[QUOTE]The Newtown tragedy took place amid a parade of homicidal images, stories and films so steady that it almost goes unnoticed.
Kids obsess over video games in which they kill, shoot and rob their way to riches. Last season’s finale of [URL="http://www.amctv.com/shows/the-walking-dead"]"The Walking Dead[/URL]" AMC’s zombie-killing flesh feast, was the most-watched television episode in cable history. At the cinema, [URL="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0975645/"]"Hitchcock[/URL]" spends two hours narrating how "Psycho," perhaps the godfather of the slasher film, came to be. On bookshelves, the big bestseller is "[URL="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/030758836X?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=030758836X&linkCode=xm2&tag=washpost-books-20"][U]Gone Girl[/U][/URL]," a novel about the disappearance of a wife, perhaps killed by her husband.
So, America, amid this cultural bloodbath, it should come as no surprise to you that we are killing each other . . . about as seldom as we ever have.
The national homicide rate for 2011 was 4.8 per 100,000 citizens — less than half of what it was in the early years of the Great Depression, when it peaked before falling precipitously before World War II. The peak in modern times of 10.2 was in 1980, as recorded by national criminal statistics.
"We’re at as low a place as we’ve been in the past 100 years," says [URL="http://history.osu.edu/directory/Roth5"][U]Randolph Roth[/U][/URL], professor of history at Ohio State University and author of this year’s "[URL="http://www.amazon.com/American-Homicide-Randolph-Roth/dp/0674064119/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355946297&sr=8-1&keywords=american+homicide"][U]American Homicide,"[/U][/URL] a landmark study of the history of killing in the United States. "The rate oscillates between about 5 and 9 [per 100,000], sometimes a little higher or lower, and we’re right at the bottom end of that oscillation."
Last year’s rate was the lowest of any year since 1963, when the rate was 4.6, according to the Uniform Crime Reports compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Don’t relax quite yet: Americans still kill one another at a much higher rate than do citizens of other wealthy nations.
"By international standards, we never really get to ‘low,’ " Roth says.
And, no matter what your favorite politician says about gun control or the lack of it, the homicide rate has been near stagnant or falling for 21 consecutive years — even as images of violence have proliferated, even as the stock market has soared and crashed, as political upheavals have come and gone, as drugs have waxed and waned, even as the number of high-profile mass killings like the one in Newtown has risen.
Why?
The nation’s homicides — a little more than 14,000 last year — are a separate beast from these types of slayings, historians and criminologists say.
The vast number of homicides arise from arguments, fights, drug deals and domestic disputes, most often among people who know one another. Becky Block, vice president of the American Society of Criminology and an analyst at the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, has studied a data set of 22,000 killings in Chicago from 1965 through 2000.
"My perspective is that there’s no such thing as just homicide," she says. "What you have is a lot of different kinds of violence — robberies, child abuse, barroom brawls, intimate-partner disputes, gangs — and some of these end in homicide and some don’t."
Mass killings, by contrast, almost always stem from one man’s pre-suicidal outburst, often directed at strangers. The perpetrators are overwhelmingly white middle-class males, who otherwise have a fairly low rate of homicide, according to federal crime statistics.
"The overall homicide rate and these kind of mass murders run along different tracks," says [URL="http://www.haverford.edu/hist/faculty/lane.html"][U]Roger Lane[/U][/URL], professor emeritus of history at Haverford College and author of [URL="http://www.amazon.com/Murder-America-History-Roger-Lane/dp/0814207332/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1355946573&sr=1-3&keywords=murder+in+america"][U]Murder in America[/U][/URL],"another assessment of killing across the nation’s history. "The profile of the typical killer and the typical mass murderer — these are different wellsprings of psychological motivation."
Meanwhile, over the decades, the homicide rate goes up and down like the stock market — no one has any simple reason why — but one overall trend is as clear as it is surprising: The idea that we used to be a kinder, gentler bunch is nothing but myth.
The national rate of homicides has greatly decreased over the past 150 years or so, historians say. This bears some hedging, because there were no nationally compiled data in the 19th century, but the case studies are frightening.
