This is getting out of hand.

[I3BrigPvSk]

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.

Wrong, the whole Western hemisphere has not the same socio-economic problems (the safety net) the media in the US is depicting the shooting sprees, this create a fear, which is not rational, because they are rare events. People have a problem with imaginable threats and real threats.
How is the legislation in New Zeeland about firearms?

 

[Yossarian]

Wrong, the whole Western hemisphere has not the same socio-economic problems (the safety net) the media in the US is depicting the shooting sprees, this create a fear, which is not rational, because they are rare events. People have a problem with imaginable threats and real threats.

Maybe that fear triggers a boost in firearm sales? Although personally I don't but I am sure many media recepticals out there see this reporting trend on such violence and feel compelled to go out and buy a hand gun for their own "protection".

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

Maybe that fear triggers a boost in firearm sales? Although personally I don't but I am sure many media recepticals out there see this reporting trend on such violence and feel compelled to go out and buy a hand gun for their own "protection".

I think it does, yes. When the data from FBI is very clear, the amount of violent crimes are declining in the US, the media gives another picture, when you see the news, you would think the opposite

 

[MontyB]

Wrong, the whole Western hemisphere has not the same socio-economic problems (the safety net) the media in the US is depicting the shooting sprees, this create a fear, which is not rational, because they are rare events. People have a problem with imaginable threats and real threats.
How is the legislation in New Zeeland about firearms?

I don't agree, it is not the media pulling the trigger and if you and I (as well as 99.5% of the population) can watch a movie, play a video game or survive the nightly News without the need to go kill half a dozen people then it is not the media that is the problem.

To blame the media is nothing short of abdicating responsibility which is one of the main symptoms of this problem.

As for legislation on New Zealand firearms law, it is on the web you will have to find it as I do not have the time but I will say that I have every category of license they can issue with the exception of a dealers license which I do not need.

I will now be leaving the conversation for 3 or 4 days as I have 20 minutes to get to the airport.

 

[George]

I suspect most murder victims felt reasonably safe not too long before the slaying occured.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

I don't agree, it is not the media pulling the trigger and if you and I (as well as 99.5% of the population) can watch a movie, play a video game or survive the nightly News without the need to go kill half a dozen people then it is not the media that is the problem.

To blame the media is nothing short of abdicating responsibility which is one of the main symptoms of this problem.

As for legislation on New Zealand firearms law, it is on the web you will have to find it as I do not have the time but I will say that I have every category of license they can issue with the exception of a dealers license which I do not need.

I will now be leaving the conversation for 3 or 4 days as I have 20 minutes to get to the airport.

Have a nice flight, but you are drawing the wrong conclusion when media is the tool people are using to see what happens in the country, when the information about what they are saying can be very wrong or at least very misleading

 

[Yossarian]

Have a nice flight, but you are drawing the wrong conclusion when media is the tool people are using to see what happens in the country, when the information about what they are saying can be very wrong or at least very misleading

Ironically I find the media industry in the U.S. on par with the operation of a typical semi automatic handgun.

You load up a set of related stories on a certain topic of news (like ammunition loaded into a magazine).

Pull back the action to chamber a round (broadcast the first set of the news on the nightly broadcast). Then remove any present saftey mechanism, then proceed to aim and fire. (Tune in at 11.)

Just like machine gunning the same trendy coverage all over Ipads and Smart Tvs everywhere. Throw in some nifty stastistics from "experts" nobody has ever heard of (like an off brand speed loader) and put all this "information" into a 5 minute bit with 2 minutes and 30 seconds for commericals.

Then there you go , you have successfully massacred the facts.

Maybe there are more correlations then I thought.

 

[George]

Such as talking about semi auto assault rifles while showing a film of a machine gun firing....

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

Ironically I find the media industry in the U.S. on par with the operation of a typical semi automatic handgun.

You load up a set of related stories on a certain topic of news (like ammunition loaded into a magazine).

Pull back the action to chamber a round (broadcast the first set of the news on the nightly broadcast). Then remove any present saftey mechanism, then proceed to aim and fire. (Tune in at 11.)

