Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
tl;dr: media reports whatever makes them money and the prevalence of reporting, or the lack of, should never be used as a gauge of wether a topic is legitimate or not.

By way of an example to this point - mass shootings. An event which is statistically insignificant, and which has been declining for years garners disproportionate media attention.

 Hordini wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
tl;dr: media reports whatever makes them money and the prevalence of reporting, or the lack of, should never be used as a gauge of wether a topic is legitimate or not.

By way of an example to this point - mass shootings. An event which is statistically insignificant, and which has been declining for years garners disproportionate media attention.

A bit like major air crashes, the major difference being that after a major air crash teams of the best technical experts in the world spend months trying to figure out how to prevent it happening again, while after a mass shooting there is a massive wave of lolwut for "assault weapons", "clips" and the call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer.

I don't think there is really very often much of a "call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer" after a mass shooting. Anti-gun people almost always claim that there is, but I think that comes more from the anti-gun crowd not actually listening to anything the people in the pro-gun crowd is actually saying.

You might want to tell that to the NRA then, because LaPierre suggested things like "arming teachers" or "armed volunteers"(read: citizens) at schools after Newtown.

Yes, allowing people such as teacher's that option, with proper training. That's not the same as requiring them to be armed, which is what the anti-gun side often seems to characterize it as.

 Ninjacommando wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Must have been Confederate flags all over Chicago to cause all those shootings.

those were black on black crimes. no one cares about those

Now had one been a white(any non-black) man shooting a black "kid" in his mid to late 20s that would of been a national tragedy.

@Whembly SC

don't think NC is on the chopping block yet

But I wonder when are they going to take down the US flag for the Genocide of native Americans.

BeAfraid wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
By way of an example to this point - mass shootings. An event which is statistically insignificant, and which has been declining for years garners disproportionate media attention.

Unfortunately, this is not true.

At least in the USA, where mass Shootings have been increasing in Frequency:



From:

http://www.decodedscience.com/us-shootings-more-frequent/42190

And this data does not even include incidents in which fewer than 8 people are killed (such as the recent Charlestown Incident, would not make the data points).

The time BETWEEN shootings/incidents is decreasing, NOT the incident's frequency, themselves.

MB

Criminologist Grant Duwe has researched mass killings in the U.S. and found some surprising statistics.

“Mass murder rates and mass public shootings have been on the decline,” Duwe told Here & Now. “But what we did see was an especially bad year for mass public shootings [in 2012]…. The number of victims who were killed and wounded was greater than in any previous year in U.S. history.”

Duwe found that 0.2 percent of all homicides that occur in the United States are mass murders, and of those mass murders, 10 percent are mass public killings, such as those in Aurora, Newtown and the Washington Navy Yard.

In the wake of Monday’s Navy Yard shooting, there has been much lamentation that mass shootings are on the rise in America. “If you have been thinking that we live in an era that is more marked by this type of mass bloodshed than any era before,” remarked Rachel Maddow, “I am sad to tell you you are right. It did not used to be this way, but more and more, this is part of how we live.”

The problem with this claim is that it isn’t true – or to be more charitable, it’s “true” in such a limited way as to be meaningless.

Maddow is defining “this type of mass bloodshed” as mass shootings in which 12 or more victims were killed. There have been 12 such shootings in the United States since 1949, and half of them have taken place in the last six years, which on its face sounds, as Maddow suggests, like a very ominous trend.

But anyone familiar with statistics should be made immediately suspicious by what statisticians refer to as the “cut point” for Maddow’s analysis. Why did she choose 12 victims? The answer is because it created the appearance of a statistically significant trend, where no such trend exists.

Suppose Maddow had defined “this type” of mass shooting as one in which at least 14 victims died. Using that definition, it turns out that the rate of this type of mass shooting in America was nearly twice as high in the 25 years between 1966 and 1991 as it has been in the 22 years since (there were four such shootings in the former period, and two in the latter).

Or we could use the FBI’s definition of a mass shooting: one in which at least four people, not including the perpetrator, are killed. This is a vastly larger category than the one Maddow employs: there were about 600 such incidents in the United States between 1980 and 2010. As James Alan Fox, a professor of criminology at Northeastern University points out, the rate of such mass shootings does not appear to be rising.

Speaking of statistics, here are a few others that ought to be relevant to policy makers:

*Homicide rates in the United States are lower now than they have been at almost any time in the last century, having fallen by more than 50% since 1991.

*Mass shootings, even using the very broad definition employed by the FBI, make up a tiny fraction of homicides – usually less than one percent.

*No one knows why homicide rates doubled between 1960 and 1980, or why they’ve declined just as sharply in the years since. Many theories have been suggested, including the aging of the population, high rates of incarceration, legalized abortion, and even declines in the percentage of lead in the environment (the latter, improbable-sounding, hypothesis has some surprisingly strong statistical support). But criminology is very far from an exact science, and these various theories remain little more than educated guesses.

Given all this, it’s very difficult to say what, if anything, can be done about either gun violence in general, or mass shootings in particular. It seems unlikely that the kind of weak gun control measures that are politically conceivable in America today, such as limits on certain sorts of weapons, and tighter background checks, will make much if any difference in regard to social problems that we, at bottom, do not really understand.

That is a frustrating and somewhat depressing conclusion, especially since even today’s far lower homicide rate is still vastly higher than that in almost all other wealthy industrialized nations. But it is better to admit to not knowing what to do than to do something for the sake of pretending otherwise

Tragically, America experienced two more shootings this week in Las Vegas and at a school in Oregon. Yet, unlike the CNN headline - "This is becoming the norm -" mass shootings, including the ones at school, aren't on the rise. In fact, America is less violent than it's ever been in nearly 20 years.

As CNSNews reported earlier, gun-related homicides dropped 39% between 1993-2011; Pew noted a 49% drop between 1993-2010. In the first six months of 2013, violent crime murders declined 6.9%, rapes declined 10.6%, and aggravated assaults decreased by 6.6%, according to the FBI. In all, we're holding steady on a 25-year trend where violent crime is declining.

James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northwestern University, has been tracking mass shootings with four or more fatalities since 1976. It wasn't surprising to see that mass shootings aren't on the rise. In fact, the rate of such incidents has pretty much remained flat since the 1970s. There hasn't been a rise in the number of school shooting victims either, according to a new report conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Education Statistics:

Since the Sandy Hook incident, preliminary counts from media reports indicate that there were 17 school-associated violent deaths between December 15, 2012, and November 14, 2013; of these deaths, 11 were homicides and 6 were suicides. Six of the victims were identified as being between the ages of 5 and 18.

...

Between July 1, 2010 and June 30, 2011, there were 31 school-associated violent deaths in elementary and secondary schools in the United States

Of the 31 student, staff, and nonstudent school- associated violent deaths occurring between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011, there were 25 homicide and 6 suicides. Data for school-associated violent deaths for the 2010-11 school year are preliminary until interviews with law enforcement personnel have been completed.

...

The percentage of youth homicides occurring at school remained at less than 2 percent of the total number of youth homicides over all available survey years, even though the absolute number of homicides of school-age youth at school varied to some degree across the years. Between the 1992-93 and 2010-11 school years, from 1 to 10 school-age youth committed suicide at school each year, with no consistent pattern of increase or decrease in the number of suicides. The percentage of youth suicides occurring at school remained at less than 1 percent of the total number of youth suicides over all available survey years.

While tragic, these aren't levels that suggest epidemic levels of violence at our schools; they're not shooting galleries either. In fact, if you look at the chart, there's a downward trend.

Regardless of the statistics and the fact, the rabid anti-gun left will continue to peddle unadulterated drivel about gun violence. Case in point, Bloomberg's Everytown for Gun Safety's made a map tracking school shootings since Newtown and found 74 incidents since Newtown. There are a few problems. First, some shootings included were gang-related, off campus, suicides, and on college campuses. In all, there are 35 suspect incidents on that map (via Reason):

(Of the 74 incidents listed by Everytown, 35 occurred [sic] on or near a college campus.**) The map also includes nonfatal shootings, including accidental discharges and at least four events in which no one was injured at all. And some of its items qualify as "school shootings" only under a rather broad understanding of the phrase. While this killing, for example, did take place in an elementary school parking lot, it happened at night, long after the students and teachers had gone home. The victim was 19.

This much is clear: If you're wondering where kids are likely to die, the answer plainly isn't a classroom.
America is actually less violent that it was twenty years ago; gun-related homicides are down; school and mass shootings are either on the decline or have remained flat in terms of frequency. In fact, since 2012, experts have noted mass shootings aren't on the rise.

Public Mass Shootings in the United States:
Selected Implications for Federal Public
Health and Safety Policy
. . .
Most scholarly and expert sources suggest that mass shootings are rare violent crimes. One study
has described them as “very low-frequency and high intensity event[s].”

BeAfraid wrote:
That isn't a graphic of Murders and Deaths (as you are trying to claim - explained below).

Each point represents a mass shooting.

The points are getting closer together in time.

That means they are becoming more frequent.

A drop in Violent Crimes (or Gun-related homicides) does not mean that a particular TYPE of crime did not increase.

Which is what the CNS News link you cite, shows (never mind that it is not a credible source).

The Second link (from "Congressional Research Services") has been neutered by the GOP from even addressing that aspect of the data, with only being able to vaguely reference their frequency.

AGAIN - Just because something is Low Frequency when compared to other crimes, does not mean that it has not been increasing in frequency, which the link I gave shows that they are. MASSIVELY increasing in frequency.

Again, pay attention to the chart I linked to.

It contains two axes: Time, and number killed (again, it is missing around 200 data points, of shootings with fewer than eight people are killed).

This means we can calculate the frequency by taking any interval and dividing the number of data points by the time.

Such as:

Looking at 2007 to 2011, we see that there were uSeven Mass Shootings during that period.

Let us compare that to the period of 1980 - 1985.

Hmmm Four shootings in that period.

The Data only goes up to 2013 in this graphic, and there have been an additional nine shootings since then.

That is an increase in the Frequency of the events, even if their frequency is lower that that of overall homicides by any cause, or by just knives.

It still is an example of a crime where an immediate and easy solution exists.

It is akin to the Automobile industry in the 1960s resisting the installation of safety-belts, or airbags in the 1980s because:

"Other things are more dangerous."

This is trying to cite another wrong as an excuse for not doing something about a wrong that has an easy fix, but which a group has a vested interest in opposing.

MB

BeAfraid wrote:


Despite the fact that ALL simulations show (simulations were every member, student and teacher, was considered armed, and portrayed by a trained soldier) that even if you arm everyone, the shooter still has a better chance to kill everyone that any defender has of stopping them.

This is just delusional thinking.

BeAfraid wrote:
That isn't a graphic of Murders and Deaths (as you are trying to claim - explained below).

BeAfraid wrote:
Each point represents a mass shooting.

The points are getting closer together in time.

That means they are becoming more frequent.

 Hordini wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:


Despite the fact that ALL simulations show (simulations were every member, student and teacher, was considered armed, and portrayed by a trained soldier) that even if you arm everyone, the shooter still has a better chance to kill everyone that any defender has of stopping them.

This is just delusional thinking.

What simulations have been done like the one you describe? Do you have any links?

Even if it is the case that the shooter, as the aggressor, has a better chance of killing everyone, at the very least an armed person has a chance of defending themselves that is better than that of an unarmed person.

