Background check gun bill is dead

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

MichiganMuscle77:

itsthesheppy:
who's talking about rape? Also, the guy who did the rampage that kicked off this whole conversation, was he an ex-con? How would your proposed changed have worked to prevent a massacre of that proportion of happening again? From what I can tell what got struck down was an already limp-wristed background check bill. That's too much? What's on the table then? Warning labels on guns that say "pretty please don't wander into a mall and massacre people with this"?

You think that's all that stops people from being violent murders? Maybe you, but not me. What stops me is my own moral compass. I don't WANT to kill anybody, and I never WILL as long as I can avoid it. But for someone who wants to, do you seriously think any laws or "Gun Free Zone" signs or warnings will stop them? Do you? If you do, I am very sorry to inform you that, well, they DON'T, so you might want to change your mind on that.

How about this.

Hypothetical.

You and I are in a large room, full of people. We're in the corner, at a table together.

I take out my pistol and set it on the table in front of you. (I would never do this, but hypothetical).

Do you pick it up and start killing people?

Bans on guns have proven effective in stopping gun massacres. Australia used to have them about as often as we did. Then they banned guns. Now they have less. After a particularly gruesome school shooting (sound familiar) in England, they banned guns and now they have significantly fewer gun homicides per year per capita than we do.

The way I see it, either guns are a problem that need to be banned, or at the very least, Americans have demonstrated that we're not mature enough of a society to handle unfettered access to them.

MichiganMuscle77:
-snip-

So you say you're not against changes in gun policy, but what you really mean is you're just not against less regulation. Am I correct?

MichiganMuscle77:
I completely disagree with this. This is PRECISELY the problem - we think everyone can be rehabilitated. Not everyone can. When people released from prison on parole kill someone, who is held accountable for that?

I think that the parole board should be held 100% accountable when a parolee commits a violent act after being released.

It's curious that you would say this, as the US justice system isn't rehabilitation focused. You can't talk about how rehabilitation doesn't work when our system isn't designed for it.

edit: I know your hypothetical is directed at heppy, but I would take it, remove the mag and eject any round in the chamber. I don't trust gun nuts as it is, I certainly wouldn't trust one that couldn't keep control of his weapon.

itsthesheppy:

Bans on guns have proven effective in stopping gun massacres. Australia used to have them about as often as we did. Then they banned guns. Now they have less. After a particularly gruesome school shooting (sound familiar) in England, they banned guns and now they have significantly fewer gun homicides per year per capita than we do.

The way I see it, either guns are a problem that need to be banned, or at the very least, Americans have demonstrated that we're not mature enough of a society to handle unfettered access to them.

Just a nitpick neither Australia nor the UK (England as you put, the actually shooting was in Scotland) have "banned" firearms, they simply regulated which firearms are available and the reasons why the firearms are needed.

MichiganMuscle77:

Let us carry concealed in schools, hospitals, etc. Then maybe we can respond to an attack and maybe save some lives. And before you say "or kill more people in the cross fire", BEFORE you say that, find me one instance of bystanders being shot by a CPL holder acting in defense of a bad guy with a gun.

Not easy to find such cases as the death of bystanders killed by the (would be) victim are considered to be caused by the initial attacker in many states.

In Wisconsin for example while Statute 940.03 only says:
Felony murder. Whoever causes the death of another human being while committing or attempting to commit a crime specified in s. 940.19, 940.195, 940.20, 940.201, 940.203, 940.225 (1) or (2) (a), 940.30, 940.31, 943.02, 943.10 (2), 943.23 (1g), or 943.32 (2) may be imprisoned for not more than 15 years in excess of the maximum term of imprisonment provided by law for that crime or attempt.

But there's a court ruling:
To prove that the defendant caused the death, the state need only prove that the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor. The phrase "while committing or attempting to commit" encompasses the immediate flight from the felony. A defendant may be convicted if another person, including an intended felony victim, fires the fatal shot. State v. Oimen, 184 Wis. 2d 423, 516 N.W.2d 399 (Ct. App. 1994), State v. Rivera, 184 Wis. 2d 485, 516 N.W.2d 391 (1994) and State v. Chambers, 183 Wis. 2d 316, 515 N.W.2d 531 (Ct. App. 1994).

Never the less, here's an example:
Bystander (who had concealed carry permit) trying to shoot the attackers killed the actual victim.
http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/05/man-arrested-in-family-dollar-slaying/

Good fun reading Ann Coulter today http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-04-24.html#read_more

She's in a tizzy like many of us after finding out the Boston Marathon terrorists were lay about social drains as were an alarming number of their extended immigrant family.

In relevance to this thread, much of what we're thinking about gun control:

"-- The six men murdered by Mexican immigrant Salvador Tapia at the Windy City Core Supply warehouse in Chicago in 2003, from which he had been fired six months earlier. Tapia was still in this country despite having been arrested at least a dozen times on weapons and assault charges. Only foreign newspapers mentioned that Tapia was an immigrant. American newspapers blamed the gun."

She has a point about gun control and rational immigration policy. Deranged and murderous loon control policy would be helpful too.

Controlling the murderous is much more helpful than slapping new laws controlling the law abiding.

itsthesheppy:

MichiganMuscle77:

itsthesheppy:
who's talking about rape? Also, the guy who did the rampage that kicked off this whole conversation, was he an ex-con? How would your proposed changed have worked to prevent a massacre of that proportion of happening again? From what I can tell what got struck down was an already limp-wristed background check bill. That's too much? What's on the table then? Warning labels on guns that say "pretty please don't wander into a mall and massacre people with this"?

You think that's all that stops people from being violent murders? Maybe you, but not me. What stops me is my own moral compass. I don't WANT to kill anybody, and I never WILL as long as I can avoid it. But for someone who wants to, do you seriously think any laws or "Gun Free Zone" signs or warnings will stop them? Do you? If you do, I am very sorry to inform you that, well, they DON'T, so you might want to change your mind on that.

How about this.

Hypothetical.

You and I are in a large room, full of people. We're in the corner, at a table together.

I take out my pistol and set it on the table in front of you. (I would never do this, but hypothetical).

Do you pick it up and start killing people?

Bans on guns have proven effective in stopping gun massacres. Australia used to have them about as often as we did. Then they banned guns. Now they have less. After a particularly gruesome school shooting (sound familiar) in England, they banned guns and now they have significantly fewer gun homicides per year per capita than we do.

England always had significantly fewer homicides than the US. Our KNIFE homicide rate is almost double Britain's ENTIRE homicide rate. So pretending we have a gun problem is absurd. Amusingly enough, when you ignore the murder rate, Britain is vastly more violent than the US.

ravenshrike:
Amusingly enough, when you ignore the murder rate, Britain is vastly more violent than the US.

How many times do we have to correct this old NRA lie?

The reason the UK data appears to show more violent crime than the US is the assault rate.

The reason there is a higher reported assault rate in the UK than the US is the type of assaults recorded.

In the UK an 'assault' is any attack, with or without a weapon (both common/simple and aggravated are counted).

In the US an 'assault' is an attack with a weapon (only aggravated assaults are counted).

Add to this that many 'assaults' in the US become attempted murder or homicide.

image

ravenshrike:
Our KNIFE homicide rate is almost double Britain's ENTIRE homicide rate.

The US firearm homicide rate is ~5 times the 'knife' homicide rate, that would appear to be a problem...

But as I do not have to pay the 10's billions of dollars each year in taxes to clean up the mess created by 2nd amendment rights I could care less.

Gorfias:
Deranged and murderous loon control policy would be helpful too.

Controlling the murderous is much more helpful than slapping new laws controlling the law abiding.

Excepting that one isn't a murderer until one murders someone. At which time various existing laws come into place anyway.

What often gets lost in the whole US gun discussion is that in the US your odds of being killed or killing someone with a gun if your are NOT a part of the urban poor is pretty fucking low. The middle age, middle class white dudes of the US have a homicide rate right in line with middle age middle class white dudes in England, Belgium, and all those other European Utopias the anti gun crowd seem to want to coo softly about among themselves.

The numbers don't lie and the numbers say that the overwhelming majority of gun homicides are being committed in inner cities by poor black, and to a lesser extent latino, males who are already wrapped up in some kind of gang and/or drug activity. The facts are that we know exactly who are committing a massive bulk of these crimes and they are poor urban black and latino males in their late teens and mid twenties. Guys with closets full of legally obtained AR15s are killing virtually nobody.

If you remove all the gang and drug related gun homicides from the equation the US is pretty much in step with places like Australia and England and such places. You see, we don't have a gun problem in this country. What we have is a problem with gangs and urban crime in general. Punishing, or restricting the rights of all the law abiding gun owners isn't going to fix the problems in the poor inner cities.

You want to fix the problem? Then focus on where the problem actually lies. Focus your efforts in the inner cities where all these killings are taking place. Don't use impotent sweeping measures that are nothing more than token gestures meant to appease the masses.

Super Not Cosmo:

The numbers don't lie and the numbers say that the overwhelming majority of gun homicides are being committed in inner cities by poor black, and to a lesser extent latino, males who are already wrapped up in some kind of gang and/or drug activity.

Can I see those numbers please?

Semes:

itsthesheppy:

Bans on guns have proven effective in stopping gun massacres. Australia used to have them about as often as we did. Then they banned guns. Now they have less. After a particularly gruesome school shooting (sound familiar) in England, they banned guns and now they have significantly fewer gun homicides per year per capita than we do.

The way I see it, either guns are a problem that need to be banned, or at the very least, Americans have demonstrated that we're not mature enough of a society to handle unfettered access to them.

Just a nitpick neither Australia nor the UK (England as you put, the actually shooting was in Scotland) have "banned" firearms, they simply regulated which firearms are available and the reasons why the firearms are needed.

Yeah, yeah, I know. But saying "banned" is quicker and more efficient for the purposes of replying quickly to a video game message board.

ravenshrike:

itsthesheppy:

MichiganMuscle77:

You think that's all that stops people from being violent murders? Maybe you, but not me. What stops me is my own moral compass. I don't WANT to kill anybody, and I never WILL as long as I can avoid it. But for someone who wants to, do you seriously think any laws or "Gun Free Zone" signs or warnings will stop them? Do you? If you do, I am very sorry to inform you that, well, they DON'T, so you might want to change your mind on that.

How about this.

Hypothetical.

You and I are in a large room, full of people. We're in the corner, at a table together.

I take out my pistol and set it on the table in front of you. (I would never do this, but hypothetical).

Do you pick it up and start killing people?

Bans on guns have proven effective in stopping gun massacres. Australia used to have them about as often as we did. Then they banned guns. Now they have less. After a particularly gruesome school shooting (sound familiar) in England, they banned guns and now they have significantly fewer gun homicides per year per capita than we do.

England always had significantly fewer homicides than the US. Our KNIFE homicide rate is almost double Britain's ENTIRE homicide rate. So pretending we have a gun problem is absurd. Amusingly enough, when you ignore the murder rate, Britain is vastly more violent than the US.

Per capita. That means adjusted for population size. Also, are you bolstering my argument that when it comes to homicides, England is a superior culture to the U.S.? Shouldn't that mean we're the ones who should have the heavily restrictive laws, and they're the ones that should be allowed more unfettered access to firearms? As I said before, it doesn't appear like American culture can handle the responsibility.

itsthesheppy:

Yeah, yeah, I know. But saying "banned" is quicker and more efficient for the purposes of replying quickly to a video game message board.

I know but use of it feeds directly into "the Guberment is coming for my guns" fear. By using both the correct terminology and explaining how the issue is treated elsewhere it serves to help others view viable options.

thaluikhain:

Gorfias:
Deranged and murderous loon control policy would be helpful too.

Controlling the murderous is much more helpful than slapping new laws controlling the law abiding.

Excepting that one isn't a murderer until one murders someone. At which time various existing laws come into place anyway.

A murderer and the murderous are two different things. You throw a bomb at people and they all escape from harm, that doesn't make you less murderous.

If we're looking whether or not to allow someone into this country, and their security or diplomats of the home nation are telling us to be careful with this one, he is murderous, I think the matter requires greater scrutiny.

From Coulter: "On CNN's "State of the Union" last weekend, Sen. Lindsey Graham's response to the Boston Marathon bombers being worthless immigrants who hate America -- one of whom the FBI cleared even after being tipped off by Russia -- was to announce: "The fact that we could not track him has to be fixed."

Track him? How about not admitting him as an immigrant? "

Today I'm troubled by this: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/346535/near-suicidal-immigration-policies

If someone wants or even gets political asylum, but then takes vacations back to their own "dangerous" country, why ever let them return to ours?

While we have a suicidal immigration policy, focus on guns seems silly. I think enough of the public knows that now to have supported defeat of this measure.