Just like machine gunning the same trendy coverage all over Ipads and Smart Tvs everywhere. Throw in some nifty stastistics from "experts" nobody has ever heard of (like an off brand speed loader) and put all this "information" into a 5 minute bit with 2 minutes and 30 seconds for commericals.

Then there you go , you have successfully massacred the facts.

Maybe there are more correlations then I thought.

I have sometimes been thinking people need to be taught to watch the news. The majority of the people accept what the news are showing and the facts they are giving. When we have shooting spree, people are seeing this and many will think they are threaten by the event because they can relate to the event and it might result in a trip the local arms dealer. When the statistic from the FBI and the Department of Justice is showing a decline, the majority of people will not start to control the information at the best source available. This is a huge problem, the third power (the media) has huge responsibility, and they fail quite often with this. The majority of the weapon owners in the US will never create a problem; there are few elements which will create problems. These few will influence the behavior of millions. To change this response, then we need to change the basic human behavior, which is much easier said than done.

 

[BritinBritain]

I don't agree, it is not the media pulling the trigger and if you and I (as well as 99.5% of the population) can watch a movie, play a video game or survive the nightly News without the need to go kill half a dozen people then it is not the media that is the problem.

To blame the media is nothing short of abdicating responsibility which is one of the main symptoms of this problem.

It was because TV stations showed an edited version of the video of the cops beating the crap out of Rodney King and not showing King attacking a police officer, had a direct responsibility for the riots in LA that followed, especially when the jury found the policemen involved not guilty after watching the whole video. Recent studies have found by people more qualified then you or I, that the TV coverage was directly to blame for the LA riots

The riots in UK recently spread from Tottenham in London to all over the UK thanks to TV coverage. IF the riots had not been shown on TV or even reported in the press, would the riots have happened elsewhere? I don't think so.

Have a nice flight, but you are drawing the wrong conclusion when media is the tool people are using to see what happens in the country, when the information about what they are saying can be very wrong or at least very misleading

The biggest problem with all media, TV or the press, they don't like to ruin a good story with the truth.

Before I retired I use to give firearm training, from basic up to advanced standard for security guards. One of the biggest problems I faced was people's perception of firearms thanks to Hollywood bullsh!te. Drumming that crap out of them was a nightmare, my best students without exception were women, they admitted they knew nothing and "LISTENED" to what I was telling them, blokes on the other hand "thought" they knew it all. I would tell and show someone how to hold a semi auto pistol "once" the correct way, if they held it with the weak hand on top of the strong hand, I'd let them fire it and when the slide came back and ripped a chunk out of their weak hand, my usual comment was, "Perhaps now you will listen." Nothing like pain and a bit of blood to get a point across.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

It was because TV stations showed an edited version of the video of the cops beating the crap out of Rodney King and not showing King attacking a police officer, had a direct responsibility for the riots in LA that followed, especially when the jury found the policemen involved not guilty after watching the whole video. Recent studies have found by people more qualified then you or I, that the TV coverage was directly to blame for the LA riots

The riots in UK recently spread from Tottenham in London to all over the UK thanks to TV coverage. IF the riots had not been shown on TV or even reported in the press, would the riots have happened elsewhere? I don't think so.




The biggest problem with all media, TV or the press, they don't like to ruin a good story with the truth.

Before I retired I use to give firearm training, from basic up to advanced standard for security guards. One of the biggest problems I faced was people's perception of firearms thanks to Hollywood bullsh!te. Drumming that crap out of them was a nightmare, my best students without exception were women, they admitted they knew nothing and "LISTENED" to what I was telling them, blokes on the other hand "thought" they knew it all. I would tell and show someone how to hold a semi auto pistol "once" the correct way, if they held it with the weak hand on top of the strong hand, I'd let them fire it and when the slide came back and ripped a chunk out of their weak hand, my usual comment was, "Perhaps now you will listen." Nothing like pain and a bit of blood to get a point across.

