Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bob Leonard]

We have somehow managed to keep our society less angry and confrontational than yours (wonder how  ). 

I am surprised that people working with musical culture for a living are willing to blame social issues on a musical genre, instead of keeping an open mind about different forms of culture (culture isn't just Mozart and Rembrandt, ya'know...). 

Kristian,
Does your sentence above not state that Americans are a society of people more angry than the people of Norway?
That would be an assumption based on a stereotypical point of view, and your words not mine.
 
If I were to stereotype based on hearsay and inuendo I would say that Norway was a nation of drunks, hookers, and people that ski. I know that's not the case, but I have never been to Norway and if I listen to many of the people I know who have been to Norway it would be easy to think that is the case. This is the reason wording plays such a large role in our interpretation of these posts. There's no way that you can see my emotions, hear my infliction or sense my attitude.
 

[kristianjohnsen]

Kristian,
Does your sentence above not state that Americans are a society of people more angry than the people of Norway?
That would be an assumption based on a stereotypical point of view, and your words not mine.
 
If I were to stereotype based on hearsay and inuendo I would say that Norway was a nation of drunks, hookers, and people that ski. I know that's not the case, but I have never been to Norway and if I listen to many of the people I know who have been to Norway it would be easy to think that is the case. This is the reason wording plays such a large role in our interpretation of these posts. There's no way that you can see my emotions, hear my infliction or sense my attitude.

Read what I was responding to when I said that we largely manage to stay away from gunfights at concerts.  I was responding to a poster who was assuming a very confrontational position towards me AND bringing up gunplay at the same time.  Hence my sarcasm.  You see now?

[Randy Pence]

Ooooh - tough guy online.

We have somehow managed to keep our society less angry and confrontational than yours (wonder how  ).  So the answer is absolutely zero, luckily. 

I am surprised that people working with musical culture for a living are willing to blame social issues on a musical genre, instead of keeping an open mind about different forms of culture (culture isn't just Mozart and Rembrandt, ya'know...). 

As far as I know "Gangstah Rap" is a type of music and you don't have to show your Crips ID card to get in to the concerts.

If there are other social issues at stake that make certain concerts uninsurable, so be it, but blaming it on the musical genre is just dumb.

I don't think you understand the realities concerning some of the negative aspects of guns in american culture.  I've worked at venues where even I was searched for a gun.  The potential deadliness of my tool kit, including knives, was not for a moment a concern.

Hip hop parties featuring music with potentially more provocative lyrics concerning violence, misogyny, etc often enough draw audiences which for whatever reason, have enough uncontrollable elements that it is indeed more risky to be present.  I worked at one venue where a bullet proof wall was added to block the office windows, and hte offices were on the 3rd floor.  At the same venue, one of the techs was beaten senseless by the djs entourage for attempting to keep the PA from melting down.  At another party, some girl sliced another girls face.  This was all run of the mill for the venue and it was one of several in nyc where the police set up flood lights and horse mounted officers only for specific parties.

I say this being a fan of hip hop, having also grown up with the "gangsta rap" subgenre as it developed in my then home of los angeles.  There are countless of safe and non-aggressive hip hop parties, where the musical program, marketing, and overall event concepts draw a fun and problem-free crowd.  However, there are marketed concepts which bring out the more rowdy.

It's the same in my new european home of Berlin, only that we generally dont need to worry that a fight started inside will result in someone retrieving a gun out of their car and shooting an innocent bystander.

Be thankful that gun violence is not such an issue where you live.  In chicago, the statistics are depressing.

[Jonathan Johnson]

Hopefully I can say this without being too political. The following will contain my opinion, but I'll try not to advocate any particular platform. 

The United States does have a problem with gun violence, I won't argue that. It's true, plain and simple. But you also have to consider the rate of violent firearms usage with the size of the population: at some 314 million, the United States is the third largest nation in the world. Compare that with Norway, at only 5 million, 118th in size (Source: Wikipedia). If both nations had the same rate of violent crime involving guns, the United States would have about 62 times the number of incidents per year. Since our news is national and instantaneous, we hear about most of those crimes -- and when you hear 62 times the reports, of course it's going to seem worse.

(I don't know the actual crime rates as a per-capita figure. I'm just speaking hypothetically.)

Also consider the rate of firearms ownership: I speculate that the United States has a much higher per-capita rate of firearms ownership than does Norway. Why is this? It goes back to the founding of our country and the second amendment to our Constitution. Our founding fathers believed very strongly in personal ownership of firearms, not for personal defense, not for hunting, but for the primary purpose of preventing the development of an oppressive government like the one they just overthrew. Simply put, the founding fathers wanted the government they were creating to be AFRAID of the people.

This has nurtured a culture of Americans who are very possessive and protective of their right to keep and bear arms (note that the Constitution simply says "arms" not "guns" -- it is very general in term). Many of the violent people who we have been discussing in this thread are part of that culture, and see any action by police to be oppression by the government. They see it as their right and duty to use firearms against the government -- represented by the police -- in order to prevent oppression and defend their rights to free speech, expression, association, and assembly.

Many in the United States lament the problem of gun violence but consider it an acceptable cost of maintaining individual ownership of firearms. They see that the risk of increased violence expected with gun rights is more acceptable than the increased risk of government oppression expected with gun control.

Nevertheless, for an orderly society, it is reasonable to have laws against assault to protect the physical health of its citizens. Unfortunately, so many people in the heat of the moment take it upon themselves to be accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. This is plain wrong: except for accuser and prosecutor, those other titles are by necessity and fairness the sole right of government.

[kristianjohnsen]

Hopefully I can say this without being too political. The following will contain my opinion, but I'll try not to advocate any particular platform. 

The United States does have a problem with gun violence, I won't argue that. It's true, plain and simple. But you also have to consider the rate of violent firearms usage with the size of the population: at some 314 million, the United States is the third largest nation in the world. Compare that with Norway, at only 5 million, 118th in size (Source: Wikipedia). If both nations had the same rate of violent crime involving guns, the United States would have about 62 times the number of incidents per year. Since our news is national and instantaneous, we hear about most of those crimes -- and when you hear 62 times the reports, of course it's going to seem worse.

(I don't know the actual crime rates as a per-capita figure. I'm just speaking hypothetically.)

Also consider the rate of firearms ownership: I speculate that the United States has a much higher per-capita rate of firearms ownership than does Norway. Why is this? It goes back to the founding of our country and the second amendment to our Constitution. Our founding fathers believed very strongly in personal ownership of firearms, not for personal defense, not for hunting, but for the primary purpose of preventing the development of an oppressive government like the one they just overthrew. Simply put, the founding fathers wanted the government they were creating to be AFRAID of the people.

This has nurtured a culture of Americans who are very possessive and protective of their right to keep and bear arms (note that the Constitution simply says "arms" not "guns" -- it is very general in term). Many of the violent people who we have been discussing in this thread are part of that culture, and see any action by police to be oppression by the government. They see it as their right and duty to use firearms against the government -- represented by the police -- in order to prevent oppression and defend their rights to free speech, expression, association, and assembly.

Many in the United States lament the problem of gun violence but consider it an acceptable cost of maintaining individual ownership of firearms. They see that the risk of increased violence expected with gun rights is more acceptable than the increased risk of government oppression expected with gun control.

Nevertheless, for an orderly society, it is reasonable to have laws against assault to protect the physical health of its citizens. Unfortunately, so many people in the heat of the moment take it upon themselves to be accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. This is plain wrong: except for accuser and prosecutor, those other titles are by necessity and fairness the sole right of government.

Jonathan, Randy.

Thank you both for trying to inform me.  I actually have a decent grasp of what your saying.

Just to clarify _again_:  I threw a provocative statement out there as a response to what I perceived as an unnecessarily confrontational post which also brought up firearms at concerts, something we indeed are lucky to not have issues with here (that I have ever heard of, at least). 

It didn't take long for many regular Labsters to chime in with their experiences with firearms incidents at shows...

Nutcases do exist everywhere and weapons CAN be aquired if one is hell-bent on doing something stupid.  Anders Behring Breivik murdered 77 people here within a timeframe of a few hours last summer.  He did spend 5 years planning, though, so it wasn't a heat-of-the-moment crime for sure.

My take is still that is SEEMS old-fashioned and bigoted for an insurance company to be wording their question like they are doing in this case.  If they want to avoid troublesome shows they should word it like Bob suggested and stop "blaming it" on a musical genre - even if I do understand what they are getting at.

[Mac Kerr]

`This topic has run out of usefulness. Move on.

[ProSoundWeb Community]