Slashdot Mirror

"You're six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York City."

You're one hundred thirty six times more likely to be killed in New York than in London (according to NY and London crime statistics. Of course the comparison is flawed because NY is bigger than london, the situation is vastly different and all.)

Your premise, that camera suveillance is merely the solution to symptons is correct, but concluding the actual cause of violence is the restriction of gun licenses is hillarious.

Most European countries have very strict gun laws and crime rates are lower than in the US, which would be impossible according to you...

Timothy McVeigh

Ted Kaczynski

Eric Harris

Dylan Klebold

George Metesky

David Berkowitz

Jeffrey Dahmer

Perhaps a planeload of these fine, upstanding citizens is your cup of tea. Personally, I'd rather have better detection systems and better trained airport security personnel.

Timothy McVeigh

Ted Kaczynski

Eric Harris

Dylan Klebold

George Metesky

David Berkowitz

Jeffrey Dahmer

Perhaps a planeload of these fine, upstanding citizens is your cup of tea. Personally, I'd rather have better detection systems and better trained airport security personnel.

Any remember Hurricane Floyd?

I admit there is some validity to all this. But, I think the USians are becoming a little TOO paranoid at this point. Sure we got hit with 9/11, but I this is just a bit much. What is it about Americans these days running around scared of everything? I'm an American and I can tell you that this country is losing it's mind with fear:

-Fear that someone in a bigger vehicle will kill your family. So what do you do? You go out and buy an even bigger vehicle than you had before? WTF?! You need to find out what's REALLY at the root of your fears and look it in the face.

-Fear that someone will break into your suburban home where the liklihood of you actually being involved in a violent crime is still insignificant comapred to 1960. (Yes there has been an increase, but we're still talking less than 1% risk... So what do Americans do? They buy guns.

Fear that *GASP* you don't have a big enough schlong. So you buy big bad cars, get a toupee, or spend your money very conspicuously to show everyone how much better you are than them. Doesn't help that rotten feeling inside though does it? Deal with it! Nature gave you a smaller dick than Ron Jeremy. So fucking what?! If you can still stick it in your girlfriend, wife or boyfriend's hole, then what's the problem? But what do you do? Instead you buy Vigra through unauthorized channels like an idiot not realizing that it's probably not going to do you any fucking good.

-Fear of life itself. I see so many new drugs advertised on TV here in the US it's ridiculous. And the list of side effects that go with these drugs is even more ridiculous. Have you ever seen a Propecia ad? It basically says, "Choose!! Either risk having a mutated or dead baby, or be bald!" The push for anti-depressants is incredible. There is is bizarre desire on the part of most Americans to want to be "happily in a state of controlled euphoria". How fucking mentally ill is that?! I'm sorry, but there is this thing called "real life" that has it's ups and downs. DEAL WITH IT!!! Don't think that some magical pill is going to fix your problems! If you're fat, then change your diet and excercise! Or, you can accept that maybe your genetically predisposed to being obese and tell everyone else to fuck off. If you are unhappy, then get to the root of the problem. Go see a phychologist, a clergyman, a shaman. Whatever you need to get your problems off your chest. IF, at the end of it all you still feel depressed and the experts you talked to don't see any reason for it, then MAYBE you need an antidepressant. ON the other hand... maybe you need to re-evaluate your life and the direction you've chosen. Are you in control of your life or is someone else? Keep in mind that there are lots of other people who want to control you in this supposedly "free country".

FDR said it best, "There is nothing to fear but fear itself." Wake up folks! Be brave! Put down your guns. Wean yourself of the infantile dependance on SUVs, pharmaceuticals and television. Live a little!!! Remember, when life kicks you in the ass, that's a good thing because it means your still alive!

>That would cause criminals to think ten times before breaking into something, crime levels would be lower, prisons would be less populated, taxpayer money would be saved, and a whole host of other problems would be solved.

However, it doesn't.

Let's compare Michigan (a state that outlaws deadly force to protect property) and Texas (a state that legalizes deadly force to protect property).

We can see that in the state of Texas there are 906.3 burglaries per 100,000 persons.

We can also see that in the state of Michigan there are 702.2 burglaries per 100,000 persons.

In fact, of all statistics that would be "protected" by guns in Texas but not in Michigan, the ONLY lower statistic for Texas is vehicle theft.

Being allowed to shoot unarmed robbers shows no link to decreased robbery rates.

