Gun culture or parenting culture?

[Ray From Cleveland]

Women are always less violent than Men, even though they've historically been more likely to be subjected to oppression, or poverty....

But, Women, and Men both come from the same culture, in many cases, do they not?

So, what's your explanation?

Sure, I guess it's just that we treat Men differently.... Yeah, that must be it.

It must be coincidental that even Male babies tend to be more aggressive than Female babies, even though they've not lived long enough to be taught this behavior.

Also, it must be coincidental that Males have lower MAO-A levels linked to criminality, and lower Dopamine levels linked to impulsivity.

I can't tell who you're addressing but for my part I've already noted, here and elsewhere, that our gun fetishism is a masculinity issue. You are correct, you can count the number of female mass shooters on your thumb.

There's a systemic reason for that, just as there's a systemic reason for the gun culture itself.

The reason is that women are just naturally less violent than men. But here in Ohio, CCW applications by females surpassed those by males. So I don't think your masculinity assumption holds any water. It's not about masculinity, it's about self-defense.

Not exactly --- in that case it's about the how of self-defense. Self-defense can take many forms. Why should it be a gun specifically? Moreover you're assuming a reasoning for these women.

I'm far from the first to see the connection to masculinity power issues. Here's one story of many: Toxic Masculinity and Murder

>> Stemming the violence, then, means deconstructing hate. It means considering every element in the creation and enabling of so many psychopaths. And one that tends to be overlooked— widely known but narrowly considered— is the simple fact that almost all mass murderers are men. As of 2014, Time cited the number at 98 percent. That makes masculinity a more common feature than any of the elements that tend to dominate discourse—religion, race, nationality, political affiliation, or any history of mental illness.

In Salon this week, writer Amanda Marcotte argues that the “national attachment to dominance models of manhood is a major reason why we have so much violence.” She points to the Orlando killer’s history of aggression: his 2013 investigation by the FBI for threatening a co-worker, his reported rage at the sight of men kissing, his physical abuse of his wife, who required help from her parents to escape her own home.

This seems a quintessential case of what has come to be known as toxic masculinity, as Marcotte defines it, “a specific model of manhood geared towards dominance and control.” When men seek that control—when we feel it’s our due—and don’t achieve it, we can resent and hate. Toxic masculinity sets expectations that prime us for disappointment. We turn that disappointment on ourselves and others as anger and hatred.

As the psychologist Arie Kruglanski told The Washington Post this week, the most primal act a human being can take to ameliorate self-loathing is “showing one's power over other human beings.” (As a small, non-masculine philosopher once said, “Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”) <<​

It's the nature of the gender that goes on in both human and animal kingdoms.

Even if your post had any truth to it, then it's worldwide and not an American problem. Males are just naturally more aggressive than females. More importantly, males are naturally the protectors of family from physical violence. We are geared to expect attacks from other males. This is much less likely with females.

Yes, of course. That's Nature.

But for our purpose here we're translating that nature into what it means in regard to guns. And why what it means in regard to guns is different for us, as compared to, say, a male in Canada. Two different views (on guns) from two different cultural values (on guns).

What are the chances of being held up by a gunman in Canada compared to being held up by a gunman in the USA?

We are a very multicultural society compared to most. As was already pointed out, we have groups of people that are naturally more violent than others. There is little we can do about that except to have equal protection against their attacks.

As the old saying goes, never bring a knife to a gun fight.

 

[Pogo]

I can't tell who you're addressing but for my part I've already noted, here and elsewhere, that our gun fetishism is a masculinity issue. You are correct, you can count the number of female mass shooters on your thumb.

There's a systemic reason for that, just as there's a systemic reason for the gun culture itself.

The reason is that women are just naturally less violent than men. But here in Ohio, CCW applications by females surpassed those by males. So I don't think your masculinity assumption holds any water. It's not about masculinity, it's about self-defense.

Not exactly --- in that case it's about the how of self-defense. Self-defense can take many forms. Why should it be a gun specifically? Moreover you're assuming a reasoning for these women.

I'm far from the first to see the connection to masculinity power issues. Here's one story of many: Toxic Masculinity and Murder

>> Stemming the violence, then, means deconstructing hate. It means considering every element in the creation and enabling of so many psychopaths. And one that tends to be overlooked— widely known but narrowly considered— is the simple fact that almost all mass murderers are men. As of 2014, Time cited the number at 98 percent. That makes masculinity a more common feature than any of the elements that tend to dominate discourse—religion, race, nationality, political affiliation, or any history of mental illness.

