On the American "Propensity for Violence" (weapon, crime rates, politicians)

[dude1984]

It's media sensationalism with an aim at triggering the most basic and powerful human emotion...fear.

[tommy64]

For those out there who are interested in the reason for all this violence, there is a doctor names James Gilligan who has spent his entire life studying this topic. Youtube him or read his writings, he's very insightful.

[DownHillAmerica]

Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd

Propensity for violence is not purely an American trait wherever there is humans there is violence.
The most basic violence is you have something I want so I beat you up or kill you and take it. This violence could be over money, property or land.

Another form of violence is waged by ideology. I believe in this leader or God and since you don't I will treat you like an animal and kill you.

Violence often stems from ignorance. If we would just understand that our potential enemy wants what we want more or less there would be less violence.

Ignorance of what?

[Rambler123]

Yes and no.

I agree that the violence lately has become a media circus. As we all know, "if it bleeds, it leads." Sadly, violence sells, and the media these days - all the major news outlets, regardless of their political leanings - is more focused on selling vs. reporting the truth.

That being said, there is a violent streak in American culture, and it's not healthy and out of place for a developed culture.

It's not surprising, really. For example, a culture's entertainment reflects it's values, and there's no shortage of violence in American entertainment. Certainly, it exists in other cultures, too, but for whatever reason there seems to be a blurring between fantasy and reality when it comes to violence in America.

I've run into way too many Americans over the years who think violence is the answer to many problems, and who treat it casually, as if everybody someday is going to have to kill somebody. I'm not sure if it's the gun culture (not to be confused with responsible gun owners), the huge size of the military, the lousy mental health care in this nation, or the absurd levels of bigotry driven by race and religion, but the problem is there.

Most other developed nations have managed to move past this to some level, but I don't expect that will ever happen here since too many people would sooner die than have any laws passed that might reduce their ability to commit "needed" violence against others or win that "High Noon" style shoot-out that we all know will happen in everyone's lifetimes. Meanwhile, the developed nation with the easiest access to guns designed not for hunting or defense but rather for straight-up mass killings has a much higher violent crime rate than all the others. What a shock.

[Rambler123]

Originally Posted by Nonesuch

Yet the actual Montana, S. Dakota, and N. Dakota have higher violent crime and homicide rates than Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire, as does Canada.

True. The other thing is that if having lots of guns prevented violence, the inner cities - which are full of guns - should have zero crime.

Technically, the problem isn't really the number of guns, but rather the number of "mass murder" guns (assault weapon types) and the ease with which criminals or other dangerous people (serious mental illness, etc.) can acquire them in America.

For example, to flip this around, consider Switzerland, a nation with plenty of guns and yet rather low gun violence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_po...in_Switzerland

The problem, again, is not the NUMBER of guns, but the TYPE and the EASE with which people who cannot be trusted with anything more deadly than a crayon can acquire weapons in America, no questions asked, right up until after the mass shooting. Most people understand this, but making the needed changes would mean a horde of angry gun-nuts would have to give up their arsenals, register their weapons, and be reduced to... just having the guns they really need and still being more than able to defend themselves. And we can't have that, so the deaths will continue.

[eddie1278]

Police aren't being killed anymore then they were in the past. Look up the statistics on yearly police officer deaths. The year i was born 1978 had twice as much police officer deaths then last year. We just have tons of media outlets and the internet to make police officer deaths national headlines these days. Back before the internet nobody really heard about police officer deaths unless it happened in their home state now it's national news.

[Nonesuch]

Originally Posted by Rambler123

True. The other thing is that if having lots of guns prevented violence, the inner cities - which are full of guns - should have zero crime.

Generally it is very difficult for the law-abiding to legally obtain a gun in the inner city.

Take Chicago for example -- to legally purchase a handgun in Illinois, there's a wait of as much as six weeks just to get the card you need to be able to legally touch a firearm. Then you need to travel to the suburbs (there are no gun dealers inside the city limits) twice -- once to pay, and then again 3 days later to complete the purchase.