>Not to mention that the VICTIMS of an ILLEGAL CRIME

Are there any other kinds of crimes? ;-)

I don't disagree on your point that burglars that harm themselves in the process of robbing a place have no right to claim for damages, though. I only disagree on the point that the right to shoot burglars makes for a safer society.

>That would cause criminals to think ten times before breaking into something, crime levels would be lower, prisons would be less populated, taxpayer money would be saved, and a whole host of other problems would be solved.

However, it doesn't.

Let's compare Michigan (a state that outlaws deadly force to protect property) and Texas (a state that legalizes deadly force to protect property).

We can see that in the state of Texas there are 906.3 burglaries per 100,000 persons.

We can also see that in the state of Michigan there are 702.2 burglaries per 100,000 persons.

In fact, of all statistics that would be "protected" by guns in Texas but not in Michigan, the ONLY lower statistic for Texas is vehicle theft.

Being allowed to shoot unarmed robbers shows no link to decreased robbery rates.

>Not to mention that the VICTIMS of an ILLEGAL CRIME

Are there any other kinds of crimes? ;-)

I don't disagree on your point that burglars that harm themselves in the process of robbing a place have no right to claim for damages, though. I only disagree on the point that the right to shoot burglars makes for a safer society.

Maybe we should consider the murder rate per 100,000 inhabitants in year 2000:
USA: 5.5,
France: 1.75
Most European countries: below 2.

If you compare with violent crimes only:
USA: 506 (inc. murders 1.08%)
France: 237 (inc. murders 0.74%)

The article says 702 incarcerations per 100,000 of population, that's very close to 506 violent crimes but who knows how many crimes an individual commits.

wait a minute... i have to take responsibility because the football team stuffed me into a locker? that sort of "blaming the victim" mentatlity has lead to some serious backlash in the past.

Please do not equate civil disobedience and P2P. Civil disobedience is essentially something you do in the open with the intention of getting caught and possibly prosecuted.

If you want to learn about what civil disobedience really is, check this or this out.

If you think that the Internet is the most active battlefield today, you need to visit a few places.

Actually the murder rate increased 1400% in a two year period in ND [...] I can't recall the actual years.

1994-1996.

In North Dakota where, we had a total of 5 murders last year, they are installing cameras all over, privacy is gone in public.

Up from 4 in 2000? Kidding aside, from what I remember from my years in the state, a number of murders committed (and with the low absolute totals, it needn't be many) occur away from areas where I assume such cameras would be installed: back county roads, farmhouses, etc. Maybe my perception was skewed at the time - my mother (who still lives in Fargo) doesn't think the area surrounding the town's sole bus station is all that safe. Go figure.

My only guess is that such camera installations are meant to deter other criminal actions: theft, mugging, rape, etc. I wonder how effective they'll be come a harsh winter when most are bundled rather thoroughly. :p

Well let's play the game, what are the chances?

Reading the article one will observe that most of the deaths involved people between age 45-64. The death rate for this group from the disaster center is 708 deaths per 100,000 people for all causes. Subtracting out the death rates given for medical conditions that almost certainly don't apply, that leaves us 200 deaths per 100,000.

Now the article states that there are 20,000 microbiologists working in the US. Let us suppose that 1/2 of those are over 40. And perhaps 1/2 of those are "important" enough to attract attention. That's a pool of 5,000 people.

Based on the rate of 200 / 100,000 we would expect 10 deaths annually, or about 4.2 over a five month period. Applying Poisson statistics, the probability of seeing 11 or more random events when 4.2 are expected is about 0.2%. In other words this really is a strange occurence, probably having some underlying cause and not just a statistical aberration.

Of course, not knowing much about microbiology, I might be seriously underestimating (or overestimating) how important these scientists were. If they are in the top 5% of their profession, as opposed to the top half, then the coincidence would be even more startlingly unlikely.

I've been doped up all day on Dayquil and I'm blaming it for that post (read: hyperjumpy-things.don't.make.much.sense/that's what you get for working a job where you've got nothing to do all day but still get paid an hourly wage so there's not enough justification to just go home).

If it weren't for the cops, I'd probably be dead considering where I live.

I was going to hold a pep-rally for myself as a victim of APTroll-Attacks, but then realized that, well......you know.

With all due respect, this is a load of crap. You could use the same logic to argue against drunk driving laws. Put people in jail only if they're driving drunk and they actually hit someone. If they're loaded and they drive home safely, what's the problem? Drunk driving and drag racing in populated areas (during the day no less, from what I can infer from the previous post) are both highly hazardous activities that indeed should be regulated. Don't believe me? Check out this (slightly overdramatic) story on drag racing:

So, you point out an admittedly overdramatic, ironic exception that's been overblown by the media to make your point?

You're right. I could use the same logic against drunk driving laws. And I do. Why should someone who drives drunk be arrested, when there's a lot of people who drive worrse sober! Ever been to New York or Florida lately?

You also could use your logic against concealed permit laws. And against people driving in general. And against sheep.

Unfortunately, and perhaps not surprisingly, I can't find any reliable statistics on street racing and deaths to others not involved in the action (eg., not participants or spectators), but I doubt that it's very significant. As for drunk driving, you're more likely to be killed by yourself or a sober driver than a drunk one. Not to mention that there are usually multiple factors leading to a traffic death, yet if alcohol (or, lately, a handheld cell phone) is present, it will be listed on the alcohol side of the charts (note the wording "alcohol figures into", not "alcohol the leading contributor").

• Suicide - 11th leading cause of death (28,332 cases)
• Murder - 15th leading cause of death (16,137 cases)

• Car accident fatalities in 2000: 41,821 (source quotes FHA stats.)
• Airplane accident fatalities in 2000: 97 (NTSB source

• 1960 - 160.9 per 100,000 (288,460 cases)
• 2000 - 506.1 per 100,000 (1,424,289 cases)

-sk

why yes:

Compare Missori to Victoria. They are both about the same size and have about the same population.

Now we can find that in 1996 there were 433 murders in Missouri and 67 in Victoria for a ratio of about 6.5 to 1 favoring Australia. How ever theft is just about the other way around (so many categorys) and Victroia has a few more bashings than Missouri has assults. Rapes in Missouri tend to be in the 1500s but 323 for Victoria in 2000. So depending on what crime your going to be a victim of, you may want to consider relocating.
The rest of Australia has rates much like Victoria and Missouri has typical crime rate for the midwest which tends to be lower than the east coast.

"All this disruption for a campaign that killed five people?"

People die for MANYreasons.

How many kids die from drugs every day?

How many people die from poverty?

etc...

Without defending the original statement, what we are doing here is deciding where to spend time, money and energy preventing deaths. Effectively though are we deciding who is more important to save? How many Americans would give up cheap gas and larger and larger SUVs so people in the Middle East, Africa, and South America could eat decent meals, get affordable medication, and learn to read? How many Americans would essentially take a hit to their checkbook for an implementation aimed to save lives other then their own (be it the people in their town, state, ethnic group, country, intl alliance), and not because said plan didn't aim to protect them too, but because there was no threat to them in the first place. For instance, would an affluent suburb support inner-city sports or reading programs aimed to reduce crime and dropout rates. Not likely. They would most likely brush it off as "not my [city's, state's, neighborhood's] problem". I would hope that many Americans would support these things, but I have my doubts. We have no attention span (50 yrs TV, 100 yrs marketing), we don't know our own history (one thats both bloody and brutal but heroic and rich), we are short-sighted (oops, we trained those guys?).

I agree, and I have read the paper version of the book. And if you consider that we have them in place, then I would have to call this a communist state.

Y2K paranoid's think that the government will use it as the start of a police state. They even have a 'uband legend' about 'MARTIAL LAW SIGNS'. But consdiering that there are 'real' executive orders that cancel the Constitution of the US, I can understand the paranoia.

The executive orders are NOT to be denied, and all of the BS that flies from the left or right wing radicals is made to stir up the populace. I put that link in there to point out the irony that we are already a communist state, NOT to argue about the link. If you didn't like that link, then check for something on communism that is more to your taste. The fact remains that we follow what Carl Marx defined as a communist state. If you want to ignore the reality of this by taking and making jest of it then you will not take the time to read the material that is written in the books. I gave you a link to make it easier, and I also looked up the link to the bible and the number of the beast.

I read, and take with a grain of salt what I read.

The items in the link were quoted from the book as closely as I can recall - other wise I would have found another link to give as an example. Use www.google.com and do the search yourself. Or don't.

Just blowing off steam!

Thanks for the info. For anyone that doesn't feel like searching, they're all here.