In Salon this week, writer Amanda Marcotte argues that the “national attachment to dominance models of manhood is a major reason why we have so much violence.” She points to the Orlando killer’s history of aggression: his 2013 investigation by the FBI for threatening a co-worker, his reported rage at the sight of men kissing, his physical abuse of his wife, who required help from her parents to escape her own home.

This seems a quintessential case of what has come to be known as toxic masculinity, as Marcotte defines it, “a specific model of manhood geared towards dominance and control.” When men seek that control—when we feel it’s our due—and don’t achieve it, we can resent and hate. Toxic masculinity sets expectations that prime us for disappointment. We turn that disappointment on ourselves and others as anger and hatred.

As the psychologist Arie Kruglanski told The Washington Post this week, the most primal act a human being can take to ameliorate self-loathing is “showing one's power over other human beings.” (As a small, non-masculine philosopher once said, “Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”) <<​

It's the nature of the gender that goes on in both human and animal kingdoms.

Even if your post had any truth to it, then it's worldwide and not an American problem. Males are just naturally more aggressive than females. More importantly, males are naturally the protectors of family from physical violence. We are geared to expect attacks from other males. This is much less likely with females.

Yes, of course. That's Nature.

But for our purpose here we're translating that nature into what it means in regard to guns. And why what it means in regard to guns is different for us, as compared to, say, a male in Canada. Two different views (on guns) from two different cultural values (on guns).

What happened to Nunavut, Canada?

Nunavut, Canada has a murder rate comparable to Mexico.....

Could it have something to do with Nunavut, and Mexico both having a strong Native American background?

Again, trying to point to 'race' and ignoring the social consequences thereof, which is the direct influence.

You have any idea what Native Americans (there called "First Nations") have gone through in Canada? Entire families torn apart by force and put through "residential schools". Suicides epidemic. Murdered and missing indigenous women. That's a man-made caste expressing its own despair.

That's not because they happen to have "race X" ---- it's because that race has been institutionally demeaned, marginalized and spiritually all but destroyed.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

The reality is that all assault weapons are used in less than 1% of crimes, and an Uzi is quite rare even in the assault weapon category.

But even though you exaggerated, you are correct that violence is higher in the US than Canada.
But why should you not expect that when the US has no public health care, has poor schools, few job prospects, high taxes to pay for illegal and immoral wars, a hostile and aggressive police force, etc.?
Not only should the US be more violent, but it likely should get far more violent, until things change in the economic and political fascism of the US.

as opposed to the eugenicists continually trying to spin off on "race" so they can avoid being involved in the responsibility.

Can you explain this data away by using gun ownership rates, or poverty rates?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/hispanics_in_the_us_are_more_violent_than_nonhispanic_whites.html#ixzz4f8H1JSKS

Look at murders, for example. In 2000 there were about 16,000 murders in the U.S. Non-Hispanic whites committed 23% of them, or about 3,680. Since there were 198.2 million non-Hispanic whites in the U.S. then, the murder rate for non-Hispanic whites was 1.86 (per 100,000).

Similarly, the rate for non-Hispanic blacks was 20.8, and the rate for Hispanics was 12.2.

For international comparisons, the homicide rates in 2000 were 1.7 in the U.K., 20.0 in Namibia, and 10.3 in Mexico. (The rate was 5.5 in the U.S.)



http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/hispanics_in_the_us_are_more_violent_than_nonhispanic_whites.html#ixzz4f8H1JSKS
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[Rigby5]

Maps attempting to show correlations are usually not very valid.
Why?
Because of correlation not necessarily being from cause and effect but either accident or from a reversed correlation.
For example, one should expect Black inner cities to have more crime and violence, not due to race, but due to poverty.
We all know poverty, injustice, and lack of opportunity are the main causes of crime.
And surely no one would argue that inner city ghettos are not full of poverty, injustice, and lack of opportunity?
So instead of race causing crime, poverty, injustice, and lack of opportunity show who is the victim of racism in the US.

 

[Dragonlady]

If you are poor, you should take a second job to support your family and upgrade your education so you can get out of your minimum wage job.

