I'm surprised that this topic hasn't come up here yet. My take is that the incident will cause gun sales to rise, and customers will flock to these machine gun ranges as a result of the free publicity. The Gun Lobby will, of course, double down on the right of a nine-year old to fire a fully automatic weapon, and no laws will change.
Do we not even remember Christopher Bizilj? Eight year old. Micro uzi. They had an eight year old on a gun range firing a micro uzi on full auto. Recoil kicked the gun up so hard that he blew his own brains out in a split second. Exit wound in his own brains you could stick your fist in.
But because telling people that you should not be allowed to let a little child fire a fully automatic firearm counts as "any sort of regulation on firearms whatsoever" the NRA will pile on yet more demented obstruction of even the most minimal of ridiculously worthwhile regulation
then we'll all just be wondering "my gosh how could we let this happen" the next time it happens
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
“I ran over to him. His eyes were open and I saw no reason for him to be on the ground,” Bizilj told members of the Hampden County jury. “And I tried to talk to him and he didn’t respond. I put my hand behind his head to try to pick him up and there was a large portion of his cranium missing. And I put my hand against the back of his head.”
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
As a gun owner and enthusiast, I think a good rule of thumb when it comes to gun legislation would be to to make gun laws roughly comparable to car laws.
So, for example, before you can operate a car, you have to be at least 16, and take a written and road test to prove you're capable of driving safely. You usually have to retake every 5 years to retain a license.
If you own a car, you have to register it with the state every year, as well as getting a safety check.
It's illegal to operate a vehicle drunk.
You need special licenses for motorcycles, tandem-axle vehicles, boats, etc.
And so on... there seems to be a lack of common sense when it comes to gun laws, unfortunately. If you wouldn't let a 9 year old girl drive a semi-truck through, say, downtown Manhattan, why on Earth would you let her fire an automatic weapon? Especially one with a short barrel and notoriously difficult recoil? But while one scenario is illegal and would probably see parents jailed for reckless endangerment or something, the other is perfectly legal. If you want her to learn how to handle a weapon, start off with a BB-gun and then maybe a .22 when she's older.
Unfortunately, gun control reform seems to be at an absolute standstill in the US, and I think of 2 reasons.
1) Incompetence or straight up ignorance among a lot of the pro-gun control crowd. this article is a good example of some of the mind-blowing stupidity that actually gets published, and it's ignorance like this that leads to the proposal or creation of completely ineffective laws. By which I mean, laws that ban guns for being scary looking rather than banning them for having certain capabilities, or being unsafe/prone to malfunction, or really anything related to the functionality or lethality of the weapon.
And this is something that I'll admit Ted Cruz, despite my dislike of him, understands pretty well. Because many of the people who are pro-gun control are unwilling to learn how guns actually work, or use mainly emotional reasoning rather than facts when determining how to go about controlling guns, it's relatively easy to dismiss them and dismiss gun control legislation. (Consider, for example, that in 2011, out of 8583 murders committed with a firearm, 6220 or 72% were with a handgun. 161 or 1.8% were committed with an assault rifle. Yet legislation, and the attention of many pro-gun control activists, seems to be far more focused on controlling assault rifles than handguns)
2) The utter, moronic unwillingness on the part of many gun owners to accept even some level of regulation and control. (A lot of this ties into a sense of paranoia about the gub'mint taking all the guns from everybody because something something Hitler...) As a said earlier, even controlling the sale and possession of firearms on a level similar to vehicles would be a huge step forward. How many people honestly think the DoT or state DMVs is/are infringing upon a citizen's ability to own and operate a motor vehicle? You may not be able to drive your tank to work, but you can pretty much drive any vehicle you want within reason. So why would a similar system for firearms be so bad?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
most of the people who are full on gun nut are just demented when it comes to interpretation of governmental overreach so they will never accept even the most tepid regulatory expansion
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How many people honestly think the DoT or state DMVs is/are infringing upon a citizen's ability to own and operate a motor vehicle?
The gun nuts I know will rush to point out that driving a motor vehicle is not a constitutionally-guaranteed right.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
In some senses it is in the 5th amendment: "[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . ."
This has long been viewed as a protection against vague and capricious laws, in conjunction with amendments 9 and 10. Specifically liberty has been interpreted broadly to include the right of free association in business, and in obtaining licensure. This was a key element of several civil rights decisions in the 60s.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: But the pro-gun advocates added that, when done safely, there are benefits to teaching even very young children to shoot certain guns. Youngsters learn hand-eye coordination. They learn what to do if they stumble upon a weapon on the playground. And they learn how to defend themselves if they are ever attacked.
1) There are much safer and healthier ways to learn hand-eye coordination 2) Shooting it, even "correctly", is not what a youngster should do if they stumble upon a weapon on the playground 3) Are gun rights activists advocating children carry weapons now for self-defense?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The only thing that stops a bad elementary school student with a fully automatic submachine gun is a good elementary school student with a fully automatic submachine gun
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Dogbreath's response "As a gun owner and enthusiast" makes me want to point out that we equate gun ownership, or gun enthusiasm, with NRA membership. But the NRA doesn't represent gun owners. Haven't for a long time. No, the NRA represents gun manufacturers. And gun manufacturers want to sell guns to anyone who will buy them. They have a name for criminals: They call them customers.
Most NRA members agree that the gun show, and private sale loopholes should be closed, but the NRA fights tooth and nail to keep them open. And yet they still use the slogan "I'm the NRA, and I vote." Does the NRA actually vote within their ranks to establish policy?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The two can't be separated very cleanly when we are talking about pro-gun types on the whole, because so many pro-gun types are solidly behind the NRA and this is what gives them the electoral clout they currently possess and it is why they are capable of obstinately preventing any reform, even when, like, dozens of elementary school children are systematically shot to death or whatever else happened while the NRA stalled any reforms and tried to deflect any criticism for gun laws or gun culture
like, dogbreath's stance that you should regulate guns like you regulate cars at the very least already makes his position total anathema to most gun enthusiasts
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Would you believe the majority of gun owners I know, when I actually break it down (not "do you support gun control", but "do you agree with regulating guns this way?"), have roughly the same views I have? Not a large majority, and in certain places I've lived (like rural Alabama) I'd be subjected to a long lecture about gubmint overreach and Hiterbama and the Illuminati lizards... but I wouldn't assume that most gun enthusiasts are of the straight up gun nut variety.
The problem is there isn't much of a place in American politics at the moment for people who enjoy owning and firing weapons but believe there needs to be more regulation.
Look at my first post in the thread - if you're a gun owner, group 1 is likely to portray you as a dangerous, unhinged lunatic wearing a tinfoil hat and teaching your kids how to man the m60, for when the gubmint comes to take away your guns. They also support completely ridiculous laws that ban scary looking guns that are actually safe and almost exclusively used recreationally (i.e, the ones you probably own), while ignoring the guns that are actually used by criminals.
Group 2 is made up of the NRA and the gun nuts, but they're not going to belittle you or treat you like a lunatic just because you like guns. They have fliers up at the range you shoot at, they're very vocal, welcoming, and supportive.
So it's a lot easier for gun owners to end up falling into group 2, or at least keep quiet about their views. I personally avoid most discussions on gun control, because there really aren't any options out there that I like, or think will actually work, and I dislike the constant pressure to support one position or the other.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Pretty well sums up my exact thoughts dogbreath.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
All of that is true enough as it goes, but I think it's implrtant to recognize that the shift to more vocal, aggressive politics was not one the NRA made entirely in response to overregulation. In fact the shift was led from within the NRA, and not long ago either. It was not always such a nakedly political entity.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Yeah, I have no problem with laying the blame for the gun control quagmire with the NRA. (I'm not a member) To make my point clearer, I disagree with them and consider them the "bad guys" in this scenario. I just think their opposition has done a superb job of driving moderate gun owners towards the NRA, and that's what has caused the complete standstill on any reasonable legislation being passed. If the pro gun control crowd could rely less on scare tactics and "guns are evil" propaganda, and more on advocating safety and responsible gun ownership, we might see the NRA lose a lot of their support base.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The problem with the "pro gun control crowd" is one of perception. The NRA keeps saying that "they" want to take your guns away. There is no proposed legislation to actually take away existing guns. The the best of my knowledge, there never has been. But mention registration, and the gun lobby instantly claims that the purpose of registration is so "they" have a list that "they" can use to take "our" guns away.
(Overuse of scare quotes intentional. That's what it's all about)
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Does gun registration not already exist?
What legislation is being proposed and how would it decrease gun violence?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I mean just for starters, is there really some reason why it's necessary to the safety of our republic that background checks at traveling gun shows be 'problematic'? Who, I wonder, would wish to purchase a firearm in cash from a buyer who didn't ask questions and wouldn't be in town the next week?
The gun control lobby has played nicely into the hands of the NRA by ceding to them the aggressive ground. They have let, over time and in the present, the gun rights lobby (the NRA, that is) take almost unchallenged control of the terms of the debate among those who potential legislation would actually impact-that is to say, potential and actual gun owners.
Part of this is unavoidable. Driving past a story named 'Ammo Attic' in my home town back in 2011, there was a sign that remained up on the marquis for apparently months unless it was switched out along the lines of 'Come Buy Your Guns Before Obama'. The kinds of people this will actually bag, chances are you're not going to reach.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Does gun registration not already exist?
What legislation is being proposed and how would it decrease gun violence?
Nope, not really. Laws vary from state to state but in many states, all you need to buy a new gun is to go down to the store, fill out a bit of paperwork, show ID, they call in to do a quick on the spot background check and if it's clean, you leave with it. Some states have a waiting period for handguns. One of the things that drives me nuts about movie and tv shows is the constant use of the question "Do you have a permit for that gun?". What permit? There is no such thing. The only thing you need a license for is concealed carry.
Many places, you can get around the background check and whatnot by buying used from a private owner or at a gun show. Find a local classified or online forum, give someone a call and go give him your money. Hard to regulate private transactions when there is no registration in the first place. Gun shows are just the same sort of private transactions organized into one big event.
Then there are the things the ATF keeps track of. That's a whole different story. Contrary to popular belief, you can purchase, own and use fully automatic firearms (and other strictly regulated weapons) legally. There are just a whole lot of hoops to jump through and some big taxes to pay. This includes all fully automatic weapons, shotguns with short barrels and/or large magazine capacities, silencers, etc. These do have to be registered with the ATF, can't just be sold off to anybody and require a massive amount of paperwork to buy and sell but it can be done. It helps to be buddies with the local sheriff or police chief since they have to sign off on it. Even law enforcement agencies have to go through this. That used to be my job, filing all the paperwork and keeping things on the up and up for nearly all of the state's police agencies. I was also running the state's end of the 1033 program which has come under so much scrutiny since Ferguson.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Does gun registration not already exist?
What legislation is being proposed and how would it decrease gun violence?
One of the things that drives me nuts about movie and tv shows is the constant use of the question "Do you have a permit for that gun?". What permit? There is no such thing. The only thing you need a license for is concealed carry.
Complete non-sequiter, but what's your biggest pet peeve with guns on TV? I think the one that drives me bonkers is the "chamber a round for emphasis" trope that is absolutely everywhere. Like, who the hell goes into a potentially violent confrontation without a round chambered? What's worse in when they do it several times in a row, every time they want to up the ante dramatically. I remember one episode of Heros where the guy chambered a round FIVE times on the same gun without firing. I kept watching hoping to see bullets being ejected...
This is even worse with any show with a shotgun. Expect that bad boy to get pumped 3 or 4 times at least before being fired.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: I remember one episode of Heros where the guy chambered a round FIVE times on the same gun without firing. I kept watching hoping to see bullets being ejected...
oh tell me there's a clip of this somewhere
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I couldn't find one, unfortunately. Actually, I couldn't find any videos about the phenomenon, maybe I should make one... I did find an article about the trope in general.
I really wonder what they're thinking when they write these scenes. Like "hey, I have no idea what pulling the slide back on this pistol/racking back the charging handle on this rifle does, but it sure sounds scary, so how about I do it 3 or 4 times to make sure they know we mean business."
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
My biggest peeve is probably the bullets blow up everything trope. Shooting a gas tank is highly unlikely to blow anything up.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I suppose for me the biggest peeve is the trivializing of the forces involved in gunfire. Both in terms of recoil-the rail thin model fires a hand cannon with total accuracy!-and the actual impact of a bullet-the hero is shot clean through the shoulder and quite aside from not bleeding out in minutes, is still able to put up an appreciable fistfight.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
On the flip side I was totally surprised when Mythbusters demonstrated that trying to shoot somebody to death only 5-10 feet under the surface of the water is basically impossible.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: On the flip side I was totally surprised when Mythbusters demonstrated that trying to shoot somebody to death only 5-10 feet under the surface of the water is basically impossible.
I can just see Nathan Fillion pulling back the bolt, a bullet falling on the floor, and then rolling his eyes like: "I can't believe I just did that."
My peeve is the "tough guy can get shot repeatedly and just walk it off" meme.
I also really dislike it when violence is paired with sex gratuitously. Sex sells. I get it. But unless you're making a movie about rape, leave the sex and the violence in different scenes.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm having a problem with the social network these people must be in. I'd like to believe that most people, regardless of their view of guns, would react to someone telling them they had their 9 year old daughter shoot an Uzi during their vacation by being kind of horrified. That seems like the sort of thing that would make responsible parents try to discourage their kids from spending any time with yours or at least any situation where you'd be supervising them.
I'd like to believe that this is more a failure of some individuals, but I get the feeling that this is not the case and that there are plenty of people who wouldn't react the way that seems obvious to me.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I need to point something out about guns, specifically about the way guns are registered.
I recently obtained my first gun, an AR-15. I didn't buy it from a store, and I never met the people that sold it to me. I didn't have to go through a background check.
How? I bought the parts, and assembled the gun myself. I went onto a website, purchased an AR-15 "kit" that contained all of the parts, and using youtube videos and a few tools was able to assemble the gun in about 3 hours. (It was my first time, so it took me a long time)
The kicker? Here in Nevada you don't have to register it or even go through a background check. I was actually very surprised I didn't have to tell someone that I owned the gun. I took it up to a family reunion on our land near Zion National Park and shot it for the first time. My past experience with guns have all been small caliber rifles (Boy Scout Merit badge) and shotguns. It was the first time I had handled an AR-15, and while I enjoyed it very much, I realized just how easy it was for me to get my hands on. If I can buy a kit online and put it together myself, anyone can.
I have no idea what the hell this child's parents or the gun instructor was thinking in giving this little girl an uzi to fire. I can see a small hunting rifle (22 caliber) or another small caliber gun without a kick, but an Uzi? Come on.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:The kicker? Here in Nevada you don't have to register it or even go through a background check. I was actually very surprised I didn't have to tell someone that I owned the gun. I took it up to a family reunion on our land near Zion National Park and shot it for the first time. My past experience with guns have all been small caliber rifles (Boy Scout Merit badge) and shotguns. It was the first time I had handled an AR-15, and while I enjoyed it very much, I realized just how easy it was for me to get my hands on. If I can buy a kit online and put it together myself, anyone can
My dad and I bought and assembled 2 rifles we found online. Most people think I'm joking when I tell them this. It's rediculously easy to purchase guns anywhere in the US, and ammo is even easier.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: My biggest peeve is probably the bullets blow up everything trope. Shooting a gas tank is highly unlikely to blow anything up.
The round chambering thing is my biggest pet peeve.
Not accurately representing how loud weapons are is another.
The GoldenEye pew pew silencer sound is probably my second biggest. Silencers do not SILENCE a gun! ARGH.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think there's a Mythbusters episode about silencers and again they were surprised by just how quiet they made guns.
Link Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: My biggest peeve is probably the bullets blow up everything trope. Shooting a gas tank is highly unlikely to blow anything up.
The round chambering thing is my biggest pet peeve.
Not accurately representing how loud weapons are is another.
The GoldenEye pew pew silencer sound is probably my second biggest. Silencers do not SILENCE a gun! ARGH.
I always figure they get their silencers from the same godlike tech company that produces everything Q gives to Bond. Also, Isn't the baseline for the tech in any movie always determined by just how wizard the operating system is? If you're freaking navigating in holo where streams of meaningless symbols tell you everything you need to know and saving the world depends on how fast you can type, you've entered the world in which silencers go pew pew.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
The entire legitimate purpose of the second amendment is to facilitate the training and equipment of a secondary militia (i.e not the National Guard) 'in case its needed'; just ban guns. The Wacko-Loony fetish fantasy of overthrowing a 'tyrannical' government is impossible. Attach Helicopters, Naval vessels and tanks render the 2nd amendment practically useless for that role; tie gun ownership to responsible membership in a State-recognized militia; i.e regulate the militia to abide by certain standards and puts in a sufficient amount of community service and that would be fine.
You have no legitimate reason to own a firearm if you're not willing to join a well regulated militia.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: You have no legitimate reason to own a firearm if you're not willing to join a well regulated militia.
[ September 07, 2014, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
First off, plenty-nearly all, really-insurrections and revolutions that are won, are won with a significant deficit in the firepower inventory.
I'm not much of a fan of the idea that 'it's vital I be able to buy as many guns I want without checking with anyone because tyranny!' idea-in fact once you step outside libertarians, and not even always then, any given gun rights group is likely to be remarkably unconcerned about government encroachment in other areas. That said, I know you know enough history to know that having tanks and drones and warships are not at all a guarantee of a successful war. Especially since insurrections are basically never resolved entirely by military conflict. Knowing that you know enough history to know that, why are you making this claim?
Second, while your Canadian perspective is often grating (though this has more to do with your own style as being Canadian, really), there is often a legitimate basis for it. American foreign policy, for example, well with our international footprint it's silly not to expect others to have an opinion. Domestic policy is different, with some exceptions such as our War on Drugs which aside from the foreign activity we've gotten up to in support of that, fosters drug economies elsewhere.
But...what's your stake in this one, exactly? Aside from not liking the people who like guns I mean.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
There are guns in Canada. My dad and I have been hunting there before...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: But...what's your stake in this one, exactly? Aside from not liking the people who like guns I mean.
Maybe this kind of thing.
quote:Just this week, Canadian officials in Ontario convened what was dubbed the Summit of the Gun — a reaction to a summer of shootings in Toronto, the country’s most populous city. While certain measures were passed to strengthen policing and improve community outreach, the elephant in the room was obvious. Canada is hardly a gun-free country, but its rates of civilian firearm ownership are dwarfed by those in the U.S., and the weapons its citizens do possess are far better monitored. Recent calls to ban handguns in places like Toronto, some argue, would do little to stem the flow of guns trafficked from the U.S. over the 8,000-km, thinly patrolled boundary.
“The fact of the matter is,” said Ontario’s provincial premier, Dalton McGuinty, “most of the guns that end up in the hands of young criminals are illegal guns, and they’re coming from south of the border.”
Travel for education/conferences/business can also be pretty scary for those not used to American levels of crime too.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The travel argument is weak for reasons I'm sure you have thought of already, Mucus.
The export of firearms on the other hand is actually worth consideration. That said, in what ways would you like us to change our Constitution to make law enforcement in your country easier? I wonder how many unpleasant things travel south that could really benefit-us, that is-profound changes to some of your core governing principles?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Canada is hardly a gun-free country, but its rates of civilian firearm ownership are dwarfed by those in the U.S., and the weapons its citizens do possess are far better monitored.
Sorry, but this is painting a rather skewed picture. Canada has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world (it's currently #13 with 30 guns per 100 people), and gun ownership is Canada is common and not particularly difficult. Especially outside of metropolitan areas. I know this because I've lived there, and also gone hunting and transported weapons to and from Canada.
Unlike the U.S., Canada has sane and effective gun control laws. But I get immensely irritated with people who paint Canada as a gun-free paradise - whether they're Americans who try and say "look at how wonderful things would be if we just got rid of all our guns!", or Canadians who are condescending and smug "unlike those barbaric Americans, we don't have guns!" Or sometimes, "omg, America is so scary, there are guns everywhere! Good thing we don't have any of those here."
(To be fair, the second attitude is pretty rare compared to the first, since less Canadians are ignorant about Canada than Americans are ignorant about Canada)
Canada should definitely be held up as an ideal for effectively and efficiently regulating firearm ownership. But citing it as an example of an (even mostly) gun-free society is completely absurd.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Dogbreath: I'm not sure who or what you're addressing. Your tone sounds like you disagree with the article but I can't figure out what you're disagreeing with. You disagree with citing Canada as a gun-free society but literally the first sentence of what you quoted says that. The second point you bring up is that Canada has the 13th highest gun ownership rate, but the same link that you brought up demonstrates that Canada's rate of gun ownership is merely a third of America's which agrees with the characterisation of "dwarfed." What are you addressing exactly? Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The travel argument is weak for reasons I'm sure you have thought of already, Mucus.
I don't know why you characterise this as an "argument"? You specifically asked what our stake was, our stake is (or at least one of them) is that we would like to do business and travel without risking significantly higher levels of crime. I don't see why that's an invalid stake.
quote: I wonder how many unpleasant things travel south that could really benefit-us, that is-profound changes to some of your core governing principles?
I don't know what you're referring to. If you bring some of them up I can give you my opinion on them or what I would like my government to do about it. What I won't do is dismiss your opinion just because you're American.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I disagree that America is the cause of gun violence in Canada, and dislike that the article is worded to make Canada sound like a formerly gun-free utopia that is being besmirched by the existence of American guns. To say that Canada is dwarfed by the US in number of guns per capita is misleading - that's also true of literally any country in the world. But that article ignores that Canada has one of the most pro-gun cultures in the world, or that there are millions of Canadian gun owners, or that Canada has 5 times as many guns per person than the UK, and instead portrays Canada as the hapless victim of American guns.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't know why you characterise this as an "argument"? You specifically asked what our stake was, our stake is (or at least one of them) is that we would like to do business and travel without risking significantly higher levels of crime. I don't see why that's an invalid stake.
So. We should change our Constitution to make travelers feel better within our borders, then? Or...what exactly. You know it was an argument-for why a Canadian ought have a place in the debate-and why it is weak. Our troubles with gun violence are hardly a secret. Travel can be avoided.
quote:I don't know what you're referring to. If you bring some of them up I can give you my opinion on them or what I would like my government to do about it. What I won't do is dismiss your opinion just because you're American.
You have frequently...patronized American opinions on a variety of topics, because of their being American. Often with good reason, but I don't know why you're being so coy. As for dismissing. I make a habit about commenting on Canadian domestic policy, I guess?
Wait. The other thing. Basically never.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: So. We should change our Constitution to make travelers feel better within our borders, then? Or...what exactly. You know it was an argument
Honestly, you're being kind of a dick here. I wasn't seeking an argument. I thought you were asking what stake Canadians would have in reducing the amount of gun crime in the States. As in stakeholder. As in I thought you were actually curious why Canadians would be interested. If I wanted to get entangled in a larger American gun control debate, I'd freely say that.
quote: As for dismissing. I make a habit about commenting on Canadian domestic policy, I guess?
Wait. The other thing. Basically never.
I was responding to this bit.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I wonder how many unpleasant things travel south that could really benefit-us ...
If you're actually wondering/interested then go ahead. I don't understand your attitude.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Obviously the problem here is with handing an Uzi to a nine-year-old that hadn't gotten handed one as an eight-year-old. If she had had proper fully-automatic training from a young age she would have known to respect the recoil.
That aside, and not to be too callous, meh, it's one death. Negligent accidents will happen, with swimming pools as much as with guns. It's just emotionally salient because guns happen to be a hot-button issue. Do the math, regulate swimming pools.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: First off, plenty-nearly all, really-insurrections and revolutions that are won, are won with a significant deficit in the firepower inventory.
Name one that has won where the revolutionaries only had small arms and the 'state' had access to nuclear weapons.
quote: I'm not much of a fan of the idea that 'it's vital I be able to buy as many guns I want without checking with anyone because tyranny!' idea-in fact once you step outside libertarians, and not even always then, any given gun rights group is likely to be remarkably unconcerned about government encroachment in other areas.
Not quite sure what you're saying here. My position is if you want to own a gun, then being responsible should be synonymous with being a part of a well regulated organization with the power to remove your gun should you be lax. If the hypothetical royal 'your' position is that you wish to stockpile armaments because 'gubermint' then we know the person in question is insane and shouldn't be allowed armaments in the first place, but NOPE 2nd amendment means we can never keep guns out of the hands of criminals, while voting rights are something we can take away if you want your side to win.
quote: That said, I know you know enough history to know that having tanks and drones and warships are not at all a guarantee of a successful war. Especially since insurrections are basically never resolved entirely by military conflict. Knowing that you know enough history to know that, why are you making this claim?
Lets merge this with the first line, when has there been a successful revolution where the revolutionaries have only had access to small arms while the State had nuclear weapons? Last I checked since acquiring nuclear weapons all five members of the UNSC have not had a government toppled from armed revolution.
quote: Second, while your Canadian perspective is often grating (though this has more to do with your own style as being Canadian, really), there is often a legitimate basis for it. American foreign policy, for example, well with our international footprint it's silly not to expect others to have an opinion. Domestic policy is different, with some exceptions such as our War on Drugs which aside from the foreign activity we've gotten up to in support of that, fosters drug economies elsewhere.
But...what's your stake in this one, exactly? Aside from not liking the people who like guns I mean. [/qb]
What, I can't just have an opinion because of objective moral or ethical concerns as another Westerner and thus have generally shared or aligned values? Isn't that chauvinistic?
However I'd like to clear up a misconception and would really love to parody the Major's speech in Hellsing Abridged but I'm not that clever. I don't dislike guns, I dislike gunnuts, but I like guns myself. As a fan of history and military history, the history and fighting of wars and a general interest in armies and fleets I definitely like guns.
Primarily I like vintage stuff, guns from WWII or the Napoleonic Wars, and in general armaments tanks are awesome, as well as fighter jets, love em' to bits. But I guess the difference between me and the people I am somewhat contemptuous of is that to me, a gun can be either one of two things but not both. A tool, or a fantasy.
If its a tool, it should be treated as such, you should only ever own what you need and expect to use, should be taken care of and kept out of the reach of children; you shouldn't take them out everyday just to reinforce the fact that you own it. Its something you have to accomplish a task and nothing else, it doesn't "need" and should never have "bling."
When its a fantasy well, when you want to use it for "fun" than it shouldn't exist. You shouldn't own it, sure you can interact with it in certain socially acceptable ways; like video games; the guns one would idealize and think "cool" are usually in movies right?
Action flicks like equilibrium or spy movies like James Bond, that will never happen to you; you shouldn't have the real thing if that is your aspiration.
In which case, a hobby like Airsoft would be far and markedly superior in everyway.
Like how my mindset works, varies very different when I play something like "Gunz the duel" or Arma III, in the later, I even treat the virtual gun like a tool, it can jam, it needs to be used in a very precise manner, and ammunition conserved.
In the former, its a game, it isn't real and never should be.
So if I were to ever own something, like a WWII soviet Mosin, then if I were ever to use it, then it would be with the expectation that I am training myself to use it as a tool. Not because I think one day I might need it to shoot zombies; one shouldn't confuse the means with the ends.
In that case, I make the distinction of owning something being cool and the expectation of using it because its cool; the latter is inelegant and rude, the former means I don't buy bullets and keep it behind glass.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Name one that has won where the revolutionaries only had small arms and the 'state' had access to nuclear weapons.
Algerie; Afghanistan; Vietnam; First Chechen War; Islamic State (so far).
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Name one that has won where the revolutionaries only had small arms and the 'state' had access to nuclear weapons.
Algerie; Afghanistan; Vietnam; First Chechen War; Islamic State (so far).
I think we can both agree there's a difference between independence movements and insurrections to topple the current government; which even as examples of successful independence moments their kinda flawed.
With ISIS they acquired considerable amounts of heavy armaments, not particularly effective when US airpower decides to make itself felt but its enough to stall out the important ground efforts to clean them up.
Vietnam is also flawed, the United States never lost a battle above the company level, superior firepower won every engagement; the NVA could not have taken Saigon if the US maintained their overwhelming air presence; its weird to throw in examples where movements only won because of a lack of political will when the physical situation on the ground is usually very lopsided in favour of state forces, since none of these are examples of where the insurrectionists successfully won the war through any clear military victory with just small arms. if we look at the French defeat in Vietnam the Viet Minh had considerable heavy armament.
A key fact to bear in mind is that the 2nd amendment does not allow for US 'patriots' to acquire and stockpile mortars, RPG's, anti tank weaponry, tanks or the like except outside of very specific circumstances. Such as tank restoration collectors.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Elison, I *know* you know your history better than this. I'm not a fan of the lengths to which the Second Amendment is taken either, but that's no reason to be deliberately obtuse in this question.
Setting aside rather offhand way you dismiss examples of vastly inferior militaries (in armaments), for some reason you assume that in any sort of uprising against the government, the entire military will with all of its firepower (and unlimited supply, I guess?) would side at once and permanently with the government. You also seem to assume that nothing short of direct armed confrontation would see those weapons change hands.
Insurrections are about as political as armed struggles ever get, and that's saying something. If this is a rhetorical exercise for you, alright, fair enough, but it it's not then by the standards you're using all that's needed to determine the outcome of any conflict is to tote up the guns and sizes and declare a winner.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Elison, I *know* you know your history better than this.
no we don't
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
You know what they say when you make an assumption.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Nah, he knows this. You can't be as much a fan of military history and not either know it, or have the information to put together the conclusion. This is either a rhetorical stance or stubbornness born in an argument.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Well, maybe it's not common knowledge. I mean, it's not like very many historical movies depict small, poorly armed groups with a lot of gusto and spirit and better manueverability taking out vastly larger, better armed opponents... right?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't know.
We have lots of examples in modern history of independence movements beating armed governments.
But I think that argument might fall apart a bit when applied to the United States, simply because I can't think of a better armed government in modern history. The US government, if it really, really wanted to, could bring unimaginable weaponry to bear upon its own citizenry.
I honestly don't think we're even kind of close to anything like that. But let's not forget that American history HAS seen several insurrections. The Early American Period saw several small rebellions like the Whiskey and Shay Rebellions, both of which are quickly and efficiently stamped out. The Civil War was ultimately won by superior northern weaponry, money and manpower. Dozens of largescale, violent labor rebellions were repressed by government military force. Dozens of small scale militia type domestic terrorists have been tracked down and taken out by the FBI alone.
I think guerrilla tactics and the like can be incredibly effective. But I also think the US Military, in its full, total might, if the army could be held together and the government really decided to go for it, would likely level any opposition.
But I don't see that ever happening. We're far more likely to either descend into civil war, or to have a much smaller regional conflict.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Nah, he knows this. You can't be as much a fan of military history and not either know it, or have the information to put together the conclusion.
We have a decade of posting right here on this very forum that proves you can totally maintain these deficits steadfastly no matter your enthusiasm for military history or claim to expertise in those matters. Not that I'm actively looking to stir up shit today but I could be more specific and clear about why if you need.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't know.
We have lots of examples in modern history of independence movements beating armed governments.
But I think that argument might fall apart a bit when applied to the United States, simply because I can't think of a better armed government in modern history. The US government, if it really, really wanted to, could bring unimaginable weaponry to bear upon its own citizenry.
I honestly don't think we're even kind of close to anything like that. But let's not forget that American history HAS seen several insurrections. The Early American Period saw several small rebellions like the Whiskey and Shay Rebellions, both of which are quickly and efficiently stamped out. The Civil War was ultimately won by superior northern weaponry, money and manpower. Dozens of largescale, violent labor rebellions were repressed by government military force. Dozens of small scale militia type domestic terrorists have been tracked down and taken out by the FBI alone.
I think guerrilla tactics and the like can be incredibly effective. But I also think the US Military, in its full, total might, if the army could be held together and the government really decided to go for it, would likely level any opposition.
But I don't see that ever happening. We're far more likely to either descend into civil war, or to have a much smaller regional conflict.
Sure, if we're considering a situation in which the government is completely unrestrained with respect to what force it brings to bear on its citizens. And I don't even mean in the deeply unsettling and long-term very worrisome style of 'hey, the Fourth Amendment is really more of a guideline than a hard and fast rule' style. I mean blowing up a skyscraper with people in it, dousing a suburb with napalm, gassing a city, drone strikes on people in schools, taking and punishment of hostages, that kind of thing. In such a case, if we're also assuming the military goes along with this (potentially a downside to a military with no conscripts, in fact), then I agree with you.
All of which you acknowledge of course. It's just in the rejection of the Second Amendment Elison was applying, he was suggesting that was simply the only way things would go. That the argument for the Second Amendment as a defense against tyranny was invalid, because the American military would be invincible if turned on its own populace.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
In such a situation (a rebellion or civil war), while I could see the military remaining loyal and fighting the rebellion with small arms, I have a hard time seeing them bombing or using artillery or tanks against their own people. Especially when it might be your little brother or sister or parents or kids you're blowing up, or those of your buddy's. If you were to, say, firebomb Dallas you could expect violent mutiny at several military bases, especially those belonging to the Texas National Guard.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The disconnect is between current social experience and the socioeconomic conditions that would largely permit armed rebellion to have tipping point traction within a society. Americans are, even with our present large divides in socioeconomic status and the presence of largely neglected minority groups, possessed of the typical first world comforts and relative life stability that make any sort of actual civil war a remote prospect. Most of us would just want to stay out of the way of an armed conflict within our borders or would otherwise act (indirectly, legislatively) to contain it so as to prevent greater socioeconomic instability in our lives. We're more concerned with keeping our internet running. Actual rebellious insurrection being the driving force or present force in a revolutionary war or civil war usually involve a hell of a lot less in the way of comforts and availability of modern lifestyles, even if our cultures can be provoked into xenophobia or hold legacy cultural conflicts.
Looking at contemporary examples: usually as a prerequisite (not always, but pretty much most of the time) you need a failed state. As an additional almost-prerequisite, you need a startling degree of undeveloped, pastoral, or otherwise primitive and/or failed economies. Having an islamic sect cohabitating with another sect, demographically, also increases your odds greatly, even if it is another islamic sect. Fanatical religious fundamentalism in general helps a lot. Ultranationalism, racist, and ultranationalist groups getting enough traction cause blistering conflict but usually have to have the stage set for them by a greater socioeconomic collapse (e.g., Front National or Moshe Feiglin Fanboys or BNP or whatever aren't gonna achieve much on their own but if the whole country's situation goes tits up they start Golden Dawning it up and create a scary situation). Military reprisal within your own borders is often where it really starts heating up, because if sustained conflict continues for a period of years it dissolves the public structure that would hold an actual insurrection at bay away and replaces it with a tidal wave of capacity for armed resistance.
All we have is a handful of isolated nutbags in various militias that aren't much of a danger to anyone but themselves (and I guess some protected environmental preserves)
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I don't think many people will disagree with the point that a civil war in America as it exists now is nearly impossible, if only because of the lack of people actually willing to fight. What conditions do you think would need to be met to make civil war a possibility? What would that hypothetical America even look like? Because in my mind, an America at the brink of civil war is one that probably has had it's military capacity, cohesion and discipline vastly reduced by the factors that led us to that point.
Let's start by assumming "billionaire liberal builds army of battle robots and invades New York" is not one of the plausible scenarios.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
One plausible scenario over the course of a 15-20 year timeframe would require default, economic collapse, cities all over start resembling detroit, something happens on the federal level of government which collapses our current tenuous balance of powers and represents an autocratic/oligarchic power grab at the same time that we start resembling Greece 2.0
followed by widescale and fairly destructive riots in cities, followed by the common military response in cities to public dissent, followed by many years of sustained conflict, continued total loss of faith in the government along wide socioeconomic and sociopolitical lines
if you can make a scenario work along racial lines, that always helps immensely. Have something happens which makes white ultranationalism and separate cultural identities grind each other hard.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:cities all over start resembling detroit
Lots of great stuff to do, world class art museum, winning sports teams, nice symphony orchestra, awesome music scene and fantastic food?
That's my kind of civil war.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, the remaining well-off or affluent portion of the population can talk about art galleries and symphony orchestras, while a percentage approaching literally half of the severely imploded populace of detroit doesn't get to do this 'lots of great stuff to do' because they are direly impoverished and living in crumbling, violent neighborhoods, their children in completely unworking schools, rampant health and drug abuse problems, food deserts, routine police brutality, dealing with things like how they can't even afford water anymore, and with ethnic enclaves strongly reinforced from decades and decades of racist laws and rent/neighborhood control, and they're otherwise not the sort of person who could spend the money if they wanted to. A divide in wealth and opportunity is open like a chasm. Which is why it makes a perfect startup scenario even before you have Specially Appointed Grand Moffs replacing the prior democratic system and the whole city literally declaring bankruptcy.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
The museum is free to residents of Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb Counties, actually. I'm not sure what the demographics of those counties are like, though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Sure. But the indispensable core of the point is that what affluent amenities you can still laud Detroit for even possessing are only still just largely a testament to the cycles of poverty and urban decay which grip larger and larger (and even more starkly race-delineated) portions of the populace. It has a sustained a huge underclass. Their socioeconomic model is a dire portent and the constant activist battles over the water shutoffs and the growing wastelands of junked, shelled, copper-looted houses right there in the midst of a right-wing austerity junta. As Charity Hicks put it, the current state of Detroit is that of an affront to human dignity — lauding their symphony orchestra and art museum doesn't get much traction in the face of the world nearly half of the occupants grapple with.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ...constant activist battles over the water shutoffs and the growing wastelands of junked, shelled, copper-looted houses right there in the midst of a right-wing austerity junta.
I saw this. This was especially messed up. We even sent in a water convoy. It's like something out of Fallout 1.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The US government, if it really, really wanted to, could bring unimaginable weaponry to bear upon its own citizenry.
That weaponry still has to be wielded by people.
Blayne, of course the various insurrections I mentioned were won through lack of political will. Obviously. So what? Civil wars are all about political will. Come on, dude; read your Mao, not to mention Sun Tzu. Hundred victories in a hundred battles, anyone? Protracted Struggle ring a bell? Hello, three-phase guerrilla warfare?
The lightly-armed side doesn't have to win any battles; it just has to remain a credible force in being, capable of doing some damage.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Sure. But the indispensable core of the point is that what affluent amenities you can still laud Detroit for even possessing are only still just largely a testament to the cycles of poverty and urban decay which grip larger and larger (and even more starkly race-delineated) portions of the populace. It has a sustained a huge underclass. Their socioeconomic model is a dire portent and the constant activist battles over the water shutoffs and the growing wastelands of junked, shelled, copper-looted houses right there in the midst of a right-wing austerity junta. As Charity Hicks put it, the current state of Detroit is that of an affront to human dignity — lauding their symphony orchestra and art museum doesn't get much traction in the face of the world nearly half of the occupants grapple with.
If that's the only part you're focusing on, then that description mostly applies to almost any major US city.
Detroit will never be rebuilt in the way most people seem to assume it NEEDS to be. When they mention the abandoned buildings and what not, the assumption seems to be that unless Detroit returns to its 1940s hey-day, it's still a failure. But that will never happen. Detroit has one of the largest municipal footprints in the country, but relative to its size, a small population. Midtown and Downtown are finally thriving after years of them basically being scenes out of Robocop. Greektown and Corktown are coming back in a big way. Occupancy rates are almost to 100%. There's finally a core to rebuild the City around, and people are finally investing in the City again.
Most people in the City CAN afford water, by the way, they simply knew, until very recently, that if they didn't pay their bill, nothing would happen to them. The water shutoff thing was pretty stupid, but the majority of people, when threatened with a shutoff, paid their bills or worked out a plan to pay them.
But the major problems in Detroit; race issues, poverty, bad schools, etc are pretty much the same in any major urban US City. Detroit has a couple special circumstances that make them worse off (geography and terrible leadership for the last decade), but the underlying problems are the same elsewhere.
I wasn't a fan of the Emergency Financial Manager when he was first appointed, and I'm holding final judgment until after he leaves. But for the moment, I'm leaning toward the belief that he's the best thing that's happened to the City in decades. They dug themselves into a pretty serious hole, and when the history books look at the City, they'll say that Kevin Orr and Mike Duggan probably saved it.
Edit to add: I'd also note that the "growing wasteland" is actually shrinking significantly. Thousands of abandoned buildings have been razed, with thousands more slated to be razed in the next two years. Duggan wants every single building slotted for demolition to be torn down within two years, and it looks like he might actually do it. Blight has been shrinking, not growing in Detroit.
You just wouldn't know it because EVERY media story on Detroit opens with a picture of a burned out building.
[ September 11, 2014, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But the major problems in Detroit; race issues, poverty, bad schools, etc are pretty much the same in any major urban US City.
It would be interesting to tell someone in, say, Seattle or Providence that their city's problems with race, poverty, schools are 'pretty much the same' as Detroit and see what their response would be.
I get that there's Detroiters that don't like that their city has a reputation. Other cities don't usually have to deal with the attention Detroit gets, like the current example of UN condemnation of significant human rights issues when 1 in 10 citizens had their water shut off. But Home Teaming aside it's really just an amazingly broken city compared to most other US cities, and it may be the worst of them all (who's going to compete? Little Rock, maybe?). More coming years of republican appointed Emergency Managers and shock doctrine and Don Gilbertization and bankruptcy at the end of a long hard road of tax base implosion mean that its climb up is fraught with more peril.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, I'm not sure I'd count Providence as a major US city. But I guess I should more specifically say any major urban US city with a majority black population, which is most of the cities I'd actually call Major Cities. Providence proper has only twice the population as the suburban city I grew up in. If that's major, then so is half of suburban Detroit.
The only difference between Detroit and most other major cities is that they have enough wealth to prop them up. Chicago is a mess. I'd be surprised if there aren't more murders there than in Detroit. Likewise Washington DC, LA, Philly, etc.
I see the problem in my description, since I left in cities with majority white (read: wealthier) populations that never experiences serious racial discord. But when you look at any other major city that experienced the latter half of the 20th century the way Detroit did, you see remarkably similar problems. But they don't get talked about because those cities have enough of an upper class to paper over the problems, which is why Chicago's murder sprees and incredible levels of segregation don't make national news the same way ruin porn does in Detroit.
It's "amazingly broken" compared to other cities because they were hit harder by structural forces than others were. But others have similarly weak cores. They just have the money to keep the vultures away.
As for the future, if the City Council can get their act together, I'd actually say the future looks brighter than it has in decades. "Don Gilbertization" might get bad press, but Dan Gilbert is investing millions, much of it in abandoned and hollowed out buildings that no one has touched in years. Sure, he's going to reap huge profits, but those profits are largely dependent on the city making a comeback. If him getting even richer is the price we have to pay to revitalize the city's core, then gee, I'll go for it. He's also shown a penchant for rebuilding rather than replacing, which believe me is NOT the norm. He tends to renovate rather than raze, which is keeping a lot of historic landmarks in place.
The EMF really has stabilized the City finances after years of really horrible mismanagement. I think he's coming to the end of his reign over the City, as more and more pieces of control are handed off to the Mayor. Once the City emerges from bankruptcy, which could happen in the next couple months, I think he'll be done, and Duggan will take over.
Tax policy in the City needs a huge, huge overhaul and everyone knows it. Property taxes are ridiculous and keep most people from even considering moving in. Your tax bill can be several times your mortgage payment, which negates low property prices. But people are moving back into the City. I don't blame them for not moving into the neighborhoods, which are where the real fixes are needed. But ultimately the City needs income to fix most of its problems, lacking the financial underpinning that keeps other major cities afloat despite racial and other tensions. I think that will start to come back as the City continues to come back to life. The road ahead is rocky, but it's finally at least climbing rather than sinking.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Well, I'm not sure I'd count Providence as a major US city.
quote:Chicago is a mess. I'd be surprised if there aren't more murders there than in Detroit. Likewise Washington DC, LA, Philly, etc.
On this point, Detroit is posting a murder rate that is three times Chicago and four times DC. Detroit really is pretty extreme (I don't count Flint since its even smaller than Providence).
quote:But Chicago also has some 2.7 million residents, more than any other city except New York and Los Angeles, and you’d expect it to have more murders (and other crimes) than most other cities for that reason alone. Adjust the raw numbers for population size to get a murder rate, and a very different picture emerges.
According to the FBI figures, Flint, Mich., had the highest murder rate of any sizeable U.S. city in 2012, the most recent year available. There were 62 murders per 100,000 population (which, coincidentally, was just about Flint’s estimated population that year). Trailing Flint were Detroit (54.6 murders per 100,000), New Orleans (53.2 per 100,000) and Jackson, Miss., (35.8 per 100,000). Chicago, whose population is several times bigger than any of those cities, came in 21st, with 18.5 murders per 100,000 — nearly quadruple the national average, true, but still nowhere near the highest in the country.
quote:Among cities and towns with at least 100,000 people, 54 places recorded poverty rates above 25 percent last year. Detroit, which filed for bankruptcy in July, had a poverty rate of 42.3 percent, the highest of any big city or town in the country. Syracuse, N.Y.; Hartford, Conn.; Cleveland; and Lansing, Mich., also had high poverty rates, ranging from around 35 percent to 38 percent.
http://www.governing.com/blogs/view/gov-poverty-rates-remain-stubbornly-high-big-cities.html
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Well, I'm not sure I'd count Providence as a major US city.
Ok, it's just a random throw-in anyway. SF, Boston, Denver etc would all work too.
Even other cities which I also think are bad cities can't really match detroit's Misery Index topping situation. it's really just (still) an amazingly broken city, yes, even compared to other dungheaps like Chicago.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I feel like that rate for Chicago isn't really fair. Detroit doesn't really have upper class neighborhoods to balance out the numbers. If you break apart the Chicago geography my bet is you'll find hundreds of thousands with a very very low murder rate and hundreds of thousands with an extremely high one. Again, Chicago's socioeconomic status hides huge problems . Detroit doesn't have that cushion in the numbers.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)