Originally posted by dadudemonThat's an interesting question.
I am genuinely interested to know if censoring the media could reduce mass gun shootings in the US (and abroad). Being the "rights for everyone" person that I am, it would take a shit on my generally libertarian perspective on personal liberties.
The question is that if these acts aren't reported people who want attention wouldn't commit them?
My gut and opinion would be that even if you got rid of the attention whores you might embolden people who would willing commit violent acts because they feel more secure with it not being reported and therefore not getting caught.
My mean violent acts existed before media covered them as extensively as they do now.
Of course it would be interesting to test to see if my opinion was true.
Originally posted by Newjak
That's an interesting question.The question is that if these acts aren't reported people who want attention wouldn't commit them?
My gut and opinion would be that even if you got rid of the attention whores you might embolden people who would willing commit violent acts because they feel more secure with it not being reported and therefore not getting caught.
My mean violent acts existed before media covered them as extensively as they do now.
Of course it would be interesting to test to see if my opinion was true.
Murders per 100,000 were much much smaller than they are now, back in 1900. There are tons of variables that contribute to the higher murder rate. Some suggest that one of those could be the media.
We know that one of those variables is population density...at least as far as property crimes are concerned. I would feel intellectually okay with extending that to violent crimes. But population density just is not the only factor contributing to our higher homicide rates.
Originally posted by dadudemonWhat does much smaller mean?
Murders per 100,000 were much much smaller than they are now, back in 1900. There are tons of variables that contribute to the higher murder rate. Some suggest that one of those could be the media.We know that one of those variables is population density...at least as far as property crimes are concerned. I would feel intellectually okay with extending that to violent crimes. But population density just is not the only factor contributing to our higher homicide rates.
What are the numbers exactly?
Also the rates have fallen
Also do you think there could be a discrepancy in the data due to those crimes not being recorded due to them not being reported on in the time era? 😛
Also what would the same statistics be 100 or even 1000s of years before that?
I did find a graph that seems to show the numbers you are talking about. I'm trying to find one that extends into the 2000s but so far the only one I found goes to 2000, and it shows a dramatic decrease from the rest of the 90s almost by half when it hits 1999.
Which there was more readily available media coverage in 99 than in the early 90 where the rates were almost doubled in some years.
Of course the question is would reducing the media coverage of violent crimes reduce some of those violent crimes. It's hard to say and produce a test that would clearly determine that notion. It's possible but would the losses of that be enough to counteract those people that might be emboldened by lack of coverage? I think that is something that would need to be included in the test as well.
My gut instinct says that it would probably even out as I don't think media coverage plays a huge role in violent crimes. Yes it probably influences some people but not enough that it would make the hardest dent or even a dent at all into the violent crimes rates.
The graph I'm looking at shows that from the 20s - 30s they had a comparable rate to the 90s
but the 40s - 60s had a noticeable lower rate than 20s - 30s and they had more media coverage in that time period than before.
Of course none of that is conclusive but I think in an issue with these many variables it's hard to determine true conclusiveness.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Murders per 100,000 were much much smaller than they are now, back in 1900. There are tons of variables that contribute to the higher murder rate. Some suggest that one of those could be the media.
Where are you getting your numbers for the 1900s? I can't find them. Most crime surveys only seem to go back to the 70s.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosThis is the one I found
Where are you getting your numbers for the 1900s? I can't find them. Most crime surveys only seem to go back to the 70s.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Where are you getting your numbers for the 1900s? I can't find them. Most crime surveys only seem to go back to the 70s.
Google books. It was like...1.2 per 100,000. I'm at work so I can't look it up, now. But I might look it up, later, for you. I don't remember the wording I used in my Google search a week or two back...but the wording has to be right to get the book to come up.
Originally posted by Newjak
This is the one I found
I'd say that puts the nail in the coffin of blaming the media. Homicide rates exploded in 1903 at an a rate that is absolutely absurd. Saying that we have a much higher murder rate now than in 1900 is EXTREMELY misleading. I mean we have a lower murder rate now than we did in 1094 . . .
A spike like that concerns me. Murder became five times as common in the space of a year. One year. Unless murder juice was pumped into the water supply or something that is probably best explained by a change in either data collection methods or definitions.
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/06/16/a-crime-puzzle-violent-crime-declines-in-america/
This shows a completely different (and much smoother) graph of homicide rates.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7774726
And here we are. Death statistics were very poor prior to the 1930s because they failed to include most of the country. The graph above is based on this same person's attempt to correct for that.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The poster was cut short. It says, "...protect them with my guns."He'll protect them with his fists, instead. hugesmile
Hmm...that actually does sound like the syntax of a prototypical gunnut.
Originally posted by Robtardyou find every houshold with guns online, one of NYC was leaked showing every house with a gun and its owners name age adress etc.
And then go around your neighborhood asking your neighbors if they "want to ban all guns"?Cos they'll probably think you're even more special in the head.
So no you dont need to knock on peoples doors to ask them
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosI thought the data could be off with that estimate.
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/06/16/a-crime-puzzle-violent-crime-declines-in-america/This shows a completely different (and much smoother) graph of homicide rates.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7774726
And here we are. Death statistics were very poor prior to the 1930s because they failed to include most of the country. The graph above is based on this same person's attempt to correct for that.
I would also like to look at the murder rates far further back then that to see what the change was because there was even less reliable media to get information with.
Of course data keeping was so hard back than it's hard to trust the numbers whether they are high or low.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/06/16/a-crime-puzzle-violent-crime-declines-in-america/This shows a completely different (and much smoother) graph of homicide rates.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7774726
And here we are. Death statistics were very poor prior to the 1930s because they failed to include most of the country. The graph above is based on this same person's attempt to correct for that.
That is violent crime, not homicide. BRB.
Well, the stuff I am finding is not that one from Google Books. It is mostly just gun advocacy sites listing what the homicide rates were in 1900.
Also, that spike in 1903 that you're talking about may be the Dick Act.
But this site has a list:
http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/usa.htm
I will try and find a more credible source for you.
Found something better:
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
you find every houshold with guns online, one of NYC was leaked showing every house with a gun and its owners name age adress etc.So no you dont need to knock on peoples doors to ask them
Pretending that's true, how does someone not having a gun automatically mean they "want all guns banned"?