No, if you are poor, you shouldn't be having a family you can't support.

How can you work two jobs and be a parent to your children? How can you take classes to get ahead and do homework, work full time, run a house hold and give your children any kind of quality time?

You can't. That's why you don't have kids until you do all those things first.

Poor women have fewer children, on average, than middle class women. Are you saying the poor shouldn't have any children at all? How do you proprose to stop them from breeding, given that Republicans oppose abortion.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

The reason is that women are just naturally less violent than men. But here in Ohio, CCW applications by females surpassed those by males. So I don't think your masculinity assumption holds any water. It's not about masculinity, it's about self-defense.

Not exactly --- in that case it's about the how of self-defense. Self-defense can take many forms. Why should it be a gun specifically? Moreover you're assuming a reasoning for these women.

I'm far from the first to see the connection to masculinity power issues. Here's one story of many: Toxic Masculinity and Murder

>> Stemming the violence, then, means deconstructing hate. It means considering every element in the creation and enabling of so many psychopaths. And one that tends to be overlooked— widely known but narrowly considered— is the simple fact that almost all mass murderers are men. As of 2014, Time cited the number at 98 percent. That makes masculinity a more common feature than any of the elements that tend to dominate discourse—religion, race, nationality, political affiliation, or any history of mental illness.

In Salon this week, writer Amanda Marcotte argues that the “national attachment to dominance models of manhood is a major reason why we have so much violence.” She points to the Orlando killer’s history of aggression: his 2013 investigation by the FBI for threatening a co-worker, his reported rage at the sight of men kissing, his physical abuse of his wife, who required help from her parents to escape her own home.

This seems a quintessential case of what has come to be known as toxic masculinity, as Marcotte defines it, “a specific model of manhood geared towards dominance and control.” When men seek that control—when we feel it’s our due—and don’t achieve it, we can resent and hate. Toxic masculinity sets expectations that prime us for disappointment. We turn that disappointment on ourselves and others as anger and hatred.

As the psychologist Arie Kruglanski told The Washington Post this week, the most primal act a human being can take to ameliorate self-loathing is “showing one's power over other human beings.” (As a small, non-masculine philosopher once said, “Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”) <<​

It's the nature of the gender that goes on in both human and animal kingdoms.

Even if your post had any truth to it, then it's worldwide and not an American problem. Males are just naturally more aggressive than females. More importantly, males are naturally the protectors of family from physical violence. We are geared to expect attacks from other males. This is much less likely with females.

Yes, of course. That's Nature.

But for our purpose here we're translating that nature into what it means in regard to guns. And why what it means in regard to guns is different for us, as compared to, say, a male in Canada. Two different views (on guns) from two different cultural values (on guns).

What happened to Nunavut, Canada?

Nunavut, Canada has a murder rate comparable to Mexico.....

Could it have something to do with Nunavut, and Mexico both having a strong Native American background?

Again, trying to point to 'race' and ignoring the social consequences thereof, which is the direct influence.

You have any idea what Native Americans (there called "First Nations") have gone through in Canada? Entire families torn apart by force and put through "residential schools". Suicides epidemic. Murdered and missing indigenous women. That's a man-made caste expressing its own despair.

That's not because they happen to have "race X" ---- it's because that race has been institutionally demeaned, marginalized and spiritually all but destroyed.

What evidence do you have that my Polish people had it any better?

Poland's murder rate is 0.7 out of 100,000 most recently according to Wikipedia, (Yes Poland's gun ownership rate is much lower than the European average, but Lithuania has even lower, and Lithuania is #2 in murder rates in Europe, just behind Russia which Russia is inflated largely due to Siberian republics (Non-Whites)
If we adjust for region, White regions of Russia have a similar murder rate as Lithuania, and Russia doesn't have high gun ownership rates either, although much higher than Lithuania.

But, absolutely I see no evidence that Poles fared any better than Native Americans.

- Close to 4 million Poles killed in the Deluge + Cossack Uprisings in the 17th century , it's estimated that as much as 50% of Poland's ethnic Polish population was killed in these events.

- Probably hundreds of thousands of more killed in the Partitions of Poland.

- 1 million Poles killed in WW1.

- 2.7 million Poles killed by Nazis, 200,000 killed by Soviets, and 100,000 killed by Ukrainians in Wolyn Massacre, and Eastern Galicia, another 6,000 Poles killed by Jewish Soviet Jakub Berman, thousands by Jewish Soviet Salomon Morel. and thousands of Polish cursed soldiers killed by Soviets, then Poles had to wait in breadlines in Soviet oppression.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Poor women have fewer children, on average, than middle class women.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Maps attempting to show correlations are usually not very valid.
Why?
Because of correlation not necessarily being from cause and effect but either accident or from a reversed correlation.
For example, one should expect Black inner cities to have more crime and violence, not due to race, but due to poverty.
We all know poverty, injustice, and lack of opportunity are the main causes of crime.
And surely no one would argue that inner city ghettos are not full of poverty, injustice, and lack of opportunity?
So instead of race causing crime, poverty, injustice, and lack of opportunity show who is the victim of racism in the US.

Let me tell you, I live in a black community. It was once white. Businesses thrived, housing sales increased, at one time, we had one of the most popular malls in the country.

Blacks moved into this suburb and destroyed it.

Now, my property was appraised less than half what I bought it for 23 years ago. Businesses left. Malls closed down. My suburb has been in the red for the last five years at least.

My white suburb did not change black people--black people changed my suburb.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

one should expect Black inner cities to have more crime and violence, not due to race, but due to poverty.
We all know poverty, injustice, and lack of opportunity are the main causes of crime.
And surely no one would argue that inner city ghettos are not full of poverty, injustice, and lack of opportunity?
So instead of race causing crime, poverty, injustice, and lack of opportunity show who is the victim of racism in the US.

There's more correlation between race, and crime, than poverty, and crime.

I'll prove it to you using New York City data.

Asian American poverty rate 29% in NYC,
Asian Americans made up 11.8% of NYC.
Asian Americans made up 2.7% of those arrested for murder in NYC.

Hispanic American poverty rate 25.7% in NYC,
Hispanic Americans made up 27.5% of NYC.
Hispanic Americans made up 31.8% of those arrested for murder in NYC.

Black American poverty rate 22.5% in NYC.
Black Americans made up 25.1% of NYC.
Black Americans made up 61.8% of those arrested for murder in NYC.


White American poverty rate 14% in NYC.
White Americans made up 35.1% of NYC.
White Americans made up 2.9%^ of those arrested for murder in NYC.



Sources below.

Poverty source.

Half Of New York City Is Living In Near Poverty | The Huffington Post

Demographics source.

Demographics of New York City - Wikipedia

Murder rate source.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downlo...planning/enforcement_report_year_end_2014.pdf

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Maps attempting to show correlations are usually not very valid.
Why?
Because of correlation not necessarily being from cause and effect but either accident or from a reversed correlation.
For example, one should expect Black inner cities to have more crime and violence, not due to race, but due to poverty.
We all know poverty, injustice, and lack of opportunity are the main causes of crime.
And surely no one would argue that inner city ghettos are not full of poverty, injustice, and lack of opportunity?
So instead of race causing crime, poverty, injustice, and lack of opportunity show who is the victim of racism in the US.

My white suburb did not change black people--black people changed my suburb.

My father grew up in Portchester, New York.

He grew up in an apartment without running water, heat, AC, phones, television etc.

There was little crime.

It was mostly Italian, and Polish.

By the 1970's - 1990's there was more technology added to those apartments, and lots more Blacks added to the mix.

The place became more dangerous, my Polish Grandma was scared to sleep because they would shoot off guns at night, while my Polish uncle was beaten up, and robbed by Blacks who stole his wallet, and leather jacket.

Luckily they saved up money, and moved up to Pawling, New York, and got a decent condo at Cedar valley.

Portchester was never really as bad, as many cities.

 

[2aguy]

What you fail to understand is you can't educate people that have no interest in being educated. What are you going to do, put handcuffs on them and drag them into a class?

These people just don't care. They have children and expect them to raise themselves. It's like I told you about my neighbor and his stupid basketball hoop. Education is not why those kids were out all night, it's because the mothers could care less if they were out all night.

Education for the kid? As far as the mother is concerned, her duty is to make sure the kid gets on the school bus. There.....she did her part for her kids education, and some don't even do that.

I didn't say you couldn't educate people who have no interest in being educated at all, so where the fuck you came up with the idea that I'm somehow failing to understand such a thing I don't know.

What I do know is that most kids can be educated. Sometimes there are issues which mean a kid struggles with being educated, but most can be.

Also, with your wild assumptions here, I am talking about trying to change SOCIETY, not change every individual. Statistics. Put something in place and so many percent will change. Not every single person, but hopefully enough for society to see positive results.

So, if you have parents who think they don't have much of a role in their kid's education, then what are you going to do?

You could:

A) do the right wing way, which is say "we can't do anything, it's too hard and it'll cost money, so fuck it, let these kids rot in hell" or...
B) You can try and educate these kids. You can try and stop the cycle of poverty that pervades society. You can give the kids an education that matters, you can teach them stuff that will stop the cycle of poverty in as many as you can.

I know you favor A. But hey, not everyone has a "can't do" attitude.

So what kids are not being educated and why?

And don't say the schools. If you took upper middle-class students, and put them in those same lower cost schools, those kids will still learn and pass with A's. And if you took those lower income students, put them in the upper-middle class school, they will still have the same failure rate.

I attended a private Catholic school when I was a kid. It was totally funded by the church parishioners which meant we didn't have a lot of money.

We had no classes to switch to, the school was too small. We had no free lunch because we didn't even have a cafeteria or lunch room. We ate our homemade lunch at our desk. We didn't have college educated union teachers. Most of the teachers were nuns. To support our own school, we had bake sales the mothers contributed to, rummage sales, we went door to door selling cookies.

But I would put our class against any public school class for a contest to see which class was more educated.

Yes, yes I know. The lefts solution to everything is keep throwing more money at it, but trust me, it won't help in this situation.

Kids aren't being educated properly because the govt, elected by the people, does seem to want to think about education in terms of producing an educated workforce. Too many people on sites like this get into hysterics any time anyone comes out with a decent idea.

We know sugar fucks with people's brains and makes them study less well, makes them moody, makes them lose concentration a lot, ie, produces bad students, so Michelle Obama says "hey, how about we reduce ketchup sachets to one per student?" My personal view is that ketchup sachets shouldn't be anywhere near schools in the first place, let alone pizza, French (excuse me, Freedom) Fries, hamburgers and all that other shit, but holy crap, the right went BALLISTIC on this matter. Some went crazy because they think schools shouldn't give any food to any kid, others went crazy because they think this is the govt telling their kids what to do, and others just went ballistic because it was a black women saying things.

Either way, you have something that would have a mildly positive impact on studying, and the right is totally opposed to this. It beggars belief, it really does.

So, you have politicians pandering to the extremes on both sides, you have partisan politics which takes in even more of the politicians, you have a system where politicians need the money to get elected/re-elected and they're willing to prostitute themselves for that money, and all the time nothing gets done for the people that actually makes any sense.

Then you have schools which teach traditional subjects. Why? Why is a kid who is going to end up working on cars his whole life doing literature and other things which are completely irrelevant to their life at 13, completely irrelevant to their life at 23, 33, 43 and the rest?

Education is supposed to be about intelligence, logic, progress, and yet people who run education seem to be of the opinion that it's all about making them look good. It's bullshit.

Yes, there are those who throw money at things, that isn't my view. Money can be important, but it needs to be directed in the right way.

As for your school being "more educated" than other schools, education cannot be quantified in the first place. Those who do it, the politicians, make education worse in many cases.

After I left private school I went to a public high school. I couldn't believe the dopes in there. Anyway, we had a vocational school that served several communities. You spent over half of your day there if you were lucky enough to be accepted.

Problem is by the time you spent two years in vocational school, everything they taught you was outdated already. From what I was told, some employers would not recognize vocational school as proper training and some couldn't get a job in the field of work they chose.

I just came home from grocery shopping. I ran into some friends of mine over there and we started BSn a little bit. He told me his company was looking for workers but couldn't find any because they either couldn't do simple addition or they couldn't pass a drug test. He said they ever lowered the qualifications by allowing them to use a calculator, and some of them couldn't even do that. How do you graduate high school without the ability to do simple arithmetic?

I do think there should be a financial class in high schools. Kids come out of school without knowing a thing about credit cards, interest, how to write a check, what the stock market is about, the commodities market, the real estate market, opening up your own business. For kids that will never make it to college, such a course would be very beneficial.

