• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

RefigeKru
Member
(11-09-2017, 04:03 PM)
RefigeKru's Avatar
It's the media's fault?

Is Soros in on this too!!!!????
LordRaptor
Member
(11-09-2017, 04:04 PM)
LordRaptor's Avatar

Originally Posted by MvCSpiderman

No they do not cover it as insanely as the u s. "You got the high score" news cycle.

Yes they do. The question is why do you think they don't?

e:
I mean, if your point is that media in other countries don't cover gun related spree killings in their own countries as much as US media covers gun related spree killings in the US - you're right, but that's because gun related spree killings happen in the U.S more than anywhere else in the world.

That's not the media painting a "narrative".

Originally Posted by MvCSpiderman

Also there have been complains in some western European countries about the media selectively avoiding reporting some killings due to uh... Not making groups look bad. But I think all killers should be known regardless. Lives are only once

What are you talking about? Mass killings are always reported.
MvCSpiderman
Member
(11-09-2017, 04:22 PM)
MvCSpiderman's Avatar

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

Yes they do. The question is why do you think they don't?

e:
I mean, if your point is that media in other countries don't cover gun related spree killings in their own countries as much as US media covers gun related spree killings in the US - you're right, but that's because gun related spree killings happen in the U.S more than anywhere else in the world.

That's not the media painting a "narrative".



What are you talking about? Mass killings are always reported.

Spend 3 seconds looking it up. No they don't.

I also never said anything about a "narrative" I said that they don't cover them the same way and they don't.

Especially the "high score got" tone. I've seen the coverage for mass killings in other countries, only in America do they consistently I'd the most overblown way possible basically congratulate the killer. Which does not help with stopping the killings at all.

Please take some time to look at coverage and interviews for the last few mass shootings then compare them to other countries. No one else's media comes close to being as insane.
LordRaptor
Member
(11-09-2017, 04:37 PM)
LordRaptor's Avatar

Originally Posted by MvCSpiderman

Especially the "high score got" tone. I've seen the coverage for mass killings in other countries, only in America do they consistently I'd the most overblown way possible basically congratulate the killer. Which does not help with stopping the killings at all.

Please take some time to look at coverage and interviews for the last few mass shootings then compare them to other countries. No one else's media comes close to being as insane.

You're talking shit, because I do not live in the US, and in addition to 'native' 24 hour rolling news cycles that I have like BBC News 24 and Sky News, most cable channel subscriptions also include CNN and CNBC (which often simulcasts MSNBC for big news events) for US newscasts, and other news channels such as France 24 or Aljazeera English are also included.

e:
I mean, if you want to complain that Fox News is irredeemable shit for idiots, I won't dispute that. But don't pretend I'm living in some bubble that you are not.
prag16
Member
(11-09-2017, 05:09 PM)
prag16's Avatar

Originally Posted by aaronsan

It's certainly not simple when you try to bring in other crimes and fail to consider that many other factors drive crime, by gun or otherwise, than the current status of gun ownership legality.

Speaking of zealots on either side, I wish each of you so desperate to say guns aren't the problem would explain why you are so OBSESSED with allowing no change to gun laws.

Because to the rest of us, it really looks like you value guns more than human life.

Why can't legally owning a gun be as restrictive as legally driving a car? I've never heard a satisfactory answer to that one. Aside from a poorly written Second Amendment that has been agreed even by conservative judges to still allow for restrictions on gun ownership, so try a different path, please.

I'd be okay with the restrictions being equivalent to driving a car. It already is for pistols in most states.
Bleepey
Member
(11-09-2017, 06:23 PM)
Bleepey's Avatar

Originally Posted by luxsol

http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/fact...nUseTrend.html

Again, gun violence rose up sharply.
Violence in general went up, including homicide.
It took well over a decade for it to go below levels before the gun ban, but it rose to as much and more as before.

And again, it's hard to attribute the decline of crime in general to gun control, because that was already declining.... aside from that jump when the gun ban hit.

Also, the US had a similar drop in homicide related deaths as well.

Still higher than Aus, but it's a pretty similar steep decline without banning even toy guns.
It only goes to show the trend would have happened without it, because it's also true for other countries as well.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...rate-edges-up/


Also also also, this is interesting


Oh, and gun ban effectiveness? The vast majority of gun crime happens with pistols. Guess what almost all bans are about? Not pistols. It's almost always about scary machine guns you only see in the movies, because this is where most of our knowledge about guns comes from.

Your very own source shows that after 96 gun homicides dropped greatly.
eso76
(11-09-2017, 06:29 PM)
eso76's Avatar
Cageyoudontsay.jpg
MvCSpiderman
Member
(11-09-2017, 08:00 PM)
MvCSpiderman's Avatar

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

You're talking shit, because I do not live in the US,

Did you miss this part?

"Please take some time to look at coverage and interviews for the last few mass shootings then compare them to other countries."

I never said you were from the U.S. I said look and compare they are not similar. I look at Mass Shootings on German, UK news, ireland, and I look at CNN Ms.NBC, Abc and they all are like "YES HE GOTZ THZE HIGH SCORE! NEW RECORD UNLOCKED! THIS GUY ALMOST GOT IT MAYBE NEXT TIME! OHHH HE ACTUALLY HAD AN ESCAPE PLAN! IF HE DIDN'T DO <Insert here> HE MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN AWAY/KILLED MORE PEOPLE/GOTEN LESS JAIL TIME."

I have no idea why someone would dispute that the U.S. media is crazy when reporting on mass shooters.
LordPezix
Member
(11-09-2017, 09:11 PM)
LordPezix's Avatar
- Just ban them for awhile and see if that changes anything. I could use a good knife fight anyways.
rokkerkory
Member
(11-09-2017, 09:24 PM)
rokkerkory's Avatar
So over a month after vegas shooting with over 500 people injured... where are the talks about bump stops now? anything being done anymore?

smh
LordRaptor
Member
(11-09-2017, 10:50 PM)
LordRaptor's Avatar

Originally Posted by MvCSpiderman

I look at Mass Shootings on German, UK news, ireland, and I look at CNN Ms.NBC, Abc and they all are like "YES HE GOTZ THZE HIGH SCORE! NEW RECORD UNLOCKED! THIS GUY ALMOST GOT IT MAYBE NEXT TIME! OHHH HE ACTUALLY HAD AN ESCAPE PLAN! IF HE DIDN'T DO <Insert here> HE MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN AWAY/KILLED MORE PEOPLE/GOTEN LESS JAIL TIME."

I have no idea why someone would dispute that the U.S. media is crazy when reporting on mass shooters.

Should be real easy for you to find a single example of a reputable media outlet glamorising any spree killing then.
luxsol
Member
(11-10-2017, 12:09 AM)

Originally Posted by Bleepey

Your very own source shows that after 96 gun homicides dropped greatly.

Point is that gun crime INCREASED afterward and any one of those incidents could have turned out to be tragic.
Also note how gun crime has increased in recent years, including homicides.

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

Should be real easy for you to find a single example of a reputable media outlet glamorising any spree killing then.

I think his point is that the news media makes the kill count to be very important, especially when they were showing it live and letting us know what his killstreak score was at the time.
You also have the news making sure that any messages they were making, by going on their rampage, did get out to everyone by repeating it across every news channel and local reports for days and weeks, even years later.

BTW, are we still waiting for the las vegas shooter's message to get out or did i miss it?
LordRaptor
Member
(11-10-2017, 12:43 AM)
LordRaptor's Avatar

Originally Posted by luxsol

I think his point is that the news media makes the kill count to be very important, especially when they were showing it live and letting us know what his killstreak score was at the time.
You also have the news making sure that any messages they were making, by going on their rampage, did get out to everyone by repeating it across every news channel and local reports for days and weeks, even years later.

He was saying there is something unique about US media that in turn is somehow feeds back into what is predominately a US problem - but that is not true.
Spree killings are covered the same the world over.