"The highest murder rate in national history was between 1846 and 1887," not including Civil War deaths, Roth says. "During Reconstruction, there were counties in Louisiana where you had 200 people per 100,000 residents killed. You’d have counties in Texas with 10,000 people and 500 people killed. In Los Angeles in the 1840s, one in every 46 people were murdered. It’s amazing how many people got killed."
These days, people would make a movie about that.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The highest murder rate in national history was between 1846 and 1887," not including Civil War deaths, Roth says.[/QUOTE]
So you're saying the murder rate was highest between 1846 and 1887? Gee, do you think they had semi-automatic "assault rifles" and "high capacity magazines" between 1846 and 1887? No, they didn't.
Source: [URL]http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-19/lifestyle/35929227_1_homicide-rate-randolph-roth-gun-control[/URL]
High capacity fully automatic blunderbuss
Ironic, they can remember the most deaths but not the guns they want to ban.
The assault weapons back then were single shot, break barrel cartridge rifles.
Think about that. That's only like eight shots a minute.
The problem are these morons running around shouting "Ban the guns, the semi-autos are death machines" when clearly the highest murder rate was at a time when all they had was muskets and powder revolvers.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;39269840]The problem are these morons running around shouting "Ban the guns, the semi-autos are death machines" when clearly the highest murder rate was at a time when all they had was muskets and powder revolvers.[/QUOTE]
Well. The muskets then were different from the muskets 20 or 30 years prior. The muskets after 1840 were basically all rifled and suddenly everyone could shoot straight since new types of ammunition replaced the lead ball.
[editline]18th January 2013[/editline]
There was also that whole genocide of tribes and etc.
The problem about this is that if another massacre like the one that went on Newtown goes down, no matter how much homicides went down, people will still flip shit and go on yet another quest to ban everything that could be a synonym of violence.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;39269840]The problem are these morons running around shouting "Ban the guns, the semi-autos are death machines" when clearly the highest murder rate was at a time when all they had was muskets and powder revolvers.[/QUOTE]
There were also statistically more guns per person because the population was low and every household had a gun and every town a militia. Just saying.
"rate" is per capita, aka "1 incident per X number of people every year". Numerically, this is still a terrible time compared to before; however you're less likely to be a victim because there's so many other people that could end up in that position. Your chance of not being affected doesn't change the fact it affects as many people as it does, why ignore it based on percents when our population is growing exponentially?
also haven't we had over [i]half of the mass-shootings* this country has seen in its history[/i] in the time since the last weapons ban expired [in 2004] or something crazy like that?
*counted as 4+ victims killed or injured as a result, I believe. I'll have to find some stats
[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39269996]every town [had] a militia.[/QUOTE]
volunteer fire departments of death
This [I]shouldnt[/I] be news.. Everyone should look that the FBI UCS once in awhile
[QUOTE=UziXxX;39269697]So you're saying the murder rate was highest between 1846 and 1887? Gee, do you think they had semi-automatic "assault rifles" and "high capacity magazines" between 1846 and 1887? No, they didn't.
Source: [URL]http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-19/lifestyle/35929227_1_homicide-rate-randolph-roth-gun-control[/URL][/QUOTE]
Maybe someone in the future took one of those deadly AR-15 killing machines back in time? :v:
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;39270641]Maybe someone in the future took one of those deadly AR-15 killing machines back in time? :v:[/QUOTE]
Not only that, Hitler played videogames.
Some say that was what started his reign of terror.
[QUOTE=daijitsu;39270454]"rate" is per capita, aka "1 incident per X number of people every year". Numerically, this is still a terrible time compared to before; however you're less likely to be a victim because there's so many other people that could end up in that position. Your chance of not being affected doesn't change the fact it affects as many people as it does, why ignore it based on percents when our population is growing exponentially?
also haven't we had over [i]half of the mass-shootings* this country has seen in its history[/i] in the time since the last weapons ban expired [in 2004] or something crazy like that?
*counted as 4+ victims killed or injured as a result, I believe. I'll have to find some stats
volunteer fire departments of death[/QUOTE]
And yet the AWB didn't change anything. Crimes were still committed with handguns.
