This is getting out of hand.

[Yossarian]

Remember the LA riots? TV stations only televised the police beating the crap out of Rodney King, they didn't show King attacking a police officer. The jury saw the whole video which led to a not guilty verdict.

If it bleeds it reads, people today seem to negate the fact that major media outlets are not SERVICES they are BUSINESSES, they need to make a profit like everybody else.


Lastly I agree 110 % about there being no tangible sense of consequences for young people today. Children are allowed to roam society without fear of consequence. And a prime if not leading example of this can be seen in American Society today.

I understand this and it has already been established as a major possible source contributing to the problem discussed in this thread.

I am not shooting anyone down who mentions this, as I would like to state that I was looking for all types of opinions including this one. And I will openly admit on this one I agree.

 

[MontyB]

Interesting, I have never heard this before. I assume the people in this city got proper training and education to handle weapons (including the safety and storage of them). Weapons don't kill, the people holding them do. I have from time to time been thinking about the legal access to firearms, we cannot do much about the illegal market. What do you think if a "new" gun owner when (s)he is buying a gun, they need to have a chat with a psychologist first to see if they are in a mental stage to have a gun. It isn't complete water proof, but better than nothing. Just a thought

No they didn't and the figures posted are a little misleading because they are effectively comparing a small town with large cities and saying look the crime is lower here therefore we are right, when you compare Kennesaw to other towns of similar size across the USA it is not the paragon of virtue they would have you believe...

Basically it would appear that Kennesaw is not even safer than most of the towns and cities in Georgia.

The crime rate in Kennesaw is considerably higher than the national average across all communities in America from the largest to the smallest, although at 25 crimes per one thousand residents, it is not among the communities with the very highest crime rate. The chance of becoming a victim of either violent or property crime in Kennesaw is 1 in 41. Based on FBI crime data, Kennesaw is not one of the safest communities in America. Relative to Georgia, Kennesaw has a crime rate that is higher than 50% of the state's cities and towns of all sizes.

How does the crime rate in Kennesaw compare to similar sized communities across America? When NeighborhoodScout compared Kennesaw with other communities its size, we found that the crime rate was near the average for all other communities of similar size. So, whether Kennesaw's crime rate is high or low compared to all places in the US, when we control for population size and compare it to places that are similar in size, it is near the middle of the pack in crime rate; not much more or less dangerous, and about what we would expect from the statistics.

The crime data that NeighborhoodScout used for this analysis are the seven offenses from the uniform crime reports, collected by the FBI from 17,000 local law enforcement agencies, and include both violent and property crimes, combined.

Now let us turn to take a look at how Kennesaw does for violent crimes specifically, and then how it does for property crimes. This is important because the overall crime rate can be further illuminated by understanding if violent crime or property crimes (or both) are the major contributors to the general rate of crime in Kennesaw.

For Kennesaw, NeighborhoodScout found that the violent crime rate is well below the national average for all communities of all population sizes. Violent crimes such as assault, rape, murder and armed robbery happen less often in Kennesaw than in most of America. One's chance of becoming a victim of a violent crime here is one in 1295, which is a violent crime rate of 1 per one thousand inhabitants.

NeighborhoodScout's analysis also reveals that Kennesaw's rate for property crime is 24 per one thousand population. This makes Kennesaw a place where there is an above average chance of becoming a victim of a property crime, when compared to all other communities in America of all population sizes. Property crimes are motor vehicle theft, arson, larceny, and burglary. Your chance of becoming a victim of any of these crimes in Kennesaw is one in 42.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ga/kennesaw/crime/#data

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

If it bleeds it reads, people today seem to negate the fact that major media outlets are not SERVICES they are BUSINESSES, they need to make a profit like everybody else.


Lastly I agree 110 % about there being no tangible sense of consequences for young people today. Children are allowed to roam society without fear of consequence. And a prime if not leading example of this can be seen in American Society today.

I understand this and it has already been established as a major possible source contributing to the problem discussed in this thread.

I am not shooting anyone down who mentions this, as I would like to state that I was looking for all types of opinions including this one. And I will openly admit on this one I agree.

