Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 17 Dec '12 02:56
    Everyone is understandably horrified at even thinking about 20 little children being gunned down by a madman, and of course the killing of six more adults in the same incident.

    Does your perspective change when you read the story below?

    http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/19568205/32-people-murdered-over-15-day-period-in-detroit

    277 homicides year to date in Detroit. If you want more check for yourself, the homicides in Washington, DC, and other large American cities. It is fairly common that the victims are young, and often unintended targets of dope gang violence, or of the cops in drug raids.

    What accounts for the difference in outrage?
  2. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    17 Dec '12 03:24 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    What accounts for the difference in outrage?
    * It was an incidence of almost unprecedented mass murder

    * 26 people killed in 8 minutes

    * 20 of them six year old children

    I reckon this goes some way to accounting for the difference in outrage.
  3. 17 Dec '12 03:40
    Originally posted by FMF
    * It was an incidence of almost unprecedented mass murder

    * 26 people killed in 8 minutes

    * 20 of them six year old children

    I reckon this goes some way to accounting for the difference in outrage.
    I can't disagree, but is that really in perspective? I would bet that 26 remains the total homicides in Newtown for the year. The 277 count is almost guaranteed to increase in Detroit.
  4. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    17 Dec '12 03:49
    Originally posted by normbenign
    I can't disagree, but is that really in perspective? I would bet that 26 remains the total homicides in Newtown for the year. The 277 count is almost guaranteed to increase in Detroit.
    You asked "What accounts for the difference in outrage?" And you can't disagree with my answer. The other murders you mention are outrageous too.
  5. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    17 Dec '12 04:12 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Everyone is understandably horrified at even thinking about 20 little children being gunned down by a madman, and of course the killing of six more adults in the same incident.

    Does your perspective change when you read the story below?

    http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/19568205/32-people-murdered-over-15-day-period-in-detroit

    277 homicides year ...[text shortened]... ope gang violence, or of the cops in drug raids.

    What accounts for the difference in outrage?
    You and I both know there is no rationality to it.

    The homicides you highlight all happened in the "right place" (i.e. in a U.S. city), but the timeline is stretched over the course of a year. Thus, it's "background noise".

    And then there are occasions when scores of kids are killed in one fell swoop, so that the timeline is not an issue, but the atrocity happened in, say, Subsaharan Africa. So now location is an issue. Like the cosmic background radiation that is the echo of the Big Bang, it's "background noise".

    Time and space are the determining factors. If it's near and sudden, it'll get noticed as a spike that rises above the static. It's absurd, but it's also human nature.
  6. 17 Dec '12 10:03
    Originally posted by normbenign
    I can't disagree, but is that really in perspective? I would bet that 26 remains the total homicides in Newtown for the year. The 277 count is almost guaranteed to increase in Detroit.
    Why this obsession with Detroit, is America's murder capital?
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    17 Dec '12 10:22
    Interesting article which asks the question "Why are mass shootings becoming more common?":

    The news on Friday was horrific. A man shot and killed 27 people, including 20 children, at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut.


    Yet these sorts of headlines are also becoming gut-wrenchingly familiar. Of the 12 deadliest shootings in U.S. history, six have taken place since 2007. (The Newton school shooting will likely rank second on that list.) Mass killings appear to be on the upswing — even as other types of homicides and violent crimes are becoming less frequent.
    David Brooks highlighted this discrepancy back in July. For much of the 20th century there were, on average, a handful of mass killings per decade. But that number spiked in 1980, and kept rising thereafter. In the United States, there have now been at least 62 mass shootings in the past three decades, with 24 in the last seven years alone. This has happened even as the nation’s overall violent crime and homicide rates have been dropping.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/why-are-mass-shootings-becoming-more-frequent/


    Any ideas? Is weaponry more lethal (with those handy dandy high capacity mags)? Are there more violently crazy people? Does the enhanced media coverage contribute?
  8. 17 Dec '12 10:55
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Interesting article which asks the question "Why are mass shootings becoming more common?".

    Is weaponry more lethal (with those handy dandy high capacity mags)? Are there more violently crazy people? Does the enhanced media coverage contribute?
    I think the enhanced media coverage must have something to do with it - apart from anything else, it probably puts ideas into people's heads that they otherwise might not have had.

    And also possibly encourages losers to do something dramatic for their fifteen minutes of fame. There's the famous Ancient Greek story of the Temple of Artemis, burnt down by a man who wanted to be notorious; the judges fittingly degreed that his name should never again be mentioned:

    http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/greece/paganism/artemis.html

    On the night when Alexander the Great was said to have been born, the temple was deliberately burned down by Herostratus, who, setting fire to the wooden frame of the roof, hoped to immortalize his name. Artemis, herself, was said by Plutarch to have been absent from the shrine, assisting in the delivery of Alexander. The story of this infamous act is related by Valerius Maximus (VIII.14.5), where he says that "A man was found to plan the burning of the temple of Ephesian Diana so that through the destruction of this most beautiful building his name might be spread through the whole world." The Ephesians, however, decreed that his name never be recorded (Aulus Gellius, II.6.18), and it would not be known had not Strabo (XIV.1.22) revealed it.

    Unfortunately, if, as we see, the ancients couldn't suppress the name, then it's scarcely possible that we could today, in our modern information-saturated world. But it might help if newspapers, instead of emblazoning their front-page photographs of the killer with the words "The Face of Evil" or whatever, would instead opt for headlines like "Pillock" and "Loser".
  9. 17 Dec '12 14:30
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    Why this obsession with Detroit, is America's murder capital?
    I live near there, and for the most part raised a family in Detroit.
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    17 Dec '12 14:43
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    I think the enhanced media coverage must have something to do with it - apart from anything else, it probably puts ideas into people's heads that they otherwise might not have had.

    And also possibly encourages losers to do something dramatic for their fifteen minutes of fame. There's the famous Ancient Greek story of the Temple of Artemis, burnt down by ...[text shortened]... ce of Evil" or whatever, would instead opt for headlines like "Pillock" and "Loser".
    You ever get the feeling that Plutarch just made half of his stuff up? I mean, how did he really know where Artemis was on that night or how hulking the Cimbri soldiers looked or that Sulla really hated Julius Caeser?

    But I digress.
  11. 17 Dec '12 14:43
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Interesting article which asks the question "Why are mass shootings becoming more common?":

    The news on Friday was horrific. A man shot and killed 27 people, including 20 children, at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut.


    Yet these sorts of headlines are also becoming gut-wrenchingly familiar. Of the 12 deadliest shootings in U.S. history ...[text shortened]... ity mags)? Are there more violently crazy people? Does the enhanced media coverage contribute?
    Some of this is fallacy of the most recent.

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

    This event happened in Rural Michigan in 1927 without a gun. It could have been much worse as about 100 pounds of dynamite failed to detonate.

    Proper perspective would be to look at all such events, not just the most recent. We may conclude that there isn't any way to stop deranged people from killing, without loosing much that we value.

    I would suggest also that to some degree, the racial makeup of the victims minimizes the outrage of high inner city homicide rates. The attitude is generally, they were drug dealers and deserved what they got. This ignores the kids who happen to be in the line of fire.

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/05/detr-m17.html
  12. Subscriber KingDavid403
    King David
    17 Dec '12 14:58
    http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/mass/whitman/index_1.html
  13. 17 Dec '12 15:10
    Originally posted by KingDavid403
    http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/mass/whitman/index_1.html
    The point of the reference to the Whitman shootings is......?
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    17 Dec '12 20:18
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Some of this is fallacy of the most recent.

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

    This event happened in Rural Michigan in 1927 without a gun. It could have been much worse as about 100 pounds of dynamite failed to detonate.

    Proper perspective would be to look at all such events, not just the most recent. We may conclude that there i ...[text shortened]... who happen to be in the line of fire.

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/05/detr-m17.html
    You've shown no "fallacy" in an article pointing out that such incidents have become more common in recent decades by pointing out an incident that happened in 1927. You have shown your usual inability to grasp reality if it clashes with your preconceived ideas.
  15. 17 Dec '12 23:52
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    You've shown no "fallacy" in an article pointing out that such incidents have become more common in recent decades by pointing out an incident that happened in 1927. You have shown your usual inability to grasp reality if it clashes with your preconceived ideas.
    I've shown that mass killings of school children are not unique to our times, or exclusively carried out with guns.

    You appear unable to grasp the reality that a rare multiple homicide isn't any worse than a steady stream of homicides that add up to a lot more dead people in the end. The fallacy lies in that the former creates a crisis, whereas the steady stream of killings in our urban culture can be safely ignored, if it doesn't touch you personally.

    Another related fallacy you fail to grasp or acknowledge is that American inner cities have long had far more restrictive gun laws than rural and suburban areas, and that those laws were enacted specifically to deny blacks their 2nd amendment rights. In the 20s it was the KKK in northern cities pushing gun control.

    Despite this "control" of guns in the cities, there was never a shortage of them if you were willing to break the law, in order to engage in criminal conduct.