COLUMBINE

betsy · February 7, 2013

Yet if you are going to claim "mass killings are on the rise" you have to rely on statistics.

First of all, where exactly did you get that quote from? I followed the link to the FBI site, and there appeared to be dozens of tables and sub pages. I don't really feel like wading through all that stuff to find the data.

Secondly, its possible that both statistics are actually correct... the one quoted by the previous poster (drop in killings of 4 or more) may be referring to a decrease in number of events (i.e. the number of 'monsters'), while yours is showing an increase in number of actual deaths... which is possible if there are fewer 'monsters', but they are becoming more effective at killing. However, this says little about what actually contributes to someone being a spree killer.

Lastly, if you look at your statistics, they actually debunk your own claim. Your reference stated an average of 2 more deaths annually between 2006-2008 over the 1980s. That's an increase of around 1.2%. On the other hand, the population of the U.S. went from 248 million to over 281 million, an increase of over 13%. If the number killed in mass killings increased at the same rate of population, you'd be looking at over 180 deaths (rather than the 163 you actually see.) So even by your own reference, the death rate (people killed per capita) for mass killings are down.

I suspect that they've been concentrating people killed in clusters of '4 or more' because there needs to be some way to differentiate between mass shootings like in Columbine (those that tend to spark mass media and political attention) and those that are often glossed over.

I find it ironic that you criticize the statistics for concentrating on people killed in clusters of '4 or more', yet you ignore the fact that overall murders are down seems to be lost on you. If you're going to argue that there is a rise of violence, why ignore the fact that murders as a whole are down?

In that case you have to include things like serial killers, a problem that has plagued mankind probably since the dawn of time.

Stats can be inaccurate depending on what they're looking for. That's not saying all stats are inaccurate.

I think you better go back and understand what I'm saying since I'm not criticizing the clusters of 4. I'm saying, what about the clusters of 3? Of course that affects the stats.

What about senesless attacks that leaves only 1 dead and a dozen injured? Just becuase there's only 1 that died, and the rest survived.....how does that count when you take into consideration that the killer's intention was to kill?

See what I mean? You're trying to group all murders together - when what I'm saying is that it's these senseless killings that are on the rise.

Thus, Scott'is right. It's not the gun. It's the intent of the person who's determined to carry out his intention, with or without a gun.

Edited February 7, 2013 by betsy

betsy · February 7, 2013

Why then are Americans killing each other at rates much higher than the rest of the developed world?

How much is the population of USA compared to Canada? Or the rest of the developed democratic countries?

betsy · February 7, 2013

Relgious/political/racial motivated rampage killers: Norway 2011.

I don't think that killer Brevik in Norway was motivated by religion at all. He doesn't describe himself as religious. In fact he stated that he's influenced by his secular environment. His reason for the attack was political/racial.

Edited February 7, 2013 by betsy

betsy · February 7, 2013

When you ponder on Scott's message,

"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good &evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence.
"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.

Wayward Son's arguments about violence throughout history is actually stated by Scott - except that he used the Biblical narrative of Abel and Cain.

But there is something in his statement which non-believers refuse to face: why is it that some of us have this seed of violence? Therein lies the problem. If you can crack that, you'll have the solution.

Edited February 7, 2013 by betsy

Mighty AC · February 7, 2013

How much is the population of USA compared to Canada? Or the rest of the developed democratic countries?

The rates are adjusted for population. For example China experiences 1 murder per 100,000 people, India has 1.1, Canada 1.6, while the US has 4.8.

These numbers are intentional murders and do not include suicides. http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

The population argument doesn't hold up.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Mighty AC

guyser · February 7, 2013

Quote of the day....."You depend too much on statistics."

read= unless you use my statistics .

Comedy gold.

cybercoma · February 7, 2013

The rates are adjusted for population. For example China experiences 1 murder per 100,000 people, India has 1.1, Canada 1.6, while the US has 4.8.

These numbers are intentional murders and do not include suicides. http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

The population argument doesn't hold up.

Do you not see that you're arguing with someone that doesn't even understand rates?

Wayward Son · February 7, 2013

[/font][/size]

That is a biased opinion, pretty much sharing the same sentiment as the biased mainstream media. It is not for you to tell us what is devoid of fact. The media's responsibility is to provide unbiased information -especially with contentiouis issues such as gun control.