A friend of mine, living in Missouri, worked many years in an ER as a nurse. She is living in a small town there, a place where everybody knew each other; suddenly one she knew was murdered. This event prompted the community to arm themselves. When something happens people react emotionally to it, not always rationally. The woman which whom was murdered was leaving her abusive husband, case closed. Hollywood is also a major factor, which influence people's attitude to weapons. I assume the majority active on this forum has experience with weapons from the military, some here have an addiction they are not the problem. Others might be, if they get proper training, not a problem. When I have seen these gun associations in the US when they are at a shooting range and fire a lot of machine guns, sub-machine guns, assault rifles, etc. They are very organized and strict. How to reduce the risk of loose canon get hold of a gun, which is the issue, not the others

 

[MontyB]

It was because TV stations showed an edited version of the video of the cops beating the crap out of Rodney King and not showing King attacking a police officer, had a direct responsibility for the riots in LA that followed, especially when the jury found the policemen involved not guilty after watching the whole video. Recent studies have found by people more qualified then you or I, that the TV coverage was directly to blame for the LA riots

The riots in UK recently spread from Tottenham in London to all over the UK thanks to TV coverage. IF the riots had not been shown on TV or even reported in the press, would the riots have happened elsewhere? I don't think so.

So what you are saying is that we should all be kept in the dark and only feed information that keeps us passive?

The west in particular has built its societies on freedom, the right to make up our own mind and determine our own actions and originally we should then face the consequences of those actions good or bad however over successive decades the consequences side of things has been continuously watered down until they are now meaningless and for some reason people believe the answer is to censor the press when in reality the answer is to reinstate the consequences.

The biggest problem with all media, TV or the press, they don't like to ruin a good story with the truth.

Before I retired I use to give firearm training, from basic up to advanced standard for security guards. One of the biggest problems I faced was people's perception of firearms thanks to Hollywood bullsh!te. Drumming that crap out of them was a nightmare, my best students without exception were women, they admitted they knew nothing and "LISTENED" to what I was telling them, blokes on the other hand "thought" they knew it all. I would tell and show someone how to hold a semi auto pistol "once" the correct way, if they held it with the weak hand on top of the strong hand, I'd let them fire it and when the slide came back and ripped a chunk out of their weak hand, my usual comment was, "Perhaps now you will listen." Nothing like pain and a bit of blood to get a point across.

Here is a thought should people who have difficulty in separating the reality of life and the fantasy of Hollywood be allowed to have firearms in the first place?

I am sorry but I will never believe that shooting the messenger in this case the media is a viable method to solving the problem, the media reports what it sees but it is up to us as individuals to separate fact from fiction and take responsibility for our actions, it is not the media's role to teach us common sense.

If you want to improve or change the way the media behaves stop watching, listening or reading it and I guarantee you that if enough people do that it will change to get you back but we don't do that we instead lap up idiotic stories about talentless morons who do ever more outrageous things to get you to make them famous, instead of paying those that teach us and protect us a decent wage we pay millions to some extra tall Neanderthal to bounce a ball around a court for an hour a week and worst of all we allow them to be idolised.

If you want to solve worlds problems then we as individuals need to grow up and fix the problems not ***** about the group that is making money off our stupidity.

 

[BritinBritain]

So what you are saying is that we should all be kept in the dark and only feed information that keeps us passive?

Those are your words not mine, do not try and put words into my mouth. I was answering your earlier statement below.

Originally Posted by MontyB
I don't agree, it is not the media pulling the trigger and if you and I (as well as 99.5% of the population) can watch a movie, play a video game or survive the nightly News without the need to go kill half a dozen people then it is not the media that is the problem.To blame the media is nothing short of abdicating responsibility which is one of the main symptoms of this problem.

When in fact the LA riots can be directly and has been linked to the edited version of events shown on TV screens, and what I am saying IF the Tottenham riots were not shown, the copy cat riots in other cities would not have happened. So in effect the media were the cause of the rioting that spread from Tottenham

The west in particular has built its societies on freedom, the right to make up our own mind and determine our own actions and originally we should then face the consequences of those actions good or bad however over successive decades the consequences side of things has been continuously watered down until they are now meaningless and for some reason people believe the answer is to censor the press when in reality the answer is to reinstate the consequences.

So its ok to have freedom of the press that tells lies and ruins lives? I fully agree with freedom of the press, only if their reporting is accurate and correct. All to often the tabloids have fabricated sensational stories which have ruined lives. Tabloids can be sued, but not many people have the money for a court case that could last years.

Here is a thought should people who have difficulty in separating the reality of life and the fantasy of Hollywood be allowed to have firearms in the first place?

