IGX

Tyranny isn't remote. It's real and a possibility if we drop our guard. The government is not to be trusted. Look at the police and how they abuse their powers. An unarmed populace would be very vulnerable to state abuse on a much wider scale. Particularly where there is a major issue with our current system such that food supply, fractional reserve banking or energy supply are threatened or interrupted. The sort of anarchy that would prevail is only navigable if you can defend yourself so anyone taking guns off you now is setting you up to be a lamb to the slaughter later on whether they realise it or not. Plus criminals have guns and won't give them up so you're completely vulnerable to them too if the law is changed. Taking away your right to bear arms is tantamount to taking away your right to defend you and your family. It threatens your right to life and security.

On June 10th, 1992, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a definitive study on the impact of TV violence. In nations, regions, or cities where television appears there is an immediate explosion of violence on the playground, and within 15 years there is a doubling of the murder rate. Why 15 years? That's how long it takes for a brutalized toddler to reach the “prime crime” years. That's how long it takes before you begin to reap what you sow when you traumatize and desensitize children. (Centerwall, 1992).

The JAMA concluded that, “the introduction of television in the 1950’s caused a subsequent doubling of the homicide rate, i.e., long-term childhood exposure to television is a causal factor behind approximately one half of the homicides committed in the United States, or approximately 10,000 homicides annually.” The study went on to state that “...if, hypothetically, television technology had never been developed, there would today be 10,000 fewer homicides each year in the United states, 70,000 fewer rapes, and 700,000 fewer injurious assaults” (Centerwall, 1992).

Today the data linking violence in the media to violence in society is superior to that linking cancer and tobacco.

milosz wrote:

On June 10th, 1992, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a definitive study on the impact of TV violence. In nations, regions, or cities where television appears there is an immediate explosion of violence on the playground, and within 15 years there is a doubling of the murder rate. Why 15 years? That's how long it takes for a brutalized toddler to reach the “prime crime” years. That's how long it takes before you begin to reap what you sow when you traumatize and desensitize children. (Centerwall, 1992).

The JAMA concluded that, “the introduction of television in the 1950’s caused a subsequent doubling of the homicide rate, i.e., long-term childhood exposure to television is a causal factor behind approximately one half of the homicides committed in the United States, or approximately 10,000 homicides annually.” The study went on to state that “...if, hypothetically, television technology had never been developed, there would today be 10,000 fewer homicides each year in the United states, 70,000 fewer rapes, and 700,000 fewer injurious assaults” (Centerwall, 1992).

Today the data linking violence in the media to violence in society is superior to that linking cancer and tobacco.

Okay, now if we accept this, how do we account for homicide and violent crime rates since 1992? Anyone want to argue that the media hasn't gotten more brutal? I've never been a serious gamer, but I can't think of a time since Return to Wolfenstein that I haven't owned some kind of first-person shooter and they've only gotten bloodier and more faux-realistic (not necessarily more similar to real-life but with more blood and such) over those 20 years. There's more violence on TV and in movies.
I love me some rap but when you compare the first two generations of 'shocking gangsta rap' to contemporary rap, NWA, Ice-T and Biggie seem fucking quaint.

Yet, through all of this, our safety has only improved since '92.

cleaner464 wrote:The 2nd amendment was written in light of the FF's beliefs that a large standing army was not healthy for the republic's morals nor for its finances. The well ordered militia was to be filled with an armed citizenry. THEY NEVER ASSUMED THAT WE WOULD BE ON A CONSTANT WAR FOOTING AND CREATE THE BEAST WE HAVE.

tonkadtx wrote:

Tyranny isn't remote. It's real and a possibility if we drop our guard. The government is not to be trusted. Look at the police and how they abuse their powers. An unarmed populace would be very vulnerable to state abuse on a much wider scale. Particularly where there is a major issue with our current system such that food supply, fractional reserve banking or energy supply are threatened or interrupted. The sort of anarchy that would prevail is only navigable if you can defend yourself so anyone taking guns off you now is setting you up to be a lamb to the slaughter later on whether they realise it or not. Plus criminals have guns and won't give them up so you're completely vulnerable to them too if the law is changed. Taking away your right to bear arms is tantamount to taking away your right to defend you and your family. It threatens your right to life and security.

I don't know if you are being facetious or sincere, but let me describe some recent events in NYC that did not make the news during hurricane Sandy. Guns are relatively rare in NY. But the events here I'n sure convereted a lot of people. Total social breakdown in certain neighborhoods. But kept as quiet as possible.

A little background: The southwest side of the Rockaway Peninsula is where the neighborhoods of Breezy Point and Rockaway proper are. The North Eastern portion is called "Far Rockaway" it is closer to the border of Nassau County (all of The counties of Brooklyn and Queens are actually on the Island of Long Island); and for lack of a better term; it is a fucking ghetto. GHEEEEETTTTTTTOOOOO!!!!. It is also built up more than than the other portions of the peninsula with taller buildings (housing projects built by the city, state and feds, etc.) The rest of the peninsula is small houses a lot of the old ones converted summer bungalos, which is why they where wiped out (not to mention the fire in Breezy). Far Rockaway suffered relatively little property damage but lost all services (power, water, etc.)

There where roving bands of "youths" kicking in doors in the tower building looking for supplies and ambushing old ladies in pitch black stairwells as they tried to make their way down after a few days when they were running out of meds or whatnot. None of this made the news. They also moved on to other neighborhoods. My buddy is detective and he was camped on his father's lawn for a week. He told me he was hearing gunshots every night. After everything I saw and heard I can't imagine what Katrina was like.

How might any of this explain the latest – the post-1990s – downswing in homicide and in criminal violence more generally? The rates are now at roughly the level of the least violent era in American history, the late 1950s.

Researchers point to some similar factors, although they disagree about their relative importance. Some stress government authority, namely that longer criminal sentences and the prison-building boom kept many more bad actors off the streets longer. Others point to the economic boom of the 1990s, when unemployment, even in poor communities, sunk to low levels. And others argue – although it is difficult to confirm with hard data – that a cultural shift occurred, that increasing revulsion toward violence eventually spread into even the most violent communities and corners of the United States. (One piece of evidence is that a similar, though much less volatile, pattern occurred in Canada, which is more culturally than legally similar to the United States.)

Recently, scholars have added yet another explanation: Immigration – although not in the way that some people might expect. Cities and neighborhoods that have received the largest influx of immigrants (including Mexican immigrants) have had – despite popular stereotypes to the contrary – the largest drops in criminal violence... Two generations of scholars have yet (it appears to me) to satisfactorily explain why that happened. Some of the upswing in crime can be attributed to the baby boom: Put a lot more 15-to-25-year-old males into a society and you will get an upsurge of violence. Some of it has to do with what happened in the black ghettos of the North: The population grew rapidly just when the well-paying blue-collar jobs for men were disappearing. Some of it involved the growing drug trade. And perhaps some of the upswing reflected a short-term cultural shift – maybe the baby boomers’ rejection of authority – that encouraged violence.

Whatever the reason, the downward trend of violent crime in the U.S. seems consistent with our longer history, although still high by first-world standards. It’s the upsurge of violent crime starting in the early 1960s that is now ending that remains the larger puzzle.

Turdacious wrote:

cleaner464 wrote:The 2nd amendment was written in light of the FF's beliefs that a large standing army was not healthy for the republic's morals nor for its finances. The well ordered militia was to be filled with an armed citizenry. THEY NEVER ASSUMED THAT WE WOULD BE ON A CONSTANT WAR FOOTING AND CREATE THE BEAST WE HAVE.

You really ought to study a little more history-- Madison's presidency in particular.

Gorbachev wrote:

tonkadtx wrote:

Tyranny isn't remote. It's real and a possibility if we drop our guard. The government is not to be trusted. Look at the police and how they abuse their powers. An unarmed populace would be very vulnerable to state abuse on a much wider scale. Particularly where there is a major issue with our current system such that food supply, fractional reserve banking or energy supply are threatened or interrupted. The sort of anarchy that would prevail is only navigable if you can defend yourself so anyone taking guns off you now is setting you up to be a lamb to the slaughter later on whether they realise it or not. Plus criminals have guns and won't give them up so you're completely vulnerable to them too if the law is changed. Taking away your right to bear arms is tantamount to taking away your right to defend you and your family. It threatens your right to life and security.

I don't know if you are being facetious or sincere, but let me describe some recent events in NYC that did not make the news during hurricane Sandy. Guns are relatively rare in NY. But the events here I'n sure convereted a lot of people. Total social breakdown in certain neighborhoods. But kept as quiet as possible.

A little background: The southwest side of the Rockaway Peninsula is where the neighborhoods of Breezy Point and Rockaway proper are. The North Eastern portion is called "Far Rockaway" it is closer to the border of Nassau County (all of The counties of Brooklyn and Queens are actually on the Island of Long Island); and for lack of a better term; it is a fucking ghetto. GHEEEEETTTTTTTOOOOO!!!!. It is also built up more than than the other portions of the peninsula with taller buildings (housing projects built by the city, state and feds, etc.) The rest of the peninsula is small houses a lot of the old ones converted summer bungalos, which is why they where wiped out (not to mention the fire in Breezy). Far Rockaway suffered relatively little property damage but lost all services (power, water, etc.)

There where roving bands of "youths" kicking in doors in the tower building looking for supplies and ambushing old ladies in pitch black stairwells as they tried to make their way down after a few days when they were running out of meds or whatnot. None of this made the news. They also moved on to other neighborhoods. My buddy is detective and he was camped on his father's lawn for a week. He told me he was hearing gunshots every night. After everything I saw and heard I can't imagine what Katrina was like.

I was making a genuine attempt to articulate the opposing view. Interesting take in Sandy's aftermath. Thanks for sharing. It's scenarios like this which drive much of the perceived need for arms in an otherwise largely civil society.

DPR wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... n/1778303/

The Save Our Schools Act (SOS) would allow the federal government to reimburse Governors who want to use National Guard troops in schools and is modeled after the National Guard program that allows governors to use the Guard to assist with law enforcement efforts related to drug interdiction activities.

“So we take a successful program and we say we’re going to add a new purpose,” Boxer said. "National guard troops could be used to help support local law enforcement agencies in protecting our children at schools.”

Under the new program, Guard troops could work with law enforcement agencies to ensure schools are safe. This could take the form of additional guards at school, strengthening the perimeter security of the school or relieving local law enforcement officials who have desk jobs.

Terry B. wrote:Inner city schools had armed guards 15 years ago.

A relative in New York said that their kids' elementary school is bolted down so tightly that they couldn't go in to drop off a jacket that had been left in the car. Warm kids and the evil doers have won.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:That said......children are a helluva lot more precious than money.. We guard banks and mall parking lots and factories and power plants and senators, why not schools?

Not saying we need to violate Posse Comitatus to do it.

Turdacious wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:That said......children are a helluva lot more precious than money.. We guard banks and mall parking lots and factories and power plants and senators, why not schools?

Not saying we need to violate Posse Comitatus to do it.

Replace assistant principals with police-- better protection at a lower cost.