You think every thing covered by the media is all based on facts?

Mr Scott's speech was devoid of facts, period. You claim that the media has a responsibility to provide unbiased information. Great, there was none in Mr. Scott's speech and therefore the media had no responsibility to report it. The only way that media can actually achieve their responsibility to provide unbiased information is to stick as much as possible to facts and reality, and steer clear as much as possible from biased opinions. This is difficult to do as the media strives to be profitable and their audience for the most part wants to read and watch news that confirms their beliefs and worldviews, however, as you said it is the media's RESPONSIBILITY to provide unbiased information.

Finally as I seem to need to repeat many times for you. The media failed in this responsibility when it comes to Mr. Scott's speech: The media widely reported Mr. Scott's speech, far more than would be expected for a speech made at a house subcommittee meeting. Please stop lying for Jesus.

Once the media start eliminating or burying pertinent information - which it is doing now - it no longer becomes the venue for facts. It's nothing more than a propaganda machine .

The media widely reported Mr. Scott's speech, far more than would be expected for a speech made at a house subcommittee meeting. Please stop lying for Jesus.

He was invited to appear before, and make this address in the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. Yes it is filled with emotion. What victim-impact statement isn't?

So what? This has nothing to do with whether the media should report the nonsense he spewed.

And again, the media widely reported Mr. Scott's speech, far more than would be expected for a speech made at a house subcommittee meeting. Please stop lying for Jesus.

For the reason that the nature of his statement proved to be very controversial - coming from a religious perspective - and being delivered before the subcomittee at that, not to mention the very contentious subject as to gun control laws which has the country divided, and for daring to turn the tables and point out accurately that the problem is not the weapon and what he percieves to be wrong, his message should've been very newsworthy for the ever controversy-seeking media!

And again, the media widely reported Mr. Scott's speech, far more than would be expected for a speech made at a house subcommittee meeting. Please stop lying for Jesus.

The blackpout by the media on Dale Scott's victim-impact statement is simply due to bias.

And again, the media widely reported Mr. Scott's speech, far more than would be expected for a speech made at a house subcommittee meeting. Please stop lying for Jesus.

The only blackout here is your own self-imposed blackout of reality.

segnosaur · February 7, 2013

I think you better go back and understand what I'm saying since I'm not criticizing the clusters of 4. I'm saying, what about the clusters of 3? Of course that affects the stats.

What about senesless attacks that leaves only 1 dead and a dozen injured? Just becuase there's only 1 that died, and the rest survived.....how does that count when you take into consideration that the killer's intention was to kill?

See what I mean? You're trying to group all murders together - when what I'm saying is that it's these senseless killings that are on the rise.

First of all, keep in mind that you're the one who's making the assertion (i.e. "senseless killings on the rise"). In general, those who make the assertion are the ones that are required to provide proof. You have not done so, only made assumptions.

Secondly, you really seem to be grasping at straws here. Spree killings of 4+ people are down, overall murders are down, but you're assuming that there are more 'monsters' because there could be murders killing exactly 3 people, or murders only killing 1 but injuring others.

This is where you should be applying Occam's razor (to paraphrase the concept, the simplest concept is usually the correct one.) So, what makes more sense:

- Since killings involving 4+ people have decreased on a per-capita basis, and the murder rate overall has decreased, that all such events (and all "monsters") have likewise decreased

Or

- The number of people killing exactly 3 people has somehow managed to buck the trend of decreasing mass murders and individual killings.

Thus, Scott'is right. It's not the gun. It's the intent of the person who's determined to carry out his intention, with or without a gun.

You know, there might be a valid discussion regarding what causes someone to become a spree killer or serial killer.

Unfortunately, you kind of torpedoed your own thread by:

- Making claims (without any evidence) that mass killings are on the rise (which of course has diverted the discussion)

and

- Making a reference in the opening post to someone who was claiming (more or less) "We would have prevented this problem if we had prayer in schools" (an argument which deserves ridicule).

Wayward Son · February 7, 2013

You depend too much on statistics. They're all not accurate. Some are fudged....to push an agenda.

Statistics can be fudged to push an agenda. There are telling signs when this is the case. For starters they can a specific start point and end point instead of using all of the available statistics over a long period of time to show the overall trend. Pinker uses the latter correct method. You used the former incorrect method. Climate deniers do the same thing when they always use the same abnormal year to start their trendlines.

