The need for a good story will trump everything when it comes to the press corps.  They like us are addicted to story arcs and any other cliches or tropes that make familiar reading for their audience.  The simpler they can put the terms for the dumbed down audience, the better.  In the case of the Trayvon shooting, their agenda is "white man shoots black kid land walks away".  In the Duke lacrosse case, it was "Rich white bad boys gang rape poor black mother and think they can get away with it."  In the Richard Jewell case, it was "Hero wanna-be plants bomb himself so it's discovery will make him famous".  Now of course, you have to leave out all the pertinent details to draw such broad strokes, but hey as long as ratings are up it's ok.  Some times they are too embarrassed to cover the stories properly when the truth comes out (like the Duke lacrosse story, which disappeared from the front pages once it was found out the white boys were innocent, who cares about a story where a drugged out black stripper accuses them of rape), other times they simply jump onto the other side of the fence (When John Edwards was running for president, it was a feel-good story to have him standing next to his cancer riddled wife and have both declare they were going to go on; when it was found it was a cheating, lying bag of slime, the story quickly switched to the illegitimate baby he was having with another woman and then the story became all about what a sleezeball he was).  

The most recent case all of us on these pages discussed and argued about was the Amanda Knox imbroglio.  In Europe, the take seemed to be "Rich white American bitch comes to Europe and participates in thrill killing" while over here the story was "Middle Class white American girl falsely accused and imprisoned by buffoonish Europeans".  Both stories played on stereotypes to give the audience what the wanted (Europeans have always known in their hearts that all Americans want to do is come over there and kill their woman and get away with it; Americans have always had fears that they will travel to a strange country and be falsely accused of a crime they didn't commit by foreigners who arent familiar with forensics).  It was amazing watching coverage on both sides the incredibly different spins of the cases on both sides of the pond.

In the same way this case is taking a particular path dictated by how the media wants us to see the crime so they can control our reacions.  Only now are the news services referring to Zimmerman as a hispanic.  I've even seen him referred to as a "white hispanic", perhaps so people won't forget foremost this is a black vs white issue, luckily I guess Zimmerman doesn't have dark brown skin otherwise what would they do for a story? Personally, I think Zimmerman was a happy trigger finger cop wanna be creep who went too far. He is probably, like most people in America of any color, a bit racist.  The fact the Sanford police department bungled the case doesn't mean they are as an institution is racist, although it does mean they were incredibly naive if they thought the way they handled it wasn't going to make waves.  However, it makes for a much better story if like the James Byrd dragging death it's about an entire city or region than about one or two messed up people.

Mike B.

Oops, they've discovered that liberalism is a sham, curses! I'll have to distract them with this 1966 Hobbit cartoon: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/vi ... Way-Online

Versimilitude wrote:If those police hadnt been carrying guns (as most in the Uk dont) then those riots wouldnt have had a catalyst.

Wow!        

Versimilitude wrote:The American and British societies are, globally speaking, very similar, yet the USA had 4 times the murder rate we do. Any speculations on why the difference?

Cheers,
KAL

I'd wonder if the same supposed x4 murder rate holds true with stabbings, beatings, etc., pretty much any non gun homicide. That would blow up your whole "guns kill people" idea wouldn't it? I believe the correlation between "rate" ie population vs crimes isn't a linear one. Cripes, tbh, we've been wondering why stuff is the way it is for years. We've always had all these "facts" that don't mean squat without some sort of interpretation that we're obviously missing. I could speculate all day on why the US and UK are different, and it'd all be random guesswork. We'll never know.

Zenfinite

Versimilitude wrote:Saying one American is "an idiot" for shooting another? How many other "idiots" are there who also own guns?

I wasn't implying he was an idiot for shooting the boy.  He was an idiot for provoking the situation to the point where deadly force was used - necessary or not.  He was instructed to stand down and he didn't.

I gave an example of where an armed citizen prevented a robbery and possibly worse in my parent's town.  Another incident we in the US have recently heard of is the young mother in Tennessee who shot and killed a man breaking into her home.  She was on the phone with the 911 operators and she asked if she could kill him if he entered the home.  They told her they could not instruct her to kill him, but they instructed her to take whatever action she felt necessary to protect herself and her baby.  These sorts of incidents happen regularly where a crime is thwarted by an armed citizen but they don't get much press.  As stated by Sky the rate of violent crime has decreased in every state after concealed carry legislation has been passed.  However, murder and violent crime remains the highest in the country in the large cities that make it illegal to posess a firearm (Chicago, New York, DC, etc.)  All that does is keep law abiding citizens from protecting themselves and the criminal element knows it

Versimilitude wrote:I'd wonder if the same supposed x4 murder rate holds true with stabbings, beatings, etc., pretty much any non gun homicide.

The "murder rate" means shootings and stabbings and being squashed by a falling piano (if deliberate), tho it is per capita.

Sea-to-sky-games wrote:To continue the reasoning: British and Swiss societies are, globally speaking, very similar, yet the Swiss have lower murder rates than the British and a far lower robbery rate. So it would seem the better question is why is England so crime ridden relative to its European counterpart that is awash with guns?

The US has a different history, culture, and is much more heterogeneous than the UK, both in terms of ethnicity and socioeconomic status.

Not true. Switzerland is nothing like the UK, or the USA. It certainly doesnt embrace the same cultural stereotypes that our societies do. I know someone who had his car impounded by 2 Swiss policemen in the UK because he hadnt paid a parking fine in geneva.

And London has the reputation of being the most multi-cultural city in the world.

I think this is one of those things that we will never convince each other of.

You may think I am namby-pamby, but I also reserve the right to think you are gung-ho homicidal.

Cheers,
KAL

When looking through some stats for finding out the minority rates, I found out that London really isn't that multi cultural at all compared to American cities like Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, New York, Philadelphia, etc. Do the searches yourself, it was pretty interesting.

I think there is a flaw in comparing life in the UK vs life in the USA based on the fact we speak the same language, have a few of the same cultural mores, and come from a somewhat similar background.  In many ways the cultural baggage is entirely different.  A few: the UK was under an heredity monarchy for most of it's history; the US is much more religious than the UK; our country is not even 250 years old and we became a country due to force of arms; we share a border with a 3rd world country; we have had a civil war not even 150 years ago on our shores that was the deadliest war in this nation's history; etc.  So I think it's a total fallacy to compare this one element of society.  I might as well say what a pile of idiots the Europeans were for letting a bunch of inbred prats decide the history of your countries up until the 20th century when we had elected officials here since the 18th century. As you can see an entirely different historical basis there.  The fact most Americans carry guns is probably amazing to those in the UK, because of all the gun deaths we have here; I know as a gun carrying American the fact people in the UK DONT get to carry guns is simply amazing to me, but it makes sense, your hereditary monarchies would never have allowed it.

The gun issue is always a non-starter for me, simply because I know the country directly to our south (Mexico) has some of the strictest gun laws in the world and is one of the most unsafe countries right now to travel or live in (50,000 drug murders in the last few years alone).  The USA could tomorrow pass the strictest drug laws in the world (you are shot to death immediately if you are caught with drugs) and Mexico would still be controlled by drug lords....drugs are just too lucrative, they would find other markets, the drug lords aren't just going to shrug their shoulders and go away. It's  unfortunately a cultural quirk of Mexico that is a highly stratified society (there is a very small middle class, you are either very rich or dirt poor) where there are few ways to move up the ladder of success (ergo, why so many Mexicans travel illegally to the US) except for dealing in criminal activities.

Cmon, I know you and Malcolm want to hold my unloaded gun when you come here for the con, just to say you did!!!

Mike B.

MetamorphosisSigma wrote:I agree with you for the most part, but this:

Badmike wrote:The fact most Americans carry guns is probably amazing to those in the UK...

is just not the case. I haven't bothered to look up gun ownership stats, but I've personally known a total of no more than a dozen Americans who own firearms. One is my father, a handful of others are police officers, two are FBI agents who are required to carry at all times, and one was a close friend. The vast majority of the folks I've known have either never held a gun, or only been hunting or to the firing range a few times.

The notion that every American is a gun-toting Yosemite Sam or Sarah Palin wannabe is a myth, as far as I'm concerned, and not one that's very flattering IMO. I have no doubt a greater number of people own and carry pistols in Texas, but in the Northeast it's just not part of the mainstream culture.

In urban areas I might agree due to the largely anti-gun leadership in those areas making it illegal (Bloomberg, et al), but the bulk of the country isn't metropolitan.  Most of the kids I knew growing up had bb guns.  I got mine when I was 9 years old.  American hunters combined would make up the largest army in the world.  Consider 750,000 hunters deer hunting in the state of Pennsylvania alone.  Another 700,000 in Michigan, 600,000 in Wisconsin, and around 250,000 in West Virginia.  Those 4 states alone would make up the largest army in the world.  And those are just deer hunters.  Many people may hunt, but not hunt deer (granted, deer hunting is the most popular type of hunting in the US) but many people own hand guns and don't hunt at all.  Likewise, many own the guns but no longer hunt for one reason or another.  I will say, though, that most people do not carry concealed handguns - but it is a large number.  

Take a look at this map http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry ... ation.html  It will kind of explain why the North East is somewhat different from the rest of the country.  Other than Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, the rest of the North East has much more restrictive gun laws.

MetamorphosisSigma wrote:The notion that every American is a gun-toting Yosemite Sam or Sarah Palin wannabe is a myth

No, the myth is that gun owners would resemble or act like Yosemite Sam or Sarah Palin.

MetamorphosisSigma wrote:I agree with you for the most part, but this:

Badmike wrote:The fact most Americans carry guns is probably amazing to those in the UK...

is just not the case. I haven't bothered to look up gun ownership stats, but I've personally known a total of no more than a dozen Americans who own firearms. One is my father, a handful of others are police officers, two are FBI agents who are required to carry at all times, and one was a close friend. The vast majority of the folks I've known have either never held a gun, or only been hunting or to the firing range a few times.

The notion that every American is a gun-toting Yosemite Sam or Sarah Palin wannabe is a myth, as far as I'm concerned, and not one that's very flattering IMO. I have no doubt a greater number of people own and carry pistols in Texas, but in the Northeast it's just not part of the mainstream culture.

You are right, it's geographic, because I probably know at least 50 gun owners and that's not even counting the people I have never asked or just assumed probably don't own a gun (like my mother, who I don't think owns a handgun but honestly I haven't ever asked her). It is much easier to own a gun in the south as some of the larger population centers in the North/Northeast (Chicago, Baltimore, New York City) make it nearly impossible to do so, so chances are I'm going to run into many more gun owners than you will.

There are over 200 million guns in the US, someone has to own all these, not just some militia nut who has 50 rifles in his basement. It is estimated that at least 50% of Americans own a gun of some sort (handgun, hunting rifle, shotgun, etc).  I think this speaks for the fact that most gun owners are responsible human beings, because I personally don't know a gun owner that is the Yosemite Sam type at all (offhand I can't think of any gun owners I know that have fired guns outside of the shooting range or while hunting).

Mike B.