Fine, in some places they make you do vocational stuff and it's not of the required standard. That doesn't mean it doesn't work.

I've worked in Austria in a technical school as well as a Gymnasium, like an English Grammar School, for kids of a higher level.

Höhere Technische Lehranstalt - Wikipedia

Here is the wikipedia article for the HTL system. One of the important things is they don't make it lower than the Gymnasium. Some of the subjects in the HTL are extremely difficult. You study your vocational stuff alongside the skills you need. Everyone learns English, but those studying Civil Engineering will learn English based around Civil Engineering, the teachers will make the subject fit the course.

The HTL system is extremely effective, kids are coming out of school and able to walk into jobs.

Again, it's a case of whether people the right people are able to have an input into the system, so the system works. The HTL has teachers who are part of the profession that they're teaching.

Yes, basic skills are essential, and there are ways to deal with students who don't get those basis skills, and that is to keep the behind a year if they can't achieve the success they need to pass the year.

I have a friend who married a man from France. Their system would have made him choose his path when he was in his early teens and because his scores weren't high enough he couldn't get into the college path....so his mother brought him here......they force people into career paths at too young an age, and then you are stuck......

 

[2aguy]

Jamaica's murder rate climbed significantly after implementing gun control.

So, I don't think that gun control does much of anything.

However, gun control has historically been used by tyrants, they disarmed Natives, and Black slaves in the USA, while they disarmed Holocaust Jews in Nazi Germany, the Islamic Turks disarmed the Armenians during the Armenian genocide, the British disarmed India during their India genocides, and Soviets disarmed citizens too, as did Communist China, and countless others.

So, it seems that gun control does nothing but empower tyrants.

So you think reasonable gun control is the same as disarming the country. Typical gun nut.

And yet you throw out the words "reasonable gun control" but are afraid to name what you mean. And then, after not naming what you think is Reasonable Gun control...you call someone a derogatory name....

Agreed. It's a long known, all too common behavior of the anti-gun left.

Next they'll throw out "75% of NRA members agree with 'reasonable gun control'". Heck, I agree with "reasonable gun control", but when the anti-gun Left spells out what they mean by "reasonable gun control", it comes down to gun bans, registration of everything from guns to bullets and restrictions so tight that a father can't let his 12 year old son shoot a .22 rifle without a background check and "transfer" of firearm form.

Exactly......as long as they allow the rich to own a hunting shotgun after they belong to an exclusive gun club, after taking a year of classes, paying thousands of dollars for permits and fees and getting the approval of the local law enforcement officials who they know because they donate to the towns improvement funds....then hey, we still have the 2nd Amendment and they haven't banned all guns...right?

 

[2aguy]

Jamaica's murder rate climbed significantly after implementing gun control.

So, I don't think that gun control does much of anything.

However, gun control has historically been used by tyrants, they disarmed Natives, and Black slaves in the USA, while they disarmed Holocaust Jews in Nazi Germany, the Islamic Turks disarmed the Armenians during the Armenian genocide, the British disarmed India during their India genocides, and Soviets disarmed citizens too, as did Communist China, and countless others.

So, it seems that gun control does nothing but empower tyrants.

Uhhhh........ if gun control "doesn't do much of anything" ................... then................. why would it do anything for tyrants?

Can't have it both ways --- either it does or it doesn't. Pick one and stay there.

Disarm the public and the tyrants have no resistance.

Ummm no. We weren't talking about "disarming the public" -- we were talking about gun control laws. Two different things.

Or do you actually think that passing a law against something automatically removes it?
Wanna by some pot?

Yep....the way the anti gunners use any gun law to bait and switch......ban 15 round magazines...makes sense...since they still allow you 10 round magazines? Oh, by the way...that gun you currently have that takes 15 rounds...is now illegal to own....and you have to get rid of it or you will now be a felon......

 

[2aguy]

If it's cultural why are murderers rare in all cultures?

I didn't say "murder is cultural". I'm saying a propensity for gun violence --- which is the topic here --- is cultural.

This is a good time to repost this old chestnut:

I give you two cities, split by a river, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul are but this is a different pair of cities.

Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.

The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 people.

Across the bridge in the same time period, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.

What's going on here?

One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.

I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)

And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor? It was a stabbing.

People in his city of about 215,000 have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."

It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)

704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.
Less than a mile apart.

What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture?

Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats

(2) Freep.com 1/3/13

A Tale of Two Cities

Murder-Free Two Years

The fault lies not in our guns but in ourselves. To our values we are underlings.

Minority poplulation.......driven by decades of single teenage girls raising boys without fathers.......give us the out of wedlock birth rate for the two cities......

 

[2aguy]

Women are always less violent than Men, even though they've historically been more likely to be subjected to oppression, or poverty....

But, Women, and Men both come from the same culture, in many cases, do they not?

So, what's your explanation?

Sure, I guess it's just that we treat Men differently.... Yeah, that must be it.

It must be coincidental that even Male babies tend to be more aggressive than Female babies, even though they've not lived long enough to be taught this behavior.

Also, it must be coincidental that Males have lower MAO-A levels linked to criminality, and lower Dopamine levels linked to impulsivity.

I can't tell who you're addressing but for my part I've already noted, here and elsewhere, that our gun fetishism is a masculinity issue. You are correct, you can count the number of female mass shooters on your thumb.

There's a systemic reason for that, just as there's a systemic reason for the gun culture itself.

The reason is that women are just naturally less violent than men. But here in Ohio, CCW applications by females surpassed those by males. So I don't think your masculinity assumption holds any water. It's not about masculinity, it's about self-defense.

Not exactly --- in that case it's about the how of self-defense. Self-defense can take many forms. Why should it be a gun specifically? Moreover you're assuming a reasoning for these women.

I'm far from the first to see the connection to masculinity power issues. Here's one story of many: Toxic Masculinity and Murder

>> Stemming the violence, then, means deconstructing hate. It means considering every element in the creation and enabling of so many psychopaths. And one that tends to be overlooked— widely known but narrowly considered— is the simple fact that almost all mass murderers are men. As of 2014, Time cited the number at 98 percent. That makes masculinity a more common feature than any of the elements that tend to dominate discourse—religion, race, nationality, political affiliation, or any history of mental illness.

In Salon this week, writer Amanda Marcotte argues that the “national attachment to dominance models of manhood is a major reason why we have so much violence.” She points to the Orlando killer’s history of aggression: his 2013 investigation by the FBI for threatening a co-worker, his reported rage at the sight of men kissing, his physical abuse of his wife, who required help from her parents to escape her own home.

This seems a quintessential case of what has come to be known as toxic masculinity, as Marcotte defines it, “a specific model of manhood geared towards dominance and control.” When men seek that control—when we feel it’s our due—and don’t achieve it, we can resent and hate. Toxic masculinity sets expectations that prime us for disappointment. We turn that disappointment on ourselves and others as anger and hatred.

As the psychologist Arie Kruglanski told The Washington Post this week, the most primal act a human being can take to ameliorate self-loathing is “showing one's power over other human beings.” (As a small, non-masculine philosopher once said, “Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”) <<​

And that is crap...we had manhood all through this countries history.......with extremely low crime levels...then after the 1950s.....what did we have.....single, teenage girls, having children from multiple male partners without any husband...an adult male partner to teach the young males how to actually be men......that is the difference and you can track that from the 1960s going forward when single mother hood became a norm, and accepted.....

You can see the same problem in Britain.....the book....."Life at the Bottom" goes into this in detail....

 

[frigidweirdo]

If you are poor, you should take a second job to support your family and upgrade your education so you can get out of your minimum wage job.

No, if you are poor, you shouldn't be having a family you can't support.

How can you work two jobs and be a parent to your children? How can you take classes to get ahead and do homework, work full time, run a house hold and give your children any kind of quality time?

You can't. That's why you don't have kids until you do all those things first.

The problem is "shouldn't" and reality are two very different things.

And that's what really needs to be addressed.

Well, yes. And this is what I'm doing.

It's fine to say parents should be bringing their kids up properly. But the reality is they aren't.

So two choices. The first is to take over and try and put the kids on a good course.

The second is to shrug your shoulders and say "it's the way it is".

The first allows for society to change for the positive. For kids who are born on the wrong side of the tracks to get pushed along the right line. The second allows for the problems to get worse and worse with every generation, with an attitude of "the system is against us" which makes it harder and harder to solve.

 

[2aguy]

If you are poor, you should take a second job to support your family and upgrade your education so you can get out of your minimum wage job.

No, if you are poor, you shouldn't be having a family you can't support.

