[Bloodeagle]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

I'll bet that I'm trying to make an argument using established terms for clarity. What are you complaining about anyway? I'm not even arguing for regulations or bans.

Yeah I don't understand why Justice (and someone else earlier) did that. You have been presenting a coherent framework for the debate, not arguing for restrictions of gun ownership.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by Bloodeagle

Yeah I don't understand why Justice (and someone else earlier) did that. You have been presenting a coherent framework for the debate, not arguing for restrictions of gun ownership.

I think he just made a mistake. No biggie.

[Tuff]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

Every first world county has nosy media, some much worse than ours. Every first world country has the internet, some much worse than ours. Yet, we have much higher rates of homicide. If media is the cause, you would think we would side a causal relationship, would we not? Do you have any evidence to show this relationship?

What specifically are you looking for more evidence on? Surely not "If it bleeds, it reads" because that goes without saying.

However, in regards to "The media celebrating these events by covering them on the front page for a week puts the ideas in people's heads" - is that the part you question? If that's the case, then I can cite a case that Carl and his pall "Bill" may remember?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Purdy

After this case, later that year, another man named Joseph Wesbecker, was literally inspired by this shooting, and took notes from it, had articles regarding the shooting.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/scholarly/JMME2.htm

"In the same way Wesbecker's interest was peaked[sic] -- he had clipped out a February Time magazine article on some of Purdy's exploits -- gun dealers expect a renewed blaze of interest in the big gun.

"With all the media attention since then," said Ray Yeager, owner of Ray's Gun Shop in Louisville, "and all the anti-gunners's attempts to ban (assault rifles), the result has been massive sales."
How important was the news coverage of Purdy's crime in influencing Wesbecker's actions, above and beyond identifying the weapon of choice for such an act of savagery?
Police now believe Wesbecker had begun plotting the suicide rampage for at least seven months. Searching Wesbecker's house, police found a copy of a Feb. 6 Time magazine detailing mass murders in California, Oklahoma, Texas and elsewhere.

And

"This disturbing information about the connection between the Time article and Wesbecker's actions didn't make it into Time, Newsweek, or many newspapers' coverage of this tragedy. The Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, all left this embarrassing detail — at least embarrassing to Time — out of their coverage. It wasn't a lack of space that was responsible for this omission, for this was a front-page story in the Los Angeles Times and the Press-Democrat."

As stated, these media outlets may not have any legal responsibility to limit coverage on these cases, but they do have a moral one. They choose not to exercise that responsibilities because money and ratings and a scoop > human lives.

A part that I found intriguing

"Larry Mahoney's drunken driving motor vehicle wreck that caused 27 deaths in May of 1988. Mahoney was convicted of manslaughter, so the essential element of premeditation was lacking, except in the sense that getting drunk and operating a motor vehicle is potentially quite dangerous ("Convicted. Larry Mahoney", 1990). However, including crimes like Mahoney's in this study would tend to strengthen my argument that Time and Newsweek give special treatment to firearms mass murderers, since Mahoney received no press in Newsweek, and only 0.15 square inches per victim in Time."

The underline holds true and backs up my first sentences in this reply, the bold is worth mentioning again. Why are firearm deaths covered with such a higher degree of negative press? Why is the means in which people die more important than the actual event of people dying?

This entire debate became about guns. "GUNS, GUNS, GLORIOUS GUNS!" to quote Marcus from Borderlands 2, and it's the wrong argument. But the media, as seen here, simply wants this to be about guns. It has to be. How else can you take the focus off the other amendment that they don't want you to talk about, in bold below.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

And the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, giving crazy people a roadmap to places with lots of defenseless victims.





What class of weaponry is that?

Google Sturmgewehr 44 if you're interested in assault rifles.

[Volucris]

http://americangunfacts.com/

[TheSilentAssassin]

Tuff: Okay, you didn't understand, so I will try again. And not trying to be rude, but I am going to ignore the rest of the post as it is off topic.

Originally Posted by Tuff

What specifically are you looking for more evidence on?

Let's say there is a relationship where people who own dogs are less likely to own cats. There is a direct causal relationship where an increase in dog ownership leads to a decrease in cat ownership. With that, we should be able to plot every county by dog ownership and have a vague grasp at which countries own the least cats. From there, we can check to see how well the relationship holds.

You are asserting that violent media and the internet causes more massacres. My point is that I see countries with much more violent media with lower homicide rates, countries with much more nosy media with much lower homicide rates, countries with a much stronger "internet culture" with much lower homicide rates. In fact, I see zero statistical relationship between the two. I am asking you to show me this relationship.

Countries can be hard to compare, so I thought of another example. If the causal relationship between media and homicide is so strong, why the discrepancy between the south and the rest of the country? Does the south not have the same media, same internet, etc? Of anything they watch more Fox? If media is the cause and Fox is more prevalent in the most violent area, then doesn't that follow logically? I don't believe this. I am just taking your argument where it takes me.

Southern violence I was referring to:

[Blake360]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

Southern violence I was referring to:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...es/10tbl04.xls

Notice how in the south, district of columbia has the highest murder rate, even higher than all states from every other region with 1,330.2 per 100,000. Don't they have very strict gun laws?

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Blake360

[url]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl04.xls[/url

Notice how in the south, district of columbia has the highest murder rate, even higher than all states from every other region with 1,330.2 per 100,000. Don't they have very strict gun laws?

I am asking a very simple question. Please don't try to derail things. If you would like to talk about that, please do it elsewhere.

[Blake360]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

I am asking a very simple question. Please don't try to derail things.

I have a big part of the answer to that but I'm just going to be called a racist for stating the facts.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Blake360

I have a big part of the answer to that but I'm just going to be called a racist for stating the facts.

Tuff asserted media was the main cause. I'm talking about that.

[Blake360]

http://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/

Compare southern states' race demographics with the race demographics of other regions. Notice anything?

And then after looking at this, tell me why 5,770 murders were committed by blacks, compared to 4,849 by whites, even though blacks only make up 13% of the population in America.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...10shrtbl03.xls

[F1VENOM]

Obviously because they're worthless freeloaders who'd like nothing better than to have babies, smoke crack and shoot each other.

Blake we've had this discussion so many times that if you haven't grasped it by now you're a lost cause.

[licence2kill]

blake doesnt think black people are worth saving

[tomM925]

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

Obviously because they're worthless freeloaders who'd like nothing better than to have babies, smoke crack and shoot each other.

Blake we've had this discussion so many times that if you haven't grasped it by now you're a lost cause.

Your not missing a chromosome after all.

[Blake360]

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

Obviously because they're worthless freeloaders who'd like nothing better than to have babies, smoke crack and shoot each other.

Blake we've had this discussion so many times that if you haven't grasped it by now you're a lost cause.

We haven't had this discussion before, and the fact that you can't refute the correlation I pointed out, means you don't have a valid response.

[Blake360]

Here's another cold hard fact that explains why there's more crime in southern states. Look at page 2 here:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acsbr11-02.pdf

And notice the majority of the southern states are in the lowest income bracket.
The income level to violence correlation can be seen in all states, including local cities and regions, and unlike gun ownership statistics, there is a clear cause and effect scenario here.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Lol, I ask you not to derail a thread and you do it anyways... Thanks.

[Blake360]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

Lol, I ask you not to derail a thread and you do it anyways... Thanks.

I responded directly to the title of this thread, why don't you read it again. I brought this discussion back on topic actually.

[licence2kill]

Originally Posted by tomM925

Your not missing a chromosome after all.

you're

[tomM925]

lol

[Blake360]

Originally Posted by licence2kill

you're

You're.