eloquence. It's also exceedingly uncommon statistically and not the type of thing that should inform policy making, at least not to a large degree

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

It's a tragedy because it's unexpected? No, it's NEWS because it's unexpected. It's tragedy that the inner city culture of violence is such that little kids dying there isn't news.

+1 for this explanation

 

[duckie99]

It's a thing that's terrible beyond my eloquence. It's also exceedingly uncommon statistically and not the type of thing that should inform policy making, at least not to a large degree

well tragedies such as this get conversations started and often are things that change people's minds and perceptions (it has mine). Sometimes it takes a tragedy to produce any meaningful change. Is it the ideal way? No. But that's the way the world works.

 

[loveoforganic2]

well tragedies such as this get conversations started and often are things that change people's minds and perceptions (it has mine). Sometimes it takes a tragedy to produce any meaningful change. Is it the ideal way? No. But that's the way the world works.

While I know you specifically mentioned a desire to ban semi-automatic weapons, the vast majority of the conversation centers on "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines. These represent the vast minority of firearm related crime.

It's unproductive to have emotion-based discussion because fact is disregarded.

 

[rog411]

Just over the 4th of July weekend this summer, something like 40 people were shot including young kids just in Chicago. Just about everyday on the news, you can hear about some 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 year old kid caught in the crossfire. At least once a week, you can hear about a new mother being gunned down in the streets. And this is just in Chicago.

It is really tragic that these things are happening on a daily basis. The problem seems to be that our culture is just too violent. It is the culture that must change.

 

[rog411]

This is a pretty racist and frankly ridiculous opinion. I love listening to hip hop. That's probably what I'm listening to 80% of the time. Sometimes I even blast it in my car. That doesn't mean I'm rolling with a Glock in my console ready to light someone up.

You may be able to listen to violent music/lyrics and not have it influence your behavior because you are an intelligent level-headed person. You know to reject those messages because they are wrong. That is not true for everyone. I do believe that many people are influenced by music that glorifies violence, especially young people who idolize these artists because of their fame and success. When you idolize a rap star, it is very difficult to objectively think about the content of the music. You don't just dismiss the messages coming from your idol gloryfing violence/rape/drugs as nonsense, you accept them and often try to imitate them. I don't believe that hip hop music is the cause of most violence, or anything, but it definitely does not help to turn young people away from a violent path.

 

[NickNaylor]

You may be able to listen to violent music/lyrics and not have it influence your behavior because you are an intelligent level-headed person. You know to reject those messages because they are wrong. That is not true for everyone. I do believe that many people are influenced by music that glorifies violence, especially young people who idolize these artists because of their fame and success. When you idolize a rap star, it is very difficult to objectively think about the content of the music. You don't just dismiss the messages coming from your idol gloryfing violence/rape/drugs as nonsense, you accept them and often try to imitate them. I don't believe that hip hop music is the cause of most violence, or anything, but it definitely does not help to turn young people away from a violent path.

(citation needed)

(sent from my phone)

 

[rog411]

(citation needed)

(sent from my phone)

I don't have a specific citation for you, but if you do a search on google for 'negative impact of hip hop music on youth' or something of the like you will find articles that may give you some more information. It is just my opinion and it is based on personal experience growing up around kids who were deeply embedded in the hip hop culture and idolized rap stars. I have seen how the music influences the way they think and behave.

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

You may be able to listen to violent music/lyrics and not have it influence your behavior because you are an intelligent level-headed person. You know to reject those messages because they are wrong. That is not true for everyone. I do believe that many people are influenced by music that glorifies violence, especially young people who idolize these artists because of their fame and success. When you idolize a rap star, it is very difficult to objectively think about the content of the music. You don't just dismiss the messages coming from your idol gloryfing violence/rape/drugs as nonsense, you accept them and often try to imitate them. I don't believe that hip hop music is the cause of most violence, or anything, but it definitely does not help to turn young people away from a violent path.

You sound like an old man. Just give it up.

 

[NickNaylor]

I don't have a specific citation for you, but if you do a search on google for 'negative impact of hip hop music on youth' or something of the like you will find articles that may give you some more information. It is just my opinion and it is based on personal experience growing up around kids who were deeply embedded in the hip hop culture and idolized rap stars. I have seen how the music influences the way they think and behave.

Well anyone can write and publish what they like. I did that search and saw nothing from anything that might be a well-known, credible news source.

By the way, I definitely don't doubt that such an influence exists. But if we're going to use it to inform policy decisions/discussions, I think we should use some stronger evidence than anecdotes.

(sent from my phone)

 

[rog411]

You sound like an old man. Just give it up.

I think you are confusing old and wise 😉

 

[rog411]

Well anyone can write and publish what they like. I did that search and saw nothing from anything that might be a well-known, credible news source.

By the way, I definitely don't doubt that such an influence exists. But if we're going to use it to inform policy decisions/discussions, I think we should use some stronger evidence than anecdotes.

(sent from my phone)

Fair enough. I did not say we should make any policy changes based on hip hop music or ban it. There should be no restrictions on artistic expression (apart from stuff that is clearly done with a hateful or libelous intent). I was just pointing out that things like music, movies, media, games, etc are not completely innocuous and do have effects on the way some people think and behave. There are always those who can rise above external influences, but many can't. that's why we have the thing called "peer pressure". if external influences didn't matter, there would be no such thing.

 

[notbobtrustme]

But Sandy Hook is a big deal. It's not every day some madman guns down 26 helpless victims (20 of whom are children) in an elementary school near Christmas in a seemingly nice town in america out of pure hate or mental illness with no clear motive with an assault rifle shooting each 3-11 times. That's 1st graders (5-6 years old) running around a small classroom getting murdered by being shot at close range with an assault rifle... shooting each child 3-11 times. It's not the same as a child getting caught in gang crossfire or one accidentally shooting himself. So to ask "what's the big deal" is totally insulting to the families and victims of the massacre and shows your caviler attitude towards violence that I think should give you pause.

You just hit the nail on the head with your first sentence. We only care when it's white kids that get gunned down or white women that get kidnapped. When poor black kids are shooting each other its "lol gang-culture" and we go about our merry lives not giving a ****. However, when it's white suburbia getting shot up, all of a sudden we have an epidemic of violence.

Look at this **** :

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/12/26/1-dead-13-wounded-in-christmas-eve-christmas-shootings/

Did we hear even one peep about it? Nope. Other than local news, no one gives a **** because it's a bunch of black people shooting each other. This country is racist as **** and yet no one wants to admit it. How many times you do hear about black women getting kidnapped? It statistically happens as often (or more) than white women getting nabbed, but no one really cares what happens to black people.

 

[duckie99]

You just hit the nail on the head with your first sentence. We only care when it's white kids that get gunned down or white women that get kidnapped. When poor black kids are shooting each other its "lol gang-culture" and we go about our merry lives not giving a ****. However, when it's white suburbia getting shot up, all of a sudden we have an epidemic of violence.

Look at this **** :

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/12/26/1-dead-13-wounded-in-christmas-eve-christmas-shootings/

Did we hear even one peep about it? Nope. Other than local news, no one gives a **** because it's a bunch of black people shooting each other. This country is racist as **** and yet no one wants to admit it. How many times you do hear about black women getting kidnapped? It statistically happens as often (or more) than white women getting nabbed, but no one really cares what happens to black people.

right but the chicago incident you cite was not the same as newtown... Terrible, sure. Newtown level of terrible? no. Both circumstances should be unacceptable to our society. The chicago stuff is gang related but newtown was just totally different. Totally.

Also, I agree there is some level of disregard for crime against minorities. But that's what the media (largely a white person controlled left leaning organization whom, interestingly, minorities seem to vote for...) reports and we on this forum cannot change that.

But I don't think you should marginalize Newtown because you feel that people don't care about black people. It is worse than chicago.

And I agree there is a lot of racism in this country (though I wouldn't characterize not caring about chicago as "racism"). It's just not a story that catches hold nationwide because most people don't live in chicago (a crime ridden corrupt city) whereas most everyone can connect to kids being killed at their elementary school. I'm sure if there was a massacre of a similar level in a mostly black neighborhood school plenty of people would still be upset... but honestly, and I agree with you sadly... I don't think the nation as a whole would be as upset as terrible as that sounds regardless of the reason it was done (gang, madman, etc). The nation as a whole includes all non-black people btw... not just white people.

 

[rog411]

You just hit the nail on the head with your first sentence. We only care when it's white kids that get gunned down or white women that get kidnapped. When poor black kids are shooting each other its "lol gang-culture" and we go about our merry lives not giving a ****. However, when it's white suburbia getting shot up, all of a sudden we have an epidemic of violence.

Look at this **** :

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/12/26/1-dead-13-wounded-in-christmas-eve-christmas-shootings/

Did we hear even one peep about it? Nope..

I think this is because news about a shooting in a crime ridden city is not really news. It's so common we have all just become desensitized to it. It's just like news of a bombing in the middle east. If sandy hook's started happening all the time, eventually we would become desensitized to that too.

 

[WilliamWallace]

The problem is I don't see any way to prevent this sort of thing from happening again with the way our society views violence, especially how it is portrayed in games/movies/media. Yeah you can approach this with more gun control, but in my opinion it really isn't touching the root of the problem.

 

[NickNaylor]

I think this is because news about a shooting in a crime ridden city is not really news. It's so common we have all just become desensitized to it. It's just like news of a bombing in the middle east. If sandy hook's started happening all the time, eventually we would become desensitized to that too.

Chicago isn't a "crime-ridden city," especially when it comes to murders. They are almost exclusively isolated to the south and west side of the city; the downtown areas and the north side - the most affluent parts of the city - are almost entirely spared. Check out this map created by RedEye, a local publication here, which shows all of the murders from what I'm guessing is the calendar year of 2008: http://goo.gl/maps/dJKYU.

Now compare that map to this demographic map created by a Yale sociologist: http://www.wbez.org/series/race-out-loud/where-we-are-mapping-chicago’s-racial-divisions-98986. Notice that nearly ALL of the murders are isolated to areas populated predominantly by minorities.

This year in Chicago, there were 2,364 shootings in the city, with 487 deaths. Of those shot, 319 were Chicago public school students with 24 fatalities. (source: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...un-violence-homicide-rate-national-gun-debate). Where's the outrage here? Why isn't that getting national news coverage?

Don't get me wrong, I'm by no means a conspiracy theorist that thinks America hates minorities and that we are intentionally trying to destroy them. But when you look at the data - rather than what you "think" - you have to wonder what the **** is going on, especially when you compare how events like Sandy Hook are covered versus something like this that, frankly, is of much greater magnitude and orders of magnitude worse. Sandy Hook, while tragic, was a rare, one-time thing. Crime in places like Chicago is literally destroying communities and preventing progress. The two aren't even comparable.

 

[rog411]

This year in Chicago, there were 2,364 shootings in the city, with 487 deaths. Of those shot, 319 were Chicago public school students with 24 fatalities. (source: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...un-violence-homicide-rate-national-gun-debate). Where's the outrage here? Why isn't that getting national news coverage?

Don't get me wrong, I'm by no means a conspiracy theorist that thinks America hates minorities and that we are intentionally trying to destroy them. But when you look at the data - rather than what you "think" - you have to wonder what the **** is going on, especially when you compare how events like Sandy Hook are covered versus something like this that, frankly, is of much greater magnitude and orders of magnitude worse. Sandy Hook, while tragic, was a rare, one-time thing. Crime in places like Chicago is literally destroying communities and preventing progress. The two aren't even comparable.

I do see your point. The deaths in these communities is much greater than that at Sandy Hook and also very very tragic. But your data has actually proved my own point... these are mostly low-income minority communities that have a heavy gang and other criminal presence. As I said before, people are desensitized to violence happening in places like that. It is not something surprising or unexpected because it happens so often. Ironically the severity of the issue is the same reason that it doesn't get much attention. In addition, people tend to have a much greater emotional connection to things that "hit close to home". Most americans do not live in areas like the parts of Chicago you described. By definition, most americans are not minorities. Therefore naturally they will be more shocked by a tragedy that occurs in a familiar environment (an elementary school in small quiet town like Newtown) as opposed to a low-income minority community in southern chicago. This is just human nature. That is also why massive casualties in countries abroad do not provoke as much outrage as they do when they occur here in america. It is all about how "close" it gets to them personally. It is not that they hate minorities (though undoubtedly some do), it is that they aren't as scared by something that happens in a community that is very different from theirs as one that is very similar to theirs. The news media capitalizes on this to make money. They aren't in the business of informing people as much as getting as many viewers as possible.

 

[Dash2021]

I do see your point. The deaths in these communities is much greater than that at Sandy Hook and also very very tragic. But your data has actually proved my own point... these are mostly low-income minority communities that have a heavy gang and other criminal presence. As I said before, people are desensitized to violence happening in places like that. It is not something surprising or unexpected because it happens so often. Ironically the severity of the issue is the same reason that it doesn't get much attention. In addition, people tend to have a much greater emotional connection to things that "hit close to home". Most americans do not live in areas like the parts of Chicago you described. By definition, most americans are not minorities. Therefore naturally they will be more shocked by a tragedy that occurs in a familiar environment (an elementary school in small quiet town like Newtown) as opposed to a low-income minority community in southern chicago. This is just human nature. That is also why massive casualties in countries abroad do not provoke as much outrage as they do when they occur here in america. It is all about how "close" it gets to them personally. It is not that they hate minorities (though undoubtedly some do), it is that they aren't as scared by something that happens in a community that is very different from theirs as one that is very similar to theirs. The news media capitalizes on this to make money. They aren't in the business of informing people as much as getting as many viewers as possible.

While I agree with you that what makes a tragedy pertinent to the individual is how well they relate to it, I disagree that the reason this is such an impactful event is due to the color of the skin/socioeconomic status of the children killed. I don't dispute that these things play a roll, but I don't believe them to be the primary reason for this tragedy standing out amongst the plethora of other gun related deaths.

Instead, I would suggest that it was because the target group of the murderer was children. Not teenagers or young adults, but children. Whlie we can easily rationalize away that a teenager (even as young as 15 in the example Nick poitned out) were "up to no good" or "hanging out with the wrong crowd" etc., there is simply no way to rationalize an 8 year old being shot. Parents of children this age make sure to protect against strangers, and careless injuries (sports, etc.) not against gunmen. The reality that sociopaths with guns are another thing to threaten your child is nearly as terrifying as the realization that with this particular threat (gunmen) there is next to nothing you can do to protect them. In attempting to deal with this uncomfortable reality, we seek to rationalize/understand this tragedy by learning more. The news media responds to this by increasing coverage of the event (profiteering and sensationalizing along the way).

As to those remarking that Sandy Hook should not be the impetus to create real and meaningful change in our society concerning gun deaths, I agree. We should have had the conversation long ago, when it became clear we had nearly* as many gun related homicides per capita as every other industrialized nation combined.**

*Excluding Mexico, which is in the middle of a drug cartel fueled quazi civil war.
**http://www.businessinsider.com/shooting-gun-laws-2012-12

 

[Dave89]

It's a tragedy because it's unexpected? No, it's NEWS because it's unexpected. It's tragedy that the inner city culture of violence is such that little kids dying there isn't news.

You're right, I worded it badly. My mistake. I agree totally with your post.

This is a pretty racist and frankly ridiculous opinion. I love listening to hip hop. That's probably what I'm listening to 80% of the time. Sometimes I even blast it in my car. That doesn't mean I'm rolling with a Glock in my console ready to light someone up.

And as someone else mentioned, there are many reasons why inner cities struggle. It's much more complicated than "oh, those kids are minorities and come from families where violence is worshipped, ergo they're destined to become gangbangers." When there are no opportunities for advancement and basic things like education are failing to perform their mission, it's likely that people will resort to more dubious ways of getting by. That doesn't make it right by any means, but if you gave most people in ****ty situations the opportunity to live in a safe neighborhood and support their families and all they had to do was go to school and/or work a 9-5 job, they probably would. Your caricature makes the assumption that people WANT to live in unsafe neighborhoods. That's ridiculous.

It's not as simple as "lol just try hard and go to college dummy."

(sent from my phone)

Rarely do I see so many straw men in one post - I think I've mentioned this to you before. Frankly, it's not your place to declare a post racist because it mentions the inner city. I don't care what color or ethnicity people are; I mentioned culture, not race. It's absurd when you conflate the two, and it makes you look like an idiot. Nor did I imply that people "WANT" to live in unsafe neighborhoods. My suggestion would be to encourage a less violent culture in such places. Jean Sibelius instead of Jay-Z for example.

Keep searching for racism in every corner of the world - that'll make your life so meaningful.

 

[Dave89]

You just hit the nail on the head with your first sentence. We only care when it's white kids that get gunned down or white women that get kidnapped. When poor black kids are shooting each other its "lol gang-culture" and we go about our merry lives not giving a ****. However, when it's white suburbia getting shot up, all of a sudden we have an epidemic of violence.

Look at this **** :

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/12/26/1-dead-13-wounded-in-christmas-eve-christmas-shootings/

Did we hear even one peep about it? Nope. Other than local news, no one gives a **** because it's a bunch of black people shooting each other. This country is racist as **** and yet no one wants to admit it. How many times you do hear about black women getting kidnapped? It statistically happens as often (or more) than white women getting nabbed, but no one really cares what happens to black people.

You are a sad kid. No-one "LOLs" when black people are killed are kidnapped. This country bends over backwards to accommodate all types of people, but you will always have a chip the size of a Sequoia on your shoulder. Too bad for you.

 

[LovelyBRass]

 

[Perrotfish]

I've been reading a fair amount about this. It's actually kind of interesting what the data shows.

- The the US has a suicide rate vastly out of proportion to the prevelance of depression in our population, and a murder rate vastly out proportion to our other property crime and violent crimes rate (you are no more likely to get car jacked than in Europe, but nearly three times as likely to get killed). Almost all of the difference is the prevelance of gun violence vs less lethal forms of violence in other countries.

- The rate of gun ownership is directly related to the prevelance of illegally owned firearms, and not directly to the prevelance of legal, registered firearms. However the prevelance of legal fireams is proportionate to the prevelance of illegal firearms, because there is considerable traffic between the two subsets of guns (people sell legal guns to illegal people, or have their guns stollen by illegal people).

- Vs. any baseline of gun ownership in the community, the more liberal the ability of law abiding citizens to carry and use their firearms (for example liberal concealed carry laws) the LESS violent crime. People aren't shooting eachother over random emotional outbursts: whether homicide or suicide concealed carry laws don't seem to increase gun violence, and actually seem to deter it.

-The assault weapons ban had no measurable affect on the rate of gun violence in the US in any dirrection.

What this data suggests:

The best gun control policies would make guns easier to carry, and make civilians better trained at using them (better deterrent). However they would also aim to reduce the traffic to criminal populations (a much more robust gun registration and inspection process and steeper penalties for a known felon posessing a weapon) and perhaps simply to take more weapons out of circulation entirely (high taxation + time). It also strongly suggests the worst possibly policy is the one we have now: where we make it very easy for citizens to buy weapons (ensuring a healthy traffic of weaopns to criminal and psychiatrically distrubed populations) but almost impossible for them to carry weapons in their everyday lives (concealed carry permits).

 

[notbobtrustme]

You are a sad kid. No-one "LOLs" when black people are killed are kidnapped. This country bends over backwards to accommodate all types of people, but you will always have a chip the size of a Sequoia on your shoulder. Too bad for you.

The point.
























Your head.

 

[487806]

That's a good argument against too many guns. But that isn't the problem. The media is giving far greater coverage of the killers than the victims, and has the tendency to slander a person. The focus is media regulation.. but it doesn't matter since the majority of the people made it a focus that guns will be severely restricted.

The second problem is the judicial system. Rather than having increasingly long death-rows, why not legalize hanging and speeden up the executions? Sure that doesn't work for suicide attackers, but those who are captured (like the Colorado incident) = convicted = instant death sentence

 

[Morzh]

I've been reading a fair amount about this. It's actually kind of interesting what the data shows.

- The the US has a suicide rate vastly out of proportion to the prevelance of depression in our population, and a murder rate vastly out proportion to our other property crime and violent crimes rate (you are no more likely to get car jacked than in Europe, but nearly three times as likely to get killed). Almost all of the difference is the prevelance of gun violence vs less lethal forms of violence in other countries.

- The rate of gun ownership is directly related to the prevelance of illegally owned firearms, and not directly to the prevelance of legal, registered firearms. However the prevelance of legal fireams is proportionate to the prevelance of illegal firearms, because there is considerable traffic between the two subsets of guns (people sell legal guns to illegal people, or have their guns stollen by illegal people).

- Vs. any baseline of gun ownership in the community, the more liberal the ability of law abiding citizens to carry and use their firearms (for example liberal concealed carry laws) the LESS violent crime. People aren't shooting eachother over random emotional outbursts: whether homicide or suicide concealed carry laws don't seem to increase gun violence, and actually seem to deter it.

-The assault weapons ban had no measurable affect on the rate of gun violence in the US in any dirrection.

What this data suggests:

The best gun control policies would make guns easier to carry, and make civilians better trained at using them (better deterrent). However they would also aim to reduce the traffic to criminal populations (a much more robust gun registration and inspection process and steeper penalties for a known felon posessing a weapon) and perhaps simply to take more weapons out of circulation entirely (high taxation + time). It also strongly suggests the worst possibly policy is the one we have now: where we make it very easy for citizens to buy weapons (ensuring a healthy traffic of weaopns to criminal and psychiatrically distrubed populations) but almost impossible for them to carry weapons in their everyday lives (concealed carry permits).

YES. Thank you for this well-researched, dispassionate, agenda-free, and reality-based analysis.

 

[WilliamWallace]

YES. Thank you for this well-researched, dispassionate, agenda-free, and reality-based analysis.

I actually thought it was well thought out with some good discussion points.

 

[Dave89]

The point.


Your head.

Rubbish. Your entire post was a condemnation of the US as a racist country.