How can you work two jobs and be a parent to your children? How can you take classes to get ahead and do homework, work full time, run a house hold and give your children any kind of quality time?

You can't. That's why you don't have kids until you do all those things first.

Poor women have fewer children, on average, than middle class women. Are you saying the poor shouldn't have any children at all? How do you proprose to stop them from breeding, given that Republicans oppose abortion.

How do you figure that....? Poor women have more children than the middle or upper income groups.......the missing part is the father......

 

[2aguy]

Canada is starting to suffer from their welfare state the way we have.....

Toronto sees 200% spike in fatal shootings so far this year

Fatal shootings in Toronto have increased 200 per cent in the first four months of this year as compared to the same time last year, police statistics reveal.

In the first four months of 2016, the figures show there were 18 homicides involving guns, compared to six fatal shootings by this time in 2015.

There has also been a 100 per cent increase in the number of homicides so far this year, with 28 recorded up until May 2.

There were 14 homicides over the same period last year.

 

[2aguy]

Canada is now experiencing the Ferguson effect as well....

Three theories that may explain Toronto’s gun violence spike

A similar theory has traction in Toronto, where years of controversy over the local police practice known as carding have left officers confused over how they can engage with residents, suspicious or not, according to officers and their union. “The way police are being portrayed and demonized has created a disconnect between the public and the police,” said Toronto Police Association president Mike McCormack. “A lot of the major urban centres where we’re seeing this, there is a slowdown in proactive policing, where police are more hesitant to engage the public.”

In a recent internal TPA poll, 97 per cent of officers said they were no longer policing as proactively as they once had, according to Mr. McCormack, who did not say how many officers were surveyed.


----

And Gangs.......

HABITS OF GANG MEMBERS

Officials have blamed gangs for a number of this year’s shootings. But that doesn’t mean there’s a new turf war – the problem is that guns are being used in new ways in old turf wars, said a police source.

After the height of gun crime in 2005, police enforcement was strong enough that gang members didn’t regularly carry guns. They would stash them with friends or family.

“In order to use that gun, they would have to have a lot more planning involved, rather than being more spontaneous,” said the source.

“They didn’t carry it with them all the time, and they knew their rivals didn’t carry it with them all the time. So instead … they would gather intelligence about where maybe their rivals are going to be, then they would go get their guns that are hidden in their girlfriend’s house, then go to where those rivals might be and hopefully see them and then use the guns.”

Now gang members are more likely to carry guns, “and if they happen to spontaneously see rivals, those rivals have guns as well.”

Then comes an impulsive shooting, even if bystanders may get hurt in the process.

People in Jamestown complain that gang members are younger and more impulsive than in the past – “kids doing stupid things and not thinking of the consequence and thinking they’re cool,” as one woman put it.

But the police source disputed that, saying there have always been very young gang members. Police suspect Quinton Gardiner, the 19-year-old charged in a double kidnapping and “gang town shootout” at a Front Street condo last month, has been involved in the Youth Buck Killas gang for years. His older brother, now imprisoned, had earlier led the gang.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

If it's cultural why are murderers rare in all cultures?

I didn't say "murder is cultural". I'm saying a propensity for gun violence --- which is the topic here --- is cultural.

This is a good time to repost this old chestnut:

I give you two cities, split by a river, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul are but this is a different pair of cities.

Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.

The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 people.

Across the bridge in the same time period, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.

What's going on here?

One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.

I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)

And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor? It was a stabbing.

People in his city of about 215,000 have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."

It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)

704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.
Less than a mile apart.

What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture?

Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats

(2) Freep.com 1/3/13

A Tale of Two Cities

Murder-Free Two Years

The fault lies not in our guns but in ourselves. To our values we are underlings.

Minority poplulation.......driven by decades of single teenage girls raising boys without fathers.......give us the out of wedlock birth rate for the two cities......

It would seem to be hard to find a pattern between out of wedlock births, and the murder rate in Europe.

The highest out of wedlock birth rate in Europe is Iceland at over 66%, and the lowest in Greece at over 8%.
While that's a big disparity, there's no such big disparity between murder between the 2.

In fact, the murder rate is higher in Greece at 1.1 out of 100,000 than Iceland at 0.3 out of 100,000.

Sources.

Legitimacy (family law) - Wikipedia

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia