USA Politics

Yeap, it's true. Also the climate could be a reason.
Suicide is a different story (too much security??), yet much preferable than mass phycho killings..
 
Found something on it here:
Suicide mortality has been seen to decline during socially difficult times, during the reference period in
the war time and at the time of the recession in the 1990s. In turn, suicide mortality grew during the
economic boom in the 1980s, as did accident mortality discussed above. In Finland suicide mortality has
been almost double that of the EU average in recent years.
In 2010, 954 persons committed suicide. Three out of four of them, or 718 were men. The number of
suicides has last been lower than this in the 1960s. The figure was at its highest in 1990, when there were
a total of 1,520 suicides in Finland.
 
I don't know what's happening in the North, but I can assure you in the Southern countries the suicide rate has grown since the crisis.
 
I still say that even if all firearms were done away with, you would still have random acts of unexplainable violence. If someone is so sick and determined to take out as many innocent people as they can, they will find a way and unfortunately that's how it is. Timothy Mcviegh did'nt use a firearm, he used fertilizer. Should we ban all fertilizer's?
 
maidenn.c.indiana said:
I still say that even if all firearms were done away with, you would still have random acts of unexplainable violence.
Click to expand...
No one will deny that, maidenn.c.indiana.
maidenn.c.indiana said:
If someone is so sick and determined to take out as many innocent people as they can, they will find a way and unfortunately that's how it is.
Click to expand...
I don't think that is always the case.
Forostar said:
Circumstances are important. E.g. people try to commit suicide less often in case it's more difficult to do. Making access to railroads more difficult can make a person think "alright, not here, not now". Such measurements can prevent a person from doing a drastic action. After the cancellation of the attempt, a person could get less depressive, by whatever circumstances. Either they won't try it again, either they will, but if the access to the rails is again difficult, the person can cancel the attempt once again. It doesn't have to be so that the person will always try to kill themselves by all means, trying all methods. That's because the thought of suicide can be a sudden one.

Just like the thought of killing other people. If that guy didn't have an assault weapon, I don't think it is absolutely 100% sure that he'd continued to find any other weapon because he could never have erased the impulse. Circumstances can change. One circumstance is access. The smaller the access to weapons, the smaller the chance someone can use them in a wrong way.
Click to expand...
maidenn.c.indiana said:
Timothy Mcviegh did'nt use a firearm, he used fertilizer. Should we ban all fertilizer's?
Click to expand...
No.
 
Come on, Maiden C. — that's like saying we shouldn't regulate drunk driving because people kill and die in car accidents when they are stone cold sober.
It's about reducing the risk. Guns make killing very easy. The harder you make it for someone to do something, the less likely they are to do it.

Look, I get it: Americans (generally speaking) highly value the personal freedom to enjoy, profit from and feel made secure by personal firearms.
For a majority, this outweighs any reductions in gun crime that may be gained by tougher regulations.
Many believe gun regulation would increase, not decrease, the likelihood of them being shot or robbed, anyway.
Evidence from other countries to the contrary is dismissed as "they are not Americans."
Finally, the constitution coupled with the political and economic incentives mean changing the status quo would be very difficult.

But you do understand how, from the outside, this sounds like a wife rationalizing her stay with an occasionally abusive husband?
 
I understand that it's all about reducing the risk and I have absolutely no problem with that. But reducing the risk does not eliminate the risk. Are you saying that since a person could'nt get a gun that he only was able to kill three people instead of twenty and so that's a better scenerio? Numbers wise I guess it is, unless of course you're one of or related to one of the three. I'm sorry but society in general has become more violent and I admit I have no explanation or solution for that unfortunate fact. I maintain that if a person is determined to commit some act of attrocity, then they are going to find some way to commit that act. You may be able to delay them, lessen the degree of their action, and in some cases even deter them. But sooner or later by some other means, some of these people are going to succeed. Not that anyone has posted that they thought that all these acts could be eliminated, but my point is that no matter what you do they will still occur. Sorry but that's how I feel and unfortunately our violent society appears to back me up on that point
 
Re suicide rates, I thought the 80s was a real mixed bag of economic boom for some and decline for others. I was brought up with the miners' strike and the clossure of much of the industry in the north of England, so when people tell me the 80s was prosperous I'm always a bit dumbfounded.
I don't know how it was for other parts of the world, but I get the impression the 80s wasn't all-round economic good times.
 
...
A-bYg2SCQAIm2og.jpg
 
Sorry, I should have paid closer attention. I was surfing on my phone and didn't read close enough. I'll read your link and get back. Also will fix my previous post (fucking phone) :)
 
I must say, I'm going to have to look a lot closer at these numbers and many others before I come up with anything solid. I'm taking a quick glance at US crime, it seems that it has been going down while the population has been rising. But there are so damn many figures it's difficult to put any correlation to them.

One person thought that the significant decrease in crime in the US was due to better awareness of lead and children.

I do want to look at these numbers. That's a good read, Loosey.
 
Good article although I don't necessarily agree with everything that he says. On a different front, yesterday I heard some talking head on the radio say that last year in the U.S. 12,000 people were killed with guns. Don't know if he was right or not but that was what he said. Now that is a big number, especially without any clarification. By that I mean assuming that number is correct, how many were actually so called murders? While I've no doubt that murders were the greatest percentage, I'm also sure that probably say 3,000 to 4,000 of them occured through some combination of suicides, accidental shootings, police action shootings, etc. Assuming I'm right that's still a lot of murders, but just saying 12,000 out right is a bigger number and greater shock value than saying 8,000 - 9,000. Just my opinion.
 
maidenn.c.indiana said:
Good article although I don't necessarily agree with everything that he says. On a different front, yesterday I heard some talking head on the radio say that last year in the U.S. 12,000 people were killed with guns. Don't know if he was right or not but that was what he said. Now that is a big number, especially without any clarification. By that I mean assuming that number is correct, how many were actually so called murders? While I've no doubt that murders were the greatest percentage, I'm also sure that probably say 3,000 to 4,000 of them occured through some combination of suicides, accidental shootings, police action shootings, etc. Assuming I'm right that's still a lot of murders, but just saying 12,000 out right is a bigger number and greater shock value than saying 8,000 - 9,000. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
There were 12 000 murders in total, where 8500 were committed with guns (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state). And of course, well over 100 000 reported robberies etc using guns. If you look closer at the FBI source statistics, the numbers have been further divided down into gun categories. The Guardian lumps them all together.

Same goes for blunt objects etc, which shows that baseball bats are the single most used weapon in violent murders - A stat purposely misinterpreted by pro gun lobbyists and grassrots, to show that they are more dangereous than guns. However, as I said, guns have been divided into a large number of sub categories - And also, the muders themselves have been divided down into categories as well depending on the rate of violence. And baseball bats are the most commonly used weapons in violent murders, whatever that means. Guess a lot of firearms killings are excluded from that cateogy as they often are used rather cleanly compared to repeated smacks to the head with blunt objects.
 
Not that I'd ever want to be or know someone who is murdered, but if it was going to happen I'd guess I'd rather be shot than have someone play batter's up with a bat to my head
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top