It's only natural, faced with atrocities like those that took place in Aurora or Sandy Hook or Isla Vista, to sink into a "What the hell is wrong with the world?" attitude. And based on the conversations that often follow these tragedies, it would be easy to think that life in the United States is as dangerous as ever, that the country is an increasingly violent, brutal place. Luckily, the statistics tell a different story.

James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University and frequent commentator on criminal justice issues, has kept a close eye on the numbers, tracking mass-shooting incidents with four or more fatalities between 1976 and 2012 — the most recent year for which FBI data are available. Data he provided Science of Us produced the following graph:

CNN has drastically revised a claim it made, which was based on a graphical map from a pro-gun control group, which purportedly showed that 74 school shootings have occurred in the U.S. since the Sandy Hook massacre in Dec. 2012.

The news outlet circulated the graphical map, which came from the group Everytown for Gun Safety, after a shooting that occurred Tuesday at a high school in Oregon which left two dead, including the 15 year-old gunman.

Instead, CNN said, “some of the other incidents on Everytown’s list included personal arguments, accidents and alleged gang activities and drug deals.” (RELATED: School Shooting Claims Debunked)

“CNN determined that 15 of the incidents Everytown included were situations similar to the violence in Oregon – a minor or adult actively shooting inside or near a school,” said CNN.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/11/us/school-shootings-cnn-number/index.html

Prestor Jon wrote:

Instead, CNN said, “some of the other incidents on Everytown’s list included personal arguments, accidents and alleged gang activities and drug deals.” (RELATED: School Shooting Claims Debunked)

“CNN determined that 15 of the incidents Everytown included were situations similar to the violence in Oregon – a minor or adult actively shooting inside or near a school,” said CNN.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/11/us/school-shootings-cnn-number/index.html

• Incidents related to criminal activity (such as drug dealing or robbery), or personal altercations: 39 instances

• Incidents unconnected to members of school community and/or that took place outside school hours: 16 instances

• Suicides: 6 instances

• Accidental discharges: 3 instances

. . .

Mark Safarik, president of Forensic Behavioral Services Inc. and a former member of the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit, agreed that when the average person thinks of a school shooting, they think of a mass murder like Sandy Hook.

"There is an ocean of difference between Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech and Columbine and a depressed student who (commits suicide) at school, or an accidental discharge," Safarik said. "To call them all school shootings may be true in a technical sense but is quite disingenuous on an emotional level, which is where they are trying to capture for their audience."

. . .

In addition, Fox said the statistic is misleading for another reason -- it focuses on short-term patterns, rather than long-term trends. Despite the media focus, Fox said, it’s worth noting that the number of school-related homicides has remained relatively flat for two decades, he said.

Myth: Mass public shootings are increasing

Mass public shootings - incidents per year from 1976 thru 2011Fact: Over a 35 year period, the number of mass public shooting rose during the violence escalation decades of the 1970s and 1980, then leveled off, despite a growing population and greater availability for firearms (more people, more guns).

Special Note: The FBI created a study of what they labeled “active shooter” events from 2000-2013, but they merged both ASEs and MPSs. Combined, this data shows and increase whereas other studies that separate the two do not. But it must be noted that their study starts in the year 2000, which had an abnormally low number of public shootings (only one)

BeAfraid wrote:


The USA was not founded on a Principle that encoded the Genocide into its laws.

Yet the Confederacy DID Encode Slavery into its laws as THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLE.

Good job at not being able to distinguish two completely different moral claims.

MB

What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. ... If things are allowed to go on as they are, it is certain that slavery is to be abolished. By the time the north shall have attained the power, the black race will be in a large majority, and then we will have black governors, black legislatures, black juries, black everything. Is it to be supposed that the white race will stand for that? It is not a supposable case ... war will break out everywhere like hidden fire from the earth, and it is probable that the white race, being superior in every respect, may push the other back. ... we will be overpowered and our men will be compelled to wander like vagabonds all over the earth; and as for our women, the horrors of their state we cannot contemplate in imagination. That is the fate which abolition will bring upon the white race. ... We will be completely exterminated, and the land will be left in the possession of the blacks, and then it will go back to a wilderness and become another Africa... Suppose they elevate Charles Sumner to the presidency? Suppose they elevate Frederick Douglass, your escaped slave, to the presidency? What would be your position in such an event? I say give me pestilence and famine sooner than that.

