ongoing mass shootings thread - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-07-2013, 01:46 PM   #136
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nbcrusader View Post
I think we've hit rock bottom. When there is no rational basis for depriving millions of people of their rights based on the bad acts of a few (instead of focusing on the few), we get the now standard dirty trick: BECAUSE RACISM.


The rational basis -- guns as a threat to public health, and the drastically lower murder rates in all other developed nations -- is quite well established.

It's our failure/refusal to grasp these facts that beg the question as to why such mass death is still tolerated in the United States. BECAUSE RACISM is one possible contributing factor as the study -- which of course you read instead of dismissing out of hand, because that would be Alinsky-ite -- points out.

Granted, the study is no Daily Caller article, but it at least merits some attention.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-07-2013, 01:48 PM   #137
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 03:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nbcrusader View Post
I think we've hit rock bottom. When there is no rational basis for depriving millions of people of their rights based on the bad acts of a few (instead of focusing on the few), we get the now standard dirty trick: BECAUSE RACISM.
Strawman. No one is arguing that we should take away everyone's guns.

Asking for stricter regulations, or a more thorough background/licensing/training procedure is not equal to painting every gun owner as a murderer, nor is it depriving millions of people of their rights, unless you think every American should have the right to a gun no questions asked.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-07-2013, 03:25 PM   #138
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,556
Local Time: 09:50 AM
Better background checks. Easier access to criminal records and or mental health history.

Insurance for guns. I think criminal charges can be brought up against those who don't have their weapon properly locked up (assuming they aren't killed for the weapon like in Newtown).

Among other strict laws to try and help prevent people who are not fit to owning a gun.

If you're not one of those people, there should be nothing to worry about. Is it more work for you? Yes. But wouldn't you feel better knowing more is done to protect the lives of others? You still get your gun, but maybe those who can cause trouble do not.

Can you protect everyone? No. Will the laws stop EVERY gun crime? Nope. But that's no excuse to do nothing!
__________________
BEAL is offline  
Old 11-07-2013, 03:31 PM   #139
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,858
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nbcrusader View Post
I think we've hit rock bottom. When there is no rational basis for depriving millions of people of their rights based on the bad acts of a few (instead of focusing on the few), we get the now standard dirty trick: BECAUSE RACISM.
Jive's point is that a lot of the people who say that about one of those things (be it guns or Muslims) don't say it about the other (again, guns or Muslims). There's literally nothing about racism involved here. He's criticizing hypocrisy.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 11-07-2013, 04:07 PM   #140
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 04:50 AM
fascinating stuff here, and does much to expand and nuance the cultural factors and historical influences that get swept away with the mindless BECAUSE RACISM dismissal:

Quote:
Up in Arms
THE BATTLE LINES OF TODAY’S DEBATES OVER GUN CONTROL, STAND-YOUR-GROUND LAWS, AND OTHER VIOLENCE-RELATED ISSUES WERE DRAWN CENTURIES AGO BY AMERICA’S EARLY SETTLERS

BY COLIN WOODARD, A91
ILLUSTRATION BY BRIAN STAUFFER
Last December, when Adam Lanza stormed into the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, with a rifle and killed twenty children and six adult staff members, the United States found itself immersed in debates about gun control. Another flash point occurred this July, when George Zimmerman, who saw himself as a guardian of his community, was exonerated in the killing of an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin, in Florida. That time, talk turned to stand-your-ground laws and the proper use of deadly force. The gun debate was refreshed in September by the shooting deaths of twelve people at the Washington Navy Yard, apparently at the hands of an IT contractor who was mentally ill.

Such episodes remind Americans that our country as a whole is marked by staggering levels of deadly violence. Our death rate from assault is many times higher than that of most other countries, whether highly urbanized or sparsely populated. State-sponsored violence, too—in the form of capital punishment—sets our country apart. Last year we executed more than ten times as many prisoners as other advanced industrialized nations combined—not surprising given that Japan is the only other such country that allows the practice. Our violent streak has become almost a part of our national identity.

What’s less well appreciated is how much the incidence of violence, like so many salient issues in American life, varies by region. Beyond a vague awareness that supporters of violent retaliation and easy access to guns are concentrated in the states of the former Confederacy and, to a lesser extent, the western interior, most people cannot tell you much about regional differences on such matters. Our conventional way of defining regions—dividing the country along state boundaries into a Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, Southwest, and Northwest—masks the cultural lines along which attitudes toward violence fall. These lines don’t respect state boundaries. To understand violence or practically any other divisive issue, you need to understand historical settlement patterns and the lasting cultural fissures they established.


The original North American colonies were settled by people from distinct regions of the British Isles—and from France, the Netherlands, and Spain—each with its own religious, political, and ethnographic traits. For generations, these Euro-American cultures developed in isolation from one another, consolidating their cherished religious and political principles and fundamental values, and expanding across the eastern half of the continent in nearly exclusive settlement bands. Throughout the colonial period and the Early Republic, they saw themselves as competitors—for land, capital, and other settlers—and even as enemies, taking opposing sides in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War.

There’s never been an America, but rather several Americas—each a distinct nation. There are eleven nations today. Each looks at violence, as well as everything else, in its own way.

[...]

The nations are constituted as follows:



YANKEEDOM. Founded on the shores of Massachusetts Bay by radical Calvinists as a new Zion, Yankeedom has, since the outset, put great emphasis on perfecting earthly civilization through social engineering, denial of self for the common good, and assimilation of outsiders. It has prized education, intellectual achievement, communal empowerment, and broad citizen participation in politics and government, the latter seen as the public’s shield against the machinations of grasping aristocrats and other would-be tyrants. Since the early Puritans, it has been more comfortable with government regulation and public-sector social projects than many of the other nations, who regard the Yankee utopian streak with trepidation.

NEW NETHERLAND. Established by the Dutch at a time when the Netherlands was the most sophisticated society in the Western world, New Netherland has always been a global commercial culture—materialistic, with a profound tolerance for ethnic and religious diversity and an unflinching commitment to the freedom of inquiry and conscience. Like seventeenth-century Amsterdam, it emerged as a center of publishing, trade, and finance, a magnet for immigrants, and a refuge for those persecuted by other regional cultures, from Sephardim in the seventeenth century to gays, feminists, and bohemians in the early twentieth. Unconcerned with great moral questions, it nonetheless has found itself in alliance with Yankeedom to defend public institutions and reject evangelical prescriptions for individual behavior.

THE MIDLANDS. America’s great swing region was founded by English Quakers, who believed in humans’ inherent goodness and welcomed people of many nations and creeds to their utopian colonies like Pennsylvania on the shores of Delaware Bay. Pluralistic and organized around the middle class, the Midlands spawned the culture of Middle America and the Heartland, where ethnic and ideological purity have never been a priority, government has been seen as an unwelcome intrusion, and political opinion has been moderate. An ethnic mosaic from the start—it had a German, rather than British, majority at the time of the Revolution—it shares the Yankee belief that society should be organized to benefit ordinary people, though it rejects top-down government intervention.

TIDEWATER. Built by the younger sons of southern English gentry in the Chesapeake country and neighboring sections of Delaware and North Carolina, Tidewater was meant to reproduce the semifeudal society of the countryside they’d left behind. Standing in for the peasantry were indentured servants and, later, slaves. Tidewater places a high value on respect for authority and tradition, and very little on equality or public participation in politics. It was the most powerful of the American nations in the eighteenth century, but today it is in decline, partly because it was cut off from westward expansion by its boisterous Appalachian neighbors and, more recently, because it has been eaten away by the expanding federal halos around D.C. and Norfolk.

GREATER APPALACHIA. Founded in the early eighteenth century by wave upon wave of settlers from the war-ravaged borderlands of Northern Ireland, northern England, and the Scottish lowlands, Appalachia has been lampooned by writers and screenwriters as the home of hillbillies and rednecks. It transplanted a culture formed in a state of near constant danger and upheaval, characterized by a warrior ethic and a commitment to personal sovereignty and individual liberty. Intensely suspicious of lowland aristocrats and Yankee social engineers alike, Greater Appalachia has shifted alliances depending on who appeared to be the greatest threat to their freedom. It was with the Union in the Civil War. Since Reconstruction, and especially since the upheavals of the 1960s, it has joined with Deep South to counter federal overrides of local preference.

DEEP SOUTH. Established by English slave lords from Barbados, Deep South was meant as a West Indies–style slave society. This nation offered a version of classical Republicanism modeled on the slave states of the ancient world, where democracy was the privilege of the few and enslavement the natural lot of the many. Its caste systems smashed by outside intervention, it continues to fight against expanded federal powers, taxes on capital and the wealthy, and environmental, labor, and consumer regulations.

EL NORTE. The oldest of the American nations, El Norte consists of the borderlands of the Spanish American empire, which were so far from the seats of power in Mexico City and Madrid that they evolved their own characteristics. Most Americans are aware of El Norte as a place apart, where Hispanic language, culture, and societal norms dominate. But few realize that among Mexicans, norteños have a reputation for being exceptionally independent, self-sufficient, adaptable, and focused on work. Long a hotbed of democratic reform and revolutionary settlement, the region encompasses parts of Mexico that have tried to secede in order to form independent buffer states between their mother country and the United States.

THE LEFT COAST. A Chile-shaped nation wedged between the Pacific Ocean and the Cascade and Coast mountains, the Left Coast was originally colonized by two groups: New Englanders (merchants, missionaries, and woodsmen who arrived by sea and dominated the towns) and Appalachian midwesterners (farmers, prospectors, and fur traders who generally arrived by wagon and controlled the countryside). Yankee missionaries tried to make it a “New England on the Pacific,” but were only partially successful. Left Coast culture is a hybrid of Yankee utopianism and Appalachian self-expression and exploration—traits recognizable in its cultural production, from the Summer of Love to the iPad. The staunchest ally of Yankeedom, it clashes with Far Western sections in the interior of its home states.

THE FAR WEST. The other “second-generation” nation, the Far West occupies the one part of the continent shaped more by environmental factors than ethnographic ones. High, dry, and remote, the Far West stopped migrating easterners in their tracks, and most of it could be made habitable only with the deployment of vast industrial resources: railroads, heavy mining equipment, ore smelters, dams, and irrigation systems. As a result, settlement was largely directed by corporations headquartered in distant New York, Boston, Chicago, or San Francisco, or by the federal government, which controlled much of the land. The Far West’s people are often resentful of their dependent status, feeling that they have been exploited as an internal colony for the benefit of the seaboard nations. Their senators led the fight against trusts in the mid-twentieth century. Of late, Far Westerners have focused their anger on the federal government, rather than their corporate masters.

NEW FRANCE. Occupying the New Orleans area and southeastern Canada, New France blends the folkways of ancien régime northern French peasantry with the traditions and values of the aboriginal people they encountered in northwestern North America. After a long history of imperial oppression, its people have emerged as down-to-earth, egalitarian, and consensus driven, among the most liberal on the continent, with unusually tolerant attitudes toward gays and people of all races and a ready acceptance of government involvement in the economy. The New French influence is manifest in Canada, where multiculturalism and negotiated consensus are treasured.

FIRST NATION. First Nation is populated by native American groups that generally never gave up their land by treaty and have largely retained cultural practices and knowledge that allow them to survive in this hostile region on their own terms. The nation is now reclaiming its sovereignty, having won considerable autonomy in Alaska and Nunavut and a self-governing nation state in Greenland that stands on the threshold of full independence. Its territory is huge—far larger than the continental United States—but its population is less than 300,000, most of whom live in Canada.

If you understand the United States as a patchwork of separate nations, each with its own origins and prevailing values, you would hardly expect attitudes toward violence to be uniformly distributed. You would instead be prepared to discover that some parts of the country experience more violence, have a greater tolerance for violent solutions to conflict, and are more protective of the instruments of violence than other parts of the country. That is exactly what the data on violence reveal about the modern United States.

Most scholarly research on violence has collected data at the state level, rather than the county level (where the boundaries of the eleven nations are delineated). Still, the trends are clear. The same handful of nations show up again and again at the top and the bottom of state-level figures on deadly violence, capital punishment, and promotion of gun ownership.

Consider assault deaths. Kieran Healy, a Duke University sociologist, broke down the per capita, age-adjusted deadly assault rate for 2010. In the northeastern states—almost entirely dominated by Yankeedom, New Netherland, and the Midlands—just over 4 people per 100,000 died in assaults. By contrast, southern states—largely monopolized by Deep South, Tidewater, and Greater Appalachia—had a rate of more than 7 per 100,000. The three deadliest states—Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, where the rate of killings topped 10 per 100,000—were all in Deep South territory. Meanwhile, the three safest states—New Hampshire, Maine, and Minnesota, with rates of about 2 killings per 100,000—were all part of Yankeedom.

Not surprisingly, black Americans have it worse than whites. Countrywide, according to Healy, blacks die from assaults at the bewildering rate of about 20 per 100,000, while the rate for whites is less than 6. But does that mean racial differences might be skewing the homicide data for nations with larger African-American populations? Apparently not. A classic 1993 study by the social psychologist Richard Nisbett, of the University of Michigan, found that homicide rates in small predominantly white cities were three times higher in the South than in New England. Nisbett and a colleague, Andrew Reaves, went on to show that southern rural counties had white homicide rates more than four times those of counties in New England, Middle Atlantic, and Midwestern states.

Tufts Magazine / fall 2013


much more to read. fascinating stuff.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-08-2013, 11:08 AM   #141
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 05:50 AM
I just want to comment that that is an awesome analysis of American culture. I always find it interesting when people say there's just one America and our country is made up of so many groups. While it is true that we are a nation of immigrants from all over the world, it is false to say there is one America - and I don't mean in the ethnic origin sense. The map above proves that how someone in Boston feels about their country differs greatly from someone in Las Vegas, Seattle, Miami or even Honolulu. We are a diverse nation indeed.
__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 11-08-2013, 03:47 PM   #142
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEAL View Post
Better background checks. Easier access to criminal records and or mental health history.

Insurance for guns. I think criminal charges can be brought up against those who don't have their weapon properly locked up (assuming they aren't killed for the weapon like in Newtown).
I think this would be a terrific place to start.

Now - we will have to deal with a new threat: Texas firm makes world’s first 3D-printed metal gun
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-13-2013, 03:51 PM   #143
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,858
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Shooting reported at Brashear High School | Allegheny Co. News - WTAE Home

School shooting reported in Pittsburgh.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 11-24-2013, 12:49 PM   #144
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Strawman. No one is arguing that we should take away everyone's guns.

Asking for stricter regulations, or a more thorough background/licensing/training procedure is not equal to painting every gun owner as a murderer, nor is it depriving millions of people of their rights, unless you think every American should have the right to a gun no questions asked.
Actually, your rebuttal is a straw man argument, completely ignoring the point of my post: the intellectually bankrupt use of the race card argument.
If you want to discuss new “reasonable gun control” regulations, they should be couple with clear and convincing evidence that such new regulations would actually prevent the crimes that triggered the call for such regulations. There are plenty of regulations on the books and they are failing.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-24-2013, 01:42 PM   #145
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nbcrusader View Post
the intellectually bankrupt use of the race card argument.
NOBODY WAS USING THE RACE CARD!!! I was fucking agreeing with you. If anything, it was an antirace card. Jesus Christ, man. A little reading comprehension goes a long way
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 11-24-2013, 01:44 PM   #146
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,858
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Someone said Muslim so clearly liberals are persecuting conservatives!!!!!111!!!!
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 11-26-2013, 03:02 PM   #147
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
NOBODY WAS USING THE RACE CARD!!! I was fucking agreeing with you. If anything, it was an antirace card. Jesus Christ, man. A little reading comprehension goes a long way
And I was agreeing with you.

A separate "study" was thrown in with the blanket suggestion of gun owners being more racist.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-26-2013, 06:15 PM   #148
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nbcrusader View Post
And I was agreeing with you.

A separate "study" was thrown in with the blanket suggestion of gun owners being more racist.
OK THEN WE AGREE THEN!!!!!! MAYBE I NEED A LlTTLE READING COMPREHENSION!!!!!!!!!
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 11-27-2013, 11:49 AM   #149
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nbcrusader View Post
A separate "study" was thrown in with the blanket suggestion of gun owners being more racist.

In your review of this study, what were the flaws in the methodology that led you to disagree with not just the conclusions, but the legitimacy of the study itself?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-27-2013, 12:38 PM   #150
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:50 AM
You can't assume causation. I'm sure there's more gun ownership in the south. I'm sure there's more racism in the south. I'm sure there's more grits in the south. There's no more reason to assume one of these factors in any way causes the other
__________________

__________________
Jive Turkey is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com