What is the substantive difference between media coverage of, say, Sandy Hook compared to, say, the Paris Charlie Hebdo shootings?
The answer is of course that the Paris shootings were more shocking - and therefore more newsworthy - due to spree killings in France being vastly less common.
luxsol
Member
(11-10-2017, 01:31 AM)

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

He was saying there is something unique about US media that in turn is somehow feeds back into what is predominately a US problem - but that is not true.
Spree killings are covered the same the world over.

What is the substantive difference between media coverage of, say, Sandy Hook compared to, say, the Paris Charlie Hebdo shootings?
The answer is of course that the Paris shootings were more shocking - and therefore more newsworthy - due to spree killings in France being vastly less common.

It sounds like he's just repeating what I've read and repeated, in that the USA media makes a huuuuge deal out of this shit.
That one article i posted a page back actually lists how prominent violent crimes have been reported on the news and have increased since the 80s (as long as it's not gang violence).

So it's been investigated in the USA, but what about the rest of the world? You can say your country's media also makes a big deal out of it, but how many dedicated news channels do you have? What about local news?

Almost all my local stations took out syndicated shows just to run the news. When i was a kid, almost all local stations showed cartoons from 6-9 in the morning and then ran reruns of 50s/60s/70s shows after that. Now it's the news from 4:30am til 10am on the majority of the stations. National news is shown on the major stations. Afternoons are news from 4pm til 7.
It's more profitable for them to run their own programs (news) than anything else and what gets more ratings from that? Violence. Adding commentary to sensationalize it while its ongoing makes it better.
Remember how there were reports that there were two shooters, with perhaps maybe more helping out in Las Vegas?
Tmac
Member
(11-10-2017, 01:43 AM)
Tmac's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kimawolf

The United States has 270 million guns and had
90 mass shooters from 1966 to 2012.


No other country has more than 46 million guns or 18 mass shooters.


The answer is simple. We have far more guns than other countries.


FIRST: Numbers alone doesnt mean anything. Thats totally wrong to compare raw numbers without considering population size. What really matters is % of armed population. A lot of smaller contries have similar gun to pop ration of the US. Blame guns is absurd. Not to mention that the article doesnt consider the guns ratio trend VS mass shootings. Are the first increasing with a correspondent increase in the second? Can you point a correlation?

SECOND: Different countries have different methodologies. The US have a very inclusive methodoly to caracterize a mass shooting. In other words, a lot of the mass shootings that are reported in US whouldnt be considered a mass shooting elsewhere.


CONCLUSION: That article uses non acurate data and slaughter acurate statistics to prove their point without any evidence.

Today press is like - Why do you have to proove anything if all that matters nowdays is what i feel is right? I'm a better person, I care, I know whats best for you! I have a mission to educate and show the light to the masses.

So much BS.
LordRaptor
Member
(11-10-2017, 02:23 AM)
LordRaptor's Avatar

Originally Posted by luxsol

So it's been investigated in the USA, but what about the rest of the world? You can say your country's media also makes a big deal out of it, but how many dedicated news channels do you have? What about local news?

The UK - which is a tiny country - has 2 domestic rolling 24 hour news networks and upwards of 2 hours of news programming a day on our "network" channels, including regional news - and regional news is regional, in true adherence to Reithian values.

Our newspapers - particularly our tabloids - are as opportunistic and sensationalist as anything you could ever imagine, up to and including hacking a murdered schoolgirls mobile phone to get scoops.

The US media is not the reason US gun crime is as it is.

Originally Posted by Tmac

FIRST: Numbers alone doesnt mean anything. Thats totally wrong to compare raw numbers without considering population size. What really matters is % of armed population. A lot of smaller contries have similar gun to pop ration of the US.

Do you think comparing the US to third world countries / developing nations with huge socio-economic problems paints the US particular problems in a better light?

The US is a first world country.
Its not in the middle of a civil war, run by military juntas, or controlled by drug cartels.
luxsol
Member
(11-10-2017, 03:14 AM)

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

The UK - which is a tiny country - has 2 domestic rolling 24 hour news networks and upwards of 2 hours of news programming a day on our "network" channels, including regional news - and regional news is regional, in true adherence to Reithian values.

So you're saying there's fewer news channels available and fewer hours of news media than the US?
Roughly half the population of the US subscribes to cable/satellite, so that's 4-5 24/7 news stations.
Rabbit ear TV is free, and many local stations can and do run roughly 8 hours of news each weekday.

And we don't know how prevalent news about violence is spread in england, but we do know that in the US that it has been going way up since the 80s and because of that, most people feel less safe today despite violence decreasing.

The US media is not the reason US gun crime is as it is.

You're ignoring the commonality and frequency of copycat killers, and those seeking their violent martyrdom to spread their message because of the news.
Sorry, looks like i missed your point on this, and i'd like to point out that gun homicides fell drastically like Aus' around the same time period, without banning guns. Overall violence went down as well, including crimes commited with firearms. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf#Page=7

The US is a first world country.
Its not in the middle of a civil war, run by military juntas, or controlled by drug cartels.

but it has a very significant gang problem.
https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/s...-gang-problems

In a typical year in the so-called “gang capitals” of Chicago and Los Angeles, around half of all homicides are gang-related; these two cities alone accounted for approximately one in four gang homicides recorded in the NYGS from 2011 to 2012.

Bleepey
Member
(11-10-2017, 04:39 AM)
Bleepey's Avatar
I checked the free version of cable/satellite and there are like 5 free news channels


https://www.radioandtelly.co.uk/freeviewchannels.html

Then with satellite there's CNN/sky news and other stuff there.
Tmac
Member
(11-10-2017, 04:51 AM)
Tmac's Avatar

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

Do you think comparing the US to third world countries / developing nations with huge socio-economic problems paints the US particular problems in a better light?

The US is a first world country.
Its not in the middle of a civil war, run by military juntas, or controlled by drug cartels.


Third world countries / developing nations usually have a much lower gun/pop ratio.




Considering that in US you have a phenomenon you don't see elsewhere where a few people owns a freaking lot of guns, the actual % of population owning one or more guns of the US is very similar to the Western European countries.

While Brazil, where over 60 thousands people are murdered each year, the gun prevalence is very low. They even passed a law a decade ago to restrict and de-arm the civilian population... the effect on criminallity was the oposite of the anti-gun lobby preached. Violenced soared and murders skyrocked.
ChainedMaster
Junior Member
(11-10-2017, 05:28 AM)
This is one of the reasons why I carry nearly everywhere I go (99% chance I'm carrying if you see me in public). As a liberal I think more liberals need to exercise their rights. I am glad that for the past year (thanks to Trump) liberal gun ownership was steeply increased.
luxsol
Member
(11-10-2017, 09:59 AM)

Originally Posted by Bleepey

I checked the "free" version of cable/satellite and there are like 5 "free" news channels .

Fixed?
I thought you had to pay the licensing fee?

And you can get those extra news stations with cable/satellite depending on your provider in the US.

Some news networks, like CNBC, will run HOT VIOLENCE NOW, even though their station is supposed to be dedicated to financial news. I'm pretty sure the Weather Channel does shit like that too.
Bleepey
Member
(11-10-2017, 11:28 AM)
Bleepey's Avatar

Originally Posted by eso76

Cageyoudontsay.jpg

Originally Posted by luxsol

Fixed?
I thought you had to pay the licensing fee?

And you can get those extra news stations with cable/satellite depending on your provider in the US.

Some news networks, like CNBC, will run HOT VIOLENCE NOW, even though their station is supposed to be dedicated to financial news. I'm pretty sure the Weather Channel does shit like that too.

The licence fee is just to pay for the BBC, whilst I don't watch terrestrial TV, BBC coverage during the World Cup, Olympics and news to some extent is second to none. The only real difference in news coverage on UK news channels compared to say MSNBC is that they will say the NRA are not being satirical when they argue the best way to reduce gun violence are more guns.
LordRaptor
Member
(11-10-2017, 02:02 PM)
LordRaptor's Avatar

Originally Posted by luxsol

So you're saying there's fewer news channels available and fewer hours of news media than the US?
Roughly half the population of the US subscribes to cable/satellite, so that's 4-5 24/7 news stations.
Rabbit ear TV is free, and many local stations can and do run roughly 8 hours of news each weekday.