That's the reason for why the yellow media is totally worthless as a source. The only thing even worse would be wikipedia or youtube

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

No they didn't and the figures posted are a little misleading because they are effectively comparing a small town with large cities and saying look the crime is lower here therefore we are right, when you compare Kennesaw to other towns of similar size across the USA it is not the paragon of virtue they would have you believe...

Basically it would appear that Kennesaw is not even safer than most of the towns and cities in Georgia.




http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ga/kennesaw/crime/#data

There is a statistical problem when the website compares this city with the rest of Georgia, the statistic will be problematic, if they had compared the city with a city with a similar size had been much better. Large n studies can be tricky and you can show what you want. The best way would be to take at least ten cities with the similar size and then compare them

 

[MontyB]

Exactly but this same problem exists with the original argument as well which is what I have been trying to point out in my comparison posts, but as with most things people accept data they want to believe no matter how right or wrong it may be and you know what they say repeat a lie often enough and it will become fact.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

Exactly but this same problem exists with the original argument as well which is what I have been trying to point out in my comparison posts, but as with most things people accept data they want to believe no matter how right or wrong it may be and you know what they say repeat a lie often enough and it will become fact.

True so true, to make a statistical study even better would be compare this city with all cities of this size across the whole US, but then we must consider another important variable, the access to guns, which is different from state to state. The statistical investigations normally ignore other facts as well, the demographic in the area, the unemployment figures, the access to the law enforcement, to mention a few, they can be added to a graph, but can be more tricky to make reliable conclusions and if people are not used with graphs...So to do this is to investigate all the variables and from the result from each and every one draw a conclusion. We have a saying here; statistic, statistic, and a damn lie

 

[RayManKiller3]

That is the reason I call BS when people try to bring D.C statistics while claiming gun-restrictions leads to more crime. During the time D.C was murder capital of U.S, the crack epidemic was also driving up violent crime. Not to mention it is near impossible to enforce a complete ban on firearms when there are states one can go to, to acquire them, as they don't need to hop states like they hop countries.


There are so many variables to consider (as you guys point out): Size of the cities, how diverse the cities are, laws of firearms in each city, poverty levels of the cities, education levels of the cities, etc.

Too many people abuse statistics as they are poorly done.

I do not believe violent movies/games are much of a cause in increasing crime. It may have some effects on the way a crime plays out, but I do not believe it actually cause it otherwise we would have way more crime.


Society as a whole has a lowered standard... Bad idols, stupid t.v shows (pregnant at 16, I mean seriously? Getting pregnant at a time your not ready gets you a spot in a show? Makes me wonder who the audience is), being fatherless or motherless. I believe U.S is devolving into a nation of those who claim everything as a right and enact on things as there if there is no consequence. I am hoping it is just that I am seeing the minority of U.S.

 

[BritinBritain]

No they didn't and the figures posted are a little misleading because they are effectively comparing a small town with large cities and saying look the crime is lower here therefore we are right, when you compare Kennesaw to other towns of similar size across the USA it is not the paragon of virtue they would have you believe...

Basically it would appear that Kennesaw is not even safer than most of the towns and cities in Georgia.

The graphs below are showing the crime rate in Kennesaw compared to the rest of the US,

The city violent crime rate for Kennesaw in 2009 was lower than the national violent crime rate average by 78.87% and the city property crime rate in Kennesaw was lower than the national property crime rate average by 39.33%.

In 2009 the city violent crime rate in Kennesaw was lower than the violent crime rate in Georgia by 78.7% and the city property crime rate in Kennesaw was lower than the property crime rate in Georgia by 49.76%

It needs to be pointed out that the site you quote (neighbourhoodscout) is in the business of selling property and needs to be treated with suspicion.

http://www.movoto.com/neighborhood/ga/kennesaw/30144.htm

That is the reason I call BS when people try to bring D.C statistics while claiming gun-restrictions leads to more crime. During the time D.C was murder capital of U.S, the crack epidemic was also driving up violent crime. Not to mention it is near impossible to enforce a complete ban on firearms when there are states one can go to, to acquire them, as they don't need to hop states like they hop countries.