Anyway here's the latest on mass killing stats.
So this newspaper says it STILL IS on the rise...which is right? Your source or mine?

1) I already said that Pinker makes clear that United States is the only western country that has not followed the rest of the western world in experiencing a dramatic decrease in violence in the last 100 years. In the United States the level of violence has either stayed steady or dropped by a smaller amount depending on the category.

2) You are still wrong. The population of the US increased by more then 25% during that time frame. Even using the poor method of picking out data points, which your source provided, still shows that the absolute number only increased by just over 1% and therefore the rate of such killings decreased, and dramatically so.

This stats talked about people killed in clusters of 4 or more. What about people killed in clusters of 3? Double homicides?
Those that falls under domestic violence, mental illness, going "postal," revenge etc..,

As long as the definition, in this case clusters of 4 or more, is applied consistently I don't care why they chose that specific number.

Furthermore, it's not only that there are mass killings that I refer to some as monsters. It's the slaughter for the lack of any reasons or motives.....just the desire to commit horrific acts. Senselessly.
Now that you mentioned statistics, I'm curious as to the rates of these senseless acts of heinous crimes compared to 20 years ago.

Any evidence that in the past monsters did not act senselessly? How would one even measure rates of senseless acts now compared to the past? It is completely subjective.

WIP · February 7, 2013

Anyway, why is the liberal mind so surprised about how callously human lives are regarded? If we can justify killing a baby for the gratification of self.....why shouldn't youngsters who grow up into that kind of mentality think any more of others? Regardless of age? Of course there's a connection....and as we keep on to this kind of life-style - I think, we ain't seen nothing yet.

Why is the abortion card the last claim that conservatives have now to show...or at least feign some concern for others? And it is just as false and out of place when it's played by you as that other rightwinger who keeps throwing it down whenever he's called on his total disregard and lack of concern for the welfare of others.

It is more likely that the old model of mandatory childbirth produced more abused and emotionally stunted children because of all the women who were forced to have more children than they wanted, and led to that callous disregard for human lives.

Wayward Son · February 7, 2013

Anyway, let's peel away again.....

Most of these mayhem killers are young people.

Violence was much higher in the past. Most of those mayhem killers were also young people.

Where do you think they get the idea of using guns -high powered assault weapons - to do these crimes? What inspires them? Surely they wouldn't go through all the trouble of knowing all about guns and weaponry if they weren't inspired. Some are inspired by movies like the Matrix....or violent video games.
Why isn't anyone pushing to ban these movies and games (not that I'm endorsing that either).....but if you say you're looking for solutions to stop these senseless killings, wouldn't it be sensible to get to the things that plant the seeds? If there is no inspiration to impress the young gullible minds, there wouldn't be any seeds forming.

1) Young people in all western countries watch the same movies and play the same video games.

2) Young people in all other western countries kill others at a much smaller rate then young people in the United States.

What about the media??? They glorify these monsters....give them the publicity they crave. Therefore, the media - in its sick quest for ratings - encourage such horrific acts, even inspiring some to outdo previous brutalities that made it on the evening news.

Any evidence that the media in other western countries is different from the United States?

Have you seen that sickeningly violent movie that spoofed the media, NATURAL BORN KILLERS?
Why isn't anyone pushing to silence the media. If you think it okay to tamper with the constitutional rights.....you should tamper with free speech.

Brilliant argument.

That's why the focus on gun control to what they claim is the so-called answer to this problem, is simply a sham! The public is falling for it.

Have you looked at the difference between gun control laws in other western countries where young people are killing others at a much lower rate and gun control laws in the United States where young people are killing others at a much higher rate? Not that I am suggesting that stricter gun control laws are the solution to the reason why violence has fallen at a significantly slower rate in the US compared to the rest of the western world. Any real solution would be multifaceted and move forward using much trial and error. However, opponents of gun control like to frame the argument as there either is gun control or there is not. But it is not an either/or scenario. The reality is that even in the United States there has always been, and will always be gun control. Once you recognize this the question becomes what gun policies policies are most effective and inline with the values of the public.

bush_cheney2004 · February 7, 2013

Why is the abortion card the last claim that conservatives have now to show...or at least feign some concern for others?

Because it is a logical and effective attack on "liberalism". Debate 101.