No, I was giving bare minimum values.
There is a cultural difference with regard to TV, but if we look at BBC1, our oldest "network" channel, today - not being any particularly different to any other day - and looking at midnight to midnight has ~11 hours worth of news broadcast in that 24 hour window.
And that is on a non commercial network, so that time estimate is close to actual time of content, as opposed to US style commercial networks where an hour long time slot comprises of ~40 minutes of content and ~20 minutes of advertising.

For cable / satellite customers, there are more dedicated news channels than are available "freeview", including actual US news channels like CNN and CNBC, as I mentioned above, as well as other areas news services such as aljazeera.

Needing to feed a 24 hour media cycle is not exclusive to the US media.


Originally Posted by luxsol

but it has a very significant gang problem.
https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/s...-gang-problems

Originally Posted by Tmac

Third world countries / developing nations usually have a much lower gun/pop ratio.

US gun crime figures per capita are among the worst in the world, and if you look at the countries on either side there are very clear reasons why those other countries have such high rates of violent crime - Colombia for example is well known for the power of its drug cartels, and has also until very recently had armed militias fighting government forces in an actual civil war.

The US is not some tinpot dictatorship, third world country with desperate people living in shanty towns, or in internal conflict with armed militias.
From a socio-political viewpoint, there should be no reason why violent guncrime is as high as it is, nor why spree killings are so prevalent, unless you want to contend that Americans are just inherently more violent than people in comparable first world countries.

The major observable difference is the amount of guns - far higher than most other countries.
mantidor
Member
(11-10-2017, 03:32 PM)
mantidor's Avatar

Originally Posted by Tmac

While Brazil, where over 60 thousands people are murdered each year, the gun prevalence is very low. They even passed a law a decade ago to restrict and de-arm the civilian population... the effect on criminallity was the oposite of the anti-gun lobby preached. Violenced soared and murders skyrocked.

Correlation/causation and all that, Brazil's most pressing problem is inequality and crippling corruption, you can't just take those out of the picture and make the ridiculous comparison with the US, the countries are abysmally apart in almost every way.

For people who probably don't know there is a growing movement of crazy (and deluded honestly) people in Brazil who want access to guns, which is why probably the country keeps being mentioned more and more in these discussions.
MvCSpiderman
Member
(11-10-2017, 03:48 PM)
MvCSpiderman's Avatar
Even other countries politicians and media, including the UK, are yelling at the U S. For their coverage. I don't understand why anyone is crazy enough to think anyone's "killer got a high score" media coverage is comparable to the us. It's so insane they have been called out on it internationally for goodness sake. Just do a little search for 3 seconds.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
(11-10-2017, 03:54 PM)
Wolfgunblood Garopa's Avatar
It's simply abnormal and unhealthy to carry a firearm in one's normal day to day life. The US is much better off without this unhealthy, inhuman obsession. The more we dig our heels in on gun ownership, the further and faster the US is going to slip away from the rest of the developed world. It's emblematic of the US's inability to cope with modern civilization in the 21st century (for example, the US is now the only country in the world that is not a member of the Paris climate agreement). We value centuries old ideas that don't make sense anymore. Gun ownership is as good of an idea today as performing surgery without antiseptic was then.
Super Mario
Junior Member
(11-10-2017, 06:23 PM)
The worst part of this whole argument is the constant "apples to apples" comparisons everyone tries to do. "This country has a different outcome, therefore here is the fix". We forget just how culturally different everyone is. I could sit here and talk about cultural differences in almost every facet of life until I am blue in the face.

Comparing crimes to the number of guns is also ineffective. What if the US had 50 million more guns? What if 50 million less? What if a gun owner owns 3 and another gun owner owns 60? Is one more likely to commit mass murder? What concrete proof do we have that "mass shootings" would go down with less guns? It's also quite convenient that we've targeted one, particular type of homicide. What is the average motive for such crimes? Would these people not have the same motive if less guns were circulated through the country?

One thing I can say confidently, is politics and media play too big of a part. Politicians use every event to pander for votes. The hive mind tells everyone what to think. Contrary to what you believe on any of the issues, let's take black vs white divide. Do you think the news makes those relations any better?

I no fan of the gun culture. I don't get the obsession. I wish they weren't a thing. With that said, there is little we can do now. It's like trying to ban alcohol or drugs at this point (which we already tried). It's a known good with a demand, and there is tons of it available.

I'll also toss one more firecracker into this. How many times have we heard lines such as "I'd rather die than not be free". Unfortunately, that is all too true. There are so many freedoms available, and that is what ultimately makes this so hard to stop. With that, some are using that fear to to take away freedoms for whatever political gain. This is what we wanted, right?
luxsol
Member
(11-10-2017, 11:48 PM)

Originally Posted by Bleepey

The only real difference in news coverage on UK news

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

No, I was giving bare minimum values.
There is a cultural difference with regard to TV, but if we look at BBC1, our oldest "network" channel, today - not being any particularly different to any other day - and looking at midnight to midnight has ~11 hours worth of news broadcast in that 24 hour window. ...
Needing to feed a 24 hour media cycle is not exclusive to the US media.

I'm a little weirded out.
I look up regional stations in the UK, and there seem to be very few and they only seem to show a few hours of news each day. Am i missing something on how local news is handled?
My own area has 14 local stations and 7 of those have news programs in English, and each one has roughly 8 hours of news each weekday. With cable, there's also the 4 main news channels and a couple of odd balls like CNBC and Weather Channel where they'll start showing non-channel related news if it's violent enough.
Depending on your carrier and "package" you can get pretty much the additional channels you talked about for the UK, including BBC.

Still, I'm wondering the difference is on reporting of violence on the news. Again, violent crime reporting jumped about 7x from the 80s to 90s in the US, which has made Americans believe there's more crime today than before despite the fall in crimes being committed.

From a socio-political viewpoint, there should be no reason why violent guncrime is as high as it is, nor why spree killings are so prevalent, unless you want to contend that Americans are just inherently more violent than people in comparable first world countries.

The major observable difference is the amount of guns - far higher than most other countries.

You're ignoring things I've said.
There are over 400 gangs in Los Angeles. There's over 120,000 members in these gangs.
London has twice the population of LA, but has 120something gangs and about a 1,000 gang members.
Pretty huge difference, don't you think?

Should we ignore gang violence? Because if you do... http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/FedCrimes/story?id=6773423

As many as 1 million gang members are believed responsible for as much as 80 percent of crime in America

https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun...s/welcome.aspx

Gun-related homicide is most prevalent among gangs and during the commission of felony crimes. In 1980, the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during arguments was about the same as from gang involvement (about 70 percent), but by 1993, nearly all gang-related homicides involved guns (95 percent), whereas the percentage of gun homicides related to arguments remained relatively constant. The percentage of gang-related homicides caused by guns fell slightly to 92 percent in 2008, but the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during the commission of a felony rose from about 60 percent to about 74 percent from 1980 to 2005

Suddenly America is much safer if you'd ignore the gang problem like you're trying to do.
Bleepey
Member
(11-11-2017, 06:16 AM)
Bleepey's Avatar

Originally Posted by luxsol

I'm a little weirded out.
I look up regional stations in the UK, and there seem to be very few and they only seem to show a few hours of news each day. Am i missing something on how local news is handled?
My own area has 14 local stations and 7 of those have news programs in English, and each one has roughly 8 hours of news each weekday. With cable, there's also the 4 main news channels and a couple of odd balls like CNBC and Weather Channel where they'll start showing non-channel related news if it's violent enough.
Depending on your carrier and "package" you can get pretty much the additional channels you talked about for the UK, including BBC.