Perhaps you can tell me why crime dropped in DC like a lead balloon once the handgun ban was lifted. I agree drug problems do lead to an increase in crime, druggies committing assaults, home invasions and so on to get money for their next fix.

It is impossible to ban guns, its only the law abiding that abides by such bans, criminals will get them no matter what.

 

[BritinBritain]

Interesting, I have never heard this before. I assume the people in this city got proper training and education to handle weapons (including the safety and storage of them). Weapons don't kill, the people holding them do. I have from time to time been thinking about the legal access to firearms, we cannot do much about the illegal market. What do you think if a "new" gun owner when (s)he is buying a gun, they need to have a chat with a psychologist first to see if they are in a mental stage to have a gun. It isn't complete water proof, but better than nothing. Just a thought

Someone could be the most laid back person on the planet and could pass any examination by any psychologist, but what happens if he comes home and see's his wife/daughter being raped and murdered?

This is from the http://www.usacarry.com/florida_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

Florida Concealed Carry Permit Information

Does Florida issue concealed carry permits?
Yes, Florida is a Shall Issue state and will issue concealed carry permits to Residents and Non-Residents that meet the state requirements for a Florida concealed carry permit.

What does a Florida Concealed Carry Permit look like?


Florida Concealed Carry Permit
Who issues Florida Concealed Carry Permits?
Department of Agriculture
Division of Licensing
Post Office Box 6687
Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6687
Phone: (850) 245-5691
Fax: (850) 245-5655

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/index.html
NICS/Background Check:
There is a background check but not NICS. Your permit is currently issued by the Department of Agriculture which is not a law enforcement agency, and therefore cannot do the NICS check required by federal law. Only “law enforcement agencies” can access NICS, and therefore the federal exemption that normally applies to concealed weapon permits, does not apply to those issued in Florida.

Permit Valid For:
Permit valid for seven (7) years from date of issue.

Processing Time:

Cost:
$117

Requirements:
All paperwork for your permit may be requested via mail for free:

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/FORMS/FormsRequest790.html
1. You must be 21 to get a conceled carry permit.
2. Have a passport-style, color photograph made.
3. Get verification of training that satisfies the training requirement. NRA, DD-14, state training course, etc. . Persons serving in the United States Armed Forces may submit a copy of their Military ID Card to satisfy the training requirement.

 

[George]

Someone could be the most laid back person on the planet and could pass any examination by any psychologist, but what happens if he comes home and see's his wife/daughter being raped and murdered?

This is from the http://www.usacarry.com/florida_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

Florida Concealed Carry Permit Information

Does Florida issue concealed carry permits?
Yes, Florida is a Shall Issue state and will issue concealed carry permits to Residents and Non-Residents that meet the state requirements for a Florida concealed carry permit.

What does a Florida Concealed Carry Permit look like?


Florida Concealed Carry Permit
Who issues Florida Concealed Carry Permits?
Department of Agriculture
Division of Licensing
Post Office Box 6687
Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6687
Phone: (850) 245-5691
Fax: (850) 245-5655

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/index.html
NICS/Background Check:
There is a background check but not NICS. Your permit is currently issued by the Department of Agriculture which is not a law enforcement agency, and therefore cannot do the NICS check required by federal law. Only “law enforcement agencies” can access NICS, and therefore the federal exemption that normally applies to concealed weapon permits, does not apply to those issued in Florida.

Permit Valid For:
Permit valid for seven (7) years from date of issue.

Processing Time:

Cost:
$117

Requirements:
All paperwork for your permit may be requested via mail for free:

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/FORMS/FormsRequest790.html
1. You must be 21 to get a conceled carry permit.
2. Have a passport-style, color photograph made.
3. Get verification of training that satisfies the training requirement. NRA, DD-14, state training course, etc. . Persons serving in the United States Armed Forces may submit a copy of their Military ID Card to satisfy the training requirement.

Actually they do background checks before Issue & do one every 6 weeks thereafter. If a person with one is charged with a Felony the CCW is suspended/confinscated untill the problem is resolved.

The question of why there are so many shooting sprees where a gunman is killing more than one victim during a single instance.

Because they aren't generally targeting a specific person, just acting out on whoever is present.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

There is a problem with these shooting sprees, how many do we actually have? If we compare the actually numbers of legal weapons in the US and the shooting sprees, in the media world we are living they get a lot of attentions. I am still thinking about to have some sort of psychological test prior the purchase of a weapon. When an individual want to sign up for the service in the US, they must have physical and psychological tests on this individual. They are pretty good to refuse accesses if the individual has mental issues, but when during the process are they doing this and where? Can every recruitment office do that? Why not use their knowledge and experience to investigate if an individual is suited to be a gun owner. Then I have another idea, if you are determent to have a gun you must be a member of a weapon association and active there. I also think this is not a weapon problem, it is a human problem.
Furthermore, there are psychological tests that show how people react to violence and to threats

 

[George]

There is a problem with these shooting sprees, how many do we actually have? If we compare the actually numbers of legal weapons in the US and the shooting sprees, in the media world we are living they get a lot of attentions.

There's somewhere in the vicenity of 350 million people in the US. Shooting sprees are still rare, but they do happen now & then. The Antis are eager to use the acts of 1 or 2 people, per event, to try to end the Rights of 350 million.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

There's somewhere in the vicenity of 350 million people in the US. Shooting sprees are still rare, but they do happen now & then. The Antis are eager to use the acts of 1 or 2 people, per event, to try to end the Rights of 350 million.

Exactly my point, the antis as you call them are focusing on the weapons not the humans.

 

[MontyB]

Exactly my point, the antis as you call them are focusing on the weapons not the humans.

Actually you are wrong the "anti's" are focusing on society as the root of the problem but the discussion is being directed by the "pro's" into another "the anti's want to ban my guns" argument.

If you sit back read the discussion you will notice the only guy who even mentioned firearm control is Yossarian who was mainly talking about enforcing the laws the already have better, the rest of us have mainly been discussing elements that lead to these shootings (media, lack of personal responsibilty etc.) but the problem here is that "pro" lobbies paranoia that any cure to the problem of "shooting sprees" might somehow affect their ability to feel tough with a 9mm strapped to their hip while buying a latte at Starbucks that they need to swing the discussion toward pro and anti gun.

So rather than bury ourselves in the misdirection of pro-gun paranoia how about focusing on a couple of simple questions:
1) Why are these shooting sprees so common to the USA and no where else in the "civilised world".
2) What would you do to reduce shootings?

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

Actually you are wrong the "anti's" are focusing on society as the root of the problem but the discussion is being directed by the "pro's" into another "the anti's want to ban my guns" argument.

If you sit back read the discussion you will notice the only guy who even mentioned firearm control is Yossarian who was mainly talking about enforcing the laws the already have better, the rest of us have mainly been discussing elements that lead to these shootings (media, lack of personal responsibilty etc.) but the problem here is that "pro" lobbies paranoia that any cure to the problem of "shooting sprees" might somehow affect their ability to feel tough with a 9mm strapped to their hip while buying a latte at Starbucks that they need to swing the discussion toward pro and anti gun.

So rather than bury ourselves in the misdirection of pro-gun paranoia how about focusing on a couple of simple questions:
1) Why are these shooting sprees so common to the USA and no where else in the "civilised world".
2) What would you do to reduce shootings?

They are actually not so common (the yellow media), we need take the amount of weapons under consideration. If we don't we make a huge statistical mistake. The major problem would be to keep the 2nd amendment intact and reduce crimes related to fire arms. To reduce the access to fire arms for the very few that create problems and better training to handle weapons for the those who want to have a gun legally, many of the illegal weapons have been legal, but they have been stolen. The basic psychology will tell, it’s not to feel tough, it’s to feel safe that makes some to buy guns.

 

[MontyB]

They are actually not so common (the yellow media), we need take the amount of weapons under consideration. If we don't we make a huge statistical mistake. The major problem would be to keep the 2nd amendment intact and reduce crimes related to fire arms. To reduce the access to fire arms for the very few that create problems and better training to handle weapons for the those who want to have a gun legally, many of the illegal weapons have been legal, but they have been stolen. The basic psychology will tell, it’s not to feel tough, it’s to feel safe that makes some to buy guns.

Not so common, you sure about that?