Semes:
Can I see those numbers please?

The basic statement is unquestionable true.

The USA has since the early 20th century had an extremely high murder rate, and throughout it has been massively associated with urban gang warfare of a criminal underclass aspiring to better themselves in legally unconventional fashion. Although the ethnic composition of that underclass has changed plenty over time.

Agema:

Semes:
Can I see those numbers please?

The basic statement is unquestionable true.

The USA has since the early 20th century had an extremely high murder rate, and throughout it has been massively associated with urban gang warfare of a criminal underclass aspiring to better themselves in legally unconventional fashion. Although the ethnic composition of that underclass has changed plenty over time.

I dont doubt the basic statement but saying the numbers speak for themselves without any numbers seems foolish to me. Also the numbers ive seen show people identified as Black as highest in both killer and victim groups, with non hispanic white in second in both groups.

Semes:

Super Not Cosmo:

The numbers don't lie and the numbers say that the overwhelming majority of gun homicides are being committed in inner cities by poor black, and to a lesser extent latino, males who are already wrapped up in some kind of gang and/or drug activity.

Can I see those numbers please?

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-3
Assuming that the race of murders that are unknown break down to similar percentages as known (though personally I would not be surprised if the truth was that whites made up a smaller percentage of the unknown due to inner city gang violence being less likely to be solved) 52.3% of murders are black while 45.1% of murders are white. At the same time only 13.1% of the population is black while 78.1% of the population is white.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

In the FBI statistics Hispanic is mixed in with white. I am still looking a good source that breaks down the homicide rate between Hispanic and white. So far the best thing I have found is from 2007, cover only age 10-24, and specifically on homicide victims.
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/stats_at-a_glance/hr_age-race.html
While not perfect it can be used to loosely support Hispanics comit a larger portion of homicides compared to their demographics size due to the fact the large majority homicide victims are the same race as the person that committed the homicide.

What the US really has major problem with, is gangs. Compared to the UK for example which has an estimated 52 gang members per 100K the US has an estimated 258 gang members per 100K. In other words we have 5 times the gang problem as the UK.

Semes:

Agema:

Semes:
Can I see those numbers please?

The basic statement is unquestionable true.

The USA has since the early 20th century had an extremely high murder rate, and throughout it has been massively associated with urban gang warfare of a criminal underclass aspiring to better themselves in legally unconventional fashion. Although the ethnic composition of that underclass has changed plenty over time.

I dont doubt the basic statement but saying the numbers speak for themselves without any numbers seems foolish to me. Also the numbers ive seen show people identified as Black as highest in both killer and victim groups, with non hispanic white in second in both groups.

2010 firearm suicide statistics
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

2010 deaths by race, income level, circumstance
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2010_release.pdf

Firearms deaths(by CDC statistics)

Firearms death by Age group

Firearms death by race/gender

whew that took a while to compile into something readable.

Based on the stats, the things inflating the Firearms deaths is the high homicide rate among the black population and the insanely high suicide rate among the white population.

There were 19,392 suicides by firearm in 2010 and white male suicide accounted for 15,648 of them for 80.6 percent of all suicides by gun and 49.4% of all firearms deaths. White Male suicide literally accounts for nearly half of all firearms deaths. That is NUTS!!

Black male Homicide account for 50.1% of all homicide deaths and 17.5% of all firearms deaths. And EVERY other race/gender/circumstance accounts for the remaining 33.1%.

Aren't Hispanics counted as whites also when it come's to homicides so White America might actually be lower. But no one really mention that crap on the count of the legion of morons who scream racism. Which is why I hate the left when it comes to racial policies, and gender.

JSF01:

Semes:

Super Not Cosmo:

The numbers don't lie and the numbers say that the overwhelming majority of gun homicides are being committed in inner cities by poor black, and to a lesser extent latino, males who are already wrapped up in some kind of gang and/or drug activity.

Can I see those numbers please?

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-3
Assuming that the race of murders that are unknown break down to similar percentages as known (though personally I would not be surprised if the truth was that whites made up a smaller percentage of the unknown due to inner city gang violence being less likely to be solved) 52.3% of murders are black while 45.1% of murders are white. At the same time only 13.1% of the population is black while 78.1% of the population is white.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

In the FBI statistics Hispanic is mixed in with white. I am still looking a good source that breaks down the homicide rate between Hispanic and white. So far the best thing I have found is from 2007, cover only age 10-24, and specifically on homicide victims.
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/stats_at-a_glance/hr_age-race.html
While not perfect it can be used to loosely support Hispanics comit a larger portion of homicides compared to their demographics size due to the fact the large majority homicide victims are the same race as the person that committed the homicide.