Still, I'm wondering the difference is on reporting of violence on the news. Again, violent crime reporting jumped about 7x from the 80s to 90s in the US, which has made Americans believe there's more crime today than before despite the fall in crimes being committed.


You're ignoring things I've said.
There are over 400 gangs in Los Angeles. There's over 120,000 members in these gangs.
London has twice the population of LA, but has 120something gangs and about a 1,000 gang members.
Pretty huge difference, don't you think?

Should we ignore gang violence? Because if you do... http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/FedCrimes/story?id=6773423

https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun...s/welcome.aspx


Suddenly America is much safer if you'd ignore the gang problem like you're trying to do.

There are 5 terrestrial channels. They each offer a minimum of an hour's news everyday. Except for BBC 2. There is freeview/freesat which is basically free cable and there you get a couple more news channels. Sky news is not allowed to be as shitty as Fox News and unlike the tabloids there is a lot more objective reporting. Local news to my knowledge is not that big of a deal, like TV regions are massive, I can't really give a proper opinion on account of the fact I rarely leave London and I am basing regional differences on what I remember from TV guides I haven't read in literally decades.

Also if gang violence is the main problem why not ban straw purchases, national register and people having gun checkups yearly or randomly. Maybe a nominal $10 fear so someone can do a yearly inspection of all the guns someone owns.
RSP
Member
(11-11-2017, 07:34 AM)
RSP's Avatar
So 270M guns vs 46M. Thats almost 1:6. If you multiply 18 x 6, you get 108.

Plenty more mass shootings to go before US is really in trouble.
luxsol
Member
(11-11-2017, 09:18 AM)

Originally Posted by Bleepey

There are 5 terrestrial channels. ... Local news to my knowledge is not that big of a deal, like TV regions are massive

Small countries scare me.. or it just seems to be the UK.
Looking through other countries shows that that they have regional stations and offer a lot more than what I've seen from England, even when it's state run like Germany.

Also if gang violence is the main problem why not ban straw purchases, national register and people having gun checkups yearly or randomly. Maybe a nominal $10 fear so someone can do a yearly inspection of all the guns someone owns.

That's like treating the symptoms of cancer instead of trying to wipe the cancer out.

And that doesn't do shit. It only affects people who follow the laws, so criminals will still be criming and not caring.
Gangs are the ones stealing guns, and when they aren't, they're seeking to buy them, which is a huge motivator for stealing guns in the first place.

And straw purchases are already illegal for everything but buying food and toys... and other stuff that doesn't involve signing legal forms.

So what do other first world nations do about their gangs? How do they make sure there aren't a million of these in their country?

LordRaptor
Member
(11-11-2017, 02:07 PM)
LordRaptor's Avatar

Originally Posted by luxsol

I'm a little weirded out.
I look up regional stations in the UK, and there seem to be very few and they only seem to show a few hours of news each day. Am i missing something on how local news is handled?

I've lost track of the point you are trying to make, and nitpicking the differences between media reportage is veering into "no true scotsman" territory.

What do you mean by "local" news?

England is tiny. Attacks at an Arianda Grande concert in Manchester dominate headlines in Cornwall just as much as they dominate headlines in Anglia, just as they dominate headlines in London.

Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own TV channels, because they're actually other countries.

The US TV channels you specifically called out as examples of irresponsible reporting that contributes towards spree killings, are in fact aired all over the world, and none of the other countries in the world that get that exact same media have a spree killing problem like the US does.

So again, what is the point you are trying to make here?

Originally Posted by luxsol

There are over 400 gangs in Los Angeles. There's over 120,000 members in these gangs.
London has twice the population of LA, but has 120something gangs and about a 1,000 gang members.
Pretty huge difference, don't you think?

London doesn't have "street gangs" like the US does, because the UK has some of the strictest gun contorl on the planet (and correspondingly some of the lowest gun crime statistics on the planet).

I don't know what talking about gangs does to help any argument against the US needing vastly stricter gun control to reduce gun violence.
Do you know why gang members don't walk around London strapped?
Because they face a minimum 5 years in prison just for having a gun in their possession.
luxsol
Member
(11-11-2017, 03:24 PM)

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

I've lost track of the point you are trying to make, and nitpicking the differences between media reportage is veering into "no true scotsman" territory.
What do you mean by "local" news?

No point. Just boggled that a country doesn't really have... other places, like other countries. It's not nitpicking, I'm just trying to learn more, because it's pretty interesting.
Still, I'm in southern CA and we have a ton of local TV stations, and that's basically the same area as England.

The US TV channels you specifically called out as examples of irresponsible reporting that contributes towards spree killings, are in fact aired all over the world, and none of the other countries in the world that get that exact same media have a spree killing problem like the US does.

So again, what is the point you are trying to make here?

I've been repeating over and over how US media reports on violence. This hasn't changed and as I've read, it's increased 7 times over from the 80s to the 90s. So today, with even more news channels and the increase of time spent on just reporting news by local broadcasters? It's safe to assume it has doubled, at the very least.

Yeah, your country reports on the same shit too, but how much time is devoted toward it?

With violent massacres like Vegas', it can and will interrupt every local station who are affiliates for Fox, NBC, ABC, etc. Even independent stations will start showing CNN feeds or whatever local independent station is in the area reporting on the news.
It's one thing to expect MSNBC to interrupt a rerun of its talking head shows, but for it to interrupt [insert latest prime time hot show here]? It's the fucking norm if it's violent enough.
Nevermind the time dedicated toward violent stuff that doesn't require a live kill count update, but at the actual planned programmed hours.
It's a whole lot of channels and hours/days/weeks dedicated toward exploiting people's deaths for higher ratings, making each "event" that much more popular and out there to impress.

London doesn't have "street gangs" like the US does, because the UK has some of the strictest gun contorl on the planet (and correspondingly some of the lowest gun crime statistics on the planet).

I didn't realize that gangs needed guns to be gangs.

I don't know what talking about gangs does to help any argument against the US needing vastly stricter gun control to reduce gun violence.

You asked why the US is so violent.

Gang violence makes the US that much more violent.
They're the ones that make up a significant portion of gun related crimes.
They're involved in the theft and running of guns that much more lucrative and common.

You wanted to say that the US seems like a third world county with its crime rate and when 80% of all crimes can be blamed on gangs, that's a whole lot of lawlessness that apparently can't be contained by a first world nation, huh?
How did other countries with gang problems solve their issues with them?
What other countries have a gang problem as big as the US, just to compare? I've tried looking up Brazil, but there don't seem to be any numbers.

You're trying to ignore a lot of facts just to push a shitty theory that ignores STUDIED and REPEATED AD NASUEM models just to pretend it has a fucking answer toward a problem where many experts have already offered researched advice that does actually work.
PabloBolivar
Banned
(11-11-2017, 03:28 PM)

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

I've lost track of the point you are trying to make, and nitpicking the differences between media reportage is veering into "no true scotsman" territory.

What do you mean by "local" news?

England is tiny. Attacks at an Arianda Grande concert in Manchester dominate headlines in Cornwall just as much as they dominate headlines in Anglia, just as they dominate headlines in London.

Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own TV channels, because they're actually other countries.

The US TV channels you specifically called out as examples of irresponsible reporting that contributes towards spree killings, are in fact aired all over the world, and none of the other countries in the world that get that exact same media have a spree killing problem like the US does.

So again, what is the point you are trying to make here?



London doesn't have "street gangs" like the US does, because the UK has some of the strictest gun contorl on the planet (and correspondingly some of the lowest gun crime statistics on the planet).

I don't know what talking about gangs does to help any argument against the US needing vastly stricter gun control to reduce gun violence.
Do you know why gang members don't walk around London strapped?
Because they face a minimum 5 years in prison just for having a gun in their possession.

You make some good points. Enforcement of our current gun laws would be a huge help here in the US. I'd love to see a mandatory life sentence or the death penalty for using a gun in a crime.
LordRaptor
Member
(11-11-2017, 04:22 PM)
LordRaptor's Avatar

Originally Posted by luxsol

No point. Just boggled that a country doesn't really have... other places, like other countries.

