# The US is safer than ever  and Americans dont have any idea



## asher (May 5, 2015)

The US is safer than ever



> There is half as much crime in the US right now as there was about 25 years ago. Both violent and property crime have declined pretty steadily since the early 1990s. But at any given time, if you ask Americans about it, between half and three-quarters of them will say that crime rates are going up.


----------



## cwhitey2 (May 6, 2015)

It's scary where I live


----------



## Hollowway (May 6, 2015)

That's pretty interesting! I know a lot of bigger cities are safe, but I would have had no idea the country as a whole has seen such a decline in crime.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 6, 2015)

Stossel quite often points that out on his show.

I think part of it is the fact that poverty in america isn't quite what it used to be.
Serious crime is often the result of desperation and greed, and while greed isn't in shortage I think there's been a significant decline in desperation as a whole.

It's harder to feel as desperate when you're wearing new air jordans while playing on your iphone as you stand in line to cash that free $700 check so you can go stock up on cigs, beer, and $5 footlongs .

At least there are some good things coming from our current safety-net system. (which I'm not totally against btw)
It's not great for inspiring motivation, but it's great for lowering desperation.




One gripe I have on that article though is that they say blacks are disproportionately likely to be the victims of crimes and over-policing, but they exclude the fact that it's by far mostly black on black crimes which might well account for a greater chance of "over-policing". And what exactly is the criteria used to define "over=policing", because that would matter much to the statistical results obviously.


Good topic to think about though .


----------



## vilk (May 6, 2015)

All I can say is that it was very reassuring when I was living in Japan to know that nobody could pull a gun/ shoot me.

And regardless of how things were 25 years ago, it's not very reassuring when I see shootings happen just a block away from me on the news when I live in what's considered a safer part of the city.


----------



## watson503 (May 6, 2015)

The neighborhood I live in now is the same one I lived in during my teens and early 20s, I recently moved back here last year. When I was living here in the late 80s-mid 90s, I'd hear gunshots all night long as this is Houston's most gang-infested neighborhood - now, not as bad which surprises me as MS-13 has been making a claim trying to take this area over. We've had one murder in my apartment complex since I've lived here but that's nothing compared to how it used to be - I've seen so much f'ing violence over the color of a rag, it is maddening.


----------



## celticelk (May 6, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> It's harder to feel as desperate when you're wearing new air jordans while playing on your iphone as you stand in line to cash that free $700 check so you can go stock up on cigs, beer, and $5 footlongs .



Nice stereotyping, Trench. Do you even know any poor people?




TRENCHLORD said:


> One gripe I have on that article though is that they say blacks are disproportionately likely to be the victims of crimes and over-policing, but they exclude the fact that *it's by far mostly black on black crimes* which might well account for a greater chance of "over-policing". And what exactly is the criteria used to define "over=policing", because that would matter much to the statistical results obviously.



Do you have data to support this assertion?


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (May 6, 2015)

celticelk said:


> Nice stereotyping, Trench. Do you even know any poor people?



I do, and work around them all day and it's a stereotype based upon fact if you go by this area.  Talking about politics and the economy is interesting because it is a common situation around here and I can't refute it because we all (friends, co-workers, etc) see it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 6, 2015)

celticelk said:


> Do you have data to support this assertion?



I'm rarely one to agree with Trench, but.... 
Giulianis claim that 93 percent of black murder victims are killed by other blacks - The Washington Post
FBI &mdash; Expanded Homicide Data Table 6


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 6, 2015)

celticelk said:


> Nice stereotyping, Trench. Do you even know any poor people?



Yea... They're not allowed to buy any of that stuff on the money the gov't gives them. Even if they get it on a card, the machine literally won't let them buy certain things outside of a given set of strict criteria.

What some of them DO do, however, is offer to pay for all of your things using their EBT card so that you'll give them the $ you would have spent. You can clearly buy cigs, beer and $5 footlongs on that, but to believe that everyone receiving gov't help does this would be silly.

Also... Why do we keep stats on what color the people who kill other people are and then use that data to see if any one race is killing themselves off as opposed to trying to deal with the fact that Americans are killing each other no matter what they look like?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 6, 2015)

Konfyouzd said:


> Also... Why do we keep stats on what color the people who kill other people are and then use that data to see if any one race is killing themselves off as opposed to trying to deal with the fact that Americans are killing each other no matter what they look like?



Because it can help disprove the notion that one race is after the other. I think it's absolutely stupid to think that way and it's a damn shame that the numbers need to be kept just to assure folks that it's not 100 years ago. 

EDIT: Just want to make it clear that what I mean is that I agree with you, that the issue should be: Why do we, as Americans, regardless of race, keep killing eachother?


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 6, 2015)

Yea... The idea that one race is after another is just weird to me. Like we're all born preloaded with a program that says: "If it ain't like you, kill it with fire!"


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 6, 2015)

Konfyouzd said:


> Yea... The idea that one race is after another is just weird to me.



Couldn't agree with you more. 

That said, I'm glad the information is there and that there is a push to get more, accurate data. 

The more information, and not bullcrap, out there the better.


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 6, 2015)

Well that's true... Since ppl want to make an issue of it, it makes sense to keep the peace if nothing else. I just really wish there was a magical way to undo that way of thinking... 

You'd think social media would actually help, but it only seems to exacerbate the issue when any time something that *might* be construed as a race issue gets plastered up in a news feed 20 billion times/day.

Only seems to reinforce the preconceived notions a lot of folks have that they were basing on a small handful of personal experiences. 

I often find myself wanting to post things on Facebook like:

"Today an officer stopped me to ask me a question, treated me very courteously and subsequently thanked me for being such a cooperative person... What a dick..."

But I'm not sure it would help. It would actually probably piss off a lot of my black friends, sadly because I refuse to hop on the "eff the police" bandwagon. 

Coincidentally that's exactly how my past 3 or 4 interactions with the police have been. Even the ones that stopped me for fitting the world's most generic description of a black man of average height. 

(Well... Except one of them... But still that's like a 75% average.)


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 6, 2015)

vilk said:


> All I can say is that it was very reassuring when I was living in Japan to know that nobody could pull a gun/ shoot me.
> 
> And regardless of how things were 25 years ago, it's not very reassuring when I see shootings happen just a block away from me on the news when I live in what's considered a safer part of the city.



That's such an irrational fear to have. I mean, I know sharks and Humboldt squids are a thing, but I don't feel I'm instantly in danger when I step into the water on the beach. 

You're far more likely to die in an automobile accident (~1600/1) or from intentionally hurting yourself (~8500/1) and most of all you might just drop dead from heart disease (~470/1). Comparatively, you're odds of getting acosted with a firearm are ~25000/1 and to actually be killed by a gun is all the way at over 500000/1. 

Other pretty common activities are far more, statistically, dangerous like eating, walking, drinking alcohol, and falling down the stairs. 

That fear is part of the problem.

Check this out: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

There is a lot to be scared of, but gun violence isn't really one of them, at least for the average person living in this country.


----------



## celticelk (May 6, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I'm rarely one to agree with Trench, but....
> Giulianis claim that 93 percent of black murder victims are killed by other blacks - The Washington Post
> FBI &mdash; Expanded Homicide Data Table 6



That's a good start, Max, but Trench's claim was about black-on-black *crime*, not just murder.


----------



## Basti (May 6, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> You're far more likely to die in an automobile accident (~1600/1) or from intentionally hurting yourself (~8500/1) and most of all you might just drop dead from heart disease (~470/1). Comparatively, you're odds of getting acosted with a firearm are ~25000/1 and to actually be killed by a gun is all the way at over 500000/1.
> 
> Other pretty common activities are far more, statistically, dangerous like eating, walking, drinking alcohol, and falling down the stairs.


Cars, hearts, food, walking, alcohol and stairs do not exist for the sole purpose of killing, however, which might explain why they're not as scary as guns.


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 6, 2015)

Doesn't change the fact that it's irrational to fear something that doesn't have a mind of its own. People give things purpose.


----------



## celticelk (May 6, 2015)

Konfyouzd said:


> Doesn't change the fact that it's irrational to fear something that doesn't have a mind of its own. People give things purpose.



Gotta pull out my favorite Eddie Izzard quote for this:

"The National Rifle Association says that 'guns don't kill people, people do.' But I think the gun helps. I mean, just standing on the street corner saying 'bang!' - that's not going to kill too many people, is it?"


----------



## celticelk (May 6, 2015)

Captain Butterscotch said:


> I do, and work around them all day and it's a stereotype based upon fact if you go by this area.  Talking about politics and the economy is interesting because it is a common situation around here and I can't refute it because we all (friends, co-workers, etc) see it.



The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 6, 2015)

Basti said:


> Cars, hearts, food, walking, alcohol and stairs do not exist for the sole purpose of killing, however, which might explain why they're not as scary as guns.



I'm not questioning whether they are objectively scary, I'm stating that statistically they're not nearly as scary as the news media makes them out to be. 



Konfyouzd said:


> Doesn't change the fact that it's irrational to fear something that doesn't have a mind of its own. People give things purpose.







celticelk said:


> That's a good start, Max, but Trench's claim was about black-on-black *crime*, not just murder.



Is it so hard of jump to say that murder, which is a crime, might corolate in some way? 

There are a bazillion tables on that second site, so give me some time to pick through it and I'll see if anything is applicable. 



celticelk said:


> Gotta pull out my favorite Eddie Izzard quote for this:
> 
> "The National Rifle Association says that 'guns don't kill people, people do.' But I think the gun helps. I mean, just standing on the street corner saying 'bang!' - that's not going to kill too many people, is it?"



Guns make murder easier, I don't think anyone is claiming otherwise. 

But gun crime, statistically, isn't nearly as abundant a cause of death [not murder] as it's made out to be. 

That said, almost 70% of murder is committed with a gun. 

FBI &mdash; Expanded Homicide Data Table 7

Where I don't agree with that comedian's argument is that if we take away the guns we're not going to see those 70% disappear.


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 6, 2015)

That's what I'm thinking. People that kill people will always seek the easiest method. When you pop the root of a heap, another node takes its place. Likewise, something else will simply be the easiest way of killing people and we'll be in the same boat we're in now with guns but we'll be using different words. 

I saw a comparison to Japan earlier. But it's also my understanding that in Japan there's far more responsibility put on the individuals--at least from the anecdotes I've been told. For instance, it's wise to avoid doing certain things there because even if you're found innocent, the people around you will treat you as though you were found guilty simply for having been charged. Again, this is anecdotal information so, Vilk, you'd be a much better person to confirm or deny this. 

However, going on the assumption that this is true, and considering that we live in a country where a man that we more or less know either killed or had his wife killed not only got away with it, but then wrote a book explaining how, I'd say our value system is more at fault than any object you can place in our hands.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 6, 2015)

Exactly, the US has a murder and violence problem, not simply a gun problem.


----------



## estabon37 (May 6, 2015)

Hey, I'm generally in line with the rest of the thread, I've just gotta highlight this bit from earlier on:



TRENCHLORD said:


> At least there are some good things coming from our current safety-net system. (which I'm not totally against btw)
> It's not great for inspiring motivation,* but it's great for lowering desperation.*



Damn straight.

But importantly, it's not as if the motivation has gone away. The US still has higher levels of income than every other OECD nation by a significant margin, and _California_ has more billionaires than all but two _countries_. The idea that the best way to motivate people is to dangle financial carrots in front of their faces is nowhere near as solid as many think, but even if it's true, the US has more motivation lying around in private and public wealth than most of the world's nations combined.

We've spent less time as a society considering whether or not being financially stable is also motivating. It's easy to see that most of the world's millionaires and billionaires don't suddenly stop innovating and taking risks once they make some money. If anything, they tend to increase their workloads because all of a sudden making a mistake isn't going to ruin their lives. Financial success breeds innovation and motivation.

So, why shouldn't financial stability have the same effects on a smaller scale? Why would working full time hours on minimum wage, living paycheck to paycheck, be more motivating than actually having some spare time and money with which you could invest in your own education, security, or physical and mental wellbeing? 

I'm certainly not saying safety net systems eliminate crime; people will still committ crimes of emotion, crimes attached to psychological instability, and substance abuse, amongst other factors. But there's a lot to be said for a society where the guy that mugs you does it because he's an arsehole, not because he has no other means of income.


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 6, 2015)

celticelk said:


> The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".



This is awesome...


----------



## michblanch (May 6, 2015)

watson503 said:


> The neighborhood I live in now is the same one I lived in during my teens and early 20s, I recently moved back here last year. When I was living here in the late 80s-mid 90s, I'd hear gunshots all night long as this is Houston's most gang-infested neighborhood - now, not as bad which surprises me as MS-13 has been making a claim trying to take this area over. We've had one murder in my apartment complex since I've lived here but that's nothing compared to how it used to be - I've seen so much f'ing violence over the color of a rag, it is maddening.




Yea MS13 has been making a push on the south side 610 / 59 South / Beltway area for a while. 

It was worse after hurricane Katrina with the gangs coming in from New Orleans. 
Speaking with HPD officers , they were just letting them battle it out and not putting much effort into finding killers. 

That Katrina drug war in Houston got a lil rough. 

I think the Mexican Mafia is still pretty strong from Houston to Corpus even though the Feds took out the leader. 

Then the Bandidos and Hells Angels went at it for a few years with some people being found in ice chests. The HA's were trying to branch off into Texas. 

There was also the incident where the Bandidos had a sniper picking off HA's walking out of restaurants.


----------



## flint757 (May 7, 2015)

estabon37 said:


> But importantly, it's not as if the motivation has gone away. The US still has higher levels of income than every other OECD nation by a significant margin, and _California_ has more billionaires than all but two _countries_. The idea that the best way to motivate people is to dangle financial carrots in front of their faces is nowhere near as solid as many think, but even if it's true, the US has more motivation lying around in private and public wealth than most of the world's nations combined.



That isn't entirely true. This is only accurate if you include the wealthiest people as well, which obviously skews the data by a lot. We actually rank pretty low among the OECD as far as middle class and lower. Middle class is close to about the same, but everything below that you'd actually be financially better off in pretty much any other OECD nation. 

When you break each nation down by classes things aren't so great in the U.S. for the larger majority of citizens. That said, we're the best nation in the world to be filthy rich in.


----------



## estabon37 (May 7, 2015)

flint757 said:


> That isn't entirely true. This is only accurate if you include the wealthiest people as well, which obviously skews the data by a lot. We actually rank pretty low among the OECD as far as middle class and lower. Middle class is close to about the same, but everything below that you'd actually be financially better off in pretty much any other OECD nation.
> 
> When you break each nation down by classes things aren't so great in the U.S. for the larger majority of citizens. That said, we're the best nation in the world to be filthy rich in.



Definitely the case, and also kind of the point I was trying to make, but I guess I flubbed it a bit. I was talking about the idea of potential wealth as a motivator and the idea of safety nets as a 'demotivator'. Neither of those ideas seem to be true, and I think your notes on the state of the middle and lower classes kind of support that. 

Then again, maybe it's tough to be motivated by anything at all when you're busy wondering whether or not you'll accidentally be picked off by a bikie sniper the next time you walk out of a restaurant.

Holy shit. I just got to use the term 'bikie sniper' without any sense of irony or exaggeration. Would've made my day if it didn't make me suddenly realise some of you poor buggers on this forum seem to be living in or near a Mad Max-ian dystopian nightmare, which is supposed to be Australia's thing. Apparently you've been hanging out with Mel Gibson for too long; he's a bad influence.


----------



## pushpull7 (May 7, 2015)

Being of this country and not having any significant knowledge of others it's hard to say. Though Canada isn't really bad in their really "poor" England still has terrible separation of wealth. Not sure about Germany or Australia TBH. Then of course African countries are off the hook in separation. 

But back to the controversial comment about black on black crime, it's been known for a long time. Please quit being a dope about that comment being "racist" and realize the significance. If it was blacks killing whites I'd be more inclined to think that it's an issue dealing with "class" and blacks being kept down the scale. The idea that a significant amount of blacks killing other blacks/selling drugs (like crack) to other blacks pretty much confirms that people are assholes regardless of race  

Honestly, criminal activity REGARDLESS of color is unacceptable. Micheal moore is an idiot. Releasing a bunch of drug dealers isn't simply releasing people who have been "wrongly" accused. It's also a very significant population of very dangerous criminals who's agenda is to be criminal for their own personal gain. (it's not like they give a .... about other blacks  )

Yeah, russians, italians, etc are also assholes, but it's not a race thing. Dangerous criminals should be treated as such. It's embarrassing that people put a "race" tag on it. (and most think it's just a guy who sold a dimebag of pot, which is equally embarrassing because usually it's about someone selling hard drugs and carrying illegal weapons. That should be something people should NOT tollerate)


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (May 7, 2015)

estabon37 said:


> Apparently you've been hanging out with Mel Gibson for too long; he's a bad influence.



What are you, some sort of Jew?


----------



## pushpull7 (May 7, 2015)




----------



## estabon37 (May 7, 2015)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> What are you, some sort of Jew?



See, this is why we can't have nice things. Or Mel Gibson. Because he makes us anti-semitic. And takes our nice things.


----------



## celticelk (May 7, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Is it so hard of jump to say that murder, which is a crime, might corolate in some way?



Let's assume for the sake of argument that murder statistics are a reasonable proxy for crime generally, at least as far as racial breakdowns of offenders and victims go. Trench says:



> One gripe I have on that article though is that they say blacks are disproportionately likely to be the victims of crimes and over-policing, but they exclude the fact that it's by far mostly black on black crimes which might well account for a greater chance of "over-policing".



Using the statistics you provided, 91% of black men murdered in 2012 were killed by black men. 83.5% of white men killed in 2012 were killed by white men. So 91% justifies "over-policing" but 83.5% doesn't? What about the raw numbers - there were almost as many white men killed by white men in 2012 as there were black men murdered *in total*. Let's also step outside of the race question: 88.5% of men murdered in 2012 were killed by men. Does the "men-on-men" crime rate justify "over-policing" on a gender basis?

Claims of black-on-black crime rates as justification for differential "over-policing" don't stand up to the actual statistics, which suggests that it's being offered as an explanation in order to throw the responsibility back on blacks and their "criminal" culture.



MaxOfMetal said:


> That said, almost 70% of murder is committed with a gun.
> 
> FBI &mdash; Expanded Homicide Data Table 7
> 
> Where I don't agree with that comedian's argument is that if we take away the guns we're not going to see those 70% disappear.



How could you know that? Whatever distinctively-violent tendencies the US exhibits, it's irrefutable that they've developed in an environment of relatively easy access to firearms, because the US has *always* had an environment of relatively easy access to firearms. I'd agree that it's unlikely that *none* of those murders would have happened in the absence of access to firearms, but I think it's reasonable to posit that some substantial percentage of them would not.


----------



## celticelk (May 7, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> The idea that a significant amount of blacks killing other blacks/selling drugs (like crack) to other blacks pretty much confirms that people are assholes regardless of race
> 
> Honestly, criminal activity REGARDLESS of color is unacceptable. Micheal moore is an idiot. Releasing a bunch of drug dealers isn't simply releasing people who have been "wrongly" accused. It's also a very significant population of very dangerous criminals who's agenda is to be criminal for their own personal gain. (it's not like they give a .... about other blacks  )



Motivation for selling drugs is a little more complicated than you're making it out to be. See, for example: Psychosocial Correlates of Adolescent Drug Dealing in the Inner City


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 7, 2015)

celticelk said:


> Let's assume for the sake of argument that murder statistics are a reasonable proxy for crime generally, at least as far as racial breakdowns of offenders and victims go. Trench says:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're forgetting the scale. The US is ~77% white while only ~13% are black. Though about 2600 whites were killed by whites and about 2400 blacks were killed by blacks. 

While the actual number of murders is incredibly similar, the percentage of the overall population is very different. 

Even if the same police attention is given to a group only 16% the size of the other, it's going to seem like much more attention is given to that group. 

This isn't racism, it's just data. 



> How could you know that? Whatever distinctively-violent tendencies the US exhibits, it's irrefutable that they've developed in an environment of relatively easy access to firearms, because the US has *always* had an environment of relatively easy access to firearms. I'd agree that it's unlikely that *none* of those murders would have happened in the absence of access to firearms, but I think it's reasonable to posit that some substantial percentage of them would not.



I don't know that, but neither do you. So we're on an even keel here.  

The fact is 1/3 of Americans own a gun, and there as many as 300,000,000 guns in this country, but roughly 30,000 gun murders. 

Canada and Switzerland both have a lot of guns per capita, yet much less murder. 

While I agree that if we remove all weapons we'll see a drop in murder guns have proliferated so significantly that trying to stop them now would be akin to prohibition in the early part of the 20th century or our absolutely failed war on drugs. It's just not feasible. 

What we need to do is fix why people murder, not how they murder.


----------



## TedEH (May 7, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Canada and Switzerland both have a lot of guns per capita, yet much less murder.



I can't speak for Switzerland, but I don't think that 1/3 Canadians are gun owners. And even if that were the case, there's lots of other missing context, differences in gun law, etc. We're entirely ignoring the differences between say a family with a collection of hunting rifles that are kept locked up 90% of the year, compared to every third house having a gun within easy access for "protection". I would guess that a much higher percentage of Canadian firearms are locked up, not carried around or accessible, etc. I admit I'm making assumptions, but I've not yet encountered evidence to the contrary.


----------



## vilk (May 7, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's such an irrational fear to have. I mean, I know sharks and Humboldt squids are a thing, but I don't feel I'm instantly in danger when I step into the water on the beach.
> 
> You're far more likely to die in an automobile accident (~1600/1) or from intentionally hurting yourself (~8500/1) and most of all you might just drop dead from heart disease (~470/1). Comparatively, you're odds of getting acosted with a firearm are ~25000/1 and to actually be killed by a gun is all the way at over 500000/1.
> 
> ...





It's not just murder though. Guns allow people to commit other crimes that would otherwise be much bigger than themselves.

For example muggings. Yeah, there are plenty of ways you can mug people without guns. You could cruise with a gang. You could pull a knife. But not everyone has a bunch of sadist friends, and and probably far fewer people than we might imagine actually have the gumption to full on stab someone. 

But having a gun makes it simple. The simplest even. Anyone big or small, chicken or fierce, on the hardest of times or maybe even just bored, can go grab a gun and use it to commit just about any crime under the sun in a faster, easier way.

I do in fact realize that gun related injuries and deaths are less probable than me getting hurt on my carride home from work. But I'm not only talking about gun related injuries and deaths when I'm talking about guns. I'm talking about that any and every person with bad intentions could veritably pull a gun on me, and I would be at their mercy.

I felt more comfortable living in a place where I knew that couldn't happen.

p.s. I'm not even Mr. Anti-gun guy or anything like that I'm just tellin it how it is


----------



## asher (May 7, 2015)

Fun fact: the most deaths by guns are *suicides*, because guns are so damn easy that a momentary decision can have very... permanent effects.

Places with more guns have more homicides - 11 facts about gun violence in the United States - Vox

These cards overall have some pretty interesting statistics.

There&#39;s roughly one gun for every person in America - 11 facts about gun violence in the United States - Vox


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 7, 2015)

TedEH said:


> I can't speak for Switzerland, but I don't think that 1/3 Canadians are gun owners. And even if that were the case, there's lots of other missing context, differences in gun law, etc. We're entirely ignoring the differences between say a family with a collection of hunting rifles that are kept locked up 90% of the year, compared to every third house having a gun within easy access for "protection". I would guess that a much higher percentage of Canadian firearms are locked up, not carried around or accessible, etc. I admit I'm making assumptions, but I've not yet encountered evidence to the contrary.



That's kinda the point I'm making. Guns themselves aren't the problem, it's how Americans treat and disrespect guns and the lives of others.



vilk said:


> It's not just murder though. Guns allow people to commit other crimes that would otherwise be much bigger than themselves.
> 
> For example muggings. Yeah, there are plenty of ways you can mug people without guns. You could cruise with a gang. You could pull a knife. But not everyone has a bunch of sadist friends, and and probably far fewer people than we might imagine actually have the gumption to full on stab someone.
> 
> ...



That's the thing though, year after year crime is on the decline. The odds of a random jackass just up and grabbing a gun to commit a crime is lowering. 

It's the fear of crime that pushed gun ownership into the stratosphere and all data points that causing more issues than it solved. 

Fear of everything in this culture is why we can't have nice things. 



asher said:


> Fun fact: the most deaths by guns are *suicides*, because guns are so damn easy that a momentary decision can have very... permanent effects.
> 
> Places with more guns have more homicides - 11 facts about gun violence in the United States - Vox
> 
> ...



You're not paying attention. I never said guns weren't a problem, nor am I against diminishing thier numbers. 

In fact, gun ownership is on the decline right now and has been for the last decade. Depending on who you want to believe in the next decade we're going to go from having 1/3 households with guns to as few as 1/5. That's a huge dip. 

As for the sheer numbers though, the amount of guns being purchased is rather steady. That means it's not that individuals are choosing to arm themselves, rather collectors and hobbyists are expanding thier collections. Those are rarely the folks who commit violent crime. 

Here's the thing, we have more legal guns than people in this country, and as many as 2000000 illegal weapons on top of that. Firearms aren't going anywhere anytime soon. That's the reality of it. They're far too plentiful and ingrained in our culture. This nation has a terrible history of not being able to keep illegal substances and items away from those who really want them. It would be great if we could wave a magic wand and get rid of all the firearms, but we can't. And because we can't we need to make it so folks don't want to commit crimes with them. 

Guns are a red herring. It's an attractive concept thinking that abolition will cause the most change, but it's not as clear cut as that. 

We, as a society, need to put more value on life and quality of that life.


----------



## asher (May 7, 2015)

It's not so much that it's a red herring/I'm not paying attention (though I definitely should have worded my opening better); the thread has drifted to talking specifically about guns, and it's still relevant and interesting data.

Though I think I just fundamentally disagree that doing anything about the number of guns "in the wild" so to speak is impossible, I won't claim it's easy either. I more would just say that it's not mutually exclusive to many other structural and institutional changes we need to make to address many of the things that might drive gun use, as the thread's been discussing.


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 7, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Fear of everything in this culture is why we can't have nice things.
> .



QFT


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 7, 2015)

asher said:


> It's not so much that it's a red herring/I'm not paying attention (though I definitely should have worded my opening better); the thread has drifted to talking specifically about guns, and it's still relevant and interesting data.
> 
> Though I think I just fundamentally disagree that doing anything about the number of guns "in the wild" so to speak is impossible, I won't claim it's easy either. I more would just say that it's not mutually exclusive to many other structural and institutional changes we need to make to address many of the things that might drive gun use, as the thread's been discussing.



Impossible? No. Feasible? Not at all. There are so many issues that would come up that by the time it was all sorted out we would already have fostered a generation to not want guns. 

We would have to basically reinvent our Constitution, regulatory agencies, and economy to make that happen. Given how slow progress is, for the time being, it's "practically impossible".


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 7, 2015)

I dunno... I'm sure we could get Congress to... Oh wait... Doing it individually state by state even seems difficult unless you're authorizing law enforcement to systematically search every home.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 7, 2015)

Konfyouzd said:


> I dunno... I'm sure we could get Congress to... Oh wait...



Pretty much. 

Anything that we can accomplish as a society without government intervention the better.



Konfyouzd said:


> Doing it individually state by state even seems difficult unless you're authorizing law enforcement to systematically search every home.



Yeah, that's the thing, I don't trust this government to make that a smooth, safe, and practical process. 

Then think of the financial ramifications. How do we reimburse people? Do they go by used prices? Prices when new? With over 300 million guns, and the average firearm costing around $600 (some MUCH MUCH more) we'd be looking at over $180 billion just to buy them all up. What about firearm manufacturers and retailers? Does the government have to buy up their facilities and inventories? What about other businesses based on accessories and training?

If we're just trying to cull the number of guns, who gets to keep them? How do we enforce that? Are those who don't meet the new requirements grandfathered in?

It's all a legal and logistical nightmare. With the pay off being that we now have a bunch of angry people who want to kill each other _without as many_ guns.


----------



## flint757 (May 7, 2015)

Out of curiosity does anyone know the price they gave people and the number of guns Australia had when they did the buy back?

It'll definitely never happen with our current congress. They've never been more divided historically. Same with the public. Gun toting conservatives would completely dismiss the idea as liberal hogwash or some other crap. They also enjoy threatening to kill anyone who dares to try and take their guns from them. Even the most sane people I know who own guns go on these sort of tirades when the topic comes up (try and take my gun and you'll leave with a bullet, etc.). Whether they mean it or not I don't really know, but they bluster when the topic comes up even just conversationally. Which is interesting in and of itself because this means they value their toys more than human life. Doesn't exactly say much about their character that's for sure.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 7, 2015)

flint757 said:


> Out of curiosity does anyone know the price they gave people and the number of guns Australia had when they did the buy back?



Info on specific prices are spotty, but supposedly it cost them around $500 million to buy back just shy of 700,000 guns. They did it again for handguns. This was all handled a little differently by territory apparently. 

They still have close to 800,000 gun owners. 

They are allowed guns, but are restricted by caliber.



flint757 said:


> It'll definitely never happen with our current congress. They've never been more divided historically. Same with the public. Gun toting conservatives would completely dismiss the idea as liberal hogwash or some other crap. They also enjoy threatening to kill anyone who dares to try and take their guns from them. Even the most sane people I know who own guns go on these sort of tirades when the topic comes up (try and take my gun and you'll leave with a bullet, etc.). Whether they mean it or not I don't really know, but they bluster when the topic comes up even just conversationally. Which is interesting in and of itself because this means they value their toys more than human life. Doesn't exactly say much about their character that's for sure.



A lot of gun owners have had the narrative of one day the government is going to swoop in, bust down their door and take their guns by force, and then start going all red state on their lives. 

It seems silly, but a lot of the guys who still believe in that were indoctrinated as children and/or grew up during the Cold War or at least their parents did. 

Believe it or not though, that is on the swift decline in mainstream firearm circles. Even the NRA which has historically been pretty hard-line has stopped with that rhetoric. They realize how crazy that sounds and they've been trying to appeal to younger non-republican folks. Selling gun ownership as more of a hobby and lifestyle. 

Most of the folks I've met who are into guns don't believe it, even the older crowd. There are always a few on the fringe, but hearing them talk I get the feeling that even they don't really believe it anymore. It's more of a "hey I'm so into guns I'll kill anyone who tries to take mine" badge of crazy-honor they use to one-up the casual gun crowd.

Those folks aren't even the problem either. They have too much knowledge and respect for firearms to do something stupid like just go out and shoot someone.


----------



## pushpull7 (May 8, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> You're forgetting the scale. The US is ~77% white while only ~13% are black. Though about 2600 whites were killed by whites and about 2400 blacks were killed by blacks.
> 
> While the actual number of murders is incredibly similar, the percentage of the overall population is very different.
> 
> ...



Good point (and not being a kiss up) It IS about why people do "x" vs "how"

But you've got a nation (regardless of color) that puts value on murder (and other crimes) You can't be listening to steady diet of "ain't nothing to cap a .... like it's nothin' " and then be all booy hooy over the death of someone. Metaphor? No, not really. Though I understand the idea of "painting the picture" I think that you cannot worship terrible activity and then get bent over terrible activity.

People have been murders many many 1000's of years before any of us were born. If you've got people sitting around watching people beat the .... out of each other, while playing GTA, listening to gangsta music (and no, I don't put metal in that category) while driving through stop signs/almost running over people....it's pretty tough to get people straight enough not to murder when they get bent.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 8, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> Good point (and not being a kiss up) It IS about why people do "x" vs "how"
> 
> But you've got a nation (regardless of color) that puts value on murder (and other crimes) You can't be listening to steady diet of "ain't nothing to cap a .... like it's nothin' " and then be all booy hooy over the death of someone. Metaphor? No, not really. Though I understand the idea of "painting the picture" I think that you cannot worship terrible activity and then get bent over terrible activity.
> 
> People have been murders many many 1000's of years before any of us were born. If you've got people sitting around watching people beat the .... out of each other, while playing GTA, listening to gangsta music (and no, I don't put metal in that category) while driving through stop signs/almost running over people....it's pretty tough to get people straight enough not to murder when they get bent.



Been listening to loud music about murder and mutilation since forever. It's fun in a morbid kind of way. Still wear my Cannibal Corpse shirts. I still value life. Why is hip hop culture any different? Action movies? Video games? 

I've grown up around that stuff and still see murder and crime as bad. I highly doubt I'm in the minority there.


----------



## flint757 (May 8, 2015)

When I'm listening to gangsta rap I'll sing along to the incredibly misogynistic lyrics and crime/drug use and enjoy every minute of it when I'm jammin in my car. I don't treat women like property/items to own and I'm not a criminal.

Silly generalizations are silly.


----------



## pushpull7 (May 8, 2015)

I'll tell you why:

Because many "hip hop" (which I use loosely because I like many elements of that culture) "live" the criminal ideal. Example? The Baltimore "looting" (not riots, which I feel is different)

To me, right or wrong, it's an entitlement. If people really just cared about someone being mistreated, then they wouldn't be looting. 

I'm for people treating each other well. I don't give a .... what color they are or how bad they had it growing up. You don't have to be a ....ing "christian" to have a moral compass. Just treat the next guy like a human being and stop blaming irrational BS for troubles.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 8, 2015)

One's upbringing, experiences , circumstances, environment, ect..., those are factors that influence how they'll "handle" things like violence and gore in music, stress, ect...
And then of course there's just the simple innate "individual" differences from one person to another.

The role of movie, tv, game, music ect. violence/gore/sex is really a greatly-varying role dependent on the individual and his/her collective life baggage.
Fortunately most people aren't converted-over to the dark side by all this trash we're so gleefully immersed in.


----------



## mcsalty (May 8, 2015)

I always find it funny when people cite "violent rap lyrics" as a factor in violent crime, but completely brush off violent lyrics in metal as if the two are somehow drastically different


----------



## estabon37 (May 8, 2015)

flint757 said:


> Out of curiosity does anyone know the price they gave people and the number of guns Australia had when they did the buy back?



You mentioned my people, and I didn't instantly materialise. I'm getting sloppy.

The numbers don't tell the whole story, so as I've done a few times in the past, I'll highly recommend The Daily Show's take on how it was done, not only because it's quite accurate, but because it captures the reasoning that can't be expressed by isolated data (the link is to part 1; parts 2 & 3 are easy to find from there). It's also fairly funny, and in hindsight, a pretty great example of the brilliance John Oliver shows when you give him the time and budget to really sink his teeth into a complex issue.



MaxOfMetal said:


> Info on specific prices are spotty, but supposedly it cost them around $500 million to buy back just shy of 700,000 guns. They did it again for handguns. This was all handled a little differently by territory apparently.



It wasn't handled that differently between the states, because it was tackled as a result of new federal laws. If I remember correctly (I was only 14 when this all went down), the shit hit the fan somewhat in Queensland, but that's because QLD is our Texas. The only people copped it were conservative politicians that supported the new gun laws and people that tried to horde their arsenal - because getting caught with an illegal gun now means having the book thrown at you pretty hard. We've done amnesties since the buybacks as well; ring the police and tell them you have a gun, they'll come and collect it no questions asked.



MaxOfMetal said:


> They still have close to 800,000 gun owners.
> 
> They are allowed guns, but are restricted by caliber.



More importantly, I believe we're restricted by purpose. I only know a few people that have ever attempted to get or successfully attained a gun licence. Farmers are the most common, hunters probably next common, with maybe the exception of people that like to hang out on shooting ranges. 

If you want to protect your home, bar your windows and get a vicious dog, because you're probably not going to be given a gun licence living in a city. 

As other comments here have implied, the biggest factor is cultural...



MaxOfMetal said:


> A lot of gun owners have had the narrative of one day the government is going to swoop in, bust down their door and take their guns by force, and then start going all red state on their lives.
> 
> It seems silly, but a lot of the guys who still believe in that were indoctrinated as children and/or grew up during the Cold War or at least their parents did.
> 
> Believe it or not though, that is on the swift decline in mainstream firearm circles. Even the NRA which has historically been pretty hard-line has stopped with that rhetoric. They realize how crazy that sounds and they've been trying to appeal to younger non-republican folks. Selling gun ownership as more of a hobby and lifestyle.



Australia never really had that narrative or that level of rhetoric. It was not founded through war with the British. We've never had a (recognised) war on Australian soil (indigenous Australians might be justified in disputing this claim). We're kind of too far away from everything to make it worth consuming too many resources to invade our borders. ...., everything here is too far away from everything else here - we barely inhabit most of our country. 

I've spent a lot of time on this forum arguing in favour of disarmament because it's done wonders here. But I've come to see just how heavily ingrained in the culture, history, and perception of identity the owning of firearms is for many (but not all, and probably not most) Americans. The reason we almost entirely eradicated guns here is because a complete deadshit of a cunt of a subhuman fuck (by the way, I hope he had the shittest birthday ever yesterday) murdered thirty five people just over nineteen years ago, and as a nation we collectively had the following conversation:

First guy: "Maybe having powerful weapons in society is a shit idea."
Everybody else: "Yeah, fuck 'em."

Then we willingly handed them over, because we've never in our history needed them en masse, and the government gave us money for our efforts.


----------



## vilk (May 8, 2015)

mcsalty said:


> I always find it funny when people cite "violent rap lyrics" as a factor in violent crime, but completely brush off violent lyrics in metal as if the two are somehow drastically different



Well, just to play devil's advocate, I would point out that a lot of popular rap artists (Biggie, Tupac) are actually claiming to have done or to personally believe in the things the rap about. And for all we know they might have. Whereas if some dude was a serial killer mutilating people and ....ing corpses and stuff he's probably got FBI tracking him to put him in the electric chair and it's like a whole different situation.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 8, 2015)

vilk said:


> Well, just to play devil's advocate, I would point out that a lot of popular rap artists (Biggie, Tupac) are actually claiming to have done or to personally believe in the things the rap about. And for all we know they might have. Whereas if some dude was a serial killer mutilating people and ....ing corpses and stuff he's probably got FBI tracking him to put him in the electric chair and it's like a whole different situation.



How is that different though? Both talk about violent crime which is very unlikely for them to actually take part in. 

Rap/hip hop is like professional wrestling these days. It's all just invented stories used to tell a larger arc. Anyone who thinks otherwise in 2015 is probably not very bright. 

I'm talking about current artists by the way, the rappers from the 80's/90's were likely a bit more genuine.


----------



## flint757 (May 8, 2015)

I could name quite a few criminal metal artists as well. 

It's ridiculous to blame core problems on entertainment. The only thing music perpetuates is certain styles of dressing and the way people talk. People don't just commit crime because of music or movies or any other form of entertainment. If people are committing crimes it's because they needed to or wanted to in the first place.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 8, 2015)

flint757 said:


> I could name quite a few criminal metal artists as well.
> 
> It's ridiculous to blame core problems on entertainment. The only thing music perpetuates is certain styles of dressing and the way people talk. People don't just commit crime because of music or movies or any other form of entertainment. If people are committing crimes it's because they needed to or wanted to in the first place.



 

It's putting the cart before the horse. 

What's more likely, music and video games causing folks to commit crime, even though tons of studies have shown that's not at all the case, or that people who are already criminals or predisposed to becoming criminals would latch on to something that, for lack of a better term, glorifies it?


----------



## asher (May 8, 2015)

But the hippity hop and baggy pants and lack of family values!


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 8, 2015)

estabon37 said:


> You mentioned my people, and I didn't instantly materialise. I'm getting sloppy.
> 
> The numbers don't tell the whole story, so as I've done a few times in the past, I'll highly recommend The Daily Show's take on how it was done, not only because it's quite accurate, but because it captures the reasoning that can't be expressed by isolated data (the link is to part 1; parts 2 & 3 are easy to find from there). It's also fairly funny, and in hindsight, a pretty great example of the brilliance John Oliver shows when you give him the time and budget to really sink his teeth into a complex issue.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the clarification! It's always good to have someone from the region being discussed chime in.  

You pretty much hit the nail on the head, we Americans love out guns too much to willingly surrender them, even for cash. 

There have been numerous cities and counties in the US that have tried "Cash For Guns" programs and they've been wholly ineffective and usually counterproductive. Few weapons are recovered and it winds up just being a cash grab or those turning in weapons do so to scam the system. 

If the US wants to get rid of guns we're going to have to take some drastic measures, which in the end is likely not going to have the silver lining we'd hope for.


----------



## USMarine75 (May 8, 2015)

mcsalty said:


> I always find it funny when people cite "violent rap lyrics" as a factor in violent crime, but completely brush off violent lyrics in metal as if the two are somehow drastically different



Also, there is a difference between music and music culture. e.g. Hip hop / rap started out as a counterculture, much the same way as punk did. They were as much (or more) about the lifestyle than the music. Or more likely, the music told the story of the culture. 

On the other hand, you have people (posers? ) like me. I love metal, but I have no tattoos or piercings, don't smoke, rarely drink, don't wear band t-shirts or dress like an extra in the Walking Dead, and I don't have Hep-C.  

So what I'm trying to say is there are people that identify with the culture of the music, and there are people that just enjoy the music (and a mix in-between). I don't think anyone is driven to commit crimes based soley on their music, just like Ozzy doesn't influence people to commit suicide. But, if you're suicidal and listening to "Suicide Solution" on repeat all day it probaly doesn't help.

tl;dr behaviour doesn't occur in a vacuum.


----------



## metallatem (May 8, 2015)

But Tipper Gore fixed all that by putting stickers on records


----------



## USMarine75 (May 8, 2015)

metallatem said:


> But Tipper Gore fixed all that by putting stickers on records



I love her! She made this happen.


----------



## WarMachine (May 8, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> What we need to do is fix why people murder, not how they murder.


 This is it. When someone is ready to kill, for whatever the reason is; "insanity", poverty etc, they are going to do it, and do it with whatever tools they feel is necessary to get it done. Look at the recent Oklahoma City anniversary. Guns there? nope. Explosives? yes...


----------



## estabon37 (May 9, 2015)

WarMachine said:


> This is it. When someone is ready to kill, for whatever the reason is; "insanity", poverty etc, they are going to do it, and do it with whatever tools they feel is necessary to get it done. Look at the recent Oklahoma City anniversary. Guns there? nope. Explosives? yes...



I don't want to devalue your point, because you're correct, but I think it's worth recognising an important difference between guns and explosives.

Guns are quite convenient in terms of ease-of-use, have a low learning curve, and depending on the society, it's can be entirely legal to acquire one.

Explosives have to be assembled by the user, who may very well blow themself up in the process. The user has to be secretive in how and where they acquire and assemble the weapon. 

So, "when someone is ready to kill" is pretty hugely different between the two, because the use of bombs require a sustained determination to end somebody's life. A gun only requires that you know it's there. There are many (thousands? more?) cases of a shooter almost immediately regretting using a gun on another human being; bombers tend to have been so focused on their 'mission' that I'd assume a very low percentage regret their actions.


----------



## loqtrall (May 9, 2015)

I wish my city was part of the US that's "getting safer" or more crime-free.

I hear gunshots all around, all the time. I literally just heard a gunshot down my street about 5 minutes ago. And it's just starting Saturday night here? Yep, preparing for even more gunshots as the night progresses.

On city-data.com, our crime rate is only a couple points from going from "normal" to "high".

I just moved into this house a month ago and I've already seen the police speed down the street with their sirens on more than a dozen times, and almost had a 30+ person street fight happen right in front of my house, pretty sure some of those guys were brandishing pistols in their wastebands as well.


----------



## groverj3 (May 11, 2015)

It could be worse. As a former Michigander I'm required to say "At least you don't live in Flint."


----------



## Shewter (May 27, 2015)

It saddens me that people are so taken in by sensationalism in our great country. I get to hear every day how everyone's going to get shot, all the women are going to get raped, and everyone's getting poorer and poorer...

Sadly, facts don't matter to the majority of people that spout all of that nonsense. You show them that guns, and specifically the ones they're most afraid of, semi-automatic rifles, are used in a SMALL fraction of violent crime, they scream "what about the children!?!" you show them that rape statistics have glaring flaws that include people that have not been raped, they say "I know a girl..." you show them that people who are considered "poor" in this country are playing Xbox Ones, wearing $120 shoes and living in a bigger home than most lower-middle class folks, and they start rambling about the top 1% who have never earned anything in their life.

I give up... well, no I don't... but sometimes I want to.


----------



## flint757 (May 28, 2015)

So you swap one anecdotal scenario for another. I don't think that makes you more enlightened. 

In general people are either stagnating or getting poorer in this country (as in macro level, as in not everyone obviously). Some guy down the block owning an XBOX when he should have spent his money more wisely doesn't make that not so. Everyone in the middle class should be concerned about those in the 1%. What poor people do with their money has no real bearing on that fact as it is two separate issues ultimately.


----------



## asher (May 28, 2015)

Pesky facts, stop getting in the way of my sensationalism!

(with a nice side of rape denial? nice dude.)


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (May 28, 2015)

Maybe it's safer where some of you guys live, but not Indianapolis, that's for sure.

Guess the gang bangers and other assortment of human garbage didn't get the memo.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 28, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Maybe it's safer where some of you guys live, but not Indianapolis, that's for sure.
> 
> Guess the gang bangers and other assortment of human garbage didn't get the memo.



Considering it's almost June, this year is looking to be a good deal "safer" than at least the last five years. There have been 43 homicides so far, in comparison 2014 and 2013 had 143 and 146 respectively.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 28, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Considering it's almost June, this year is looking to be a good deal "safer" than at least the last five years. There have been 43 homicides so far, in comparison 2014 and 2013 had 143 and 146 respectively.



Nothing brings up the homicide rate like a good mid-western heatwave , just give it a few more months.

(inB4 someone jumps in to tell me there's no data to support that) I know it's easier to hide the gun when wearing a coat.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (May 28, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Considering it's almost June, this year is looking to be a good deal "safer" than at least the last five years. There have been 43 homicides so far, in comparison 2014 and 2013 had 143 and 146 respectively.



Yea, was looking up some of these kind of stats today. Apparently 2014 was the third highest murder rate on record for Indy.

2014 Indianapolis murders hit 3rd highest rate on record | WISH-TV


----------



## metallatem (May 29, 2015)

"Safe" is a pretty broad term. Clearly violent crime is a large factor and it's decline is definitely a good thing. However, identity theft and other types of financial fraud also make us unsafe. So do chemical contaminants in drinking water, bacteria in food, cell phone radiation and just general rates of anxiety, depression and other mental illness.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 29, 2015)

metallatem said:


> "Safe" is a pretty broad term. Clearly violent crime is a large factor and it's decline is definitely a good thing. However, identity theft and other types of financial fraud also make us unsafe. So do chemical contaminants in drinking water, bacteria in food, cell phone radiation and just general rates of anxiety, depression and other mental illness.



I tend to draw the line between physical safety and financial safety. 

That said, while the rate of identity theft is increasing the success rate is dropping pretty sharply, same goes for credit and bank fraud. 

I'm not touching the food, water, and cell phone bit. Too Alex Jones for me. 

As for mental illness, same as fraud, the instance of diagnosis is increasing, but in turn the rate of those being positively affected by that diagnosis is increasing as well, especially with all the press it's getting.


----------



## eaeolian (May 29, 2015)

Konfyouzd said:


> Yea... The idea that one race is after another is just weird to me. Like we're all born preloaded with a program that says: "If it ain't like you, kill it with fire!"



In this case, what it's pointing out is how segregated our population is despite "desegregation" having been a big deal in the '60s. Most people are killed by someone they know - so most crime being "black on black" makes sense given knowledge that the demographic in question tends to self-segregate and be disproportionately poor (which is an indicator of a higher crime rate.)


----------



## asher (May 29, 2015)

eaeolian said:


> In this case, what it's pointing out is how segregated our population is despite "desegregation" having been a big deal in the '60s. Most people are killed by someone they know - so most crime being "black on black" makes sense given knowledge that the demographic in question tends to self-segregate and be disproportionately poor (which is an indicator of a higher crime rate.)



Further, it's a simple matter of you usually see crime locally - to make it a touch more geographic than just people you know. Crime in majority black communities will mostly affect blacks. Crime in majority white communities will.. affect whites.

Nobody was calling the Waco biker shootout white on white crime though.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 29, 2015)

^ I call it idiot on idiot .
In that case though there isn't the big push to misrepresent, like there IS sadly the media push to falsely frame most inner-city crime as somehow being the fault of the white-establishment.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 29, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> falsely frame most inner-city crime as somehow being the fault of the white-establishment.



Sorry, but it is our (white folks) fault. Not to say it's anyone's individual fault, but come on. Centuries of slavery with decades of segregation and social and financial oppression, not to mention institutionalized poor education is on us. We screwed up.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 29, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Sorry, but it is our (white folks) fault. Not to say it's anyone's individual fault, but come on. Centuries of slavery with decades of segregation and social and financial oppression, not to mention institutionalized poor education is on us. We screwed up.




Feel guilty if you want. I don't. 
I think it's much more important to create an expectation of individual accountability. That's something that used to be a given, but today it seems many Americans just aren't happy unless their blaming someone or something other than the individual for whatever specific grievance. 

You don't hear the media blaming all these side issues for the biker shootout.


----------



## asher (May 29, 2015)

A) It's not about guilt.

B) Understanding that there are systemic reasons some people have it much worse off than others is important. If everyone had a level playing field to start from, THEN you can lecture everyone about personal accountability. But they're not subject to the same edition of the rules that you and I are.

C) Of course you don't, the mainstream media knows who pays them. It's not the average person.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 29, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Feel guilty if you want. I don't.
> I think it's much more important to create an expectation of individual accountability. That's something that used to be a given, but today it seems many Americans just aren't happy unless their blaming someone or something other than the individual for whatever specific grievance.
> 
> You don't hear the media blaming all these side issues for the biker shootout.



Ugh, get over yourself. 

I'm not guilty either, and no one alive today really should be. I thought I made that clear, but it is pretty easy to dumb things down to tumblr levels. 

Folks do need to take personal accountability, I agree, but don't pretend that the history has no bearing on the situation. That's either being ignorant or stupid. 

The biker thing is completely different. It was two gangs, with members of different races, having a brawl. No more, no less.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 29, 2015)

Understanding what history goes into a situation is much different then what many of you seem to do these days, which is refusing to PLACE THE BLAME DIRECTLY on who is involved in a specific crime without resorting to the same old tired "blame the white man first and foremost" tactics.


----------



## celticelk (May 29, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Understanding what history goes into a situation is much different then what many of you seem to do these days, which is refusing to PLACE THE BLAME DIRECTLY on who is involved in a specific crime without resorting to the same old tired "blame the white man" tactics.



That's a wonderfully non-specific indictment. Come back when you've got an example or two.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 29, 2015)

celticelk said:


> That's a wonderfully non-specific indictment. Come back when you've got an example or two.



You do the same .


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 29, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Understanding what history goes into a situation is much different then what many of you seem to do these days, which is refusing to PLACE THE BLAME DIRECTLY on who is involved in a specific crime without resorting to the same tired "blame the white man" tactics.



That's the thing, we're not taking the blame away from the individual. I know I'm not. 

It's the individual's fault for what they did, and it's society's fault for creating the situation leading up to it. Blame doesn't cancel out. 

But that's okay, because you're full of crap. You can sit there and say you feel no guilt, but if that was really the case you wouldn't be resorting to such terrible, poorly thought out, logic lacking, misdirected, and sensational arguments. 

ITS NOT WHITE PEOPLES FAULT BECAUSE THEY ARE THUGS. 

You crack me up Trench, please don't change. You're my favorite snowflake. 



TRENCHLORD said:


> You do the same .





Can this get better?


----------



## estabon37 (May 29, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> You're my favorite snowflake.









Hell, while the conversation is resting on variations of xenophobia, how about I just make myself the biggest arsehole in the room by following Trench's request that we place the blame directly on those involved in the crimes: Americans. 

(Me in about five seconds: )

Seriously, though. Isn't there some credence behind the idea that this stuff is systemic (or not at least not racial) when some countries that are as multicultural as the US just don't have the huge levels of violent crime, while others that are culturally and racially homogenous have even worse levels of violent crime? At a certain point you have to look beyond those involved in the conflict to see whether or not they've been directed towards it in some fashion beyond their control.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 29, 2015)

estabon37 said:


>



I meant he was a special individual, like how all snowflakes are unique.  

Trench, he's one of my favorite honkies.


----------



## estabon37 (May 29, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I meant he was a special individual, like how all snowflakes are unique.
> 
> Trench, he's one of my favorite honkies.



I know, my sense of humour just sucks


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 29, 2015)

estabon37 said:


> Hell, while the conversation is resting on variations of xenophobia, how about I just make myself the biggest arsehole in the room by following Trench's request that we place the blame directly on those involved in the crimes: Americans.
> 
> (Me in about five seconds: )
> 
> Seriously, though. Isn't there some credence behind the idea that this stuff is systemic (or not at least not racial) when some countries that are as multicultural as the US just don't have the huge levels of violent crime, while others that are culturally and racially homogenous have even worse levels of violent crime? At a certain point you have to look beyond those involved in the conflict to see whether or not they've been directed towards it in some fashion beyond their control.



And you're entirely right. 

America is pretty unique (much like winter precipitation ), just not for the best reasons at times. 

Still love the heck out of this place, and I have no shame there, but it's like that friend you can be brutally honest with, while you might not always say the nicest thing, the love is real. 

I'm getting choked up. 

The honest truth is: we really screwed up the chances for black folks to have fruitful lives on average. It wasn't all malevolence, some social programs really tried to do good, but it was too little, too late, too stupid to really make an impact. Then we gave up and let a culture of distrust, anger, frustration, and poverty take over.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 29, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I meant he was a special individual, like how all snowflakes are unique.
> 
> Trench, he's one of my favorite honkies.



Yeah i guess not being drunk on excuses is somewhat unique in these parts .


----------



## asher (May 30, 2015)

I wish I could just drop the comic so the clickbait style headline could be ignored, but this is still fairly relevant, and a good way to look at guiltless and totally innocuous (economic) privilege.

This Comic Will Forever Change the Way You Look at Privilege


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 30, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Yeah i guess not being drunk on excuses is somewhat unique in these parts .



What's worse, me being four bombers in and on here, or me being four bombers in and still being more right than you?


----------



## Demiurge (May 30, 2015)

asher said:


> I wish I could just drop the comic so the clickbait style headline could be ignored, but this is still fairly relevant, and a good way to look at guiltless and totally innocuous (economic) privilege.
> 
> This Comic Will Forever Change the Way You Look at Privilege



I don't think that anyone would disagree that advantages are important, but it's also not wrong to point out that "privilege" is not the same as fate. It wasn't the comic artist's responsibility to highlight that, but the piece kind of unintentionally illustrated how easily the discourse becomes unproductive. 

Whenever I read about privilege, it's almost like that comic is being read backwards: they start with the Successful Guy and Frowning Platter Lady and assumptions & judgments are made. _"Successful Guy, you must have had everything handed to you- so really you don't deserve what you have, and if you really think you've earned it, that's just your privilege clouding your perception!"_ and _"Awww, Frowning Platter Lady, you have been dealt a bad hand and you deserve better!"_

Of course, that results in a cycle of feelings of (possibly legitimate) butthurt, feelings of vindication, and each side accusing the other of being entitled & unmotivated... and it creates a fun distraction from issues that might actually improve society.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 30, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> What's worse, me being four bombers in and on here, or me being four bombers in and still being more right than you?




You're waaaaay more than four in on the blame train, you're practically pulling the thing with excuse power .

Seriously though four? Are ya that much a lightweight?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 30, 2015)

Demiurge said:


> I don't think that anyone would disagree that advantages are important, but it's also not wrong to point out that "privilege" is not the same as fate. It wasn't the comic artist's responsibility to highlight that, but the piece kind of unintentionally illustrated how easily the discourse becomes unproductive.
> 
> Whenever I read about privilege, it's almost like that comic is being read backwards: they start with the Successful Guy and Frowning Platter Lady and assumptions & judgments are made. _"Successful Guy, you must have had everything handed to you- so really you don't deserve what you have, and if you really think you've earned it, that's just your privilege clouding your perception!"_ and _"Awww, Frowning Platter Lady, you have been dealt a bad hand and you deserve better!"_
> 
> Of course, that results in a cycle of feelings of (possibly legitimate) butthurt, feelings of vindication, and each side accusing the other of being entitled & unmotivated... and it creates a fun distraction from issues that might actually improve society.



Pretty much hit the nail on the head in regards to much of this "privilege" thing that's popped up.



TRENCHLORD said:


> You're waaaaay more than four in on the blame train, you're practically pulling the thing with excuse power .



You're just ignoring it at this point. 

How did the historically terrible treatment of minorities in this country not lead to this discourse?

If it makes you feel better I won't blame white people, just the people that have been in places of power both political and financial over the last century or two. 
 
Can we at least agree that politicians suck? 

Also, two 25oz bottles of Hop Craig and two 25oz bottles of Arctic Panzer Wolf aren't for the faint of heart.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 30, 2015)

To always rely on the past to absolve individuals of their accountability resolves nothing.
The whole "blame other factors first" thing accomplishes nothing towards bettering the current situation.
That's why conservative economic policy is the ONLY thing that will provide increased opportunity for advancement to minorities and impoverished areas.

We don't make the foolish attempt to dictate outcome like liberals do. We instead focus on increasing opportunity. Some will rise, some will fall. That's life.
As I've correctly pointed out many times on here, it wouldn't make but a short-term difference to GIVE money to the "poor" in most cases, because being "poor" is a state of mind as much as a state of being.
My advice would be to concentrate on solutions that open pathways, not to engage in these social-engineering schemes that are nothing more than smoke and mirror tricks to separate the folks from their money. All in the name of the liberal "bleeding hearts".


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 30, 2015)

> To always rely on the past to absolve individuals of their accountability resolves nothing.



I completely agree, and if you stop freaking out every time the word "blame" or "fault" comes up, you might notice that most folks agree. 

I'll be the first to say that an individual is responsible for their actions in a given situation. 



> The whole "blame other factors first" thing accomplishes nothing towards bettering the current situation.



Finding all the factors is never a bad thing. Ever. Even if it uncovers a rather inconvenient truth. Understanding why things happened outside of seconds or minutes beforehand will make solving the problems easier. We can't better the current situation by ignoring everything that came before it. It would be absolutely awesome if we could, but that's not how the real world works. 



> That's why conservative economic policy is the ONLY thing that will provide increased opportunity for advancement to minorities and impoverished areas.
> 
> We don't make the foolish attempt to dictate outcome like liberals do. We instead focus on increasing opportunity. Some will rise, some will fall. That's life.
> As I've correctly pointed out many times on here, it wouldn't make but a short-term difference to GIVE money to the "poor" in most cases, because being "poor" is a state of mind as much as a state of being.
> My advice would be to concentrate on solutions that open pathways, not to engage in these social-engineering schemes that are nothing more than smoke and mirror tricks to separate the folks from their money. All in the name of the liberal "bleeding hearts".



Without delving too deep, I agree 100% that we can't just throw money at this problem, nor can we just use social engineering to make it go away. It's going to take a lot of everything if we want to see this country do better, not just minorities, but all of us. 

Fixing this is something neither side is really good at, and never really has been.


----------



## flint757 (May 30, 2015)

Demiurge said:


> I don't think that anyone would disagree that advantages are important, but it's also not wrong to point out that "privilege" is not the same as fate. It wasn't the comic artist's responsibility to highlight that, but the piece kind of unintentionally illustrated how easily the discourse becomes unproductive.
> 
> Whenever I read about privilege, it's almost like that comic is being read backwards: they start with the Successful Guy and Frowning Platter Lady and assumptions & judgments are made. _"Successful Guy, you must have had everything handed to you- so really you don't deserve what you have, and if you really think you've earned it, that's just your privilege clouding your perception!"_ and _"Awww, Frowning Platter Lady, you have been dealt a bad hand and you deserve better!"_
> 
> Of course, that results in a cycle of feelings of (possibly legitimate) butthurt, feelings of vindication, and each side accusing the other of being entitled & unmotivated... and it creates a fun distraction from issues that might actually improve society.



The message I took wasn't that privilege is evil or wrong or anything of that sort. Anyone would be dumb to not take advantage of the money and connections they have. I think the point is simply that ones circumstances do play a large part in where people end up in life and while it may not always work out that way it does the majority of the time. I think the larger point it was trying to make was that the lady's lack of similar success to the guy wasn't because she was lazy and unmotivated, but because of her circumstances. While that may not always be the case it is the case more often than not.

I read an article awhile back about a foster kid who was abused in every home he had ended up in and when he was 18 kicked out on to the street. Someone in that situation is not being given the same opportunity to succeed as someone in a well off family with parents who care (which tends to make a huge difference in child development I've learned over the past few years). What's sad is he became homeless and had to turn tricks just to get by AND he didn't even need to. Not a single person told this kid what opportunities he had, where to go, where to look and had someone bothered (since we can't magically know what to look for) he would have never been homeless or turning tricks to begin with because the foster program actually pays for your college. So it isn't just about money either, but the lack of information and also a proper caregiver. If both of your parents work, can't afford a tutor and go to a ....ty school you may not be fated to suffering, but it's highly more likely.

That comic goes wrong towards the end IMO. It starts pinning character traits to the situations which turns a lot of people off on the subject as it effectively demonizes success in doing so. It's not his privilege that is the problem, but assuming that those less successful are undeserving or lazy or some other derogatory term. My job interacts a lot with the lower class and honestly I don't know anyone who works harder, but it will never make a difference for them. When you live paycheck to paycheck and work 8-10 hr days doing labor work and have a family to also take care of you don't have the time or energy to gain the knowledge or skills to improve your situation. Doing so means no food on the table or not paying the rent 9/10 (and never sleeping or being a present parent).

---

Not sure why everything has to be so black and white (pun not intended). It can be 100% the individuals fault for choosing certain lifestyle choices and still only exist because of systemic issues from days of yore. No one is passing the blame or fault in saying so. My lack of being a crackhead is because I chose not to do such things AND because I grew up in a healthy environment. These type of things are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## asher (May 30, 2015)

Note that, at least until the very last panel, Richard's working every time too?

It would be less salient if we didn't have numerous elected officials talking about slashing the safety net out of one side of their mouth and claiming they never got anything out of the other side, while either A) actually having been a welfare recipient or B) benefiting from immense privilege or family connections.



Trench, if you could actually provide proof of conservative economic policy reducing poverty rates and improving upwards social mobility like you claim, that would be awesome.

(I don't know why I'm bothering)

Actually, just: please explain to me how slashing the social safety net increases opportunity.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (May 30, 2015)

asher said:


> Actually, just: please explain to me how slashing the social safety net increases opportunity.



It doesn't. I don't advocate slashing, or eliminating social safety nets, but I do advocate a complete restructuring. Some new ideas.

Obviously the ones in place are not working. I don't see how anyone could actually, with a straight face, say that the current welfare structure is successful or productive in any way. Yes, some people do rise up and improve their situations in life. But they are in the vast minority(no pun intended). It is a system of enabling people to stay in the same ....ty situation that they are currently in. Generation after generation by this point. 

The system needs to do more than just supply funds for peoples rent and food. I don't claim to have all the answers, I just know what I see happening in my own community for the last couple decades, and it's not good at all.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (May 30, 2015)

flint757 said:


> That comic goes wrong towards the end IMO. It starts pinning character traits to the situations which turns a lot of people off on the subject as it effectively demonizes success in doing so. It's not his privilege that is the problem, but assuming that those less successful are undeserving or lazy or some other derogatory term. My job interacts a lot with the lower class and honestly I don't know anyone who works harder, but it will never make a difference for them. When you live pay check to paycheck and work 8-10 hr days doing labor work and have a family to also take care of you don't have the time or energy to gain the knowledge or skills to improve your situation. Doing so means no food on the table or not paying the rent 9/10 (and never sleeping or being a present parent).


----------



## asher (May 30, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> It doesn't. I don't advocate slashing, or eliminating social safety nets, but I do advocate a complete restructuring. Some new ideas.
> 
> Obviously the ones in place are not working. I don't see how anyone could actually, with a straight face, say that the current welfare structure is successful or productive in any way. Yes, some people do rise up and improve their situations in life. But they are in the vast minority(no pun intended). It is a system of enabling people to stay in the same ....ty situation that they are currently in. Generation after generation by this point.
> 
> The system needs to do more than just supply funds for peoples rent and food. I don't claim to have all the answers, I just know what I see happening in my own community for the last couple decades, and it's not good at all.




That was aimed pretty directly, I thought, at TRENCH.

Though, damn straight I will make the claim that it's succesful and productive in some ways:



> A measure of &#8220;market poverty,&#8221; that reflects what the poverty rate would be without
> any tax credits or other benefits, rose from 27.0 percent to 28.7 percent between 1967
> and 2012. Countervailing forces of increasing levels of education on the one hand, and
> inequality, wage stagnation, and a declining minimum wage on the other resulted in
> ...



How is that remotely a complete failure?

Obviously, it could be *much, much, much better*, but come on.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/de...niversary_cea_report_-_final_post_embargo.pdf


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (May 30, 2015)

asher said:


> That was aimed pretty directly, I thought, at TRENCH.
> 
> *I know it was, and my response wasn't directly at you, it just brought some things to mind. *
> 
> ...



Ohhhh, the White House says it is so much better huh? It must be true then, right?  Come on man, really?

Handing people money for nothing, generation after generation, teaches nothing but dependency.

Maybe it's looking better from your seat, but from mine, it's only getting worse.


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (May 30, 2015)

I find it insanely hard to understand people who claim the U.S. safety net- such as it is-fosters widespread or enduring dependency on government. Our social programs are WAY stingier than almost anything in any other developed country in the world. The reason we spend so much on social programs isn't Medicaid or TANF (welfare)- it's because health care costs are through the ....ing roof because conservatives won't let the government negotiate with service providers like in every other country. Instead, private insurance companies act as middle men, and don't provide better care doing it. The "I see people becoming dependent on government forever" narrative simply isn't backed up by data, nor is it even coherent when you compare the United States with other western industrialized countries.


----------



## asher (May 30, 2015)

PlumbTheDerps said:


> I find it insanely hard to understand people who claim the U.S. safety net- such as it is-fosters widespread or enduring dependency on government. Our social programs are WAY stingier than almost anything in any other developed country in the world. The reason we spend so much on social programs isn't Medicaid or TANF (welfare)- it's because health care costs are through the ....ing roof because conservatives won't let the government negotiate with service providers like in every other country. Instead, private insurance companies act as middle men, and don't provide better care doing it. The "I see people becoming dependent on government forever" narrative simply isn't backed up by data, nor is it even coherent when you compare the United States with other western industrialized countries.



We DON'T spend so much on welfare.

Flat out.

We do spend astronomical amounts on health care relative to every other developed nation, though the PPACA has helped a good deal in keeping further cost escalation down.

FILTH, so the White House is making up its seven solid pages of academic and statistical references?


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (May 30, 2015)

PlumbTheDerps said:


> The "I see people becoming dependent on government forever" narrative simply isn't backed up by data



Take a look around, are you ....ing kidding me?  I'm not reliant on some god damn government survery or poll by some liberal *or *right wing group to to get my info. I see it with my own eyes. Step out of your pristine neighborhoods and have a look around where quite a few of the rest of us live. Several generations of people that know nothing but depending on a check to come every month and you deny it? You guys kill me.  Ignorance is bliss isn't?


----------



## estabon37 (May 30, 2015)

Sorry all, long post ahead...

Anybody mind if I substitute the word 'opportunity' for the word 'capability'? 

I do this because Amartya Sen won the Novel prize for economics back in 1998 (?) for his work on welfare economics, and advocates a tactic that to me is as much philosophy as it is economics: the capability approach. 

While it is centrally concerned with enabling human rights (not just legally protecting them), I think the theory says a lot about the extent to which countries empower their own citizens. 

The short version of the theory: rather than focus on what individuals are *allowed* to do, focus on what they are *able* to do. If a teenager is allowed to receive an education (has a legal right), but is not able (can't access the service as a result of time, distance, or some other restriction), then the circumstances should be changed so that the right becomes a capability. I use this example, because electronic devices are now fairly cheap, and online learning is getting huge; adolescents living in very remote communities in Australia have always struggled to match those in cities in terms of resources, but the internet is really changing that dynamic.

So, from education, let's talk about qualifications and training for adults. In Australia, after ten years in the workforce, I was able to quit my jobs and take on welfare benefits that are specifically designed to enable me to study. My course was paid for by a low-interest (around 1%) federal loan scheme, and I received enough money to pay for rent and food each week without having to spend much time working to supplement that income. After four years, I gained that qualification, and in the last couple of weeks I've started working in my chosen field banana:). Once I start earning above a certain threshold, small repayments to my loan are automatically deducted from my paycheck, though I can voluntarily contribute more if I choose, and I am eventually left debt-free, with an internationally recognised qualification, that enables me to help myself as well as others. I think this is a welfare system in keeping with the capabilities approach, and it benefits my country so far beyond its costs, despite the opinions of our (moronic) Prime Minister.

Obviously, accessibility becomes an issue at this point. Are education and training institutions affordable for the majority of the population? Does the compulsory education system (primary - high school) sufficiently create an environment in which all students have access to a wide range of career paths by the time they graduate? Obviously, most educational administrators would argue that their system works, but if a significant percentage of students are not intellectually or financially capable of taking on higher education, then something has gone awry.

I think an equally important question is whether or not you think that the majority of welfare recipients are 'just lazy', because that perspective seems in conversation to play a really large role, and I don't understand it. That narrative exists in Australia; we call our welfare cheats 'dole bludgers' (because we give funny names to *everything*), and they're a popular target on talkback radio and current affairs programs, and very few question claims about the number of people rorting the system, though one little program on the ABC tries to keep them in check. So, why do so many in the media constantly pick on welfare recipients? In my opinion, it's because they can't do much to fight back. If I'd been a target of some nasty radio host while I was on benefits, I could have written a letter of complaint, or approached other media organisations, but I certainly couldn't afford to initiate legal action. Welfare recipients are a soft target, and shock jocks don't really give a fuck whether or not they're fuelling a culture of unwarranted distrust and hatred as long as it keeps people tuning in. 

For once, I've tried to avoid posting numbers. I looked up a bunch of stats, but found it hard to relate them to the 'how' and 'why' of welfare; figures can be used to say completely opposing things about culture depending on the point you're trying to make, so I figured I'd just make the points directly.

Last note: 



FILTHnFEAR said:


> Handing people money for nothing, generation after generation, teaches nothing but *dependency*.



At this stage, the vast majority of the population of the western world *depends* on the education system to provide their children with the requisite knowledge to get by in the world because the parents simply don't have the time or resources to do this themselves. When one doesn't have the means to attain a life worth living, we ask the state to provide the means. That's what welfare is. If people *depend* on welfare for food and shelter, the problem is not their *dependency*, the problem is whether or not they are *capable* of accessing the systems that would help them transcend their *dependency*.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (May 30, 2015)

asher said:


> We DON'T spend so much on welfare.



That just says enough right there about your mindset.


----------



## asher (May 30, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Take a look around, are you ....ing kidding me?  I'm not reliant on some god damn government survery or poll by some liberal *or *right wing group to to get my info. I see it with my own eyes. Step out of your pristine neighborhoods and have a look around where quite a few of the rest of us live. Several generations of people that know nothing but depending on a check to come every month and you deny it? You guys kill me.  Ignorance is bliss isn't?



Take a look around, we've had nothing but really horrible winter storms outside all winter! I'm not reliant on stupid scientists to tell me the planet's actually getting hotter, LOOK AT ALL THIS RECORD SNOWFALL!




Forget it.


----------



## asher (May 30, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> That just says enough right there about your mindset.



You're right. We spend a non zero dollar amount on welfare. This is clearly excessive.






Spikes in 2008, obviously, correlate with the beginning of the recession, and massive layoffs causing people who were borderline suddenly needing assistance until/if they find new employment.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (May 30, 2015)

estabon37 said:


> At this stage, the vast majority of the population of the western world *depends* on the education system to provide their children with the requisite knowledge to get by in the world



Then they're ....ed if they actually depend on this system.


----------



## asher (May 30, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Then they're ....ed if they actually depend on this system.



Oh, you were homeschooled then?


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (May 30, 2015)

asher said:


> Take a look around, we've had nothing but really horrible winter storms outside all winter! I'm not reliant on stupid scientists to tell me the planet's actually getting hotter, LOOK AT ALL THIS RECORD SNOWFALL!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So clever aren't you? 

You're right, forget it. Wasted enough time here, time for girls and drinks. Peace.


----------



## estabon37 (May 30, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Then they're ....ed if they actually depend on this system.



But the exact opposite is true. We (as a species, not as a specific country / culture) invented mass free public education around fifty years after the industrial revolution began because it was the only way to maintain the new pace of the world. All of a sudden, the world's poorest people could read and write en masse, which was almost never the case previously. It's still often not the case today in many nations. Far more people have benefitted from the education system than have suffered from it. We've depended on it for at least a century now, and we're certainly not worse off for the fact. 

Will you really dismiss what might be considered the most positive and powerful institution ever created simply because it complicates a point you were trying to make in an argument on the internet? If you think you can make a serious argument against depending on the education system, then make it; don't just dismiss the point and walk away. 

We have all depended on somebody else at some point in our lives, and there is no shame in it. Children depend on adults, and adults depend on an income. Dependency itself is not a problem, it is a fact of life to a greater or lesser extent for every one of us.


----------



## Shewter (May 30, 2015)

asher said:


> Pesky facts, stop getting in the way of my sensationalism!
> 
> (with a nice side of rape denial? nice dude.)



Sorry for the late reply.

While I can appreciate statistics, they aren't the greatest at answering questions aside from "what". And sometimes "what" isn't an accurate representation at all.

Taking the population from 1960 (as the starting point of the graph you linked) we start with 180.67 million people, and ending in 2010 (as the ending point of your graph) we arrive at 309.35 million people. The significance of that increase in population is compounded by the fact that people who are better off financially tend to have less children than those who are not. Taking both of these things into account, the poverty rate (which if I read the data correctly) includes children and not just working-age adults* which would be skewed by such a bottom heavy population increase.

The population growth rate and the growth rate of those under the defined poverty line seem reasonably linked when compared. US Population Growth Rate by Year

*Regardless of whether they are children or working class adults, children from poorer families more often than not will continue to contribute to the poor-lower middle class statistic. The reasons for this are incredibly varied of course.

And of course, I hope you were joking about the "side of rape denial" comment. If that was a serious passive aggressive stab, I find it unlikely that any conversation regarding social or economic politics between us will be productive in the slightest.


----------



## asher (May 30, 2015)

If you can break out actual economic class statistics about birth rates (also taking into account our wonderfully high postnatal infant mortality rate for a first-world country) which shows that the birth rates are so lopsided as to be able to account for a near 5% jump in the poverty rate in less than five years (80-84ish)... and that poverty-class births outpace people elevating out of poverty, such that they invalidate this poverty rate figure as you seem to want them to be... then you might have something.


----------



## Shewter (May 30, 2015)

asher said:


> If you can break out actual economic class statistics about birth rates (also taking into account our wonderfully high postnatal infant mortality rate for a first-world country) which shows that the birth rates are so lopsided as to be able to account for a near 5% jump in the poverty rate in less than five years (80-84ish)... and that poverty-class births outpace people elevating out of poverty, such that they invalidate this poverty rate figure as you seem to want them to be... then you might have something.



I'll provide what I can. But frankly, if this is news to you, I'm unsure as to where you've been living your life.

U.S. Teen Birth Rate Correlates With State Income Inequality
^Correlation between teen pregnancies and socioeconomic status.

&bull; Birth rate by family income in the U.S. 2010 | Statistic
^Birth rate by family income

America's Fertility Class Divide: What new numbers from the Center for Work-Life Policy and the Guttmacher Institute reveal.
^Yet another study in the birth rate between those in upper and lower income brackets.

As far as tracking the actual amount of children born to those in an impoverished state or at least below what the statistics consider/ed the poverty line (circa 80-84ish) at the moment, I won't be digging that far. Feel free to find the data that disproves what I consider to be a reasonable deduction that with the bottom heavy birth rate and such a large population increase over the years of the graph that you linked, the poverty rate figure isn't a fair indicator of the poor getting poorer. I've yet to meet a child that can meaningfully contribute to the income of a household.


----------



## asher (May 30, 2015)

Shewter said:


> I'll provide what I can. But frankly, if this is news to you, I'm unsure as to where you've been living your life.




Note that nowhere did I say I didn't believe that poorer people tend to have more kids. But it's the basis for your argument that the poverty rate stat is basically useless. If you follow your population growth link and look at it as a chart... you'll find it really doesn't track all that well with the poverty rates chart....



> As far as tracking the actual amount of children born to those in an impoverished state or at least below what the statistics consider/ed the poverty line (circa 80-84ish) at the moment, I won't be digging that far. Feel free to find the data that disproves what I consider to be a reasonable deduction that with the bottom heavy birth rate and such a large population increase over the years of the graph that you linked, the poverty rate figure isn't a fair indicator of the poor getting poorer. I've yet to meet a child that can meaningfully contribute to the income of a household.



It's a theory, not a deduction. And while there's some logic to it, it doesn't actually reflect what we see in the statistics.

So:



asher said:


> which shows that the birth rates are *so lopsided as to be able to account for a near 5% jump in the poverty rate in less than five years* (80-84ish)... and that *poverty-class births outpace people elevating out of poverty*, such that they invalidate this poverty rate figure as you seem to want them to be... then you might have something.


----------



## Shewter (May 30, 2015)

asher said:


> Note that nowhere did I say I didn't believe that poorer people tend to have more kids. But it's the basis for your argument that the poverty rate stat is basically useless. If you follow your population growth link and look at it as a chart... you'll find it really doesn't track all that well with the poverty rates chart....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You're reaching too far. I'm not suggesting that the poverty rate stat is useless, I'm saying it doesn't give an accurate rate of a/the real increase in poverty. Unless of course, children should be counted as the poor getting poorer, and I don't think in this discussion that's reasonable.

Regarding your 1980-1984 5% poverty spike, the population increase was 4.7%. Of course this doesn't cover the 5% increase in poverty, and I wouldn't argue that increasing population alone is the contributor to the rise in poverty in any given period, but as I said, it's definitely a significant contributor.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 31, 2015)

asher said:


> We DON'T spend so much on welfare.
> 
> Flat out.
> 
> ...



The WH cherry-picks data like no other. It does no matter who is living in it .


----------



## celticelk (May 31, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Take a look around, are you ....ing kidding me?  I'm not reliant on some god damn government survery or poll by some liberal *or *right wing group to to get my info. I see it with my own eyes. Step out of your pristine neighborhoods and have a look around where quite a few of the rest of us live. Several generations of people that know nothing but depending on a check to come every month and you deny it? You guys kill me.  Ignorance is bliss isn't?



No, it's not. And the plural of "anecdote" is still not "data."


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (May 31, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Take a look around, are you ....ing kidding me?  I'm not reliant on some god damn government survery or poll by some liberal *or *right wing group to to get my info. I see it with my own eyes. Step out of your pristine neighborhoods and have a look around where quite a few of the rest of us live. Several generations of people that know nothing but depending on a check to come every month and you deny it? You guys kill me.  Ignorance is bliss isn't?



I criticize your post (indirectly) for using anecdote instead of actual data - i.e., numbers that will tell whether we're right or wrong, regardless of ideology - and you respond by...using anecdote, and suggesting data is bull..... How do you think public policy related to social programs should be made? By making inferences about stuff that affects hundreds of millions of people by sitting on your front porch in middle America and watching people use EBT cards at a gas station? And please, spare me the anti-intellectual, condescending "ignorance is bliss" crap. I went to college and I know how to read a graph. For instance:

















And if you like fancy book-learnin' words instead of pictures: U.S. poverty rates higher, safety net weaker than in peer countries | Economic Policy Institute

And bear in mind, again: I'm not even suggesting the U.S. should be like Europe in statistical terms. There's been a basic socio-political contract for a long time in this country that we have a smaller social safety net, but the benefit is that social mobility is higher, regulations are fewer, and class identity matters less. We still have the smaller safety net, but that contract is falling apart because the data show that metrics related to class mobility are in the toilet. I would argue that fixing that problem is the most important thing we can do as a country.


----------



## asher (May 31, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> The WH cherry-picks data like no other. It does no matter who is living in it .



If they're cherry picking data to make themselves look good, they're not doing so hot at it


----------



## celticelk (Jun 1, 2015)

asher said:


> We DON'T spend so much on welfare.



Fulfilling my usual librarian role, allow me to flesh out asher's assertion here with some data. In FY2011, the US federal government spent $717 billion on 79 means-tested social programs (Social programs in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). About $162 billion of that went to cash assistance programs, of which a little under $7 billion went to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) program, which is the program generally referred to when people say "welfare." TANF is therefore under 1% of the federal government's social programs expenditure. US GDP in 2011 was $15.5 trillion dollars; total federal expenditures in 2011 were $3.7 trillion. Total social program expenditures represent, therefore, about 19.4% of total federal outlays; "welfare" represents about 0.2%.

Let me put that in a slightly different way: suppose that you make $50,000 a year. Your gross earnings are about $4167 per month. If you pay $2.50 for a cup of coffee on every workday, that's about ($2.50 x 22 =) $55 a month. That's 1.3% of your gross monthly earnings.


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (Jun 1, 2015)

celticelk said:


> numbers



But I saw a guy use food stamps to buy cigarettes once, so.


----------



## will_shred (Jun 2, 2015)

One of the best arguments I've heard for the crime drop in America is legalized abortion. When more women have access to abortion and other reproductive healthcare, less unwanted babies are born. Most of the mothers who had abortions had them because they wouldn't have otherwise been able to care for the baby. Unwanted babies are far more likely to become criminals since they're more likely to be in poverty, and more likely to not be properly cared for. The timing also lines up, for example NY and California who had legalized abortion a few years prior to Roe v Wade experienced the crime drop starting a few years before the rest of the nation. This article sums it up better than I could. 

http://scholar.harvard.edu/barro/files/99_0927_crimerate_bw.pdf


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (Jun 2, 2015)

That study has actually been pretty discredited for methodological reasons, though I think it's a neat concept. Read here: Oops-onomics | The Economist


----------



## estabon37 (Jun 4, 2015)

I think the comparison to Romania in Oops-onomics says a lot about why we'd automatically assume the abortion <-> crime rate connection exists. I'm paraphrasing here, but the article essentially points out that the effects on crime after Romania's 'Reverse Roe v Wade' may just have been an effect of the general societal shift as opposed to the introduction of this one law. A shitty law is introduced at the same time that society gets a little shittier. There's certainly correlation there, but if crime stats were significantly altered by single laws, law enforcement officials would have pretty easy jobs (although, I admit that some elements of the 'war against drugs' make me doubt my own claim here).

In this thread, we've covered a plethora of reasons that have likely had an influence over crime stats in the US and elsewhere in recent decades. While legalised abortions have probably contributed to the stats, their introduction is also a sign that society won't automatically ostracise or attack a woman that is seeking an abortion (in most places), which suggests a society that is already experiencing a lower rate of lawlessness. 

It's about constant, slow progress, across many social arenas, both legally and culturally.


----------



## asher (Jun 4, 2015)

Though, know what's even better than just expanding abortion? Better sex ed!

Also linked heavily to lower childbirth rates. For obvious reasons  (this might have something to do with rates being lower amongst more educated populations)


----------



## Andromalia (Jun 5, 2015)

asher said:


> Oh, you were homeschooled then?



Not the point. Those who can afford homeschooling actually have every interest to make the edication of those who cant afford it of lesser quality.

Someone above talked about the difference between access and right of access. What's better to deny access to people than to make them ignorant that access even exists ?

Back to the main topic, the number of murders/year/capita in the US is outrageously high compared to other western countries. It's good that it's going down, but it still has a long way to go.


----------