Virgina tech. 33 people. Handguns.
No point in a rifle ban.
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;39270658]Not only that, Hitler played videogames.
Some say that was what started his reign of terror.[/QUOTE]
Hitler was a huge dog lover, why do we let children even play with them? Do we want to have a repeat of auschwits?
[editline]18th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39270664]And yet the AWB didn't change anything. Crimes were still committed with handguns.
Virgina tech. 33 people. Handguns.
No point in a rifle ban.[/QUOTE]
And he just carried a ton of magazines.
Yay for round limits.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39270664]And yet the AWB didn't change anything. Crimes were still committed with handguns.
Virgina tech. 33 people. Handguns.
No point in a rifle ban.[/QUOTE]
Entirely true, but the whole anti-gun basis (the AWB crowd especially) has boiled down to a point where it's simply not about facts anymore, it's about personal feelings and "what if" scenarios intended to target scary-looking guns. That's it. There's no facts being circulated in the argument anymore.
People are ignorant of guns, and ignorance breeds fear; especially fear of guns that [I]look[/I] imposing. It's basically just a witch hunt at this point.
[editline]18th January 2013[/editline]
I should probably change my avatar, it makes me look like a staunch gun owner :v:
I feel like the whole AWB argument has started to devolve into a bit of a pro-gun circle jerk.
[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39270837]I feel like the whole AWB argument has started to devolve into a bit of a pro-gun circle jerk.[/QUOTE]
what do you mean "started to"?
[editline]18th January 2013[/editline]
also i love how gun nuts are trying to spin this in their favor
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39270861]what do you mean "started to"?
[editline]18th January 2013[/editline]
also i love how gun nuts are trying to spin this in their favor[/QUOTE]
:v:
Also this article can be spun for either side. If you're pro gun-control the argument can be made that we statistically have fewer guns per person now than we did and as the rate of guns per capita has dropped so has the murder rate.
You'd probably find that if you banned handguns the crime rate would drop massively. Assault rifles on the other hand aren't much of a threat since it's kind of hard to conceal them.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39270861]what do you mean "started to"?
[editline]18th January 2013[/editline]
also i love how gun nuts are trying to spin this in their favor[/QUOTE]
i keep saying this but nobody seems to notice but I'm pretty sure that the lower homicide rate has something to do with America's drastically rising incarceration rate than anything
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39270970]You'd probably find that if you banned handguns the crime rate would drop massively. Assault rifles on the other hand aren't much of a threat since it's kind of hard to conceal them.[/QUOTE]
Yes but the NRA would never let that happen. Lobbyists still run the country.
[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39270837]I feel like the whole AWB argument has started to devolve into a bit of a pro-gun circle jerk.[/QUOTE]
Pro-gun is such an inane organization of words. If you're against guns then you're clearly [B]anti-gun[/B] as that's basically the exact definition of wanting to get rid of or disallow guns, whereas not being anti-gun doesn't automatically make you "pro-gun." It's such a ridiculous "you're either with us or against us" attitude.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39271049]Pro-gun is such an innane organization of words. If you're against guns then you're clearly [B]anti-gun[/B] as that's basically the exact definition of wanting to get rid of or disallow guns, whereas not being anti-gun doesn't automatically make you "pro-gun." It's such a ridiculous "you're either with us or against us" attitude.[/QUOTE]
I'm not anti-gun. I'm pro gun-control. if pro-gun is an "innane organization of words", so is anti gun. Not being pro-gun doesn't make you anti-gun.
[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39270837]I feel like the whole AWB argument has started to devolve into a bit of a pro-gun circle jerk.[/QUOTE]
Of course it has. Mainly because the entire pro awb side of the argument is entirely based on emotional pleas. I mean shit. Most of the time, the "Pro Gun" side actually posts facts and government based statistics, while the anti gun side constantly points at the news and a study that has been debunked for decades.