I still don't really understand the point; I'm a 3 hour plane trip away from being in Paris, Berlin, Barcelona, Reykjavik, Oslo, Dublin, Florence, Bruges, Vienna....

There is huge regional variation within England.
Like, there have been civil wars between Yorkshire and Lancashire. And as I said, Wales Scotland and Ireland are actual seperate countries.

You don't need a rolling 24 hour Cumbria news, or a rolling 24 hour Norfolk news to be the defining point of regional difference.
For most intents and purposes, UK news might as well be "London" and "everywhere else".

Originally Posted by luxsol

I didn't realize that gangs needed guns to be gangs.

I'm asking by what definition of "Gang" has you saying there are only 100 in London. Because literally every estate has gangs, every football team has gangs, there are organised eastern European begging gangs that roam the tube lines, there are organised drug gangs, there are organised prostitution gangs, there are organised street crime gangs, there are organised burglary gangs, there are organised car theft gangs.

Originally Posted by luxsol

How did other countries with gang problems solve their issues with them?

Firearms legislation.
Most people are just not legally allowed to roam the streets carrying guns.

Gang violence becomes a case of beatings and stabbings (or as is currently an issue in the UK acid attacks, until that gets legislated).
PabloBolivar
Banned
(11-11-2017, 05:14 PM)

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

I still don't really understand the point; I'm a 3 hour plane trip away from being in Paris, Berlin, Barcelona, Reykjavik, Oslo, Dublin, Florence, Bruges, Vienna....

There is huge regional variation within England.
Like, there have been civil wars between Yorkshire and Lancashire. And as I said, Wales Scotland and Ireland are actual seperate countries.

You don't need a rolling 24 hour Cumbria news, or a rolling 24 hour Norfolk news to be the defining point of regional difference.
For most intents and purposes, UK news might as well be "London" and "everywhere else".



I'm asking by what definition of "Gang" has you saying there are only 100 in London. Because literally every estate has gangs, every football team has gangs, there are organised eastern European begging gangs that roam the tube lines, there are organised drug gangs, there are organised prostitution gangs, there are organised street crime gangs, there are organised burglary gangs, there are organised car theft gangs.



Firearms legislation.
Most people are just not legally allowed to roam the streets carrying guns.

Gang violence becomes a case of beatings and stabbings (or as is currently an issue in the UK acid attacks, until that gets legislated).

Wait, you think the gangs in the US are legally carrying guns through the streets? lol. No.
Night Angel
Member
(11-11-2017, 05:43 PM)
Night Angel's Avatar

Originally Posted by PabloBolivar

Wait, you think the gangs in the US are legally carrying guns through the streets? lol. No.

I guess the difference there is that a gang member with a gun isn't necessarily probable cause for a search and arrest in the US because of our gun laws while in Britain it's jail time no matter who is carrying one.

Legally carrying or no, because people have the means to legally carry police can't generally use the presence of a firearm as a reason to arrest folks without making sure they're felons and cannot legally possess said firearm.
luxsol
Member
(11-11-2017, 06:21 PM)

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

There is huge regional variation within England.
Like, there have been civil wars between Yorkshire and Lancashire. And as I said, Wales Scotland and Ireland are actual seperate countries.
You don't need a rolling 24 hour Cumbria news, or a rolling 24 hour Norfolk news to be the defining point of regional difference.
For most intents and purposes, UK news might as well be "London" and "everywhere else".

Pretty weird and shows how different news is handled in the US, even within a single state that is sectioned off.
But way to ignore how hard it is to avoid violence on the news, since it will and does interrupt the next copycat shooter just watching his favorite game show or the funniest new comedy ever.

Firearms legislation.
Most people are just not legally allowed to roam the streets carrying guns.

Gang violence becomes a case of beatings and stabbings (or as is currently an issue in the UK acid attacks, until that gets legislated).

Ok, you're just playing dumb with that gangs bit, because it should be understood what kind based on violence and theft.
And does it matter, anyway? Roughly 100 in London vs 400 in LA. This should speak volumes on what problems the US faces. 80 fucking percent of all crime can be blamed on them! Whether they're football gangs or not, all these gangs are still commiting homicides that makes up a very large percentage of all murders in the US.

Also, that's funny how you think some gang member isn't going to likely get shot for openingly carrying a gun anywhere. Most cities/states don't even allow you to conceal carry either, unless you have a very special license that is hard to get for even the model citizen.
God forbid you're even a minority carrying a gun, because cops are scared as fuck of you and your gun.

Gun legislation will (and already does) do shit against these gangs, because they already don't care if they're breaking the law or not.
Banning all guns won't do anything for an extremely long time, since there's so many out there already and there's so many avenues of smuggling them in, just like drugs. Gangs already run guns around too, so there's no new trick for them to learn.

But hey, keep ignoring the fact that gangs are a major source of violent crime, that totally shouldn't happen just because the US is a first world nation, pretend that somehow guns make a gang, and that the US didn't have a similar drop in homicides same as Aussieland did when they banned guns because. It'd be cool if they'd look more into that because, because it's pretty nice to have a downward trend that has continued into the present, but most people don't notice because the media portrays the world as more violent than it really is.

Please understand how much the media does affect us. There would be a noticeable drop if they treated it like (not) reporting suicides. Lots of research has been put into this shit that it's almost basic knowledge now.
Again:
LordRaptor
Member
(11-11-2017, 06:52 PM)
LordRaptor's Avatar

Originally Posted by PabloBolivar

Wait, you think the gangs in the US are legally carrying guns through the streets? lol. No.

No, but there are criminals legally carrying firearms in public places, just like there are criminals who have no criminal record.

But the way criminal economies work is this;
low level crime - eg a junkie - will burgle a place for high value items to sell on to a fence, or trade for drugs directly with a dealer.

In a country where people generally don't own guns, thats cash / computers / ipads / consoles etc.
If I get burgled, my playstation isn't two steps away from being used in a homicide, yeah?

Originally Posted by luxsol

Ok, you're just playing dumb with that gangs bit, because it should be understood what kind based on violence and theft.
And does it matter, anyway? Roughly 100 in London vs 400 in LA.

Again, you need to clarify your definitions, because there are WAY more "gangs" than that in London, as measured by crimes committed by groups.

Because you seem to be using a cyclical definition that there are "gangs" by US specific definitions of what a "gang" is, because US gangs have guns and gangs in other countries do not, to argue that the US has a specific problem with "gangs" but that is completely unrelated to the "having guns" aspect of that.

Again; my definition of a "gang" is a group of people participating in a criminal activity together. There are way more than 100 "gangs" in London.
How are you defining the term "gang" to source the claim that there is a huge disparity between the US and any other first world country?

Originally Posted by luxsol

Please understand how much the media does affect us. There would be a noticeable drop if they treated it like (not) reporting suicides. Lots of research has been put into this shit that it's almost basic knowledge now.

But we're back to the same point; media everywhere else in the world acts the exact same way, and everywhere else in the world doesn't have the same problems.

Its like saying the sprinkles on an ice cream sundae are the problem; they don't help, but you're not getting fat and diabetic on a daily diet of sundaes because of sprinkles.
Caddle
Member
(11-11-2017, 07:31 PM)
Here is a thought, if most mass shooting weren't perpetrated by white americans, this problem would be solved a long time ago. I equate the gun problem with the opiod crisis. In the 80 when the crack epidemic was in full swing this country had the opportunity to do something about it. Now with the opiod crisis they don't know what to hell to do. If they had invested the time in the 80's to combat the crack epidemic they could now draw on some of that knowledge to help in this crisis. Yet here we are.
luxsol
Member
(11-12-2017, 04:50 AM)

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

No, but there are criminals legally carrying firearms in public places, just like there are criminals who have no criminal record.

Technically this is true, but in practice? Cops tend to freak out if you look like a stereotype or minority. Cops are known for using any excuse to go after you if they even feel a hint of something wrong.
My own brother got a passing cop to pull his weapon out just because he was taking his service weapon out of the trunk, even though he was wearing his police uniform (minus badge and belt) and in the driveway of his home.

Also, I'd like tell the story of when i was in HS, some kid walked onto campus with a rifle. He brought it to campus because he was going to use it for his speech class to demonstrate how to clean it. The associate principal saw him walking down the middle of the service road and told him that he should be taking it to the office, but the kid had already cleared it with the speech professor to keep it in his class room.
You can't do that today, thanks to the fear mongering and fact that school shootings becoming more common because of the media. School violence WAS (and still is) exceedingly rare back in the 90s and before, because even gangs took that shit outside. And no, I'm not arguing that kids should bring guns to school, this is just a point about how the media has fucked it up for everyone.


But the way criminal economies work is this;
low level crime - eg a junkie - will burgle a place for high value items to sell on to a fence, or trade for drugs directly with a dealer.

You're ignoring the fact that gangs can and do make up a majority of this shits, if not always known for wanting them.
If you can magically whisk guns away, you'd make a great point, but the reality is different and wouldn't change anything for a hundred years or longer if they were suddenly banned yesterday.
Still, the source of this problem (and the majority of crime) are gangs. So again, how do you fix this issue? What great thing did England do to make sure there aren't millions of them, or even a hundred times more their number in just London?
BTW, here's source: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-15238377
Go argue with them on what constitutes a gang and the numbers they came up with (which are 170something and actual numbers for gangs in LA are 450something).


But we're back to the same point; media everywhere else in the world acts the exact same way, and everywhere else in the world doesn't have the same problems.

I've actually been waiting to hear some stats about how many hours or time is spent on reports of violence. Or how your favorite show is interrupted by the latest real time telling of great violence.
The fact that news about overseas violence is reported is a given. How much time is spent is something i wonder, because foreign country violence isn't something that's given a lot of time about in the US, even when it is big. It's becoming really clear how different news is handled, at least between the US and UK (and Mexico and Canadia).

Its like saying the sprinkles on an ice cream sundae are the problem; they don't help, but you're not getting fat and diabetic on a daily diet of sundaes because of sprinkles.

It's the other way around, dude. Guns are the sprinkles. The Mass Shooting Soft Serve is brought to you by the influx of news making them so prominent for higher ratings.
It also comes in Gang Flavor too, but no one likes that flavor of ice cream and sits around forever even after getting moldy, yet most stores carry over a million different varieties. It is very unpopular and largely ignored, despite its overstocked prominence.

Originally Posted by Caddle

Here is a thought, if most mass shooting weren't perpetrated by white americans, this problem would be solved a long time ago.

Is that why they solved the gang problem?
In addition, the majority of mass shootings ARE done by gangs, but go largely ignored because gangs are mostly minorities (or might as well be according to public perception). So that's not going to get any ratings and why you believe what oyu do.
See Kids and Gun article and http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ing-ian-tuttle

And I'm not against various methods of gun control. I just think it's fucking stupid to blame it the way you and others do for what is clearly caused by other factors. Like i said, it's like treating the symptoms of cancer instead of trying to wipe the cancer out.
RefigeKru
Member
(11-12-2017, 05:44 AM)
RefigeKru's Avatar
First of all, why are you talking about gangs and the media when this is about mass shootings? No semantics here, you know what they're talking about.

You just linked to an article that says:

The Mass Shooting Tracker obfuscates the variety of circumstances that give rise to gun violence in the United States — and uses that misleading data to push a political point.

and points to the mass shooting tracker and calls it "provocative — and, unsurprisingly, misleading", decides to use a different definition under which there were only 67 mass killings. Better than 355 right? If that article was from this year, in 1 of them, 58 people shot dead, 59 counting the killer and 500 injured. THAT'S THE PROBLEM. THAT.

You say 80 percent of all crime is done by gangs, which actually makes loads of sense when you think about it, gangs are about crime - it's their thing, how they sustain themselves - persistent crime. From an article you linked to;

"Criminal gangs commit as much as 80 percent of the crime in many communities, according to law enforcement officials throughout the nation," the report notes as part of its key findings. "Typical gang-related crimes include alien smuggling, armed robbery, assault, auto theft, drug trafficking, extortion, fraud, home invasions, identity theft, murder and weapons trafficking."

That's a lot of things that aren't mass shootings first of all, second - think of how many different crimes you could commit during a light bit of fraud? I'm sure they stack pretty high especially if they've catalogued multiple crimes per criminal, repeat offenders, do crimes IN prison count? I agree something has to be done about gangs, especially in America - but in tandem with better gun control. Imagine that.

And, in fact, gang-related shootings, crimes that occasion gunfire, disputes among families and friends that turn explosive — these account for the vast majority of “mass” gun violence in the United States.

I can't believe you posted this to defend... I dunno what. That's awful. Gangs and families murdering each other. Worst yet, you balk at the reporting of these events - blame the media and gangs... The worst thing about all of this is that despite the "kill count" being reported and sensationalised, it isn't the reason why we all KNOW there will be another huge mass killing in America - it's just the way it is. And you have nutcases like Alex Jones spewing their filth under the guise of "media". Let alone Fox News yuck.

Originally Posted by luxsol

You're just sticking your fingers into your ears, wrongly attributing data to prove the cause of a problem, ignoring shit that actually makes way more sense because it has been studied, monitored, and repeated by experts for decades.

Ironic no? Less guns, less mass shootings, less gang shootings, less. Just less.

edit:Also can I just say, you bring up the gang shit - but as a young black man living in London the thing that really gets to when listening to people defend guns right after another mass shooting is to imagine living in a persistent fear of being shot. Shot by a gang, shot by your family, shot by the police for X while black, shot in a mass shooting, shot on your way home...

I can't imagine it.

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

Again, you need to clarify your definitions, because there are WAY more "gangs" than that in London, as measured by crimes committed by groups.

Because you seem to be using a cyclical definition that there are "gangs" by US specific definitions of what a "gang" is, because US gangs have guns and gangs in other countries do not, to argue that the US has a specific problem with "gangs" but that is completely unrelated to the "having guns" aspect of that.

Again; my definition of a "gang" is a group of people participating in a criminal activity together. There are way more than 100 "gangs" in London.
How are you defining the term "gang" to source the claim that there is a huge disparity between the US and any other first world country?

Well... The BBC article he linked to on the side has a rough outline, on the side the Centre for Social Justice's gang profile which led me to this study https://www.centreforsocialjustice.o...-gangs-britain

From page 40 and onwards, headed Identifying the subject – towards a standardised definition (defining the gang in contents) we have;

Prior to any analysis of gang culture in Britain, we must first establish a coherent and standardised definition of what a ‘gang’ is. A number of high profile murders – such as that of 15 year old Billy Cox in London and 11 year old Rhys Jones in Liverpool – and the accompanying media coverage, have ensured that over the past decade the term ‘gang’ has entered common discourse.
There now appears a tendency to apply the word ‘gang’ to any and all groups of young people engaging in any and all forms of anti-social behaviour. This knee-jerk response to what is often petty, though intimidating, (criminal) behaviour is profoundly unhelpful. The vast majority of groups of young people are not gangs, and the labelling of them as such can have negative consequences for all involved (see below).

When developing a response to a problem the first step must be to accurately define it; this first step has been missed in relation
to gangs in Britain.

‘In some languages or national contexts, the word gang either cannot be translated or carries with it such an emotionally charged meaning that it cannot be used meaningfully, consensus was reached to describe such groups as troublesome youth groups.’7
The emotive nature of the term gang is clearly visible in media coverage of ‘gang’ culture and crime and the dominance of the American model can indeed be misleading: some gangs in the UK may have adopted the names of the infamous Los Angeles Bloods and Crips, but the scale and nature of their organisation, activity and violence is not (yet) comparable.

uh huh

The Eurogang Network settled on the term ‘troublesome youth group’ and defined one as ‘any durable, street-orientated youth group whose involvement in illegal activity is part of their group identity’.8
The Home Office in 2004 used similar criteria in their identification of ‘delinquent youth groups’ in the UK. They identified such groups as having ‘durability and structure and whose members spend time in public spaces and engage in delinquent activities together’.9 The report highlighted five key defining points:
--Young people who spend time in groups of three or more (including themselves).
--The group spend a lot of time in public places.
--The group has existed for three months or more.
--The group has engaged in delinquent or criminal behaviour together in the last 12 months.
--The group has at least one structural feature (either a name, an area, a leader, or rules).

Whats your postcode fam. I think everyone in my secondary school was in a gang going by that definition. The image of "gang" morphs across the region too. #hugahoodie

...if we tarnish all young people with the word “gang” then we are missing the point. Because there are some young people who like to move around in 6s or 7s because of safety...there are 6 or 7 of your mates, you went to the same school, like to hang out in the same area – but then there are young people who specifically do negative things, make money from drugs, are willing to kill, willing to claim their postcode, willing to wear colours to reflect the set that they move in...

I actually miss Sociology, it's better now I actually give a shit. You should really read this Lux, it's a great text. It's a bit heavy.

If not, there are some great films that tackle the UK gang issue - Bullet Boy is a decent thriller starring Asher D. If you want something lighter Kidulthood will do. Even have a video of all the gangs in Southeast London joining as a collective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aKHUoIHZV4
luxsol
Member
(11-12-2017, 10:32 AM)

Originally Posted by RefigeKru

First of all, why are you talking about gangs and the media when this is about mass shootings?

Read the thread.

and points to the mass shooting tracker and calls it "provocative — and, unsurprisingly, misleading", decides to use a different definition under which there were only 67 mass killings. Better than 355 right?

Seriously, read the thread.
Those other almost 200someodd cases are about how it's about gangs and how the news doesn't bother to talk about them, because its not newsworthy. That guy i was responding to believes that if mass shootings happened with minorities, shit would get done. And it's obvious not, because it's pretty uncontrollable or no one cares to address a very serious issue, because you're too caught up in a severely biased theory.

You say 80 percent of all crime is done by gangs, which actually makes loads of sense when you think about it, gangs are about crime - it's their thing, how they sustain themselves - persistent crime. From an article you linked to

That's some amazing selective reading kills you got there.
“Excluding those that occurred in connection with criminal activity such as robbery, drug dealing, and organized crime, there were 116 mass public shootings during the twentieth century” (emphasis mine). The Congressional Research Service reported 317 mass shootings between 1999 and 2013, only 66 of which qualified under their criteria as mass public shootings."

it's just the way it is

Except it didn't used to be, at least with all these high profile killings you only seem to care about when it doesn't involve gangs.
Again, before the rise of 24/7 media coverage, there was LESS gun control. There were MORE households with guns. There were FEWER mass shootings.
There were no background checks.
REAL machine guns could be bought easily.
No waiting periods, aside from getting your check to clear and if you were using a mail order catalog, waiting for your deadly military weapon to arrive.

I can't believe you posted this to defend.

Serious reading problems.
What did i defend?

Ironic no? Less guns, less mass shootings, less gang shootings, less. Just less.

Nice theory, especially when it comes from an opinion piece that ignores very heavily researched topics which are plainly obvious (trying to beat the high score, etc) in why a shooting happens.

edit:Also can I just say, you bring up the gang shit - but as a young black man living in London the thing that really gets to when listening to people defend guns right after another mass shooting is to imagine living in a persistent fear of being shot. Shot by a gang, shot by your family, shot by the police for X while black, shot in a mass shooting, shot on your way home...

Can i add my sappy experience of living close to the Mexican (the country has very strict gun laws and registration) border and not wanting to go back anymore because of friends and relatives being killed in gang warfare?
And that shit spills over across the most heavily guarded and monitored border in the world, because people on this side get kidnapped and taken over there to be killed or just killed here.

Can you imagine this shit? https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...rs-in-cartels/

the cartels’ “foot soldiers” are on a par with Mexico’s army of about 130,000

And the territory for these gangs crosses over into the US.

Gangs are a serious fucking problem and you want to pretend that they'll suddenly follow the laws to fit an awful theory that ignores worthwhile researched advice that can be done so fucking easily (copycats, not gangs) because it claims to hold the REAL answer.


some gangs in the UK may have adopted the names of the infamous Los Angeles Bloods and Crips, but the scale and nature of their organisation, activity and violence is not (yet) comparable.

So basically, there's even fewer gangs and those that could be called a gang are little babies compared ot the US ones?
Amazing.
Whereas the FBI and studies define a gang as:... well, it's long https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/C...efinitions.pdf
This bit is important
>any Federal or State felony offense that by its nature involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person of another may be used in the course of committing the offense;
basically serious shit and they need to be around for 5 years.
LordRaptor
Member
(11-12-2017, 04:39 PM)
LordRaptor's Avatar

Originally Posted by luxsol

You're ignoring the fact that gangs can and do make up a majority of this shits, if not always known for wanting them.

I mean... maybe you're missing my point because you're agreeing with me that legally owned guns become guns used in illegal activities real fucking easily, and that any legislation removing guns from "legitimate" owners would therefore also dry up supply lines to illegitimate owners.

ie that fewer guns leads to less gun crime.

Originally Posted by luxsol

(which are 170something and actual numbers for gangs in LA are 450something).

I mean you've sourced your numbers now, and they've gone from 100 to "170 at the very least probably more" from your own source, so that's something.

But there isn't a one to one comparison, because we have really strict firearms legislation!

Originally Posted by luxsol

I've actually been waiting to hear some stats about how many hours or time is spent on reports of violence. Or how your favorite show is interrupted by the latest real time telling of great violence.

...

And I'm not against various methods of gun control. I just think it's fucking stupid to blame it the way you and others do for what is clearly caused by other factors. Like i said, it's like treating the symptoms of cancer instead of trying to wipe the cancer out.

And like I'm telling you - there is no substantive difference in the way the media report spree killings anywhere in the world, despite your adherence that there is; in fact, as I keep repeating, we get some of the exact same US media that you do.
If a CNBC or CNN news report is the thing that will inspire a new spree killing - why aren't those spree killings happening outside the US with non-US citizens watching literally the exact same news report?

If you want to claim US exceptionalism, okay, fine, but its not in the media, it is something specifically about the US.

Which leads to the uncomfortable options that there is something very damaged in the US psyche that makes them more willing to spree kill than other nations of similar socio-economic standings, or that the prevalence of gun availability in the US, you know, just might have something to do with it.

The rise of gun crime since the 80s has a myriad of factors, including the NRA becoming a partisan political lobbyist movement instead of just a "gun owners club" and I think you are mistaking increased media coverage as causation not correlation.

Murder rates go up along with ice cream sales, but ice creams don't cause murders, you know?

Originally Posted by RefigeKru

First of all, why are you talking about gangs and the media when this is about mass shootings?

His contention is that (as I understand it);
- the US media are the primary cause of US guncrime by glamorising it in the way that they report it, not the free availability of guns both legally and illegally, or the highly politicised and well-paid-lobbied environment that will block any attempt to introduce any legislation.
- Gang violence is a totally different thing and shouldn't be included in spree killing statistics, and if you remove all gang related spree killings then US spree killing figures go from "appalling" to only "horrific" in how much higher they are than every other first world country on the planet.

Originally Posted by RefigeKru

Whats your postcode fam. I think everyone in my secondary school was in a gang going by that definition. The image of "gang" morphs across the region too. #hugahoodie

I mean, yeah, this is what I was getting at; you can't compare the two because dumb kids trying to impress each other by stealing handbags or shoplifting and hanging around outside tescos catcalling while listening to music on their phones and smoking weed aren't "gangs" by any US definition, but if guns were freely available and didn't have mandatory prison time associated just for ownership, it would be shootings not stabbings or beatings.
luxsol
Member
(11-13-2017, 12:16 PM)

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

I mean... maybe you're missing my point because you're agreeing with me that legally owned guns become guns used in illegal activities real fucking easily, and that any legislation removing guns from "legitimate" owners would therefore also dry up supply lines to illegitimate owners. ie that fewer guns leads to less gun crime.

Funny, since gun crimes increased in the past years (and immediately after the ban took place) in Australia more than two decades after their ban.
And again, gun crime in the US lessened as well, despite more guns. I already posted the homicide rate with guns so i might as well post this one:

And no, you can't dry up supplies when there already is gun smuggling and gangs are heavily involved with that, especially when there's millions out there and borders are already ignored.

you've sourced your numbers now, and they've gone from 100 to "170 at the very least probably more" from your own source, so that's something.

Meh, i was being pretty braod and why i used such indistinct numbers, because i couldn't really remember the correct amounts. So i stated 120something for England and 400s for US. Learn to context and i undervalued the US's numbers more, so whatever.

But there isn't a one to one comparison, because we have really strict firearms legislation!

So basically, so you really did want to ignore that the US has a gang problem (and england's gangs are jokingly overestimated), hence violence being many times higher, just to push a shitty theory? Great.

And like I'm telling you - there is no substantive difference in the way the media report spree killings anywhere in the world, despite your adherence that there is; in fact, as I keep repeating, we get some of the exact same US media that you do.

Seriously? You're also going to ignore the fact that the most watched TV shows in the US can and are interuppted to report on hyper violence is no different than however your country handles things? Nevermind I've continuingly been repeating how much more violence has been reported since the 90s?
I'm serious as fuck as to wanting examples of your country doing the same shit or ANYTHING, but instead you just want to "they're the same because"... because WHY? HOW?
That reporting the person and how many they killed is the same as giving live kill counts and saying how [brilliant] they are a one man killing machine instead of the predicted 2-4 team that was being surmised by analysis during live feeds? The fucking stories you hear being told by the news while shit is going on paints a overexaggerated narrative based on mostly wild speculation and makes it more exciting for the sake of the viewers.

Which leads to the uncomfortable options that there is something very damaged in the US psyche that makes them more willing to spree kill than other nations of similar socio-economic standings, or that the prevalence of gun availability in the US, you know, just might have something to do with it.

When you WILLINGLY ignore so many factors, of course the US is going to seem non-sensibly damaged.

The fall of gun crime since the 80s has a myriad of factors, including the NRA becoming a partisan political lobbyist movement instead of just a "gun owners club"

Fixed that for you. i'd like you to support your view on how the NRA made gun crime go down, but i totally don't question your logic.

and I think you are mistaking increased media coverage as causation not correlation.

Considering copycat criminal do exist and has been used to describe many of the mass killers.... Of course, they're not completely responsible, that there's other things going on, because that's just how these things usually are.

Murder rates go up along with ice cream sales, but ice creams don't cause murders, you know?

If an ice cream brand were used as entertainment, showing glorified violence and violence did increase, you would start fucking blaming that ice cream brand.
Also, Camel Joe is cool.

His contention is that (as I understand it);
- the US media are the primary cause of US mass shootings by glamorising it in the way that they over-report it, not the free availability of guns both legally and illegally, because it explains why there is an increase in that specific type of crime, while violence in general is falling.

Fixed that for you too.
Also, gang violence is used to conflate mass killings by the media, despite the FBI not including them with crimes like those in Vegas or that church.
Also also, you asked why (you actually didn't; you think the US is just like the UK and other first world nations) the US is more violent in general: gang violence is very significant and its problems with gangs seems to be a special case with first world countries.
NarrowPath
Member
(11-13-2017, 02:16 PM)
NarrowPath's Avatar
In the United States it is a crime to purchase a firearm if you are a prohibited person. Even TRYING to purchase a firearm from a Federal Firearm License (FFL) holder (which always requires filling out a 4473 form and an FBI Instant background check) when you are a prohibited person is a crime. These people are rarely ever prosecuted. How does more gun control help when current gun control law enforcement is so lax?

http://www.politifact.com/new-hampsh...us-senator-ke/
LordRaptor
Member
(11-13-2017, 03:08 PM)
LordRaptor's Avatar

Originally Posted by luxsol

Seriously? You're also going to ignore the fact that the most watched TV shows in the US can and are interuppted to report on hyper violence is no different than however your country handles things? Nevermind I've continuingly been repeating how much more violence has been reported since the 90s?
I'm serious as fuck as to wanting examples of your country doing the same shit or ANYTHING, but instead you just want to "they're the same because"... because WHY? HOW?

Because as I keep posting - YES broadcasts get INTERUPTED with NEWS in ALL COUNTRIES.

The EXACT SAME NEWS OUTLETS YOU YOURSELF CITED AS A PROBLEM - eg CNBC - are also shown GLOBALLY

You're the one that keeps claiming things are totally different, so it's on you to prove that, but as I will keep on saying, there is no apples to apples to comparison, because the US is not everywhere else, so skewing off into "but what does regional mean??? but how many channels do you have??? but how many hours per day is there news???" diversions just comes across as straight up evasive dude.

You might really really really believe that US media is completely different to any media anywhere else, but that still ignores the huge fucking elephant in the room that US media is also global media.

Like... how the fuck are you reconciling that?
If CNBC is a problem, why is it only a problem in the US when it is broadcast all over the planet?

Originally Posted by NarrowPath

How does more gun control help when current gun control law enforcement is so lax?

From a perspective of "everyone should be able to have a gun, with a small selection who should not", weeding through the selection who should not is a huge drain of resources, bureaucracy and red tape.

From the alternate perspective - "almost nobody should have a gun, with a small selection who should" - the amount of verification required is vastly less.
NarrowPath
Member
(11-13-2017, 03:29 PM)
NarrowPath's Avatar

Originally Posted by LordRaptor




From a perspective of "everyone should be able to have a gun, with a small selection who should not", weeding through the selection who should not is a huge drain of resources, bureaucracy and red tape.

From the alternate perspective - "almost nobody should have a gun, with a small selection who should" - the amount of verification required is vastly less.


I fail to see how this addresses the problem I highlighted which is a large number of people are prohibited from buying firearms due to felonies etc, they are breaking the law in trying to AND ARE CAUGHT DOING SO, thus denied permission to purchase a firearm and then no prosecution takes place. I am not the least bit interested in hearing arguments for increased gun controls when current gun control laws are barely enforced and they could easily be in the particular case I am discussing.
LordRaptor
Member
(11-13-2017, 03:43 PM)
LordRaptor's Avatar

Originally Posted by NarrowPath

I fail to see how this addresses the problem I highlighted which is a large number of people are prohibited from buying firearms due to felonies etc, they are breaking the law in trying to AND ARE CAUGHT DOING SO, thus denied permission to purchase a firearm and then no prosecution takes place. I am not the least bit interested in hearing arguments for increased gun controls when current gun control laws are barely enforced and they could easily be in the particular case I am discussing.

Because its a question of resources.
From your source:

In 2010, the FBI conducted about 6.04 million checks, 72,659 of which were denied, Frandsen noted in the study.

Its like asking why jaywalking or traffic tickets aren't habitually prosecuted for breaking the law and BEING CAUGHT DOING SO.

Is that really where the problem lies?
People going to an arms dealer and failing a background check?
NarrowPath
Member
(11-13-2017, 03:49 PM)
NarrowPath's Avatar

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

Because its a question of resources.
From your source:


Its like asking why jaywalking or traffic tickets aren't habitually prosecuted for breaking the law and BEING CAUGHT DOING SO.

Is that really where the problem lies?
People going to an arms dealer and failing a background check?

Is jaywalking or a traffic ticket comparable to a prohibited person trying to purchase lethal weapons? No
Do the resources exist to issue warrants for the arrest of persons who perjured themselves on a 4473 to a much much greater degree than has been occurring? Yes

Thread Tools