I would suggest that you look at the statistics a little closer because even using per capita the USA leads the developed world in these things and no amount of obfuscation will change this.

Ok lets say for laughs I agree with your cure try getting the pro-gun lobby to agree.

I am sorry but I think you have inadvertantly both discovered and ignored the heart of the problem in one hit, for "some" (and I suspect it is the bare minimum) feeling unsafe is the reason they buy a gun, for most I don't think safety has the slightest impact its about "power" but safety is the justification as "small mans syndrome" is just not something we talk about.

Tell me do you feel like you need to carry a gun to feel safe?

I don't and oddly enough in all the time I have spent in travelling the world and living the USA I never once felt I needed to be armed to protect myself therefore if you want to solve this problem I would suggest that you don't need to change gun laws or ban anything what you need to do is change peoples perception of their environment and the neecd to be armed in general.

 

[headwards]

Your first post on this topic comes to mind Monty.
The problem is clearly the amount of firearms which are just for shooting people. I cannot understand why so many of you deny that.

Your arguments consist of flat denial, or 'but another guy might have a concealed weapon'. You havent listened to the approach of every other civilised country in the world which is to deny everyone killing tools.
Britinafrica argues that in the uk crime rates are increasing despite this- which is totally true and a result of even deeper problems then the US has. However at least when the cops show up they dont need flak jackets and assault rifles to take control of the situation.

 

[MontyB]

Yes but I also posted that since I don't have to live within that system any more I really don't care that they don't want to fix the problem and I personally find it a shot in the arm to know that for all New Zealands problems we are clearly a lot saner than many countries.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

Not so common, you sure about that?

I would suggest that you look at the statistics a little closer because even using per capita the USA leads the developed world in these things and no amount of obfuscation will change this.

Ok lets say for laughs I agree with your cure try getting the pro-gun lobby to agree.

I am sorry but I think you have inadvertantly both discovered and ignored the heart of the problem in one hit, for "some" (and I suspect it is the bare minimum) feeling unsafe is the reason they buy a gun, for most I don't think safety has the slightest impact its about "power" but safety is the justification as "small mans syndrome" is just not something we talk about.

Tell me do you feel like you need to carry a gun to feel safe?

I don't and oddly enough in all the time I have spent in travelling the world and living the USA I never once felt I needed to be armed to protect myself therefore if you want to solve this problem I would suggest that you don't need to change gun laws or ban anything what you need to do is change peoples perception of their environment and the neecd to be armed in general.

Yes, I am sure of that, you walked into the media trap as many others; the amount of weapons must be in this. The statistics show also the amounts of violent crimes are declining from year to year in the US. I used the primary source for it. (FBI) I can make more of it but it is time consuming and actually I want to be paid to do so. So if we want to figure out this in a good statistical way is to use two variables, the amount of crimes (firearms) and the amount of firearms in the US. There is a problem to classify all gun owners in the US, why do they have the weapons. So if people want to buy a gun to protect their property is to feel safe, not tough. I totally agree with you with the perception of their environment and the need to bear arms. But here we are facing another variable as well, the socio-economic variables, such as unemployment, the income level in the area, poverty etc. Do they have ethnic tensions in the area? So the first two variables can describe the relation between these two factors, but not give the complete picture of the problem. If we take the data for homicide by firearms in the US and to through all environmental variables, then we might get a better picture of the problem

 

[MontyB]

I would suggest that you are adopting one of the worst statistical symptoms, paralysis by analysis.

We can sit here and produce page after page, document after document that counters each others opinions and claim that there are lies, damn lies and statistics but none of this solves the problem, nor is it essentially accurate to argue that it is caused by media or socio-economic reasons because every country has the same media exposure and the same socio-economic problems but not the same shooting spree problem.

I still maintain the problem is one of perception, I find it hard to believe so many people feel so afraid in the their own country that they need to carry weapons but there is a belief that carrying a gun makes you safe when it doesn't, carrying a concealed weapon makes you no less likely to be shot than not carrying one because for it to be a deterrent then it has to be visible and to use a weapon as a means of defence requires that you give up the right of first strike so on the whole the safety argument is ludicrous.