That's just to make a legal purchase; obtaining a concealed carry permit takes about two months and costs hundreds of dollars additional.

Originally Posted by Rambler123

Technically, the problem isn't really the number of guns, but rather the number of "mass murder" guns (assault weapon types) and the ease with which criminals or other dangerous people (serious mental illness, etc.) can acquire them in America.
. . .
The problem, again, is not the NUMBER of guns, but the TYPE and the EASE with which people who cannot be trusted with anything more deadly than a crayon can acquire weapons in America, no questions asked, right up until after the mass shooting.

Meanwhile, New Hampshire has the highest number of legally owned machine guns per capita in the United States, yet relatively low murder and violent crime rates. Why is "availability" a problem in some states, but not others?

[HansProof]

Originally Posted by Nonesuch

Generally it is very difficult for the law-abiding to legally obtain a gun in the inner city.

Take Chicago for example -- to legally purchase a handgun in Illinois, there's a wait of as much as six weeks just to get the card you need to be able to legally touch a firearm. Then you need to travel to the suburbs (there are no gun dealers inside the city limits) twice -- once to pay, and then again 3 days later to complete the purchase.

That's just to make a legal purchase; obtaining a concealed carry permit takes about two months and costs hundreds of dollars additional.


Meanwhile, New Hampshire has the highest number of legally owned machine guns per capita in the United States, yet relatively low murder and violent crime rates. Why is "availability" a problem in some states, but not others?

New Hampshire is 94% white. Nice to know but I doubt it has any correlation. Huh, that's a good question

[boxus]

Originally Posted by Rambler123

True. The other thing is that if having lots of guns prevented violence, the inner cities - which are full of guns - should have zero crime.

Except only criminals have them as they do not care about the laws. Also, a lot of murders are gang related or some hostility between two people that know each other, random murders are rare.

Originally Posted by Rambler123

Technically, the problem isn't really the number of guns, but rather the number of "mass murder" guns (assault weapon types) and the ease with which criminals or other dangerous people (serious mental illness, etc.) can acquire them in America.

The number of people killed with assault weapons is small, very small, if I recall correctly, more people are killed with fists than with assault weapons. (what ever you are using as your definition of assault weapons)

This statement seems just to be some baseless attack on the type of weapon because it is "scary" looking, and has no actual basis statistically speaking.

Originally Posted by Rambler123

For example, to flip this around, consider Switzerland, a nation with plenty of guns and yet rather low gun violence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_po...in_Switzerland

Cultural differences. You could arm everyone there with assault rifles and open carry pistols, and the murder rate would not move.

Originally Posted by Rambler123

The problem, again, is not the NUMBER of guns, but the TYPE and the EASE with which people who cannot be trusted with anything more deadly than a crayon can acquire weapons in America, no questions asked, right up until after the mass shooting.

Mass shootings are rare, I have no idea why you are fixated on this. Millions of gun owners do not commit mass shootings, yet your answer is to make it illegal for them to own types of guns? In any case, a person can still get one, they can even make one.

Originally Posted by Rambler123

Most people understand this, but making the needed changes would mean a horde of angry gun-nuts would have to give up their arsenals, register their weapons, and be reduced to... just having the guns they really need and still being more than able to defend themselves. And we can't have that, so the deaths will continue.

Of course gun owners will get angry, because you are essentially stating they should now either turn in their guns, or be made into criminals due to the only solution the gov has for gun violence is to ban something, something that 99.99% of all users use legally. So because of the .01%, you want to punish 99.99%, makes zero sense.

[boxus]

Originally Posted by HansProof

New Hampshire is 94% white. Nice to know but I doubt it has any correlation. Huh, that's a good question

In the US, there is a correlation between the percent of blacks in a population and murder rates; the higher the percent of blacks, the higher the murder rate.