Florida High School Shooting

[K1052]

That's because Dana Loesch, the NRA and pro-gun conservatives shouldn't be allowed to have free speech, after all it's only the 1st Amendment.

You appear to be confusing freedom of speech with freedom from criticism.

 

[realibrad]

And even with heavy training they still make mistakes. Anyone can be trained *how* to shoot a gun. It takes a very different level of training to understand *when* to shoot a gun.

I think it was 60 Min that did something on this, but they set up a situation where it was a college classroom and the scenario was that there would be a shooting. They gave one person a gun and let the scenario run. A person stands up and yells something and pulls out a gun. Almost always the person they gave the gun to stands up and attempts to shoot the person. Most of the time they miss, but the trick was that there was a 2nd shooter. The 2nd shooter would always shoot the person with the gun in the back because the person they gave a gun to was not trained in scenarios, just how to point and shoot a gun.

 

[pmv]

What? I'm trying to understand how you feel that is racist in any way? How is admitting that there is something unique to Black and Hispanic male cultures in terms of gun violence racist?

Is this also racist? "Also, removing the segments of American society most prone to violence..." Its a known fact that those segments are more violent, but that may be caused from many factors. Racism, poverty, education, ect. are all likely factors so I can't understand how its racist.

Can you explain?

Well, I would question that there's such a thing as 'black male culture' in the way you refer to it. Any culture there is under that descriptor, is a part and a concequence of US culture and history in general. It's not ultimately divisible from it.

I'd concede very slightly a possible difference if you were talking about the culture of very recent immigrants, whose culture is going to be formed partly by their countries-of-origin (e.g. I gather there are (or were) gang violence problems with Cambodian Americans, and that is probably as much due to the extreme conditions of the country they or their parents fled as it is to do with the experience of being a poor immigrant in the US).
(Edit - I don't think countries should be punished, rhetorically speaking, for admitting migrants from troubled countries, who may well have pre-existing problems...though often its the reciving country that caused much of the trouble in those countries in the first place, as with both Cambodia for the US and for the UK with large chunks of the globe).

But for most black Americans their culture is as American as apple pie. America made that culture, its part of a shared history so you can't exclude it from the figures when making comparisons. To the extent your comment was about that (rather than an idea of focussing attention domestically) I'd say it was racist.

My objection is mainly to the idea that when comparing between the US and Europe you can somehow discount racial minorities in calculating the US figures, rather than some idea that efforts to change things should be tailored to specific communties.

 

[pmv]

You appear to be confusing freedom of speech with freedom from criticism.

I find it amazing how often conservatives do this. It's a standard trope of theirs. They say something offensive, factually-incorrect, stupid...or even just contentious...they get criticism and negative responses...and they start banging on passive-aggressively about 'free speech'. It happens constantly on internet debates. I struggle to understand what they think the logic is.

 

[realibrad]

Well, I would question that there's such a thing as 'black male culture' in the way you refer to it. Any culture there is under that descriptor, is a part and a concequence of US culture and history in general. It's not ultimately divisible from it.

Of course there is a black male culture. Its also true that the culture is part of the overall larger US culture. Just as unique individuals make up larger groups that in general exhibit unique differences from other groups. As I exemplified with my previous post, Meth usage rates differ by race. How else can you explain that?

I'd concede very slightly a possible difference if you were talking about the culture of very recent immigrants, whose culture is going to be formed partly by their countries-of-origin (e.g. I gather there are (or were) gang violence problems with Cambodian Americans, and that is probably as much due to the extreme conditions of the country they or their parents fled as it is to do with the experience of being a poor immigrant in the US).

Again, you have US culture and sub cultures. Just as you can have Rock Music and sub styles under Rock Music.

But for most black Americans their culture is as American as apple pie. America made that culture, its part of a shared history so you can't exclude it from the figures when making comparisons.

If it were the exact same, then explain to me Black Entertainment. Its true that Black Culture is part of American culture, but one is a subgroup to the larger overall group.

To the extent your comment was about that (rather than an idea of focussing attention domestically) I'd say it was racist.

No, racist is thinking one group is better/worse than another. Looking at specifics which are different is not racist when its reality. Is it racist to say that White Culture has a problem with heroin when compared to Black Culture?

Are you saying acknowledging differences by race is inherently racist?

My objection is mainly to the idea that when comparing between the US and Europe you can somehow discount racial minorities in calculating the US figures, rather than some idea that efforts to change things should be tailored to specific communties.

Who is discounting minorities? Your interpretation of what I said seems to be disjointed and I cannot figure out how you got to where you are.

 

[fskimospy]

Because people like you are the ones driving for universal solutions. It’s pretty obvious if you look at the actual stats the across the board restrictions you call for would do basically nothing to stop the problems you cite. A rancher in Montana with his .17 Marlin used to protect his livestock from coyotes isn’t the cause of school shootings.

It's actually pretty obvious that the opposite is true if you look at the empirical research. Have you?

If we banned .25 and .32 caliber pistols that would stop a huge majority of typical homicides. Restrict AR-15 style “assault weapons” to range use only and the bulk of mass shootings go away. Implement a free “universal background check” and the problem of people just giving away Grandpa’s old .38 revolver because the FFL background check would cost more than the firearm is worth goes away. Etc.

That's odd, considering the restrictions I call for would include .25 and .32 caliber pistols and AR-15 style weapons. How is it that my restrictions simultaneously do 'basically nothing' and 'stop a huge majority of typical homicides'?

 

[fskimospy]

I find it amazing how often conservatives do this. It's a standard trope of theirs. They say something offensive, factually-incorrect, stupid...or even just contentious...they get criticism and negative responses...and they start banging on passive-aggressively about 'free speech'. It happens constantly on internet debates. I struggle to understand what they think the logic is.

I always appreciate the irony of people who call others 'snowflakes' screeching about how unfair it is that they are being criticized for what they say.

 

[pmv]

Of course there is a black male culture. Its also true that the culture is part of the overall larger US culture. Just as unique individuals make up larger groups that in general exhibit unique differences from other groups. As I exemplified with my previous post, Meth usage rates differ by race. How else can you explain that?



Again, you have US culture and sub cultures. Just as you can have Rock Music and sub styles under Rock Music.



If it were the exact same, then explain to me Black Entertainment. Its true that Black Culture is part of American culture, but one is a subgroup to the larger overall group.



No, racist is thinking one group is better/worse than another. Looking at specifics which are different is not racist when its reality. Is it racist to say that White Culture has a problem with heroin when compared to Black Culture?

Are you saying acknowledging differences by race is inherently racist?



Who is discounting minorities? Your interpretation of what I said seems to be disjointed and I cannot figure out how you got to where you are.

Well just go back to post 2406 and the ones it was replying to. You explicitly referred to the US 'having more blacks and hispanics' than europe and suggesting looking at the figures with those groups removed. That's making it out ot be an innate property of those groups, rather than a case of their filling a particular sociologocial niche in US society (that in other societies is filled by other groups). That seems somewhat racist to me.

(It's noticable that some of the traits and experiences ascribed to black people in the US have parallels with white working class communites in the UK, particularly the UK when it was almost entirely white - though the issue of slavery is unique of course. Those traits are products of the soceity as a whole, not the specific group within which they are most viisible and manifest)

Yes there are different 'cultures' but they are all formed by US society and history, for any one to change the society as a whole would have to change along with all the other cultures in it. You can't pathologise one single culture within the whole, they are all intertwined and have historically been formative for each other.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You can't pathologise one single culture within the whole, they are all formative upon each other.

Pure curiosity, do you include political 'culture' in this? Or do you separate out political leanings from other cultural aspects in the US?

 

[fskimospy]

Then it seems like less of a gun issue, and more of a culture issue with the group that was removed. The US has far more Blacks and Hispanics and so excluding those should help understand the differences. As you earlier qualified that this discussion is not about mass shootings but all gun deaths, then it would seem that examining the data for things like this would be helpful. So if you exclude groups x and y and then find that your data greatly changes, then its a good bet that you need to focus your efforts on x and y in terms of gun deaths.