Wayward Son · February 7, 2013

Well if you're going that far back in history....it's pretty much barbaric too using clubs and spears! See, they didn't need guns to cause that much mayhem.

While Pinker does talk about the available evidence of violence levels thousands of years ago he is mostly talking about the last 300 - 400 years. Neither Pinker, nor I, have claimed that violence requires guns.

Anyway, I'm talking about modern times. Senseless brutal killings by those I refer to as, monsters. We may've been used to the likes of Hitler, Ghaddafi, Pol Pot....but we're not talking dictators, or artrocities of war. That's why I told you to discount wartime crimes. We're talking about what's been happening in our civilised society.

Pinker's book is not about Hitler, Ghaddafi or Pol Pot. He is talking about violence committed by citizens against citizens. Which is exactly what I have been talking about.

Wayward Son · February 7, 2013

Prescription drugs. That's my take on it.

Based on what evidence? Infowars and the like steers you towards complete nonsense once again.

GostHacked · February 7, 2013

But there is something in his statement which non-believers refuse to face: why is it that some of us have this seed of violence? Therein lies the problem. If you can crack that, you'll have the solution.

God made them do it? God made people violent? If God exists, so does Lucifer. What!???! You don't believe in Lucifer?

Wayward Son · February 7, 2013

I don't think that killer Brevik in Norway was motivated by religion at all. He doesn't describe himself as religious. In fact he stated that he's influenced by his secular environment. His reason for the attack was political/racial.

Neither I, nor the wikipedia category, claimed that religious motivation was required to be included in the category religious/political.racial.

Canuckistani · February 7, 2013

God made them do it? God made people violent? If God exists, so does Lucifer. What!???! You don't believe in Lucifer?

God can exist without Lucifer. God created everything, contains everything. That includes evil - ie God is evil or all evil springs originally from God, since in that schema he is the beginning of everything. The debbil is just Christians' way of trying to absolve God of responsibility for evil, but that doesn't work unless evil co-existed with God at the beginning, ie evil is equal to God.

Canuckistani · February 7, 2013

betsy, on 07 February 2013 - 08:27 AM, said:

I don't think that killer Brevik in Norway was motivated by religion at all. He doesn't describe himself as religious. In fact he stated that he's influenced by his secular environment. His reason for the attack was political/racial.

Neither I, nor the wikipedia category, claimed that religious motivation was required to be included in the category religious/political.racial.

From wiki:

The manifesto states its author is "100 percent Christian",^[3] but he is not "excessively religious"^[3] and considers himself a "cultural Christian" and a "modern-day crusader".^[2]^[3] His manifesto states "I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person, as that would be a lie", calls religion a crutch and a source for drawing mental strength, and says "I've always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment." Regarding the term cultural Christian, which he says means preserving European culture, he notes, "It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy...)"^[2]^[181] Furthermore, Breivik stated that "myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God."^[2]^[191] Nevertheless, he stated that he planned to pray to God seeking for his help during his attacks.^[192]

It seems his prayers were answered.

GostHacked · February 7, 2013

God can exist without Lucifer. God created everything, contains everything. That includes evil - ie God is evil or all evil springs originally from God, since in that schema he is the beginning of everything. The debbil is just Christians' way of trying to absolve God of responsibility for evil, but that doesn't work unless evil co-existed with God at the beginning, ie evil is equal to God.

I don't think I have ever looked at it that way. Thought provoking indeed.

Mighty AC · February 7, 2013

We can safely rule out violent media, games and population as reasons why the US has an abnormally high murder rate among developed nations. Lack of religion has also been listed as a cause. Unfortunately that idea doesn't seem to hold water either. Developed nations with the lowest levels of religiosity also experience very low murder rates.

Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Hong Kong and Japan are the least religious of developed nations, while the majority of Americans claim that religion is very important to them.

Murders Per 100,000

Sweden - 1.0

Denmark - 0.9

Norway - 0.6

Hong Kong - 0.2

United States - 4.8

So when dealing specifically with developed nations we know that the murder rate is not influenced by the population, media, video games or commitment to religion. Hmmm, so what is different in the US? Why are they so effective at killing each other?

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

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

Canuckistani · February 7, 2013

I don't think I have ever looked at it that way. Thought provoking indeed.