What the US really has major problem with, is gangs. Compared to the UK for example which has an estimated 52 gang members per 100K the US has an estimated 258 gang members per 100K. In other words we have 5 times the gang problem as the UK.

45% of the 4.8 homicide rate of the US (2.16) is still significantly higher than the 1.0 - 1.5 homicide rates of most European countries, even if you assume (like I just did) that ALL of the homicide in Europe is committed against white, middle age, middle class men.

Magenera:
Aren't Hispanics counted as whites also when it come's to homicides so White America might actually be lower. But no one really mention that crap on the count of the legion of morons who scream racism. Which is why I hate the left when it comes to racial policies, and gender.

Can't speak for everyone, but you'll hear me calling racism when the argument is that black or latin people are more likely to be victims/perps of gun violence because of their skin color, as if there were something inherent about them that promotes violence.

Jux:

Magenera:
Aren't Hispanics counted as whites also when it come's to homicides so White America might actually be lower. But no one really mention that crap on the count of the legion of morons who scream racism. Which is why I hate the left when it comes to racial policies, and gender.

Can't speak for everyone, but you'll hear me calling racism when the argument is that black or latin people are more likely to be victims/perps of gun violence because of their skin color, as if there were something inherent about them that promotes violence.

You can call racism if you want, but it doesn't really change the reality of things.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2012/03/13/11351/the-top-10-most-startling-facts-about-people-of-color-and-criminal-justice-in-the-united-states/

http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_in_the_United_States_criminal_justice_system (Yes, it's that terrible Wikipedia website)

One of the main reasons that the death penalty was abolished in so many states in the US is because people of color were being executed at disproportionately high rates, which led opponents of the death penalty to claim that it was a punishment for minorities and the poor, among other things.

But here's something to think about; black men in particular have high rates of drug abuse, gun violence, gang membership and violence against women. Now, consider who the most 'visible' black role models are. Unless I'm mistaken, it's generally rappers who sing about (and glorify) treating women like objects, shooting the police, joining gangs, doing drugs, etc. Perhaps it's a self-perpetuating cycle.

Kopikatsu:
You can call racism if you want, but it doesn't really change the reality of things.

None of your links examine the 'why' though. Did my post on what condition I would call racism confuse you?

Jux:

Kopikatsu:
You can call racism if you want, but it doesn't really change the reality of things.

None of your links examine the 'why' though. Did my post on what condition I would call racism confuse you?

Wikipedia does, actually.

A lot of urban areas in the U.S. have a majority black population. With crime tendencies high in these areas, drugs are also prevalent. This means that a greater percentage of those in prison are going to be black because law enforcement is already concentrated in the areas with high violent crime and drug crime. With this new drug legislation, the U.S. government has increased the use of incarceration for social control which has resulted in "sharper disproportionate effects on African Americans."

...

With violent crime on the rise in the late 20th century coupled with the war on drugs violations, penal population growth sent shockwaves through the most fragile families and neighborhoods that were least equipped to deal with the problem. Since the majority of people in the prison population are minorities and lower class individuals, the people they leave behind have to deal with extraordinary circumstances. This burden has left families broken and children are the victims of single-parent homes which increases the percentage of these children going to jail earlier than most. With the majority of the prison population being men, "women are left in free society to raise families and contend with ex-prisoners returning home after release."

Children raised in single-parent homes are less supervised which leads to less emphasis on education and self-determination. The result of this situation is that society is damaged and has to take on the financial burden of children growing up in crime ridden neighborhoods and going to prison. When a family member is arrested, the family loses not only that person's income, but also acquire additional expenses involved in keeping contact with the incarcerated family member.

The current prison complex serves as a punitive system in which mass incarceration has become the response to problems in society. Field studies regarding prison conditions describe behavioral changes produced by prolonged institutionalization, and conclude that imprisonment undermines the social life of inmates by exacerbating criminality or impairing their capacity for normal social interaction. Moreover, this racial disparity in imprisonment, particularly with African Americans, subjects them to political subordination by destroying their positive connection with society. Institutional factors - such as the prison industrial complex itself - become enmeshed in everyday lives, so much so that prisons no longer function as "law enforcement" systems.