[editline]18th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39271069]I'm not anti-gun. I'm pro gun-control. if pro-gun is an "innane organization of words", so is anti gun. Not being pro-gun doesn't make you anti-gun.[/QUOTE]
He's agreeing? He's saying that the whole anti and pro choice of words for the debate make it seem like there's only two sides.
[editline]18th January 2013[/editline]
Same with the phrase gun control. You're not controlling anything, you're restricting it. But gun restriction sounds authoritarian.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;39270970]You'd probably find that if you banned handguns the crime rate would drop massively. Assault rifles on the other hand aren't much of a threat since it's kind of hard to conceal them.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but if you banned knifes and other sharp objects, it would also drop, as a lot more homicides are carried out using those, than rifles. ([url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8[/url])
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39271076]Of course it has. Mainly because the entire pro awb side of the argument is entirely based on emotional pleas. I mean shit. Most of the time, the "Pro Gun" side actually posts facts and government based statistics, while the anti gun side constantly points at the news and a study that has been debunked for decades.
[editline]18th January 2013[/editline]
He's agreeing? He's saying that the whole anti and pro choice of words for the debate make it seem like there's only two sides.
[editline]18th January 2013[/editline]
Same with the phrase gun control. You're not controlling anything, you're restricting it. But gun restriction sounds authoritarian.[/QUOTE]
Both sides provide valid information and statistics. Both sides make valid arguments. And as far as the whole "gun control"/"gun restriction" argument, arguing semantics is pointless. By calling it "gun restriction" you're twisting words just as much as the other side.
[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39271069]I'm not anti-gun. I'm pro gun-control. if pro-gun is an "innane organization of words", so is anti gun. Not being pro-gun doesn't make you anti-gun.[/QUOTE]
Gun control is an extremely ambiguous word. Almost everywhere in the world has some semblance of gun control, be it background checks, licensing, waiting periods, etc.
I'm pro-licensing as I believe that any potentially dangerous or destructive item like explosives, heavy machinery or firearms need to be monitored, obviously somebody who's clearly insane should not be able to walk into any old store and buy a truck, dynamite or or a repeating firearm and just walk out with it; that's just common sense. However the licensing process needs to be efficient and well organized otherwise it'll just be acting as a deterrent, not a legitimate registration initiative.
However restricting [I]certain types[/I] of firearms for people who are already licensed just doesn't make sense, especially in feeble attempts to stop potential spree-killing scenarios which are already impossible to predict or monitor.
[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39271150]Both sides provide valid information and statistics. Both sides make valid arguments. And as far as the whole "gun control"/"gun restriction" argument, arguing semantics is pointless. By calling it "gun restriction" you're twisting words just as much as the other side.[/QUOTE]
how about the "potential psychologic menace to society attempting to purchase firearms' prevention act" and focusing solely on who acquires any weapon and how, which is part of what's going on already. I'm not all for the idea of going after certain types of weapon strictly because they're being used in recent times, but I have to wonder at what point should we start referring to things not as 'assault weapon' but 'modified battlefield weapons' or something. It would still be a really small subset but the idea would get across a little better that it's not hunting/sport weapons so much as "things actually designed for war"
outside of the media circus pummeling us with "AK's are killing everybody!" and "they're coming to take your guns away!", really that's what we should focus on- the people behind the crimes, focus on the fact that our prisons are jam packed and not actually doing anything to reform
[QUOTE=daijitsu;39271361]outside of the media circus pummeling us with "AK's are killing everybody!" and "they're coming to take your guns away!", really that's what we should focus on- the people behind the crimes, focus on the fact that our prisons are jam packed and not actually doing anything to reform[/QUOTE]
I agree 100% but the problem is, is that a lot of these mass murderers like Adam Lanza, Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold, ect. commit these mass slaughterings as a form of suicide. Each case must be handled by a case by case basis, and even then, at the end of the day with suicide it is very difficult to establish motives for their actions.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39270972]i keep saying this but nobody seems to notice but I'm pretty sure that the lower homicide rate has something to do with America's drastically rising incarceration rate than anything[/QUOTE]
the rising incarceration rate has done wonders for equality too. nowadays more american men are victims of rape than american women. progress!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.