 Ninjacommando wrote:


So a battle flag that represented the Army of Northern Virginia that was made 6-7 months after the start of the Civil war stands for slavery... right.

Good job at not being able to distinguish between a flag that represented the confederacy and one that represented the Army of Northern Virginia

 Ninjacommando wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:


The USA was not founded on a Principle that encoded the Genocide into its laws.

Yet the Confederacy DID Encode Slavery into its laws as THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLE.

Good job at not being able to distinguish two completely different moral claims.

MB

So a battle flag that represented the Army of Northern Virginia that was made 6-7 months after the start of the Civil war stands for slavery... right.

Good job at not being able to distinguish between a flag that represented the confederacy and one that represented the Army of Northern Virginia

That was what the South was FOUNDED UPON

BeAfraid wrote:
Quanah Parker wasn't a Founder of the USA, nor was he educated in a manner that included the teachings of The Enlightenment (Teachings largely rejected by The South - which is an idiomatic expression for the CSA, since we seem to be interested in splitting hairs).

MB

 Polonius wrote:

Further, the south had malaria, which many slaves had some immunity to, while the North had smallpox, something which killed slaves in greater numbers. Conversley, indentured servants from Europe could handle the disease of the North more than the malaria of the south.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

Further, the south had malaria, which many slaves had some immunity to, while the North had smallpox, something which killed slaves in greater numbers. Conversley, indentured servants from Europe could handle the disease of the North more than the malaria of the south.

The one key difference here, is that with the "northern slaves", as you hear so many historically ignorant people screaming about when they say "Whites were slaves too!!!!!1!!!" There was a term limit to the arrangement. The indentured servants had a contract that, after a period of years they would then be released from that service, set up with things necessary to survive, such as land to build on if in a more rural environment, paid a sum of money and they would be free.

Personally, from a slightly moral standpoint, if the South had had this basic system in place, things would be a lot different from how they actually were.

 Frazzled wrote:
I've never had a conversation with a Yankee or Left Coaster who in any way accepted that their regions weren't pure but the South was somehow this racist hellhole.

 Frazzled wrote:
I've never had a conversation with a Yankee or Left Coaster who in any way accepted that their regions weren't pure but the South was somehow this racist hellhole.

BeAfraid wrote:
The most readily available simulation is a group in McKinney Texas, known for advocating arming the population:


http://kxan.com/2015/01/14/texas-gun-owners-re-enact-charlie-hebdo-massacre/

The simulation failed to save any of the victims (save for one who ran away), and at best only one gunman was taken out (which turned out to be a rare event).

There were simulations by the military on mass shootings after Columbine, which showed the same results (that an armed population wouldn't help at all, and would just be a nightmare for Law Enforcement if they showed up - innocent people ALWAYS got killed by Law Enforcement in the simulations).

I am still looking for any links to those, given how long it has been since they were done (and difficulties surrounding searching for them).

The "Easy Fix" is to limit access to firearms by the population.

This has worked in EVERY country where it has been implemented.

Critics like to site what they claim are increases in violent crimes in these countries (which are specious claims, but IRRELEVANT), but they neglect to point out that there is not even a percentage of the deaths related to firearms in these countries as there is in the USA.

Of course, Gun-Nuts like to freak out at this point and claim this is just a prelude to taking away all of their guns, or it is an abrigement of their Second Amendment Rights (which would both be wholly false claims, nothing but insane ravings).

 Frazzled wrote:
not certain what that has to do with the Confederate Flag