I don't know, should they?

I am sorry but I will never believe that shooting the messenger in this case the media is a viable method to solving the problem, the media reports what it sees but it is up to us as individuals to separate fact from fiction and take responsibility for our actions, it is not the media's role to teach us common sense.

No its not the media's role to teach us common sense, but it Is the media's role and responsibility to report the truth and not sensational edited versions of it.

If you want to improve or change the way the media behaves stop watching, listening or reading it and I guarantee you that if enough people do that it will change to get you back but we don't do that we instead lap up idiotic stories about talentless morons who do ever more outrageous things to get you to make them famous, instead of paying those that teach us and protect us a decent wage we pay millions to some extra tall Neanderthal to bounce a ball around a court for an hour a week and worst of all we allow them to be idolised.

At least watching a extra tall Neanderthal to bounce a ball around a court for an hour a week is not fabricating, editing or inventing sensational stories that cause people to go out and riot.

If you want to solve worlds problems then we as individuals need to grow up and fix the problems not ***** about the group that is making money off our stupidity.

They don't make money off me boet, I don't buy newspapers nor do I watch the news on TV, the media here is controlled by the ANC.

 

[-- Dusty]

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

I don't. I have met a few people that somehow have bigger balls now that they open carry. That scares me. How long until, just to show someone who's man enough, they draw down on someone and wound or kill them?

On the other hand, the fear the criminals have, no matter how tough they think they are, that is instilled in their eitty bitty little hearts by knowing there's a good chance the next home they break into could very well be their last does have a positive effect on the crime rate.

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 need to be armed in general.

Funny. I feel threatened, more often than not, by the presence of American law enforcement than by armed criminals. BTDT.

In fact a friend of a cousin of mine lives down in Austin Texas. And not only did the ever-so-intelligent cops get the wrong address for a DD, they shot and killed his dog. "Wrong address? My bad. Let's kill the innocent man's dog as an apology." :box: :cen:
I know some folks may not like my opinion of stuff like that when it happens, but damn, they oughta imagine how much they wouldn't like the opinions I ain't sharing!

 

[LeEnfield]

I remember a time when people were not so mobile and the local police knew every one on there patch. They knew the crooks and the kids with sticky fingers and they knew the people that had a problem and would deal with one way or another. These days people think nothing of flying of for a weekend to any part of the world, and the local communities are on the move much more and police spend more away from the public and missing the gossip and seeing what is happening, it's not the Police fault it is just the way things are.

 

[Yossarian]

I remember a time when people were not so mobile and the local police knew every one on there patch. They knew the crooks and the kids with sticky fingers and they knew the people that had a problem and would deal with one way or another. These days people think nothing of flying of for a weekend to any part of the world, and the local communities are on the move much more and police spend more away from the public and missing the gossip and seeing what is happening, it's not the Police fault it is just the way things are.

Change in our society has always been a hard pill to swallow sometimes.

But I agree, in American history, during a period when everyone on America's frontiers were distrustful suspicous to strangers, a close knit, known by name basis and heavily armed town often led to almost no crime due to the fact everybody knew each other and any perp most likely would be sought out very quickly.

But being heavily armed and community focused did lead to events such as the famous Coffeyville incident.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

Change in our society has always been a hard pill to swallow sometimes.

But I agree, in American history, during a period when everyone on America's frontiers were distrustful suspicous to strangers, a close knit, known by name basis and heavily armed town often led to almost no crime due to the fact everybody knew each other and any perp most likely would be sought out very quickly.

But being heavily armed and community focused did lead to events such as the famous Coffeyville incident.

To change the American society is not easy, I would say almost impossible. To change the Constitution and in this case the 2nd A is more or less impossible. There are about 250-280 million firearms in the United States, the gun owners are 120-150 million (est ATF) These people have the nasty habit to vote, they must accept the change of the 2nd A. The other way to look at this, I think we can all agree, there is a problem. If we are talking about the so called "High Profile Shootings" and/or "Shooting sprees." What do we mean? According to the media every shooting is a "High Profile Shooting." However, don't bash the media so hard, they are here and they have a purpose, even if I dislike them many times, the problem is the population, not the media. Don't buy what they are saying, which is also a democratic step to take, be critical! Back to the so called shooting sprees or high profile events. I checked the statistic briefly, I couldn't detect the Columbine shooting in the statistic, until I went to down to the local level. Jefferson County had 13 H that year, all from Columbine, but on the state level, couldn't see it. Furthermore, I used two variables. Multiple victims/one offender and multiple victims and multiple offenders at one occasion. What statistics are good at is to indicate trends, if something is increasing or decreasing, not to explain things, it can give some hints to investigate things further. To discuss the so called shooting sprees are not even worth to discuss, it will make no statistic at all. Between 1963-2001 we had 65 high profile shootings in the US according to the definitions; the problem with the FBI is they do not separate schools, workplaces, etc. If we take these 65 shootings and the correlation between the gun owners and the amount of firearms, we will very soon realize this is a piss in the Mississippi

 

[MontyB]

To change the American society is not easy, I would say almost impossible. To change the Constitution and in this case the 2nd A is more or less impossible. There are about 250-280 million firearms in the United States, the gun owners are 120-150 million (est ATF) These people have the nasty habit to vote, they must accept the change of the 2nd A. The other way to look at this, I think we can all agree, there is a problem. If we are talking about the so called "High Profile Shootings" and/or "Shooting sprees." What do we mean? According to the media every shooting is a "High Profile Shooting." However, don't bash the media so hard, they are here and they have a purpose, even if I dislike them many times, the problem is the population, not the media. Don't buy what they are saying, which is also a democratic step to take, be critical! Back to the so called shooting sprees or high profile events. I checked the statistic briefly, I couldn't detect the Columbine shooting in the statistic, until I went to down to the local level. Jefferson County had 13 H that year, all from Columbine, but on the state level, couldn't see it. Furthermore, I used two variables. Multiple victims/one offender and multiple victims and multiple offenders at one occasion. What statistics are good at is to indicate trends, if something is increasing or decreasing, not to explain things, it can give some hints to investigate things further. To discuss the so called shooting sprees are not even worth to discuss, it will make no statistic at all. Between 1963-2001 we had 65 high profile shootings in the US according to the definitions; the problem with the FBI is they do not separate schools, workplaces, etc. If we take these 65 shootings and the correlation between the gun owners and the amount of firearms, we will very soon realize this is a piss in the Mississippi

I am sure the NRA would love to use that argument but here is the problem, on a per capita analysis (which is the only feasible way of doing a comparison) the USA still leads the developed world in firearms related deaths and that includes school shootings or mass shootings in general by a very large margin.

As for whether societies can change I think you are being rather negative as societies change on a constant basis you just have to look at peoples attitudes to smoking and drink driving over the past 30 years to see how much they have changed.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

I am sure the NRA would love to use that argument but here is the problem, on a per capita analysis (which is the only feasible way of doing a comparison) the USA still leads the developed world in firearms related deaths and that includes school shootings or mass shootings in general by a very large margin.

As for whether societies can change I think you are being rather negative as societies change on a constant basis you just have to look at peoples attitudes to smoking and drink driving over the past 30 years to see how much they have changed.

They might do, I am not certain about that and who cares if they agree or not. If we are talking about the firearms in the US and the violent crimes, you and I can agree they have a problem. But what we call the shooting sprees, leave that. A lot of attention, not so much in the reality, they disappear in the clutter. I might be negative as you put it. It is a huge difference between to change the oldest active Constitution and to change peoples attitude. To make these entire firearms owner to change their perception? Not easy, But we need to consider; the 2nd A is not for all, we need to include health issues to it as well. We can not touch the 2nd A so we need to limit the access to firearms for a limited few. You used the reference to DUI, then we blame the driver, not the car. Violent crimes, we blame the guns, not the user. We shall discuss the whole violent crimes in the US, not the so called "High Profile Shooting." They are so rare so even if a person has more than five minutes of experience of statistic will realize it is not worth it

 

[MontyB]

You used the reference to DUI, then we blame the driver, not the car. Violent crimes, we blame the guns, not the user.

Very true however we do blame the shooter and we license drivers so they know their responsibilities therefore there is no reason to blame the car (it being an inanimate also helps there).