Crime in poorer urban neighborhoods is linked to increased rates of mass incarceration, as job opportunities decline and people turn to crime for survival. Crime among low-education men is often linked to the economic decline among unskilled workers. These economic problems are also tied to reentry into society after incarceration. Data from the Washington State Department of Corrections and Employment Insurance records show how "the wages of black ex-inmates grow about 21 percent more slowly each quarter after release than the wages of white ex-inmates."

It's a self-perpetuating cycle, as mentioned. It primarily affects minorities because minorities are primarily affected, and so minorities become primarily affected in turn.

Kopikatsu:
snip

Um, I think he was implying a genetic cause or something like that being argued would cause him to exclaim racism. It wouldn't be "blacks are caught in a vicious cycle" it would be "it's because they just do". I could be wrong.

St3rY:

45% of the 4.8 homicide rate of the US (2.16) is still significantly higher than the 1.0 - 1.5 homicide rates of most European countries, even if you assume (like I just did) that ALL of the homicide in Europe is committed against white, middle age, middle class men.

Two things here, one that 45% is all white men and women, of all ages, and all classes. Second it is actually it is 4.7 according to the FBI statistics for 2011, but that does not take into consideration how that rate was determined compared to other countries. If you countered the homicide rate like England does, in the US there was 12,644 murder victims according to the FBI statistics which gives you a murder rate of only 4.06 per 100,000. In that case homicides by whites is only 1.8 which is quite close to most European countries. The 4.7 comes from counting the number of murderers. In the US, if you have a gang of 10 people on night and they go out and kill 2 people, each of the 10 people would be charged with two counts of homicide. So when determining the homicide rate that would be counted as 20 homicides even though only 2 people died.

JSF01:

St3rY:

45% of the 4.8 homicide rate of the US (2.16) is still significantly higher than the 1.0 - 1.5 homicide rates of most European countries, even if you assume (like I just did) that ALL of the homicide in Europe is committed against white, middle age, middle class men.

Two things here, one that 45% is all white men and women, of all ages, and all classes. Second it is actually it is 4.7 according to the FBI statistics for 2011, but that does not take into consideration how that rate was determined compared to other countries. If you countered the homicide rate like England does, in the US there was 12,644 murder victims according to the FBI statistics which gives you a murder rate of only 4.06 per 100,000. In that case homicides by whites is only 1.8 which is quite close to most European countries. The 4.7 comes from counting the number of murderers. In the US, if you have a gang of 10 people on night and they go out and kill 2 people, each of the 10 people would be charged with two counts of homicide. So when determining the homicide rate that would be counted as 20 homicides even though only 2 people died.

Agreed.

Felony murder statutes include everyone involved in the crime which "caused" the murder even if they weren't the one who pulled the trigger, which vastly bumps up to Homicide rate. If you were just driving the getaway vehicle, you are still guilty of murder if one of you cohorts kills someone; and it is counted as a unique homicide as far as the Justice system is concerned. So a single victim can easily generate a dozen unique homicide charges. And those charge are reported as unique, because of the way the law is written

That's why I posted victim statistics since they are a more reliable metric as to how many actual murders there were in a given period. Simply because they lack the bloat generated by felony murder.

Dhael:

Felony murder statutes include everyone involved in the crime which "caused" the murder even if they weren't the one who pulled the trigger, which vastly bumps up to Homicide rate. If you were just driving the getaway vehicle, you are still guilty of murder if one of you cohorts kills someone; and it is counted as a unique homicide as far as the Justice system is concerned. So a single victim can easily generate a dozen unique homicide charges. And those charge are reported as unique, because of the way the law is written

That's why I posted victim statistics since they are a more reliable metric as to how many actual murders there were in a given period. Simply because they lack the bloat generated by felony murder.

That is a clearer way to put it, thanks

Just for your own information I personally would tend try to stay away from the CDC as a source of statistics at least when it comes to homicides unless I could not find a particular statistic from any other source. The reason being that there numbers always seem to be higher then what the FBI statistics are reporting.