The only way out of this conundrum is that God is not omnipotent and omniscient. But what kind of God is that? Those guys are a dime a dozen, eg the various pagan pantheons.

betsy · February 7, 2013

Why is the abortion card the last claim that conservatives have now to show...or at least feign some concern for others? And it is just as false and out of place when it's played by you as that other rightwinger who keeps throwing it down whenever he's called on his total disregard and lack of concern for the welfare of others.

It is more likely that the old model of mandatory childbirth produced more abused and emotionally stunted children because of all the women who were forced to have more children than they wanted, and led to that callous disregard for human lives.

Why is it that liberal minded people want to compartmentalize issues that have an effect or influence on values?

Whether you like it or not, the abortion card is part of the issue. If you show an example of disregard for human life - setting an example of how a human life can be de-valued with a reason for justification (what more if that reason is nothing more than placing the gratification of self above all) - of course, a child who grows up saturated in this self-absorbed societal mentality will be "disensitized" (can't think of a better word).

It makes killing easier isn't it, if you can provide justification - especially when you make it look like you're doing the victim a favor when we snuff them - as in your example that these unwanted babies will be stunted anyway. And we don't feel any guilt when we make ourselves believe that the person we killed was not human anyway.

If you can de-humanize a human being (such as a baby) - man can dehumanize any humans - for any creative reasons - when it suits him. What better example than Hitler?

Why do you think during negotiations for hostage situations, it is imperative to "humanize" the hostage?

Edited February 7, 2013 by betsy

betsy · February 7, 2013

Mr Scott's speech was devoid of facts, period. You claim that the media has a responsibility to provide unbiased information. Great, there was none in Mr. Scott's speech and therefore the media had no responsibility to report it. The only way that media can actually achieve their responsibility to provide unbiased information is to stick as much as possible to facts and reality, and steer clear as much as possible from biased opinions. This is difficult to do as the media strives to be profitable and their audience for the most part wants to read and watch news that confirms their beliefs and worldviews, however, as you said it is the media's RESPONSIBILITY to provide unbiased information.

Finally as I seem to need to repeat many times for you. The media failed in this responsibility when it comes to Mr. Scott's speech: The media widely reported Mr. Scott's speech, far more than would be expected for a speech made at a house subcommittee meeting. Please stop lying for Jesus.

The media widely reported Mr. Scott's speech, far more than would be expected for a speech made at a house subcommittee meeting. Please stop lying for Jesus.

So what? This has nothing to do with whether the media should report the nonsense he spewed.

And again, the media widely reported Mr. Scott's speech, far more than would be expected for a speech made at a house subcommittee meeting. Please stop lying for Jesus.

Funny that I practically keep the news channel on all day...and yet didn't catch mainstream media reporting on the message of Scott. I had to find out about it online, when I stumbled upon it on the christian forum! And yet I saw them covering the husband of Sen Gifford's statement, who did nothing more than repeat the stance of his wife - which had already been covered on previous days!

Just because you think his statement is devoid of fact, doesn't make it so. Furthermore, by saying so it seems you suggest that just because you think so therefore it's okay to black it out. That's another liberal mentality - this terrible obsession to control others in all aspects!

Edited February 7, 2013 by betsy

Wayward Son · February 7, 2013

Why is it that liberal minded people want to compartmentalize issues that have an effect or influence on values?

Whether you like it or not, the abortion card is part of the issue. If you show an example of disregard for human life - setting an example of how a human life can be de-valued with a reason for justification (what more if that reason is nothing more than placing the gratification of self above all) - of course, a child who grows up saturated in this self-absorbed societal mentality will be "disensitized" (can't think of a better word).

It makes killing easier isn't it, if you can provide justification - especially when you make it look like you're doing the victim a favor when we snuff them - as in your example that these unwanted babies will be stunted anyway. And we don't feel any guilt when we make ourselves believe that the person we killed was not human anyway.

The fact that violence and killing dropped significantly (and continues to fall) at the same time that abortion went from being illegal to legal seems to throw the most massive monkey wrench imaginable into your worldview.

If you can de-humanize a human being (such as a baby) - man can dehumanize any humans - for any creative reasons - when it suits him. What better example than Hitler?

Good example Hitler grew up and lived in a country where abortion on demand was illegal, and while in power he made abortion (of any Aryan fetus) a capital offense. Oh monkey wrench.....