It would help you understand differences within the US, not differences between the US and Europe as then you're cherry picking populations on one side and not the other.

 

[pmv]

Pure curiosity, do you include political 'culture' in this? Or do you separate out political leanings from other cultural aspects in the US?

Not at all sure I understand the question, but tentatively I'd say 'yes'. Politics is also a product of interaction within a wider context, no?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Not at all sure I understand the question, but tentatively I'd say 'yes'. Politics is also a product of interaction within a wider context, no?

Yes you classify politics in the US as a 'culture' (as much as 'country' culture or 'urban' culture I guess)? Or yes you separate those two things (political leaning vs cultural)?

 

[realibrad]

Well just go back to post 2406 and the ones it was replying to. You explicitly referred to the US 'having more blacks and Hispanics' than Europe and suggesting looking at the figures with those groups removed. That's making it out to be an innate property of those groups, rather than a case of their filling a particular sociological niche in US society (that in other societies is filled by other groups). That seems somewhat racist to me.

Yes... because when you exclude those two groups from the data, the rates fall more inline with other countries. When you include those groups you see it skyrocket. Doing this allows you to see that those two groups might have unique factors that could be addressed that looking at the group in total might miss.

How are you taking the fact that those groups have higher rates and me agreeing with the data as to mean that I believe its inherent to being Black and Hispanic? I said culture which is not inherent to the individuals somehow me saying its inherent to all individuals?

Yes there are different 'cultures' but they are all formed by US society and history, for any one to change the society as a whole would have to change along with all the other cultures in it. You can't pathologize one single culture within the whole, they are all formative upon each other.

So the only way to deal with Whites using heroin more is to not focus on Whites using heroin more? Are you really saying that there are not ways to target one subculture over another? How is it then that some entertainment can target a demographic based on race?

You seem to be disagreeing with reality here.

 

[realibrad]

It would help you understand differences within the US, not differences between the US and Europe as then you're cherry picking populations on one side and not the other.

The context was that the US has a "War on Drugs" that ends up causing more harm to Blacks and Hispanics which helps drive gun usage by those groups which in part drives the difference between the US and Europe. When you take out the groups that are most effected by the "War on Drugs" you end up seeing that the problem seems to reside in those two groups and their unique differences. So when people compare the US to the EU as a way to show we have a problem, it thus helps to understand what influences are diving that unique US problem.

 

[pmv]

Yes you classify politics in the US as a 'culture' (as much as 'country' culture or 'urban' culture I guess)? Or yes you separate those two things (political leaning vs cultural)?

Not sure if this a rhetorical trap you are preparing to spring (!) but I mean 'yes' I guess you could say there are different political cultures but that they were formed very much in response to each other and the wider context. There are also real material conditions of course.

 

[realibrad]

Not sure if this a rhetorical trap you are preparing to spring (!) but I mean 'yes' I guess you could say there are different political cultures but that they were formed very much in response to each other and the wider context. There are also real material conditions of course.

So why does having common influences mean we all have the same culture, when we obviously have groups that respond with different outcomes? If culture is just a set of generalized beliefs and norms, then the different outcomes would qualify as a subculture of the overall larger culture. You appear to be saying that because the influence is the same that its all the same culture.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Not sure if this a rhetorical trap you are preparing to spring (!) but I mean 'yes' I guess you could say there are different political cultures but that they were formed very much in response to each other and the wider context. There are also real material conditions of course.

I'm not trying to do any 5th dimensional chess here, I just know that we fall into our own traps of logic sometimes. I always find it fascinating how much people reject the notion that 'the other camp' politically can possibly be as normal as them (with differing opinions), even among the most liberal minded individuals. Not a callout or anything, was just curious on your view of political cultures (or if such a thing existed).

 

[pmv]

Yes... because when you exclude those two groups from the data, the rates fall more inline with other countries. When you include those groups you see it skyrocket. Doing this allows you to see that those two groups might have unique factors that could be addressed that looking at the group in total might miss.

But you are presuming that other countries don't have their own disadvantaged or minorty groups. In fact they do, but they don't have the same murder rate as the US's equivalent.

So its not those groups that have unique factors (assuming that there are such unique factors, I'm actuallly not 100% sure that there are, beyond the very specific issue of the murder rate, not even violent crime as such). It's the US and its history that has those unique factors.

 

[fskimospy]

The context was that the US has a "War on Drugs" that ends up causing more harm to Blacks and Hispanics which helps drive gun usage by those groups which in part drives the difference between the US and Europe. When you take out the groups that are most effected by the "War on Drugs" you end up seeing that the problem seems to reside in those two groups and their unique differences. So when people compare the US to the EU as a way to show we have a problem, it thus helps to understand what influences are diving that unique US problem.

This is, again, a route to very bad analysis. Europe also has cultural and ethnic groups that are uniquely prone to violence. By leaving out violence prone groups in the US and leaving those same groups in for other nations you end up with a distorted picture.

 

[pmv]

I'm not trying to do any 5th dimensional chess here, I just know that we fall into our own traps of logic sometimes. I always find it fascinating how much people reject the notion that 'the other camp' politically can possibly be as normal as them (with differing opinions), even among the most liberal minded individuals. Not a callout or anything, was just curious on your view of political cultures (or if such a thing existed).

Well, on that topic my opinion varies wildly from one day to the next. I suppose it is relevant that I have sometimes come away from conversations with ultra-technocratic elitist liberal friends thinking 'hmmm, I'm kind of understanding why someone might vote Trump/UKIP'.
(The key word there being technocrat - which to me describes an aspect of the EU in particular, and which seems almost like the mirror image of the populist)

 

[realibrad]

But you are presuming that other countries don't have their own disadvantaged or minorty groups. In fact they do, but they don't have the same murder rate as the US's equivalent.

Are you under the impression that Europe is equal or more diverse than the US?

So its not those groups that have unique factors (assuming that there are such unique factors, I'm actuallly not 100% sure that there are, beyond the very specific issue of the murder rate, not even violent crime as such). Is the US and its history that has those unique factors.

Bingo! Blacks and Hispanics in the US are different than other places because of different influences.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

You appear to be confusing freedom of speech with freedom from criticism.

Who was he expecting to see at CPAC? Sanders, Ellison and Maduro?

 

[realibrad]

This is, again, a route to very bad analysis. Europe also has cultural and ethnic groups that are uniquely prone to violence. By leaving out violence prone groups in the US and leaving those same groups in for other nations you end up with a distorted picture.

Yes they do, but I know of no such thing that seems to impact their minority groups in the same way that the "War on Drugs" does. Further, their minority groups make up a far smaller population than in the US which has much more of its population that would be called minorities.

So if the US has policies that disproportionately effects is minority groups, and the US minority groups make up a much larger % of its population, then you can see what drives the unique situation in the US. If guns span across both cultures, but the US is doing something that causes an excess amount of violence driving up gun use, its less about guns and more about policies that drive up violence.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Well, on that topic my opinion varies wildly from one day to the next. I suppose it is relevant that I have sometimes come away from conversations with ultra-technocratic elitist liberal friends thinking 'hmmm, I'm kind of understanding why someone might vote Trump/UKIP'.

Same, I imagine most people are actually far more centrist than they realize, thus the propensity for voting against a party rather than for; they don't really identify with either, but one's more horrifying than the other is.

 

[momeNt]

This is, again, a route to very bad analysis. Europe also has cultural and ethnic groups that are uniquely prone to violence. By leaving out violence prone groups in the US and leaving those same groups in for other nations you end up with a distorted picture.

The magnitude of the bad analysis is technically smaller though, Europe has something like 10-12% ethnic minorities vs the USA having 25%, so the magnitude of his error is half providing they are equally violent.