For example the CDC is reporting 16,259 for all homicides for 2010.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

While according to the FBI 12,996 homicide victims and 14,722 cases of homicides
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl02.xls
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1

Then there is firearm homicides which according to the CDC 11,078
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

but according to the FBI there were only 8,775 homicides with a firearm.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

Kopikatsu:
-snip-

That may be, but it doesn't answer the correct 'why'. Why do you think there is a self perpetuating cycle? As it stands, your post is a non sequitur to my response to Mag.

LetalisK gets it. Was my initial post not clear enough for you?

JSF01:
The 4.7 comes from counting the number of murderers. In the US, if you have a gang of 10 people on night and they go out and kill 2 people, each of the 10 people would be charged with two counts of homicide. So when determining the homicide rate that would be counted as 20 homicides even though only 2 people died.

Totally incorrect! You are misreading the data! Please post some link to support your opinion.

The 12,644 homicides you quote for 2011 is actually the number of homicides the FBI UCR received supplemental data on ( age, sex, race, weapon, offender relationship, etc).

It is NOT the total number of homicides, which was 14,612 in 2011 according to the FBI UCR.

FBI UCR:
In 2011, an estimated 14,612 persons were murdered in the United States.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/murder

The FBI UCR could not use offender data, as over 30% of homicides have no data on the offender/s (but do have data on the victim).

"Unadjusted and age-adjusted homicide rates per 100,000 population were calculated based on annual death counts and the 2000 U.S. standard population data from the U.S. Census Bureau"

EDIT: Also consider the ridiculousness of this; according to your algorithm Sandy Hook, Aurora, or Tucson (Gifford) will all be counted as only 1 homicide each! (as there was only one offender)
[ignore this edit, it is wrong!]

Dhael:
Felony murder statutes include everyone involved in the crime which "caused" the murder even if they weren't the one who pulled the trigger, which vastly bumps up to Homicide rate. If you were just driving the getaway vehicle, you are still guilty of murder if one of you cohorts kills someone; and it is counted as a unique homicide as far as the Justice system is concerned. So a single victim can easily generate a dozen unique homicide charges. And those charge are reported as unique, because of the way the law is written

Citation required!

See above.

The FBI UCR has NOTHING to do with number of people charged (which is a court matter, not a police matter).

FBI UCR:
The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body.

The UCR Program does not include the following situations in this offense classification: deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder or assaults to murder, which are scored as aggravated assaults.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/murdermain

TechNoFear:
EDIT: Also consider the ridiculousness of this; according to your algorithm Sandy Hook, Aurora, or Tucson (Gifford) will all be counted as only 1 homicide each! (as there was only one offender)

Not arguing about the statistics, as I haven't read any of the links, and are drunk as hell right now, but I think this edit is wrong. Even if there is only one offender per incident, isn't each getting charged with multiple counts of murder?

Super Not Cosmo:
If you remove all the gang and drug related gun homicides from the equation the US is pretty much in step with places like Australia and England and such places. You see, we don't have a gun problem in this country. What we have is a problem with gangs and urban crime in general.

LOL!

Citation required for such a broad comparison!

If you remove the gang and drug related homicides from Australia there are virtually no homicides left.

In Australia only organised crime (outlaw motorcycle gangs, drug syndicates, etc) can afford illegal firearms, and only the most recidivists members of these organisations are willing to take the risk of up to an extra 15 years in jail for just possessing an illegal firearm (let alone actually using it!)

Do Americans understand the issues Australia has with Aboriginal, Maori, Somali, Asian, etc gangs?
Or do you think being an island automatically stops 100% of drug imports and gang activity?

Jux:

TechNoFear:
EDIT: Also consider the ridiculousness of this; according to your algorithm Sandy Hook, Aurora, or Tucson (Gifford) will all be counted as only 1 homicide each! (as there was only one offender)

Not arguing about the statistics, as I haven't read any of the links, and are drunk as hell right now, but I think this edit is wrong. Even if there is only one offender per incident, isn't each getting charged with multiple counts of murder?

Good point, my bad...

The gun laws are fine as they are. There shouldn't be any needless red tape just to shoot up some high school kids. I mean it's not like their parents will miss or mourn for them. Really, they should lower the age-limit and remove the checks altogether to make getting guns easier, especially easily concealed and fully automatic weapons that really everyone needs.

Not enough American children are getting shot quite frankly. What if some of these victims lived to adulthood?? The population might go up, the crime rate might go down, it's just not on.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked