Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: tom b on July 10, 2016, 12:44:06 am
-
Dallas massacre (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437642/dallas-massacre-police-heroes-black-lives-matter)
What does it take for Americans to see that their gun laws are f**ked up?
Depressed,
-
... What does it take for Americans to see that their gun laws are f**ked up?
What does it take for non-Americans to see that has nothing to do with gun laws?
-
What does it take for non-Americans to see that has nothing to do with gun laws?
No, nothing.
..as recently as last December, 54 Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would have denied convicted felons, the mentally ill and anyone on a terrorist watch list ( 'a person of interest' in FBI terminology) the legal right to buy weapons and explosives. Those Republicans included all four recent Rep Presidential nominee candidates Rubio, Cruz, Paul and Graham. They also blocked a bill which would have allowed for expanded background checks.
-
About a couple of hours ago my San Antonio, Texas local news affiliate had breaking news that shots were fired at the San Antonio Police station.
Police Chief MacManus said there isn't enough information to make a connection to the Dallas shootings and went further to say that the police station has been shot at before in the past also unrelated to current events and didn't elaborate.
I'm a 56 year old native Texan and have never needed a gun, but I have no problems with others having them. However, I think we need to make it difficult to sell certain guns that are powerful enough to pierce a police officer's bullet proof vest.
-
"What does it take for non-Americans to see that has nothing to do with gun laws?"
You have got to be joking.
America has mass shootings daily/weekly. Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since Port Arthur. Gun control works, public distaste works. Sorry, but what has to happen in America before things change?
Really,
-
Tom,
...what has to happen in America before things change?
More people must be killed.
-
http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131
-
I sometimes despair that half of the population has IQ lower than average.
-
I sometimes despair that half of the population has IQ lower than average.
Or to put it another way, "The next time you meet someone of average intelligence, pause for a minute to reflect and marvel that 50% of people are even more stupid than this".
Jeremy
-
Damn, Jeremy, you are ruining my bait ;)
-
What does it take for non-Americans to see that has nothing to do with gun laws?
Hi Slobodan,
I'm disheartened by your remark, it suggests that the situation will not improve, on the contrary. If Americans are blind to their own issues, how could they change the situation for the better?
Surely one must understand that one of the issues that led up to this shooting, is racial profiling. That often gets out-of-hand because the suspects, of an every day misdemeanor (but also felonies), do carry guns or are assumed/believed to do so. Police officers with hand on gun, or drawn, mistake the moves or intentions of the person in front of them, and shoot first, then ask. Gun possession of civilians increases the risk of mistakes and accidents, for all concerned.
This is on top of social and ethnic discrimination, which is another problem, but related.
This particular event (it's not really an incident, because it will happen again) also has other tragic aspects to it, some of which will never be fully understood because the assumed perpetrator was killed by a targeted explosion. But it seems that his frustration about ethnic inequality and marginalization, played a role. Having easy access to guns only helped him to vent his anger in the way he did, but no doubt he would have found an alternative means if guns had not been so easy to get hold of.
But one of the core issues is gun possession (leading to over-reaction and accidents, and enable a simple way to exert lethal force), aren't there enough deaths already to prove that?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Except, Bart, the overwhelming majority of crime and incidents are caused by ILLEGAL guns, thus nothing to do with gun laws.
-
Or to put it another way, "The next time you meet someone of average intelligence, pause for a minute to reflect and marvel that 50% of people are even more stupid than this".
If only the average were higher, sigh. Everybody would be better off.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Except, Bart, the overwhelming majority of crime and incidents are caused by IILEGAL guns, thus nothing to do with gun laws.
I disagree. It matters none to a police officer whether he/she is shot by a legal or an illegal gun.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Non sequitur, Bart.
-
Bart,
...of
Hmm.
-
Bart,
Hmm.
Thanks Rob, typo corrected.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Non sequitur, Bart.
What are you suggesting Slobodan? That changing the law to make all gun possession illegal or legal has the same result, or something else?
Cheers,
Bart
-
... the overwhelming majority of crime and incidents are caused by IILEGAL guns, thus nothing to do with gun laws.
Source ?
-
NYT:
'... at least 722 nonself-defense deaths since 2007 were attributable to individuals with legal permits to carry concealed weapons. Concealed carry by citizens has been a soaring phenomenon as states liberalize laws in the name of lowering crime that allow more permits and easier gun access in public places, even schools, churches and restaurants. There is no central tally of the effects, with states often barring release of concealed-carry data and Congress hewing to the gun lobby’s opposition to research on guns’ effects on public health."
edit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/opinion/concealed-carrys-body-count.html?_r=0
-
I sometimes despair that half of the population has IQ lower than average.
That is not true.
-
Except, Bart, the overwhelming majority of crime and incidents are caused by IILEGAL guns, thus nothing to do with gun laws.
And this is why most guns do not need to be just illegal, but they need to be truly unavailable. Not in gun shops, not at gun shows, not in private sales. It's true that the criminal or fanatic or terrorist will circumvent any gun laws, but if the mass murder weapon they want cannot be found, legally or illegally, then the shootings cannot take place.
-
, then the shootings cannot take place.
They'll just make a bomb. If some SOB wants to injure someone bad enough, they will find a way.
-
And then there are those who think gun policies have nothing to do with it ...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/07/stocks-surge-for-makers-of-guns-body-cams-in-aftermath-of-cop-killings/ (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/07/stocks-surge-for-makers-of-guns-body-cams-in-aftermath-of-cop-killings/)
So the public's knee-jerk reaction is predicted to increase the stock-pile of guns, so even more accidents can happen, and Police officers will be faced with more armed members of the public. Things will only get worse.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... the overwhelming majority of crime and incidents are caused by IILEGAL guns, thus nothing to do with gun laws.
Come on, Slobodan, don't be shy - source ?
-
The correlation between the `availability' of firearms and the incidence of harm caused by their `misuse' seems inescapable. Controlling the types of firearms in private ownership; who may own/access them and how and where they can legally be carried and/or used seems like a complete `no-brainer' to, I believe, the vast majority of people. However, it is, or should be, for the people of the US to decide how much risk and/or harm they are willing to tolerate in order to protect a particular interpretation/understanding of the right conferred by the second amendment. If there were to be a national referendum in the US asking whether people would accept reasonable controls around ownership/possession of firearms; What do you believe the outcome would be?
-
Come on, Slobodan, don't be shy - source ?
Do your own googling.
-
Chris Rock has a public service announcement on how (not) to deal with the police:
https://youtu.be/uj0mtxXEGE8
-
Do your own googling.
I, unlike you, did.
Unsubstantiated propaganda, without statistical corroboration, is not fact.
https://interactive.guim.co.uk/charts/embed/mar/2016-03-11T12:33:28.html
-
I, unlike you, did.
Unsubstantiated propaganda, without statistical corroboration, is not fact.
And here are some statistics:
More police officers die on the job in states with more guns (http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302749)
Now that would presumably mean legally owned guns, given that they used statistics on gun ownership.
The Washington Post site tells a bit more about the legal/illegal issue:
Some more interesting observations (vast majority of homicides is with legally owned guns):
Here (https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwipiZnzx-vNAhXGCsAKHSGEB2QQqQIIRCgAMAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fwonk%2Fwp%2F2016%2F06%2F12%2Forlando-shooting-the-key-things-to-know-about-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-america%2F&usg=AFQjCNG2qeZhPXaSPl8tulqcMa3STYxVnA).
Just some of the first links Google turned up, I cannot tell how valid the sources are.
Cheers,
Bart
-
And this is why most guns do not need to be just illegal, but they need to be truly unavailable. Not in gun shops, not at gun shows, not in private sales. It's true that the criminal or fanatic or terrorist will circumvent any gun laws, but if the mass murder weapon they want cannot be found, legally or illegally, then the shootings cannot take place.
This whole discussion is absurd to the point of asininity, but this one probably takes the cake. Sorry to have to say that Peter. How, exactly, would you get this done? How would we find all the guns? Do you really believe people would line up to turn them in? Are you suggesting we not arm the cops with guns? Maybe nightsticks? Knives? If murderers can't get guns they'll get something else. There are a lot of ways to skin this cat. It's easy, for instance, to make a bomb in your kitchen. Unfortunately murderers will always murder. A better solution would be to change human nature. You'd have about as much luck with that as you'd have eliminating all guns.
-
Hi Bart,
As most of us know, the legal/illegal issue is nothing but a red herring - the real issues are the gun laws and availability of weaponry, particularly military grade weaponry. Japan, with the lowest gun homicides, is a country where ' As of 2011, legal gun ownership stood at 271,000, according to police records, in a country of 127 million people.' The USA, unsurprisingly, doesn't compare favourably.
Manoli
-
One thing that pops out of your comment, Manoli, is that Japan is an integrated society. If you go to Japan you'll be tolerated but you'll never become a part of the society itself. Same is true with most Asian countries, certainly the ones I've spent years in. For the most part Scandinavian countries also enjoy quite integrated societies. To a lesser extent, and quickly becoming lesser, are European countries. The United States probably has the least integrated society on the planet, and the past seven years have worked to make us even less integrated. It would be interesting for somebody to do a Thesis on the relationship between societal integration and the murder rate. I suspect there's a correlation. Correlation isn't causation, but it's not too hard to see what the causation is.
-
That is not true.
You just proved my point.
-
NYT: "... at least 722 nonself-defense deaths since 2007 were attributable to individuals with legal permits to carry concealed weapons."
722 over nine years!?
Wow!
That's about 90 per year, or, as we say in Chicago: Monday morning.
Thanks for confirming my point, Manoli.
-
I, unlike you, did...
I see you mastered Google basics. An advance course would teach you to google, say, "legal vs. illegal guns" (the subject of my post), not just "gun homicides" as you apparently did.
-
One thing that pops out of your comment, Manoli, is that Japan is an integrated society. If you go to Japan you'll be tolerated but you'll never become a part of the society itself. [..] Correlation isn't causation, but it's not too hard to see what the causation is.
Russ,
Thank you for that - a valid point, though I'm not at all convinced that that explains the extreme disparity in the gun crime figures.
M
-
Wow!
Duh!
The relevant part of the quote was
Concealed carry by citizens has been a soaring phenomenon as states liberalize laws in the name of lowering crime that allow more permits and easier gun access in public places, even schools, churches and restaurants. There is no central tally of the effects, with states often barring release of concealed-carry data and Congress hewing to the gun lobby’s opposition to research on guns’ effects on public health."
Goodnight, Slobodan.
-
Thanks for the rather sensible post, Tarnash.
Allow me a few comments:
The correlation between the `availability' of firearms and the incidence of harm caused by their `misuse' seems inescapable.
True, but that is a truism. Just like saying that availability of cars and harm caused by their misuse (e.g., driving drunk, distracted, speeding, etc.) are correlated. Of course they are. Or availability of (cheap) food and obesity. Yet nobody is calling for a ban on McDonald's (yet).
... Controlling the types of firearms in private ownership; who may own/access them and how and where they can legally be carried and/or used seems like a complete `no-brainer' to, I believe, the vast majority of people.
Which is already the case in the U.S.
... However, it is, or should be, for the people of the US to decide how much risk and/or harm they are willing to tolerate in order to protect a particular interpretation/understanding of the right conferred by the second amendment.
Amen!
Instead we have arm-chair social warriors, with only cursory knowledge of the U.S., pontificating. Especially those coming from countries the population of which can fit a postage stamp.
... If there were to be a national referendum in the US asking whether people would accept reasonable controls around ownership/possession of firearms; What do you believe the outcome would be?
As I said, reasonable controls already exist here. Whether they could be fine-tuned is a different discussion. What the request for a tighter "gun control" often means is confiscation of guns. In which case, my impression is that a majority of Americans would flatly reject it in a referendum.
-
As I said, reasonable controls already exist here. Whether they could be fine-tuned is a different discussion. What the request for a tighter "gun control" often means is confiscation of guns. In which case, my impression is that a majority of Americans would flatly reject it in a referendum.
..as recently as last December, 54 Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would have denied convicted felons, the mentally ill and anyone on a terrorist watch list ( 'a person of interest' in FBI terminology) the legal right to buy weapons and explosives. Those Republicans included all four recent Rep Presidential nominee candidates Rubio, Cruz, Paul and Graham. They also blocked a bill which would have allowed for expanded background checks.
In my mind the above would represent a reasonable "fine tuning", but was rejected by politicians who want us to believe (as they are being fed and catered by the gun lobby) that these measures take away guns from reasonable people. Now who is the populist in that debate?
But I agree, some form of gun control will not make all of these crimes go away but might lower their probability. They will also lower the probability for a police officer killing a person they stopped in a car, ask for their license and then shoot him because he's moving his hand to his back pocket.
-
... (vast majority of homicides is with legally owned guns):..
Bart, I could not find such a statement in the link you provided. I did find one about mass shootings (51 in the last thirty years), but that is a not the same as "homicides."
Also, the statistics on mass shootings and its analysis come from Mother Jones, an ultra-left magazine. Knowing a thing or two about statistics, and witnessing on more than one occasion how it can be misused for political purposes, I remain skeptical. Besides, mass shooters are determined individuals. Had they not have legal access, they would have obtain it illegally anyway. Or use a different method.
It is worth noting that ISIS first praised Orlando attacker for answering their call for jihad, then CRITICIZED him for not using a more lethal tool, bombs: "It is cool, bro, that you used an assault weapon, but you could have inflicted much more damage and fatalities had you used a bomb." They also have some advice for future jihadists, to avoid targeting minorities, as not to give any excuse to local politicians to label it as a hate crime.
-
In my mind the above would represent a reasonable "fine tuning"...
Pegelli,
That quote ("...a bill that would have denied convicted felons, the mentally ill and anyone on a terrorist watch list...") makes it sound to the uninformed that, at the moment, convicted felons and mentally ill are allowed to buy or own guns, which is not true.
The devil is often in the detail in such bills, and I admit I do not know the details. I am simply stating that the existing legislation already makes it illegal to sell/own guns for those categories.
People on the no-fly list is a different matter, and the objections to it are rather on the matter of principle. This is one of those things that is a no-brainer at first glance. And yet... the no-fly lists are notoriously massive, massively inaccurate, arbitrary, secretive, without oversight, legal recourse, etc. U.S. congressmen and senators, toddlers, celebrities, etc., have found themselves at that list at some point. And given that gun ownership is a constitutional right (vs. flying), it would give government bureaucrats unprecedented power to deny it.
-
The devil is often in the detail in such bills, and I admit I do not know the details. I am simply stating that the existing legislation already makes it illegal to sell/own guns for those categories.
Also at so-called "gun fares", where (according to the press in Europe, so can't vouch for the accuracy) the checks before buying are virtually non-existent.
And if it's illegal is it checked and enforced?
-
Also at so-called "gun fares", where (according to the press in Europe, so can't vouch for the accuracy) the checks before buying are virtually non-existent.
And if it's illegal is it checked and enforced?
I do not own a gun (although I was practicing and was good with them, including AK-47, in the army) so I do not know all the intricacies of ownership and control. Based on what I do know (little) about gun fairs and related loopholes, it seems reasonable to close those.
It is also worth noting that one of the two most recent cases (Louisiana) involved a convicted felon with a gun. 911 call preceding the incident notified the police that he had a gun and was threatening someone with it. The fact might have influenced the way policemen responded. I am not suggesting that it makes it right or wrong what they did.
Speaking about police encounters, they are guided by the Supreme Court case Graham v. Conner, from 1989 (emphasis mine):
Under Graham, all police use of force must be "objectively reasonable." In other words, under like or similar circumstances would a hypothetical "reasonable" officer have done the same thing? The court cautions against the use of hindsight and instead encourages viewing the incident from the perspective of the officers on the scene who are dealing with a dynamic and fluid situation with limited and sometimes incorrect information as to whom they are dealing with. Also, what is important is the totality of the circumstances, not any one particular fact or circumstance.
-
Since the incident in Louisiana and others caught on video arrests of African Americans there are two questions that still never get asked or answered and that is...
1. How does a minor infraction such as busted tail lights or someone supposedly having a gun tucked in his pants concealed by a long t-shirt turn into wrestling the perpetrator down to the ground where they meet their death?
2. Why is it in all of these types of exchanges with police does the suspect fight and resist arrest with police even over being questioned for a minor infraction?
There's a dynamic going on that's not being captured on video the public is not being informed about with regard to routine police investigative procedures. This really needs to be understood even more clearly than what's mentioned in Slobadon's Graham vs Conner quote.
-
Since the incident in Louisiana and others caught on video arrests of African Americans there are two questions that still never get asked or answered and that is...
1. How does a minor infraction such as busted tail lights or someone supposedly having a gun tucked in his pants concealed by a long t-shirt turn into wrestling the perpetrator down to the ground where they meet their death?
2. Why is it in all of these types of exchanges with police does the suspect fight and resist arrest with police even over being questioned for a minor infraction?
#1 Shit happens.
#2 Politicians, pandering to a certain voting block, peddle the idea that the system is out to get them. Which then lead them (the particular voting block) to conclude they should resist, fight and argue with the system in the first instance they encounter it (police). Or that they somehow earned the right historically (instead of reparations) to be treated above the law, i.e. that the police should leave them alone to pursue their legitimate criminal enterprise.
-
#1 Shit happens.
#2 Politicians, pandering to a certain voting block, peddle the idea that the system is out to get them. Which then lead them (the particular voting block) to conclude they should resist, fight and argue with the system in the first instance then encounter it (police). Or that they somehow earned the right historically (instead of reparations) to be treated above the law, i.e. that the police should leave them alone to pursue their legitimate criminal enterprise.
With your #2 then in that case it should be more wide spread and far more videos would be uploaded and I don't see that happening. There might be a statistic on how many African Americans resist arrest over minor infractions but I wouldn't know how accurate the measure due to the sociological complexity you described.
I don't think it's that simple.
For example in the case of African American woman Sandra Bland's death by suicide in a Texas jail after being roughed up during an arrest for a minor infraction, there's the issue of mental illness to add to the complexity in finding causality. I see so many folks in the news who commit suicide out of the blue unexpectedly (Robin Williams) and yet show no signs of it, and signs or indicators are the only method of diagnosis by professionals.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/21/us/texas-sandra-bland-jail-death-explain/
-
Tim,
Thankfully, not all African-Americans resist or argue, but the vast majority of those who ended up killed did. Sandra Bland argued too, otherwise would not have ended up in jail, but with just a ticket.
I can only repeat Chris Rock's video I posted earlier on how (not) to deal with the police: https://youtu.be/uj0mtxXEGE8
-
"Thankfully, not all African-Americans resist or argue, but the vast majority of those who ended up killed did."
WTF. If you resist or argue you will end up dead.
My original question stands, what does it take to have to have a well educated nation shift to being a civil society. Port Arthur was the tipping point for Australia. Columbine and Sandy Hook should have been America's.
The slaughter keeps on happening.
"Gun violence in the United States results in thousands of deaths and injuries annually.[1] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms were used in 73,505 nonfatal injuries (23.23 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) [2] and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000),[3] 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm,[4] and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent"[5] for a total of 33,636 deaths due to "Injury by firearms",[6] or 10.6 deaths per 100,000 people.[4] 1.3% of all deaths in the country were related to firearms.[1][7]"
Really, what does it take?
Oh, List of school shootings in the US (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States).
-
...WTF. If you resist or argue you will might end up dead...
Corrected.
There are numerous instances in which cops were verbally abused, yet kept their cool (as documented by dashboard cameras). Yet those do not get reported, as they are not the news, but rather a common and frequent occurrence. What ends up in the media are exceptions. The viral nature of those are what creates the impression it is the norm.
-
Source ?
Ok, finally got around to it (the source, that is - one of many):
About "3 percent of murders and crimes are committed with guns from people who actually (legally) purchase those guns."
— Joe Scarborough on Friday, October 2nd, 2015 in a broadcast of MSNBC's "Morning Joe"
Someone made an attempt to verify this claim and came up with the following conclusion (emphasis mine):
Recent studies that look at prisoners who had a gun when they committed a crime found that between 3 and 11 percent purchased the weapon at a store or gun show.
The whole verification article is here: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/05/joe-scarborough/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-tiny-fraction-crimes-commit/
Good morning, Manoli :)
-
"Martin John Bryant is an Australian mass murderer who pleaded guilty to murdering 35 people and injuring 23 others in the Port Arthur massacre".
Hey, he didn't get the death penalty, but in America if you are black you can get the death penalty on the spot for verbally abusing a police officer or resisting arrest.
Really, what does it take for things to change?
-
... in America if you are black you can get the death penalty on the spot for verbally abusing a police officer or resisting arrest...
Are you for real, mate!?
-
Death of Eric Garner
Date July 17, 2014
Location 202 Bay Street, Staten Island, New York, U.S.
Cause "Compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police"
Participants Daniel Pantaleo and Justin Damico (NYPD officers)
Outcome No indictment
Deaths 1
Coroner New York City Medical Examiner
Litigation $5.9 million out-of-court settlement
On July 17, 2014, Eric Garner died in Staten Island, New York City, after a New York City Police Department (NYPD) officer put him in what has been described as a chokehold for about 15 to 19 seconds while arresting him. The New York City Medical Examiner's Office attributed Garner's death to a combination of a chokehold, compression of his chest, and poor health. NYPD policy prohibits the use of chokeholds.
Really Slobodan you have missed the point!
The rest of the western world has banned guns and knives.
"Are you for real, mate!?"
Hey, 33,636 deaths due to "Injury by firearms" in one year. What don't you get!
-
...Really Slobodan you have missed the point!...
Maybe.
But you seem to be unable to comprehend any point but your own, and the logic you apply (if any) appears totally outlandish, which makes any further debate with you futile.
-
The problem is deeper than guns; it's permissiveness.
The idea that foreigners (or "others") come to the USA, not as Americans any longer, but to colonize this country and be parasitic separatists is bleeding us to death, in spirit.
Blacks are encouraged to celebrate their blackness; Hispanics their Latin culture; Muslims their Muslim culture, etc.
All of this creates divisiveness, not unity. We are now a veritable Tower of Babel. No one is responsible; everyone is "entitled" ...
How many languages must I hit on my touchtone phone to hear an English voice in America?
My forefathers spoke German, but came to this country to become Americans, to become productive contributors of this society, not to create "a little Germany" inside the US, run welfare and health care scams, and speak only German. >:(
I always respected a native-Colombian colleague of mine, Robert Contreras, who refused to be called "Roberto," when he became a US Citizen, but who insists that his name is now Robert.
(His also does not speak Spanish, unless dealing with a situation that calls for it, but speaks only English in public.)
In other words, Robert's family came here to the USA to become Americans, not to be yet another addition to the many little-Latin colonies of 100% Spanish-speaking invaders of this country, who do nothing useful here, but cause me to hit "One" on my touchtone phone now, every time I make a phone call, and who use my tax dollars to feed their families. Robert has always worked, always paid his own way, contributed to society with his self-created legitimate business, and teaches his children to speak the language that The Founding Fathers spoke (who created this country).
On and on it goes ... it is the difference between too many people parasitizing this country versus too few trying to become productive citizens.
Our very permissiveness, of letting everyone think and say what they want, of letting them get away with what they want, of letting them protest all they want, be anti-American if they want, with no accountability, IS the problem.
Without standards, there is nothing to aspire to. People no longer come here to "be American," they just come here.
The sense of American unity is gone, the sense of being a melting pot where people shed their past and become Americans is gone.
Now what is happening is other countries are just sending people to colonize our country, not to become Americans.
The sense of dignity, of starting anew, is rapidly disappearing ... being replaced by a scheme to take advantage.
Hell, I could go on forever.
As far as blacks go, it does boil down to the Chris Rock video Slobodan posted.
As a teenager, a white friend of mine got the bejesus beaten out of him by cops ... because he tried to get away on his motorcycle, didn't make a turn, and (well) anyone can guess what happened. He got the sh!^ knocked out of him ... and deservedly so. Had he reached for a gun, he too would be dead. Common sense.
If anyone looks at the rap sheets of the "dearly departed" black folks, they were thugs, nothing more. Had they been productive citizens, doing the right thing, they would be fine today. Being a weapon-toting, mouthy, delinquent @$$hole to cops is a bad recipe for anyone, regardless of color. (If anyone wants to check out what it's like from the cops' point of view, watch this video (https://www.facebook.com/1506821589619159/videos/1509403472694304/?pnref=story).)
As far as mass shootings go, they are again caused by lack of socialization, detachment, "me against the world" mental illness that again comes from dis-unity (of family/country) and a whole host of reasons that are too complicated for an internet post. I don't think other countries get this as much, because they're all one nation, one people, one language, for the most part. Our country is different, and its very wide-spread diversity creates its own problems.
America has always had guns, but it also used to have standards for decency.
Now, with the news media, social media, wanton permissiveness ... and a whole plethora of symptoms of much deeper problems ... including a lack of pride, work ethic, and a total lack of responsibility ... are creating these killings. Not guns.
The killings/riots and basic lack of contentedness will continue to happen ... until the illnesses of our society are addressed ... most especially overpopulation + lack of accountability ... with or without legal firearms.
Jack
-
I believe that all this would be settled if we could at least get clear nationwide stats about the % of US population per state in favour of stronger gun control laws.
Somehow this data doesn't seem to be available anywhere.
My guess is that the outcome would be more the 75%.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Really, 33,636 gun deaths in one year, mass shootings in schools, black deaths in arrests, police officers shot in a mass shooting, drive by shootings, the drug war which has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths.
Slobodan, what crazy Republican world are you living in?
Hey, I'm safe and secure in socialist Australia. But hey, farmers can have guns, you can shoot at a firing range. Police and registered firearms owners can carry guns. Automatic and semi automatic weapons are banned. There is only the occasional weapons crime carried out by a mentally ill person. Life is easy, good luck in America, don't look at a crazy gun toting person the wrong way.
Cheers,
-
Really, 33,636 gun deaths in one year, mass shootings in schools, black deaths in arrests, police officers shot in a mass shooting, drive by shootings, the drug war which has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths.
Slobodan, what crazy Republican world are you living in?
Hey, I'm safe and secure in socialist Australia. But hey, farmers can have guns, you can shoot at a firing range. Police and registered firearms owners can carry guns. Automatic and semi automatic weapons are banned. There is only the occasional weapons crime carried out by a mentally ill person. Life is easy, good luck in America, don't look at a crazy gun toting person the wrong way.
Cheers,
How about France? Weapons ban.
Was it French killing French? Nope.
It was as I said, "separatist" groups asserting themselves because of social permissiveness.
Allowing people into a country, who don't have the country's interests at heart, is like hiring an employee who hates his company; or bringing a member onto a team who hates the team.
It is counter-productive and harmful to the company/team, if not downright stupid.
If I move to Japan, my first goal is to speak the language and acclimate. Make myself useful.
If I move to Spain, my first goal is to do likewise ... not cry, bitch, moan, and complain ... asserting "American supremacy" over there :o
But we let this crap happen here in the States and France let it happen as well.
We allow guns here, France does not, but the result was the same: mass deaths.
The choice of weapon isn't the problem; it is the permissiveness of bad intent due to lack of standards that are the problem.
The solution is no more permissiveness; people must abide by a set of standards, be a part of the team, or they are a part of the problem.
-
... My guess is that the outcome would be more the 75%.
That's what the Remain side thought too ;)
-
I believe that all this would be settled if we could at least get clear nationwide stats about the % of US population per state in favour of stronger gun control laws...
From the article Bart quoted earlier:
Since 1990, Gallup has been asking Americans whether they think gun control laws should be stricter.
The answer, increasingly, is that they don't.
"Less than half of Americans, 47%, say they favor stricter laws covering the sale of firearms, similar to views found last year," Gallup says. "But this percentage is significantly below the 58% recorded in 2012 after the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, spurred a nationwide debate about the possibility of more stringent gun control laws. Thirty-eight percent of Americans say these laws should be kept as they are now, and 14% say they should be made less strict."
Note that the support for stricter gun controls is trending down, not up, since 2000:
-
I haven't read this entire topic and I don't intend to. This will be my only post on this topic. I just want to correct one thing. There is no gun show loophole. It is a creation of the media. If you buy a gun from someone displaying at a table at a gun show, you are subject to the same background check system as if you bought it from a brick and mortar gun or sporting goods store. The BATFE is there monitoring the shows. In SOME states you are not subject to a background check for a private sale. That is one individual selling or transferring a gun to another individual. In some states a father cannot give a gun that has been in the family to his son is without the transfer going through an FFL holder and the transfer being entered in their ledger.
-
It just goes on and on…
Michigan (http://www.smh.com.au/world/multiple-people-shot-dead-at-michigan-courthouse-reports-20160711-gq3jst.html)
Oh well, at least you have your guns, all three hundred million of them.
Good luck, you need it.
-
It just goes on and on…
Michigan (http://www.smh.com.au/world/multiple-people-shot-dead-at-michigan-courthouse-reports-20160711-gq3jst.html)
Man, whatever you are smoking down under, must be much more potent than here.
-
Man, whatever you are smoking down under, must be much more potent than here.
What is the line that has to be crossed before gun control is a possibility?
It was 35 dead for Australia.
You don't have to be on drugs to think that Columbine or Sandy Hook should have been that line. In fact what drugs are you taking Slobodan?
-
Coincidentally, a week or so prior to the Baton Rouge and Minnesota shootings, I asked my son, born and raised in B.C. Canada but a resident of Denver Co for the last six or so years, about the US federal political happenings and his conversations with locals. He replied that within a short time of arriving to Denver, he learned that it was fruitless to discuss two topics - politics and firearms. Each side in both topics is just too entrenched and they refuse to change their minds or look at the issues from the opposite perspective.
As an outsider and someone who believes I should not force my opinion on members of another nation, I would still like to offer a couple comments however.
Growing up in a small town in northern B.C. I had a lot of exposure to long guns for hunting and target shooting, and as a career police officer (in the greater Vancouver area), continued to be around many types of firearms. During that career, it was fairly rare to encounter citizens, or even bad guys, with firearms (and it is still relatively unusual for an officer, but the frequency is increasing). Having said all that, I just cannot rap my mind around the idea of so many firearms, especially semi auto military style weapons, being so accessible to, and in the hands of virtually everyone within a society. I'm reasonably familiar with the Second Amendment issues, but it still boggles my mind.
Regarding some of John Koerner's comments:
Canada is, as well, a country which seems to be greatly impacted by the arrival of foreigners, many who seem intent on living within their own ethnic enclaves and refuse to "blend in" (one of the larger cities in the area is now predominantly Asian population; one apartment building has an Asian majority so the majority decided to hold their meetings in Mandarin, effectively shutting out the minority English speaking residents), and also take advantage of the many social/health programs. I should stress that there are many, many arrivals who do blend in and become a member of our society. But I have seen and do see many frustrated and angry locals who resent these "foreign freeloaders" and the inability to be able to express their fears and anger because of the political correctness restrictions. The same goes for non immigrant layabouts and homeless persons who demand everything and give back nothing. However, one of the biggest differences between us and the U.S. is, presumably because of the lack of firearms, few shooting deaths result from those frustrations and the angry interaction between those who take and those who resent.
I, wholeheartedly, agree that an immigrant must integrate themselves into the new society, learn the language, become a valid member of society and follow the rules and laws of that country (don't get me started on our laws/rules being changed to allow turbans to be worn instead of motorcycle helmets and turbans and other religious "accoutrements" to be worn instead of the standard uniform of the police - ya wanna be a cop, wear the damn uniform).
I think the situation in the U.S. is irreversible and in fact, with all the emotion and entrenched positions (both with the citizenry and politicians), I can only see things get worse. I am proud to be a neighbour and friend to the U.S.and have seen that country overcome seemingly insurmountable issues over the years, but I fear they will lose this one.
Marv
-
We agree on much, Marv.
I think the USA situation is different from Canada, not because of guns, but because of true racial division (rooted in slavery in our past) combined with true unity breakdown due to "political correctness" run wild.
There is simply more volatility here IMO.
We are so permissive now, it is disgusting.
We can't simply label something as WRONG and punish the action to its uttermost.
The media shows every horrible thing it can, fans the flames, and provides insipid "commentary" to amuse the masses.
Hell, as with Hillary, treason is even "okay" ... no biggie, let's not spoil the campaign.
(To me, there is only one appropriate punishment for treason, and it's not a fine or an apology >:()
As far as hate goes, our media thrives on it, gives it air (and thus life) and puts it on our mind and in our hearts, rather than responsibly covering good deeds and positive achievements.
I firmly believe that outfits such as the KKK and Black Lives Matter are un-American, accomplish nothing positive, stir nothing but hate, and should be abolished.
The concept of "free speech" and "pursuing happiness" has been so confounded and overdone that (again) there is no accountability anymore, no standards of excellence to shoot for.
Not sure anything is irreversible, but it would take a lot of work and a truly strong, fair leader (with integrity) to get our country back on course.
Best regards,
Jack
-
It just goes on and on…
Michigan (http://www.smh.com.au/world/multiple-people-shot-dead-at-michigan-courthouse-reports-20160711-gq3jst.html)
Oh well, at least you have your guns, all three hundred million of them.
Good luck, you need it.
Okay, I lied. One more post for correction. The story didn't mention that the perp took the gun away from a uniformed law enforcement officer. The story read as if the bad guy just somehow managed to get possession of a gun and then shot people. Totally disingenuous reporting.
-
Okay, I lied. One more post for correction. The story didn't mention that the perp took the gun away from a uniformed law enforcement officer. The story read as if the bad guy just somehow managed to get possession of a gun and then shot people. Totally disingenuous reporting.
As mentioned above, "our media thrives on it, gives it air (and thus life) and puts it on our mind ..."
Total permissiveness. The concept of "freedom of the press" confounded to make it okay lying to the public, just to stir the hornet's nest.
"Freedom of the press" should carry with it an absolute duty of honesty.
Instead, it basically means they can say what they want, with no accountability.
Our problems always boil down to the same thing: total permissiveness, no standards, and no accountability anymore.
-
John,
You are correct. We certainly do not have the racial history that you do. The closest thing that I can equate it to is the historical relationship with our First Nations . We had a reserve that we were responsible for policing and if I had a dollar for every time I or other officers encountered "Get the ***k off our land, were spit on, sworn at, threatened and assaulted while dealing with native problems, I could have retired long before I did. And I'm not aware of any incident where a native died in a police involved encounter.
Funny thing is, I've travelled extensively throughout the States over years and years, from L.A. to Florida to Denver and most points in between (even to Baton Rouge when my partner and I had to go down to follow-up on a homicide we were investigating up here) and I have had many casual/social encounters with African Americans in all areas at all times of the day and night (in fact one night in a known gang area in L.A. where the cops in a marked cruiser refused to roll down the window and give us directions out of the area while a couple local African American males on the corner were most helpful), and I have always been treated with respect and politeness (and I look like any average white guy).
I'm a bit of a news nut and watch CNN and other U.S. news outlets on a regular basis. I agree with you about their treatment of the news and how/what they deliver to the public. Less obvious up here but I see it going in the same direction.
I don't see a current quality candidate from either side that is capable of leading your country out of this mess. And with the federal political quagmire that seems to be ever pervasive, I can't see anything changing in any appreciable way. Certainly not in our lifetime.
Regards,
Marv
-
Just to point out the obvious again. "33,636 gun deaths in one year". How thick do you have to be to think that that is OK?
Really,
-
Just to point out the obvious again. "33,636 gun deaths in one year". How thick do you have to be to think that that is OK?
Really,
What is obvious?
Statistics (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm)
All poisoning deaths
Number of deaths: 48,545
Deaths per 100,000 population: 15.4
Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 33,804
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7
All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 33,636
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6
Seems like deaths by firearm are fewer than by car or by poison.
10.6 deaths per 100,000 is less than .00001%
Your "logic" is to ban guns for every law-abiding citizen because 1 in 10,000 people die by firearm?
Should we ban cars because they have the same number or deaths ... and all forms of poison while we're at it?
Get some perspective, eh?
Poisons are useful; vehicles are useful; guns are useful.
You don't ban these things; you accept the risks because you understand the reward.
You can't ban carelessness, bad intentions, or stupidity. People will always die because of "something" ...
If your home were ever invaded, which would you rather have immediately available to grab: a phone or a gun?
-
John,
You are correct. We certainly do not have the racial history that you do. The closest thing that I can equate it to is the historical relationship with our First Nations . We had a reserve that we were responsible for policing and if I had a dollar for every time I or other officers encountered "Get the ***k off our land, were spit on, sworn at, threatened and assaulted while dealing with native problems, I could have retired long before I did. And I'm not aware of any incident where a native died in a police involved encounter.
Interesting recount. I am sure there are differences in behaviors and cultures.
Funny thing is, I've travelled extensively throughout the States over years and years, from L.A. to Florida to Denver and most points in between (even to Baton Rouge when my partner and I had to go down to follow-up on a homicide we were investigating up here) and I have had many casual/social encounters with African Americans in all areas at all times of the day and night (in fact one night in a known gang area in L.A. where the cops in a marked cruiser refused to roll down the window and give us directions out of the area while a couple local African American males on the corner were most helpful), and I have always been treated with respect and politeness (and I look like any average white guy).
I have similar experiences as a casualty investigator. Have interviewed and dealt with folks of all walks of life. Had a case where a bus ran over a woman, crushing her head, and 2 of the key witnesses were homeless persons in the armpit of Los Angeles. Not only had to find them, but interview them in their preferred element. Cruised the area for more witnesses, all of whom were of various ethnic varieties except my own. All very helpful, very concerned, no problems. The bus that ran over the woman was an Asian Tour Line Bus, and there were 54 witnesses, all of whom spoke either Mandarin or Cantonese, half of whom were not citizens but visitors. Most were UNfriendly, and didn't want to get involved; some, however, were very helpful. The main witness wound up being an Hispanic junk dealer who was right there dealing his goods when it happened.
I'm a bit of a news nut and watch CNN and other U.S. news outlets on a regular basis. I agree with you about their treatment of the news and how/what they deliver to the public. Less obvious up here but I see it going in the same direction.
It's scary how powerful the media is, literally shaping the minds of Americans (or Canadians, etc.) ... and most don't realize how manipulated they are.
I don't see a current quality candidate from either side that is capable of leading your country out of this mess. And with the federal political quagmire that seems to be ever pervasive, I can't see anything changing in any appreciable way. Certainly not in our lifetime.
Regards,
Marv
That's because the media won't show you the reasonable, ethical Libertarians Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. The best candidates are therefore never seen (out of sight, out of mind).
Johnson was one of the only 2 governors (New Mexico) who turned that state's deficit into a surplus; vetoed every tax raise that he came across; Weld created a "work for welfare" program in that state ... and saw a 75% reduction in applications for this service.
Jack
-
These discussions strike me as odd. It seems to me that the root problem is the evil that mankind does. I was watching a program on Stonehenge the other night, and they were showing skulls that had been bashed in by flint axes. This problem is not a new one. What I marvel most about is that the reportage characterizes what happened in Dallas as "a tragedy." For certain it is, for those killed and their families. But the event isn't a tragedy, it is an intentional act of evil done by someone intending to do evil, or by a deranged individual. It is not a tragedy like a hurricane, or a sattelite falling out of orbit and landing on five police officers.
I don't think any society has a chance of correcting a problem if they can't inentify what it is. I'm all for appropriate contol of fire arms, but I don't kid myself into thinking there is direct linkage between that need and prevention of what happened in Dallas. America is rapidly losing both its moral consensus and critical thinking ability, and what we're seeing seems to me to be the logical outworking of both.
Rand
-
Rand, the tragedy is that Lunacrats' pandering for votes and longing for a revolution has turned words into deeds and has resulted in the loss of innocent life. And it is not just Dallas, it started with DeBlasio opening the season on cops that resulted in the execution of two cops in New York a year or so ago. The tragedy is that the whole race is drinking Lunacrats' CoolAid and getting high on the peddled victimhood smoke. The tragedy is that Lunacrats are sidetracking the debate about the real causes of crime by substituting it with talks about gun control, "bad" cops, and "racism." The real causes remain unaddressed: poverty, unemployment, and lack of decent jobs for inner cities and everyone else. The tragedy is that American businesses are developing middle class in Asia and Latin America, while pauperizing its own. The tragedy is that Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, and other cities with high crime have been run by Lunacrats for decades, resorting to the same failed prescription of ever-increasing entitlements, instead of creating or preserving jobs.
-
Number of deaths in the US by terrorists in the past decade 24.
Number of gun deaths in the same period 280,000.
Gun deaths (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/05/viral-image/fact-checking-comparison-gun-deaths-and-terrorism-/)
Denial, denial, denial!
If you want to feel safe in your American home, get rid of your gun.
Gun deaths are mainly suicide (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html)
Sorry,
-
1. I think it's too late for the U.S. to do anything about guns. At most, you could make buying new guns more difficult, deny access to military-style weapons (was always a mad idea to allow them), and offer an amnesty to anyone surrendering weapons they shouldn't have owned at all.
2. Drugs must also contribute to the state of mind of anyone in an 'arrest' situation. I can't see anyone sober or sane even thinking of trying to run away from a police confrontation situation.
3. Yes, the problems due to press coverage are huge; never mind crime reporting - just think of how Brexit was reported, the tv and printed lies on which it was based, the inbred 'them 'n' usness' of much of British life, the religious divides, the ethnic divisions and the language barriers and it's no wonder some feel the nation has been sold off, that others think the solution lies in self-mutilation.
4. Had we guns, we'd be the U.S. writ large because we have far less space in which to play the same game.
It's pointless trying to use statistics: simply looking at the views expressed on this thread, it's obvious that all that happens is one guy calls white and the other black; neither side wants to admit to the overlap of causes/effects/moderations.
As recent UK history shows, you can never overestimate the stupidity of the general public. The general public is the Red Tops. The sales figures show that. People believe what they see in the press - what else do most have upon which to draw? If you have never owned shares, you won't consciously know or be very aware that you can lose your shirt; the great unwashed think you "live off the sweat of the workers" and never lose more than you gain. One nation? Right.
-
You don't have to be on drugs to think that Columbine or Sandy Hook should have been that line.
What are you talking about Tom? Both Columbine and Sandy Hook are gun-free zones. There couldn't possibly have been any guns there. The shooting stories must be myths.
-
...If you want to feel safe in your American home, get rid of your gun.
Gun deaths are mainly suicide (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html)
Mate, you keep finding totally non-sensical explanations for the links you post. If gun deaths are manly suicide (and they are) how am I going to feel safe in my home if I get rid of the gun!? Are you suggesting that I would be committing suicide because I have a gun? Or that the gun is committing my suicide?
-
The problem with the gun, Slobodan, is that it makes you feel invincible, and with that, in place of a more reasoned 'fight or flight', must come a sense of too much muscle, where you play the atomic bomb card rather than anything a tad less drastic.
Insofar as police reaction when talking to somebody sitting in a car, tension must be so high in a situation where the cop knows there's every chance that rather than a wallet he'll be shown a pistol, especially at night with poor light, that mistakes are accidents waiting to happen.
Possibly, correct reaction to being stopped by a patrolman might be included in the driving test - something as basic as always keep both hands on the wheel at five-to-one (or five past eleven, if your day is different), and never depart from that position until told to do so. Then do it very slowly and obviously.
Rob
-
Look, it isn't rocket science.
Port Arthur was a gut wrenching event. Two things happened. It was a tipping point. We banned all types of automatic weapons/handguns and the public said mass shootings are unacceptable. Since then there hasn't been a mass shooting in Australia. Lets face it, mass shootings happen very rarely in most advanced western countries.
In America you have 30,000+ gun deaths a year. Mass shootings in schools and drug related crimes happen regularly. What has to happen in America to stop this carnage. The result of Columbine and Sandy Hook was that gun sales went up, WTF.
More than 19,000 of the 31,000 deaths from guns in the United States in 2010 were suicides. Owning a gun is deadly.
It is extremely rare than an armed citizen stops a mass shooting.
As a teacher my mantra has been, "What works and what doesn't". Gun control works, lots of guns doesn't work". It isn't rocket science. Get rid of your guns and create a society where killing each other or yourself is unacceptable.
-
... It is extremely rare than an armed citizen stops a mass shooting....
-
I just like shooting... of BOTH* kinds :)
*photographs and bullets
-
What is your point?
Less than twenty occurrences over how many years? In the same time period there was probably up to 100,000 gun suicides. For most gun owners the real bad guy is in your head. Twenty odd occasions where it was good to have a gun versus 100,000 times when having a gun is a sure way to make sure you kill yourself. I'm glad you never taught me maths.
-
... the real bad guy is in your head....
Finally we agree on something.
It is what is in your HEAD, not what is in your HAND, that causes crime and suicides.
-
Finally we agree on something.
It is what is in your HEAD, not what is in your HAND, that causes crime and suicides.
Slobodan, now you're being a bit disingenuous: a knife is never going to slay eighty people at a concert whereas for a gun it's not a problem; that a bomb could do it too isn't the point: the point is civilian access to machine guns. Because two diseases can kill you does not mean you must stop trying to find solutions for both.
Bringing in comparisons between gun and car deaths, as some do attempting to prove a flawed red herring, is nonsense; nobods sets out to kill somebody else in a car; unless premeditated murder, it's not the purpose or function of a car. A gun, on the other hand, has no purpose or function beyond the delivery or threat of delivery of death.
If you like to kill animals for fun, as long as it's legal, you can buy the relevant weapon though it would be better if you could also hire one instead, with the correct licenses. If you are not a professional farmer, rancher or gamekeeper why would you need a hunting weapon full-time? If you want to fondle, buy a more expensive camera instead and imagine it a Victoria's Secret model. You don't need a hunting rifle in the city. If you enjoy target shooting, then simply hire at a gallery and never need to take a weapon anywhere outwith the area again.
Problem is, it's not really about self-defence, hunting, targets or anything else: it's the 'equalizer' effect that makes Mr Weed and Mr Slob feel themselves to be Captain America. Macho sucks. That's why more and more countries are finally electing women to positions of power. The era of the hero has passed; especially of the fake hero. No number or calibre of guns will make anyone the man they never were.
Rob
-
.
-
That is not true.
It's pretty much true. Intelligence is more or less normally distributed, the distribution is more or less symmetrical and the outliers are more or less the same on each side. Technically, Slobodan was referring to median rather than average (or mean) intelligence, but in this case there's precious little, if any, difference.
Jeremy
-
A few years ago a Scottish tourist got lost in Florida late at night. He knocked on someone's door to get advice. The person on the other side shot through the door without opening it and killed the tourist. No conviction of any kind happened. Can anyone explain why he didn't get jailed for manslaughter or murder?
-
Sounds like a rural legend, stamper. When did this supposedly happen and what did the investigation report?
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scot-is-shot-dead-when-mistaken-for-prowler-1398645.html
No legend Russ. It took me less than a minute to Google the incident.
-
... Can anyone explain why he didn't get jailed for manslaughter or murder?
As tragic as it was, there is a legal doctrine behind it: a castle law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine) (as in "my home is my castle"). Known also as "stand your ground" law, "make my day" law, etc. Specific provisions vary by state.
Having said that, and feeling really bad about what happened to the Scot, it is not quite normal that someone bangs loudly and drunkenly on one's BACK door at 5 a.m., in an area known for robberies that start with battering the back door first.
-
Slobodan's right. And I'd want more information than a blurb from the Independent before I'd come to any conclusions.
-
... There are numerous instances in which cops were verbally abused, yet kept their cool...
https://www.facebook.com/policelivesmater/videos/234206440270633/
-
A guy knocks on your door at a bad time, so it's ok to shoot him? Really?
A friend sent me this site on mapping violence (http://mappingpoliceviolence.org). There is no way for me to verify its accuracy, and I'm not going to try. The one stat I find interesting is that of the blacks killed by police, 1 out of 3 were un-armed and not committing a crime at the time of the shooting. Even if this is exaggerated by 100%, isn't it still worrying? Do you really think that's ok? Are you saying that it's more or less ok to shoot people if you think you have a more or less good reason? This is acceptable?
Everything is fine. Don't change a thing.
-
My brother committed suicide, it was a devastating act that brought about the breakdown of my family. As a teacher for twenty years plus my primary goal was to protect the children in my care and make sure that they were civil citizens and that they didn't harm themselves or others.
I've taught hundreds of refugee and migrant children in Sydney's western suburbs. I've seen how gun control and public education can be highly successful. I just despair that I keep on hearing about mass murders in America, particularly in schools.
Once again, "What does it take?".
-
... Are you saying that it's more or less ok to shoot people if you think you have a more or less good reason? This is acceptable?
Everything is fine. Don't change a thing.
It doesn't really matter what I am saying, it's the law. And it (the law) has nothing to do with police and guns. Police often get blamed for simply enforcing the law. You have a problem with the law, talk to politicians and legislators who pass it or interpret it (e.g., Supreme Court).
As for statistics, it is not whether it is accurate or not (and it often isn't). It is the interpretation of the stats that is the issue. You might quote numerous stats that blacks are disproportionally affected by the police, and those stats might be right, yet we will differ in what it means. You say it is racism, I say it is because blacks are disproportionally engaged in criminal activities.
Let see what Martin Luther King had to say about it in 1961:
“Do you know that Negroes are 10 percent of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of its crimes? We’ve got to face that. And we’ve got to do something about our moral standards,” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. told a congregation in 1961. “We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world, too. We can’t keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves.”
One particular statistic in the link you provided is especially indicative of the deliberate and gross misuse of stats. They claim there is no correlation between crime levels in a city and police killings, presumably meant to mean that if the crime in a city is relatively low compared to the killings, that police department is more racists. Chicago is a good example of that misuse of comparing apples and oranges (or in statistical parlance, different pool of data). Most police killings happen in the South Side, notorious for ghettos and gangs. And yet they use the overall crime rate for the whole city of Chicago (and often include safe suburbs) to compare to. If you would compare apples to apples, you'd compare very high crime rates in the South Side with police killings there.
For what it is worth, Chicago until very recently had very strict gun-control laws...didn't prevent it from becoming the murder capital of the U.S.A.
And yes, I would like to change a lot. Just not the superficial symptoms, but the underlying causes, poverty and unemployment.
-
My brother committed suicide...
My sincere condolences. May I ask how (i.e., with a gun or...)?
As for "what does it take," the answer is simple: create more decent-paying jobs to lift people of all colors from poverty. It would also help if politicians would stop pandering for votes, peddling victimhood theories, and inflaming racial tensions.
-
Once again, "What does it take?".
To quote max Planck:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
That is not so say gun control is a "new scientific truth" that will prevail when supporters of the gun ownership die; far from that. I for one do not know what's right for Americans. What I do know is that it's for them to decide. I do have my opinion, but it's... not strong enough to publicly defend it.
What I do know is that the issue is extremely complicated. Gun ownership is very big part of the American spirit. How much of it will go along with the right to carry guns? How much more tolerable will American citizens become to abuse of their other rights as a result? Restrictions creep from where general public sadly does not expect them... Like, allow girls that want to wear hijabs at schools do that (good thing to let people do what they want, right?), and next thing you know is girls that do not want to wear hijabs get stoned... PC could admittedly be an even better example here, but hope you got the idea.
-
I think if the ban was lifted from the CDC even studying gun-related deaths, that could be the beginning of a shift. The fact that they are banned from even looking at this from a statistical/clinical point of view means someone knows this is a problem and doesn't want that made public.
Once the evidence that smoking was a truly public health hazard was accepted as fact by the majority of people, a gradual shift began. I'm hoping the same might happen with firearms. Of course we still have smoking but it's not nearly as widespread as it once was when everyone was either ignorant of or in denial about its effects.
The Supreme Court should also clearly define what a "Well-regulated militia" is. I'm pretty sure it wasn't originally intended as everyone can have all the guns they want.
If people want their guns so they can exercise their right to fight the tyranny of our government, the are completely delusional. At best it will look like suicide by cop and at worst it will look like the recent shootings in Dallas.
-
As a teacher I was highly protective of the children in my care.
Being in a country that has 300,000,000 guns would be so $@#*ed.
Being in an environment with automatic assault rifles and high capacity hand guns available would be a nightmare.
But hey, America is the land of the free and…
-
My brother committed suicide, it was a devastating act that brought about the breakdown of my family. As a teacher for twenty years plus my primary goal was to protect the children in my care and make sure that they were civil citizens and that they didn't harm themselves or others.
My best friend, since the 4th grade, committed suicide with a Glock .40.
I still own a Glock .40.
As devastated I was to hear about it, and bawl my eyes out at his funeral, it was his mental illness that caused him to pull the trigger ... not any "quality" about the gun.
He stopped taking lithium ... and could have used any number of other ways to exit this world.
I've taught hundreds of refugee and migrant children in Sydney's western suburbs. I've seen how gun control and public education can be highly successful. I just despair that I keep on hearing about mass murders in America, particularly in schools.
Mass shootings in American schools come from many factors: 1) the fact there is no family unity, no guidance; 2) mothers work, fathers work, no one stays home with the kids to teach them values and provide direction; 3) everyone wants to be a "social media star" ... be on the news ... get their 15 minutes, etc.
Again, it falls back on Permissiveness, No Standards of Conduct, no Accountability.
Once again, "What does it take?".
A return back to family values.
Mothers staying at home with their own kids (instead of dropping them off to 'daycare centers');
Parents taking their roll as parents as the most serious job they have: raising productive adults, as opposed to "adult children" having sex and creating "children because they can."
Parents teaching their kids to value the physical world, their relationships with others, instead of ignoring their kids and let them stray far from reality into the twisted corridors of their own minds, disconnected from everything.
But, if the above isn't achieved, then what it will take are teachers also carrying, being trained in gun use, to quickly and effectively DOA any defective students who bring guns to school.
-
But, if the above isn't achieved, then what it will take are teachers also carrying, being trained in gun use, to quickly and effectively DOA any defective students who bring guns to school.
OMFG.
-
My earlier questions were not addressed to you specifically Slobodan, although the thread placement implied it. My mistake. By "you" I meant the "royal" you, it was a rhetorical flourish.
But to address one issue you raised, I seem to remember from somewhere that roughly 20% of blacks are involved in crime vs 10% of whites. This may be wrong, of course, but good luck figuring out what's true in this maelstrom. But if it is roughly true-ish, then it's hardly the case that a majority of crime is committed by African-Americans given that they are only 13% of the population. Although that might be the general perception since black crime is all anyone ever talks about. So then why are so many unarmed blacks males shot and killed while they are not committing crimes? It begs an answer. You imply that it may be because they are dis-proportionally involved in crime, although I fail to understand why that would explain why they are being shot so much. Are there a lot of white petty criminals being shot to death in what would ordinarily not be non-lethal interactions? If there aren't, why not?
In any case, I'm not expecting comprehensive answers to any of these questions. They're just my way of expressing dismay. The modern US state seems to be a place where lots of people want grade school teachers to pack heat and a place where it's ok (in some states) to blast and kill without cause a stranger ringing on your door. Is this really the kind of place people want to live in? And why all the fear? Is all of America such a dangerous place? If this keeps up, it will turn into a place that no one gives a damn about, a place not worth living in, it seems to me.
I understand that the "stand your ground" or "home is your castle" ideas are the law. But really, is this where you want to be? What's the upside?
Seems to me, imo, whatever the US is doing now, is not working. Whenever threads like this come up on this forum, we just get a microcosm of the same paralysis afflicting your governance structures.
But two good questions have come up? How many americans want control of firearms. We've heard from all the lobby groups already, but what do the people really want? And why is the CDC forbidden from examining gun questions? It's a bizarre state of affairs when the citizenry is not permitted to ask questions because of lobbying from some sectors of the economy.
-
....what it will take are teachers also carrying, being trained in gun use, to quickly and effectively DOA any defective students who bring use guns to in school.
There.
-
OMFG.
Sorry to alarm you.
Some people are born defective. No moral compass. No compassion for others. Same as some are born without legs, hands, or arms.
Physical defects are easier to spot than moral/mental defects, but make no mistake some folks come out with mental/moral amputations as well.
I bred dogs for 25 years. Bred and selected for temperament, among other things.
Never had a single dog bite anyone in a quarter-century, with specimens shipped all over the world. Again, standards.
On the flipside, I bought 2 different dogs, from another breeder. Both specimens from same breeding (but different litters). One was a puppy, the other 2 years old.
The two-year-old was night blind and people-mean. I put her down.
The puppy was raised as I raised hundreds of other pups ... love, socialization, affection ... and yet also grew-up people mean. Put him down as well.
Sometimes it's nurture, how they're raised, but sometimes individuals simply come-out ****ed up genetically.
So, yes, whether it is nature or nurture, a student who comes to school with a gun ... and starts opening fire ... needs to be taken out.
You can hide, you can debate the morality (which is how casualties pile-up) ... or you could take the ****er out and debate "why" he was like that later.
-
There.
Thanks for the correction.
-
My earlier questions were not addressed to you specifically Slobodan, although the thread placement implied it. My mistake. By "you" I meant the "royal" you, it was a rhetorical flourish....
Robert, no problem, I did not take it personally, as I often use the rhetorical "you" myself. And I think we managed to keep this thread reasonably civilized so far.
... But to address one issue you raised, I seem to remember from somewhere that roughly 20% of blacks are involved in crime vs 10% of whites. This may be wrong, of course, but good luck figuring out what's true in this maelstrom. But if it is roughly true-ish, then it's hardly the case that a majority of crime is committed by African-Americans given that they are only 13% of the population. Although that might be the general perception since black crime is all anyone ever talks about. So then why are so many unarmed blacks males shot and killed while they are not committing crimes? It begs an answer. You imply that it may be because they are dis-proportionally involved in crime, although I fail to understand why that would explain why they are being shot so much. Are there a lot of white petty criminals being shot to death in what would ordinarily not be non-lethal interactions? If there aren't, why not?...
Whatever the numbers, whether it is 2x or 7x (and I've seen that number too - that is why I use the term "disproportionally," to avoid squabbling about the exactness), the issue you raised (in bold) is rather a matter of wrong statistical aggregation, i.e., mixing wrong statistical pools of data. A lot is lost when things are looked at a sufficiently high level of abstraction (i.e., at the 13% of the population level). Crime is actually localized. As I mentioned before, it would be, for instance in Chicago, its south and west side. There, black-on-black crime probably approaches 80-90% of all crime in that area. That is where police is going and there is when killings happen. When police is faced with such a high level of expected violent resistance, mistakes happen and unarmed people get killed by accident. This also raises the issue that it is only after the fact established that they were unarmed. A slightest sign (to a police officer) that arms might be present would change their response, again in that area.
...Is this really the kind of place people want to live in?...
Apparently, as people are coming here in droves, legally and illegally. America lives in "ghettos" - "ghettos" for the rich (gated communities), "ghettos" for the middle class (suburbs and safe downtown areas), etc. And there it is safe.
... But two good questions have come up? How many americans want control of firearms. We've heard from all the lobby groups already, but what do the people really want?...
The consequence of long threads is that people do not read every page and every post. I already posted this before:
Since 1990, Gallup has been asking Americans whether they think gun control laws should be stricter.
The answer, increasingly, is that they don't.
"Less than half of Americans, 47%, say they favor stricter laws covering the sale of firearms, similar to views found last year," Gallup says. "But this percentage is significantly below the 58% recorded in 2012 after the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, spurred a nationwide debate about the possibility of more stringent gun control laws. Thirty-eight percent of Americans say these laws should be kept as they are now, and 14% say they should be made less strict."
Note that the support for stricter gun controls is trending down, not up, since 2000:
-
[...]That is where police is going and there is when killings happen. When police is faced with such a high level of expected violent resistance, mistakes happen and unarmed people get killed by accident. This also raises the issue that it is only after the fact established that they were unarmed. A slightest sign (to a police officer) that arms might be present would change their response, again in that area.
Hi Slobodan,
Again, then why not reduce the things that can be influenced? Too much of what I hear, and have experienced when I stayed with families and business professionals in the USA, is exactly in line with what I learned in a multiple day Cross-Cultural Skills training I took (because I have worked in 3 different countries for one company, it was a condition I posed before accepting the job).
Generalizing (I know...), Americans are tough on punishment (e.g. Capital punishment) but poor on prevention (and everything is commercialized, even the prison system is a business usually without incentive to re-socialize the inmates). Many also do not take criticism that well (unlike the British who learn to debate at a young age and elevate that into an art-form). Learning to solve differences through debate (or by using other non-lethal instruments), also reduces the need to use weapons to make a point, or vent frustration, or uphold law and order.
I remember the amazement (culture shock) from the local Police Department of a Central American city, when we explained that in the Netherlands we radio broadcast where and when the mobile speed cameras are active. "But then you won't catch the speeders, they said". We answered "Correct, because we do not want to write tickets, but we want people to drive more slowly and adhere to the legal limit" (which they do if they know they will be caught). Total shock.
But then, looking at what people get spoon-fed each day through television in the form of crime-'shows', sensationalist news reports, selective sponsoring e.g. by the huge gun lobby, video games, Weapons of Mass Destruction (not needed for terrorizing people, a knife and a beheading will do), etc., it comes as no surprise that people get a warped idea of reality, and uncertain people do the darnedest things. It also increases the risks for those officials who are given the legal power to uphold law.
Apparently, as people are coming here in droves, legally and illegally.
A cynic might ask, ... as a choice for the lesser of two evils, maybe?
Note that the support for stricter gun controls is trending down, not up, since 2000:
If that's the question asked in that Gallup poll, it's no surprise. Giving up rights is easier than getting them (back). So if the consequences are not laid out together with the question, the answer is predictable.
Since the possession of guns (not multiple guns per inhabitant, but the number of inhabitants/families), if I'm to believe the statistics, is also trending down over the last decades (for a variety of reasons), it's obviously also less of an issue to many whether or not law gets stricter. That's why statistics should be properly conducted, analyzed, and explained/commented on.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The Supreme Court should also clearly define what a "Well-regulated militia" is. I'm pretty sure it wasn't originally intended as everyone can have all the guns they want.
Matt, you might want to read The Federalist Papers, a collection of articles written by several of the fathers of our country. Here's Hamilton in Federalist #46 (I'm sure you know who he was): " Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
In other words, the people should be in a position under their states to launch another, hopefully bloodless revolution if the government becomes too oppressive. To do that they must be armed. Comparing what was happening under king George with what's happening under our present federal government it's clear we're awfully close to the time for people to stand up and say, "That's enough. Back off"
-
In other words, the people should be in a position under their states to launch another, hopefully bloodless revolution if the government becomes too oppressive.
Hi Russ,
And how are guns a benefit in that scenario????
It only increases the - shoot first, ask questions later - trigger happy attitude. As a deterrent? Not likely, states have more means than civilians anyway, so they do not even need arms to invade anyone's privacy or property or paralyze society, should they wish to.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... then why not reduce the things that can be influenced?...
Like what? Guns? Legal or illegal?
-
To say nothing of American history and American business.
- Colt Manufacturing Company LLC (http://www.colt.com)
545 New Park Ave.
West Hartford, CT 06110
Remington Arms Company, LLC (https://www.remington.com)
870 Remington Drive
Madison, NC 27025-0700
Smith & Wesson (https://www.smith-wesson.com)
2100 Roosevelt Avenue
Springfield, MA 01104
Winchester Repeating Arms (http://www.winchesterguns.com)
275 Winchester Avenue
Morgan, UT 84050
America gun manufacture has been the backbone of American culture and development.
The names, Colt, Remington, Smith & Wesson, and Winchester as American as "baseball" and "apple pie," if not more American.
-
In other words, the people should be in a position under their states to launch another, hopefully bloodless revolution if the government becomes too oppressive. To do that they must be armed. Comparing what was happening under king George with what's happening under our present federal government it's clear we're awfully close to the time for people to stand up and say, "That's enough. Back off"
Yes, I'm familiar with the Federalist Papers and they certainly had their place in history. While your interpretation may have been correct in the 1780's I don't think they really apply anymore. Are you claiming that all these privately owned firearms would be enough to challenge our federal armed forces? Or that their threat would convince the federal government to just accept what I'm pretty sure they would view as an act treason?
How would that look different from the Bundy/Malheur standoffs or the Dallas shooting?
-
Like what? Guns? Legal or illegal?
It's 'slightly' more complicated than that ;)
Cheers,
Bart
-
America gun manufacture has been the backbone of American culture and development.
OMFG
-
Yes, I'm familiar with the Federalist Papers and they certainly had their place in history. While your interpretation may have been correct in the 1780's I don't think they really apply anymore. Are you claiming that all these privately owned firearms would be enough to challenge our federal armed forces? Or that their threat would convince the federal government to just accept what I'm pretty sure they would view as an act treason?
How would that look different from the Bundy/Malheur standoffs or the Dallas shooting?
Well, Matt, I'm not saying the people would rise up and fight the U.S. military. In fact if they did that I'm quite sure the military wouldn't fight them. Don't forget the Posse Comitatus act. An order to shoot civilians would be an illegal order unless we were under martial law, but in any case our military isn't going to fight its own people, orders or no orders.
But the fact that people are armed -- more and more so under this president -- makes some of the crap our overlords are trying to pull more difficult, and in some cases impossible.
Remember, the Declaration of Independence was and act of treason. It's in our bones. When things get bad enough people in the U.S. fight back. I hope they'll do it politically, but from what happened between Hillary and Comey it's quite evident the system is rigged.
People are just plain pissed off. That's the only reason somebody like Trump can make any headway.
-
...How would that look different from the Bundy/Malheur standoffs or the Dallas shooting?
Scope.
-
... I remember the amazement (culture shock) from the local Police Department of a Central American city, when we explained that in the Netherlands we radio broadcast where and when the mobile speed cameras are active. "But then you won't catch the speeders, they said". We answered "Correct, because we do not want to write tickets, but we want people to drive more slowly and adhere to the legal limit" (which they do if they know they will be caught). Total shock...
There is a different explanation for what you perceived as a "culture shock." Many municipalities fund a significant portion of their budgets via traffic tickets, mostly as a result of the Bush tax cut. We might argue what is better, to pay 60% in income taxes (middle-class) like in Holland, which gives you the luxury of not having to fund your municipal taxes via traffic tickets, or reduce the tax burden on everyone and make it up from those who actually break the law.
-
There is a different explanation for what you perceived as a "culture shock." Many municipalities fund a significant portion of their budgets via traffic tickets, mostly as a result of the Bush tax cut. We might argue what is better, to pay 60% in income taxes (middle-class) like in Holland, which gives you the luxury of not having to fund your municipal taxes via traffic tickets, or reduce the tax burden on everyone and make it up from those who actually break the law.
It's still Culture shock. Different cultures solve (design systems) in different ways, sometimes with similar goals in mind. As we tend to say, there is more than 1 road that leads to Rome (referring to the Roman Empire).
BTW, income taxes are not (60%) as high as you suggest. There are for 2016 basically 3 tax brackets, 36.55% (low incomes) , 40.4% (middle income), and a maximum of 52% for the highest incomes. And most of that money comes back to society in the form of different benefits and job creation. And indeed, it takes out the (perverse) self-funding of Police officers, who personally benefit from writing tickets and confiscating property.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... BTW, income taxes are not (60%) as high as you suggest. There are for 2016 basically 3 tax brackets, 36.55% (low incomes) , 40.4% (middle income), and a maximum of 52% for the highest incomes.
Back in the 90s, I used to work for several American companies in Europe and had several Dutch colleagues. I remember the 60% from one of them, not as a income tax bracket, but as a totality of taxes he ultimately ends up paying in various forms from his paycheck.
-
Back in the 90s, I used to work for several American companies in Europe and had several Dutch colleagues. I remember the 60% from one of them, not as a income tax bracket, but as a totality of taxes he ultimately ends up paying in various forms from his paycheck.
Not all that important for the discussion, but it (income tax) used to be higher, but also with more deductibles. There are also constructions possible where much less tax is paid on an annual basis. And of course if one (as a private person) purchases lots of things, then one also pays a lot (in absolute amount) of VAT (which is lower for essential goods and services, and higher for more 'luxurious' items), but that's the same percentage for all income classes, and separate from income tax.
We need some of that to keep dry feet, with roughly 1/3rd of the country below sea-level. The taxes e.g. make sure that those on higher ground (highest 'mountain' is 323 metres above average sealevel), help to pay for those (most) living below sea level (lowest point 6,76 metres below average sea-level). Some call that socialism, I call it solidarity.
And while we are juggling statistics, on a scale of 10 the Netherlands scores a 9.0 which is an 8th position (a 7.3 score or 15th position for the USA) on the OECD Better Life (http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/life-satisfaction/) score, for Life Satisfaction. We're overall a pretty happy bunch, but not without (self-)criticism and topics needing improvement.
Cheers,
Bart
-
There you go:
No racial bias in police shootings, study by Harvard professor shows (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/11/no-racial-bias-police-shootings-study-harvard-prof/?
utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork)
A study by a (black) Harvard professor shows:
no evidence of racial bias in police shootings even though officers were more likely to interact physically with non-whites than whites
The 63-page study, “An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force,” appears to support research conducted at Washington State University showing that officers in simulation tests were actually less likely to shoot at blacks than whites.
...movements such as Black Lives Matter should seek solutions within their own communities rather than changing the behaviors of police and other external forces,” he said in the study’s conclusion.
-
But, if the above isn't achieved, then what it will take are teachers also carrying, being trained in gun use, to quickly and effectively DOA any defective students who bring guns to school.
Exactly, John. It's what I've been recommending ever since I read about Professor Liviu Librescu holding the door in his Virginia Tech classroom while most of his students escaped through the windows. Seung-Hui Cho shot him through the door and killed him (along with 31 others, including one of his students who didn't make it out the window). As far as I'm concerned, every professor should be required to carry a gun and qualify on the range at least once a year. Any professor who refuses to do this should be summarily fired -- at least until colleges and universities cease being "gun free zones."
The idea that you can create a gun free zone is shot in the head by shootings like Hungerford, UK in 1987, Sollies-Pont & Cuers, France in 1995, Zug, Switzerland in 2001, and more recently Cardiff, UK in 2012, Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands in 2011 (according to Bart a gun free country), Liege, Belgium in 2011, etc., etc., etc.
If you think you can eliminate guns and shootings without arming the people who can put a stop to them you're whistling Dixie.
-
Exactly, John. It's what I've been recommending ever since I read about Professor Liviu Librescu holding the door in his Virginia Tech classroom while most of his students escaped through the windows. Seung-Hui Cho shot him through the door and killed him (along with 31 others, including one of his students who didn't make it out the window). As far as I'm concerned, every professor should be required to carry a gun and qualify on the range at least once a year. Any professor who refuses to do this should be summarily fired -- at least until colleges and universities cease being "gun free zones."
The idea that you can create a gun free zone is shot in the head by shootings like Hungerford, UK in 1987, Sollies-Pont & Cuers, France in 1995, Zug, Switzerland in 2001, and more recently Cardiff, UK in 2012, Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands in 2011 (according to Bart a gun free country), Liege, Belgium in 2011, etc., etc., etc.
If you think you can eliminate guns and shootings without arming the people who can put a stop to them you're whistling Dixie.
I appreciate that you won't be able understand it when I note that it is that sort of idea that makes people outside of America despair of there ever being any sensible approach to gun possesion in the US, but I would urge you to try sometime.
-
The gun-free zones are an absolutely, mind-bogglingly, idiotic concept.
Unless there are metal detectors, manned by armed guards BEHIND a bullet proof glass, at the only entrance(s) into the zone, they are simply a paradise playground for an active, determined shooter. It is like leaving a big sign at your front door: "We are on a two-week vacation, please come in and help yourself."
-
every professor should be required to carry a gun and qualify on the range at least once a year. Any professor who refuses to do this should be summarily fired -
OMFG
And this in the Land of the Free.
So, no matter what, the solution to the gun problem is more guns?
Reminds me of a joke from the Cold War days. POTUS and the Soviet equivalent are standing, waist deep in gasoline in basement. In his pocket, POTUS has 200 strike-anywhere matches and the Soviet has 275. POTUS says, "Y'know what? If we both had 500 matches, then we'd all be safe."
-
I appreciate that you won't be able understand it when I note that it is that sort of idea that makes people outside of America despair of there ever being any sensible approach to gun possesion in the US, but I would urge you to try sometime.
When you have a "sensible approach to gun possession" then they just use baseball bats: "Man, 64, found slumped in armchair 'four days after he was beaten to death', murder trial hears" (In Edenderry, Ireland.) The problem's with the people, Justin, not the equipment. Same thing with photography.
-
When you have a "sensible approach to gun possession" then they just use baseball bats: "Man, 64, found slumped in armchair 'four days after he was beaten to death', murder trial hears" (In Edenderry, Ireland.) The problem's with the people, Justin, not the equipment. Same thing with photography.
Indeed, but if you were to wave a magic wand and change all the guns into baseball bats do you think the casualty rate from baseball bats would equal that from shootings RSL?
-
OMFG
And this in the Land of the Free.
So, no matter what, the solution to the gun problem is more guns?
Reminds me of a joke from the Cold War days. POTUS and the Soviet equivalent are standing, waist deep in gasoline in basement. In his pocket, POTUS has 200 strike-anywhere matches and the Soviet has 275. POTUS says, "Y'know what? If we both had 500 matches, then we'd all be safe."
Go back and read my post, Peter. Virginia Tech is a "gun free zone." How the hell did that guy get a gun into a gun free zone? There shouldn't have been a gun in there. After all, it was forbidden. Don't you agree?
-
Indeed, but if you were to wave a magic wand and change all the guns into baseball bats do you think the casualty rate from baseball bats would equal that from shootings RSL?
Actually, Justin, baseball bat, not gun, is the #1 crime weapon of choice in America.
-
Indeed, but if you were to wave a magic wand and change all the guns into baseball bats do you think the casualty rate from baseball bats would equal that from shootings RSL?
Point is, Justin, you can't wave a wand and eliminate guns or baseball bats or knives or any other kind of equipment that can kill. Go back and check what happened in Netherlands, which from what I'm being told in this thread, is a gun free zone. They waved their wands but it didn't get the job done.
-
The idea that you can create a gun free zone is shot in the head by shootings like [...] Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands in 2011 (according to Bart a gun free country)...
Not gun free, mostly no guns without license, and a few with license. Some criminals use guns, but mostly among themselves, not that that can be tolerated. The police carry guns, as do forest rangers and a small group of hunters, and some licensed individuals who keep their guns for target practice at the clubhouse in a safe. Yes we occasionally (this was 5 years ago) get a deranged person that does crazy things. This person was mentally ill, and a flawed police check unjustly granted him a gun license in a target/sports shooting club. The procedure for license checks has been improved as a result.
BTW, gun free as you suggest, is not the same as; it's illegal to have a gun without license. And a few do have a license, and some lose that license because they fail the tests/conditions. So we rarely have incidents between law enforcement and normal citizens, or between citizens, that involves guns.
Cheers,
Bart
-
You just made my point, Bart.
-
Actually, Justin, baseball bat, not gun, is the #1 crime weapon of choice in America.
Ah, but in 2011 496 homicides were carried out with 'blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)' as opposed to 8,583 by firearms.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
-
Ah, but in 2011 496 homicides ...
That is why I said "crime," not "homicides."
-
Point is, Justin, you can't wave a wand and eliminate guns or baseball bats or knives or any other kind of equipment that can kill. Go back and check what happened in Netherlands, which from what I'm being told in this thread, is a gun free zone. They waved their wands but it didn't get the job done.
No, the point was that gun's make killing easier, you'd hardly likely to slaughter as many children in an infants school if you went in waving a baseball bat around.
The Netherlands has 4 guns per 100 people rather than 112 in America and the death rate by firearms in the Netherlands is o.58 per 100,000 people as opposed to 10.54 in the states.
These things are quite easy to look up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
-
You just made my point, Bart.
I have trouble detecting a point that makes sense, unless your point was that with lower gun possession one gets fewer gun related incidents. Yes, we do have (vastly) fewer incidents, in fact basically all countries have fewer gun deaths pro capita than in the USA. I wouldn't be proud of such a number one position.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Justin, please do not compare countries the size and population of a postage stamp with America (no offense meant, I love Holland). Holland and similar countries are small, with homogenous population, with same or similar work ethic, ethnic background and religion.
-
That is why I said "crime," not "homicides."
Aye, but the point being made was about deaths from various weapons.
-
Justin, please do not compare countries the size and population of a postage stamp with America (no offense meant, I love Holland). Holland and similar countries are small, with homogenous population, with same or similar work ethic, ethnic background and religion.
This was a point I was going to make earlier, we often speak of Americans as being all the same but it is a huge and diverse population which is a mistake and I for one appreciate that which is why I have couched my comments in terms of America as a country rather than Americans as individuals.
Anyhow, it wasn't me that brought the Netherlands into the conversation.
-
I have trouble detecting a point that makes sense, unless your point was that with lower gun possession one gets fewer gun related incidents. Yes, we do have (vastly) fewer incidents, in fact basically all countries have fewer gun deaths pro capita than in the USA. I wouldn't be proud of such a number one position.
Cheers,
Bart
I realize you have the kind of trouble, Bart. Better re-read what I said and then what you said.
-
Justin, please do not compare countries the size and population of a postage stamp with America (no offense meant, I love Holland). Holland and similar countries are small, with homogenous population, with same or similar work ethic, ethnic background and religion.
The Irish came; the Germans came; the Italians came; many others came. They integrated, sometimes with difficulty, and became part of the American culture. In the thirties, forties, and fifties most people outside cities had guns, but the murder rate was relatively low. For many years now we've had people coming who refuse to integrate. And of course the murder rate climbs. Keep watching the murder rate in European countries with a Muslim influx.
-
The Irish came; the Germans came; the Italians came; many others came. They integrated, sometimes with difficulty, and became part of the American culture. In the thirties, forties, and fifties most people outside cities had guns, but the murder rate was relatively low. For many years now we've had people coming who refuse to integrate. And of course the murder rate climbs. Keep watching the murder rate in European countries with a Muslim influx.
Much the same as the Netherlands really -
According to Eurostat, in 2010 there were 1.8 million foreign-born residents in the Netherlands, corresponding to 11.1% of the total population. Of these, 1.4 million (8.5%) were born outside the EU and 0.428 million (2.6%) were born in another EU Member State.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Netherlands
The figure for America is 12.9% https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pdf/cspan_fb_slides.pdf
-
Aye, but the point being made was about deaths from various weapons.
The Virginia Tech attack is the deadliest mass shooting incident in American history (before Orlando - 49 dead): 32 dead
At least 50 people died in an attack last month at a coalmine in China (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/01/at-least-50-reported-dead-in-september-attack-as-china-celebrates-xinjiang) - the weapon? - knives
-
The Virginia Tech attack is the deadliest mass shooting incident in American history (before Orlando - 49 dead): 32 dead
At least 50 people died in an attack last month at a coalmine in China (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/01/at-least-50-reported-dead-in-september-attack-as-china-celebrates-xinjiang) - the weapon? - knives
Come come Slobodan, earlier you were chiding me for comparing the Netherlands with the US and now you are holding up under the same light a politically motivated gang/army of activists with a lone gunman who had experienced psychiatric problems in his youth!
-
Justin, please do not compare countries the size and population of a postage stamp with America (no offense meant, I love Holland). Holland and similar countries are small, with homogenous population, with same or similar work ethic, ethnic background and religion.
Don't let size fool you, we are only a few positions (9th USA — GNP pro capita: $57,04513 and 13th Netherlands — GNP pro capita: $48,797) behind the USA on the list of wealthiest economies in the world. Other sources put the Netherlands on the 6th position of wealthiest countries of the world (depending on what's included, such as pension reserves). Also, as a country that depends on its international trade, we have a very diverse population with many ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
As for homogeneity, a recent study shows that our largest city Amsterdam (only 800,000 inhabitants) counts some 178 different registered nationalities (New York counts some 150 nationalities on a population of 9.5 million), our second largest city Rotterdam (only 600,000 inhabitants) counts some 173 different registered nationalities. Sure there are some tensions, as in any such densely packed society.
But then that's all very much off topic for this thread, just wanted to correct some facts and suggestions.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Come come Slobodan, earlier you were chiding me for comparing the Netherlands with the US and now you are holding up under the same light a politically motivated gang/army of activists with a lone gunman who had experienced psychiatric problems in his youth!
I thought we were debating weapons, not minds? Since the OP subject is mass murders, and the premise is that without guns there wouldn't be that many casualties, I was just proving otherwise.
But if you want to bring in mentally ill, how about this: "A series of uncoordinated mass stabbings, hammer attacks, and cleaver attacks in the People's Republic of China began in March 2010. The spate of attacks left at least 25 dead and some 115 injured. "
Most of the victims were school children, even kindergarteners.
-
... As for homogeneity, a recent study shows that our largest city Amsterdam (only 800,000 inhabitants) counts some 178 different registered nationalities...
Ah, the usual misuse of stats. Those 178 are not equally distributed, are they? So that each nationality represents 0.56% of the overall population? In other words, in the city of Amsterdam, there are 4,480 Serbs and also 4,480 native Dutch?
-
Ah, the usual misuse of stats. Those 178 are not equally distributed, are they? So that each nationality represents 0.56% of the overall population? In other words, in the city of Amsterdam, there are 4,480 Serbs and also 4,480 native Dutch?
I'm sure you've checked the stats for e.g. New York or other large cities, or do you want me to do that for you? Smokescreens tickle my curiosity ... ;)
Cheers,
Bart
-
... nobody sets out to kill somebody else in a car...
"... a truck drove into a large crowd during Bastille Day celebrations Thursday night, officials said. A local official told French TV there were "about 30 73 dead."
No machine gun needed.
-
"... a truck drove into a large crowd during Bastille Day celebrations Thursday night, officials said. A local official told French TV there were "about 30 dead."
No machine gun needed.
A witness has told the Associated Press that he saw the truck driver emerge from the vehicle with a gun and start shooting after ploughing into the crowd.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/14/nice-bastille-day-france-attack-promenade-des-anglais-vehicle
But lets not go trying to score points off such a terrible tragedy eh.
-
A witness has told the Associated Press that he saw the truck driver emerge from the vehicle with a gun and start shooting after ploughing into the crowd....
Preliminary information from French officials is that there was one individual in the truck, according to a U.S. law enforcement official briefed on the attack. The individual, a male, was killed by police and it does not appear there was any gunfire from the truck, according to the official.
Too early to know the exact details, but it doesn't change my point that determined individuals, terrorists or lunatics, do not necessarily need guns.
-
For many years now we've had people coming who refuse to integrate. And of course the murder rate climbs.
OMFG.
"of course" ? Really?
-
OMFG...
Will you please stop with this profanity? This was a reasonably civilized thread so far.
-
Will you please stop with this profanity? This was a reasonably civilized thread so far.
I agree, OMG (in a metaphorical sense) would have been enough.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Dallas massacre (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437642/dallas-massacre-police-heroes-black-lives-matter)
What does it take for Americans to see that their gun laws are f**ked up?
Depressed,
This was the quote that began this thread. Okay, so what are the gun laws like in France? Pretty tough right?
What can you say now? What does it take for the French to see that their white freight truck laws are f**ked up?
See, it doesn't make sense. When people want to murder you they'll use whatever comes to hand.
Maybe instead of blaming the victims we can see what the killers have in common. And then act accordingly.
-
Will you please stop with this profanity?
So sorry to have offended your tender ears.
Some of the opinions expressed here are far more profane in my opinion.
-
Too early to know the exact details, but it doesn't change my point that determined individuals, terrorists or lunatics, do not necessarily need guns.
I never said they did, only that access to them makes their task easier, their killing sprees more deadly and probably more likely. At the end of a shooting many turn the gun upon themselves so as not to have to face the consequences, has there ever been a recorded incidence of somebody beating themselves to death with a baseball bat?
-
What France needs now is stricter truck laws. Truck free zones probably would help.
-
"Quote from: Rob C on July 12, 2016, 02:30:10 PM
... nobody sets out to kill somebody else in a car..."
"... a truck drove into a large crowd during Bastille Day celebrations Thursday night, officials said. A local official told French TV there were "about 30 73 dead."
No machine gun needed.
"Bringing in comparisons between gun and car deaths, as some do attempting to prove a flawed red herring, is nonsense; nobods sets out to kill somebody else in a car; unless premeditated murder, it's not the purpose or function of a car. A gun, on the other hand, has no purpose or function beyond the delivery or threat of delivery of death."
Slobodan, you quoted part of my paragraph, leaving out the critical element that made my point. I redo it, the omitted part, in bold, just to help clarify.
Rob
-
... the premise is that without guns there wouldn't be that many casualties, I was just proving otherwise.
So, Slobodan, what's your response to the Australian experience in this regard?
-
What France needs now is stricter truck laws. Truck free zones probably would help.
Actually it may not be with laws, but I would be surprised if they didn't take some kind of action to help prevent this in the future. Probably a physical barrier like barricades. It's only logical that when someone does something like this that people try to make it harder in the future.
Trucks, guns, knives, whatever.
-
What France needs now is stricter truck laws. Truck free zones probably would help.
I find this a pretty sick, cynical and tasteless joke given what happened last night in Nice, especially given the opinion you have on stricter gun laws in the US.
-
"Bringing in comparisons between gun and car deaths, as some do attempting to prove a flawed red herring, is nonsense; nobods sets out to kill somebody else in a car; unless premeditated murder, it's not the purpose or function of a car. A gun, on the other hand, has no purpose or function beyond the delivery or threat of delivery of death."
Slobodan, you quoted part of my paragraph, leaving out the critical element that made my point. I redo it, the omitted part, in bold, just to help clarify.
Rob
I know Rob, I did it on purpose, as I was planning to respond separately to exactly that part of your quote that is now in bold at some point.
So, it is about "original purpose or function." My answer to that is: "So what?" You (rhetorical you) tend to focus on purpose, I tend to focus on the ultimate use. Baseball bat is #1 weapon of choice in America in committing crimes, which was certainly not the original purpose or function.
On the other hand, if legitimately owned guns are used only between 3% and 11% for crime, does it really matter what was the intended purpose? Yes, they are designed to kill, but the vast majority (of legal guns) are not used that way. While some other things, not designed to kill, end up being used, quite efficiently, for that: fertilizers, pressure cookers, cardboard knives, cars, trucks, etc.
-
So, Slobodan, what's your response to the Australian experience in this regard?
I do not know much about Australia, Peter. My point is that it is not easy to transplant what works in one country to another. Especially when they are so different in size, history, and culture. One thing that comes to mind though is that, being an island, thousands of miles from the nearest shores, it seems more difficult to smuggle arms into.
Another thing that sets America apart is its role in the world affairs. For better or worse, it is very engaged and powerful, thus provoking resentment and strong response. Something that can't be said for Australia. Until recently. If I am not mistaken, Islamic radicals are starting to target Australia too and already had several attacks and/or attempts. And they do not necessarily need guns for that.
-
According to a StatsCan report from 2012 – the most recent year available – the U.S. suffered a total of 8,813 murders involving the use of firearms that year. Canada, in the same year, recorded just 172 firearms-related homicides.
“When looking at firearm-related homicide rates in comparable countries, Canada’s rate is about seven times lower than that of the United States (3.5 per 100,000 population), although it is higher than several other peer countries. While Canada’s firearm-related homicide rate is similar to those in Ireland and Switzerland, it is significantly higher than the rates in Japan (0.01 per 100,000 population) and the United Kingdom (0.06 per 100,000 population),” states StatsCan’s findings
-
What France needs now is stricter truck laws. Truck free zones probably would help.
Having just come back from a bike trip to Brittany I can assure you that France already does have many village and town centres with a 3.5 tonne limit.
-
I do not know much about Australia, Peter. My point is that it is not easy to transplant what works in one country to another. Especially when they are so different in size, history, and culture.
I disagree. In fact, they're very similar in many respects in size, history and culture. Their population is less, and the physical geography differs significantly, but culturally, not so much. Have you been to Australia?
One thing that comes to mind though is that, being an island, thousands of miles from the nearest shores, it seems more difficult to smuggle arms into.
Largely irrelevant in my view, since many guns in the US aren't imported. American culture revolves around guns and Americans love their Colts and Smith and Wessons, someone said here recently, provoking angst.
Another thing that sets America apart is its role in the world affairs. For better or worse, it is very engaged and powerful, thus provoking resentment and strong response. Something that can't be said for Australia. Until recently. If I am not mistaken, Islamic radicals are starting to target Australia too and already had several attacks and/or attempts. And they do not necessarily need guns for that.
Again, irrelevant. Americans aren't shooting each other because America is a world power. Several mass shootings were by American citizens with no connection to Islam.
I'm surprised that you're unaware of the Australian experience with gun laws.
Briefly: Following several mass shooting incidents, the Australian government of the day invoked draconian laws on who could own firearms. To eliminate the existing stock of firearms already in the possession of the citizenry, they bought them all, at a one-time cost of $500 million dollars. A bold and effective move.
Guess what happened to gun-related crime, murders and suicides by firearms?
Pasted from Wikipedia:
Following the National Agreement on Firearms, the number of deaths by firearms in Australia, initially declined slowly. Overall homicides immediately after, saw a decrease of less than one per 100,000 persons. Over the medium term homicide by firearm dropped from 1/200,000 to 1/670,000.[28]
Between 2010-2014, gun related homicides across all of Australia had dropped to 30-40 per year. Firearms in 2014 were used in less than 15% of homicides, less than 0.1% of sexual assaults, less than 6% of kidnapping/abductions and 8% of robberies.[29]
Since the 1996 legislation the risk of dying by gunshots was reduced by 50% in the following years and stayed on that lower level since then. The rate of gun related suicide was greatly reduced as well.[27] In 2010, a study reported a 59% decrease in firearm homicides in Australia between 1995 and 2006 (0.37 per 100,000 people in 1995 to 0.15 per 100,000 people in 2006). They also reported that the non-firearm homicides fell by the same rate. The decreasing rate for homicide with a firearm was a continuation of a pre-existing decline prior to the 1996 reforms, and several analyses of these trends have been conducted and claimed that the reforms have had a statistically insignificant effect on homicide rates with a firearm .[30]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia
-
Talking about nutters with guns, some come in uniform -
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/13/body-camera-footage-released-dylan-noble-police-shooting
-
I find this a pretty sick, cynical and tasteless joke given what happened last night in Nice, especially given the opinion you have on stricter gun laws in the US.
Why is that, Pieter? Is it because truck murders just demonstrated that removing guns from a society and making it impossible to procure them won't keep people from murdering people? The truck made my point. You seem to be incapable of seeing what's absurdly obvious.
-
Why is that, Pieter? Is it because truck murders just demonstrated that removing guns from a society and making it impossible to procure them won't keep people from murdering people? The truck made my point. You seem to be incapable of seeing what's absurdly obvious.
Russ,
The sick absurdity is in your suggestion that trucks, like guns, are built to kill people (instead of transporting goods).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Really Bart? Is that why almost every farm and ranch -- at least in the US -- has at least one rifle and one shotgun? How about knives? How about axes? Are they designed to kill people? You're staring into your blind spot my friend. That particular truck was designed to kill people, and it was a hell of a lot more effective than most guns.
I still laugh at the cartoon of the murderer standing in the shadows, his gun on the ground, and the TV reporter holding his microphone out to the gun and asking why it did it. You could have been that reporter.
-
Why is that, Pieter? Is it because truck murders just demonstrated that removing guns from a society and making it impossible to procure them won't keep people from murdering people? The truck made my point. You seem to be incapable of seeing what's absurdly obvious.
No Russ, that's not my point, I thought you were smarter than that. I'm just reacting to what I find a crude and tasteless joke over the backs of too many innocent killed and wounded victims. You can read this whole thread and I have never claimed that taking away guns will stop murdering of people, so don't put words in my mouth that I never said.
-
"Bringing in comparisons between gun and car deaths, as some do attempting to prove a flawed red herring, is nonsense; nobods sets out to kill somebody else in a car; unless premeditated murder, it's not the purpose or function of a car. A gun, on the other hand, has no purpose or function beyond the delivery or threat of delivery of death."
Russ,
The sick absurdity is in your suggestion that trucks, like guns, are built to kill people (instead of transporting goods).
Cheers,
Bart
Guns can kill any number of things, not just people.
Hate to break the news to you, but the ability to kill something, quickly and efficiently, is a useful function.
If you need to eat, or if you need to protect yourself from getting killed, it is good to have immediate access to a firearm.
That people abuse these tools does not limit or negate their usefulness; it only underscores the need to be prepared yourself.
And how about when you're outside of cell phone range?
I have carried pretty much every time I've gone to a remote place to hike, but have never shot anyone or anything.
However, if a mountain lion or bear were to come after me, it's nice to be armed. Likewise, if I ever encountered a group of thugs who wanted to harm me or take my property, it's nice to know that I am armed.
Never had either of those things happen, but am glad I am prepared for it, should the need arise, thanks to the laws of our nation that allow me to "keep and bear arms."
I also don't remember anybody answering my question a few pages back: what would you rather have right next to you, if your home were invaded, a phone or a gun? :o
It's amazing how so many people want to be sheep ... weaponless, defenseless ... and think this world would be "safe" if law-abiding citizens could no longer own guns.
On the contrary, it would be more dangerous.
-
... and think this world would be "safe" if law-abiding citizens could no longer own guns.
On the contrary, it would be more dangerous.
That's an opinion, not a fact.
With regard to guns, urban Canada, with strict gun laws, is demonstrably a far safer place to live than urban America.
With regard to EXurban situations: We have far more life-threatening wildlife in Canada than does America. The best firearm to defend yourself in the wild when challenged by a large animal is a shotgun. Enormous firepower and no skill required.
But I'll bet you don't "carry" a shotgun on your hikes.
-
Peter, aren't you the guy who said, "OMG," 3 posts in a row, soiling yourself at the talk of weapons?
And now you're speaking as an expert ;)
That's an opinion, not a fact.
No, it's a fact. Having a gun is better than not having a gun, if you need a gun.
That is not a matter of "opinion," it is a matter of fact.
With regard to guns, urban Canada, with strict gun laws, is demonstrably a far safer place to live than urban America.
Canada doesn't have the testosterone of the US, nor the diversity, nor the history of slavery, nor the inundation with other 3rd world influences.
Canada has "some" diversity, but nowhere near the complicated history of America.
It's comparing apples to oranges.
With regard to EXurban situations: We have far more life-threatening wildlife in Canada than does America.
That is your opinion, not fact.
The FACT is, the largest, most dangerous bears in the world are in Alaska, which (if memory serves) is part of the USA, not Canada.
Mountain lions are also far more prevalent in the US than Canada.
A standard brown bear in Montana is the same as a brown bear in Canada. Same with moose; same with elk.
The best firearm to defend yourself in the wild when challenged by a large animal is a shotgun. Enormous firepower and no skill required.
But I'll bet you don't "carry" a shotgun on your hikes.
The best what? I'm sorry, say that again?
The best what?
Oh, FIREARM. You mean those things you soiled yourself over and sought to abolish, right? ::)
Let me tell you something pal.
What I carry doesn't need to be "the best," it only needs to work.
I can truthfully-promise you that a Glock .40 with Federal 157-grain Hydra-Shok rounds has the highest-percentage 1-shot stop (92%) record of any pistol round made. And with 2 extra clips on my belt, I am feeling pretty safe ;)
Now, it may not carry the wallop of a shotgun round, but it is quicker, easier to carry, and easier to access than a shotgun on a hike, being on my hip and not slung over my shoulder as I carry a tripod and camera.
You would realize all this, if you actually had any experience. Shotguns are for home defense, genius, not to be carried on a hike with photography gear.
Jack
PS: Please also note that either option is better than no option, and can only exist in a free society where you're allowed to keep and bear arms 8)
-
Peter, aren't you the guy who said, "OMG," 3 posts in a row, soiling yourself at the talk of weapons?
Actually, I said OMFG. But it offended Slobodan, so I stopped using it. I stand by my sentiment, though.
And now you're speaking as an expert ;)
If you're speaking of firearms, I am no such thing. I just read the news.
Canada doesn't have the testosterone of the US, nor the diversity, nor the history of slavery, nor the inundation with other 3rd world influences.
I won't even touch any of that.
The FACT is, the largest, most dangerous bears in the world are in Alaska, which (if memory serves) is part of the USA, not Canada.
Mountain lions are also far more prevalent in the US than Canada.
A standard brown bear in Montana is the same as a brown bear in Canada. Same with moose; same with elk.
I'd love to see some attributions to those statements. "Our grizzlies are bigger than your grizzlies" Really?
Let me tell you something pal.
Nice talk. Must be that American testosterone you were referring to.
This has degenerated quickly and unfortuntely into incivility.
We're done.
-
Actually, I said OMFG. But it offended Slobodan, so I stopped using it. I stand by my sentiment, though.
It was both alarmist and profane.
If you're speaking of firearms, I am no such thing. I just read the news.
I could tell ;)
I won't even touch any of that.
Nor can you.
I'd love to see some attributions to those statements. "Our grizzlies are bigger than your grizzlies" Really?
Yes, really.
The record brown bear and polar bear sizes are Alaskan, not Canadian.
Nice talk. Must be that American testosterone you were referring to.
Must be.
This has degenerated quickly and unfortuntely into incivility.
I am pretty sure your OMFG started that ... but go ahead and bury your head in the sand if you like.
This has degenerated quickly and unfortuntely into incivility.
We're done.
Are you trying to say your OMFG responses were either civil or rational?
It's okay if "we're done," so long as you promise not to say anything which only reveals your own ignorance, lack of familiarity with guns, as well as lack of familiarity with record sizes in both polar and brown bears.
Have a great weekend,
Jack
PS: I like shotguns too, and agree with you on home-defense. This (http://www.benelliusa.com/m4-tactical-shotgun) bad boy is under my bed, whilst my Glock is on my night stand ;)
-
Record Kodiak Bear (https://www.boone-crockett.org/bgrecords/worldrecordsdetail.asp?area=bgrecords&type=skulls) (Alaska)
Record Polar Bear (https://www.boone-crockett.org/bgrecords/worldrecordsdetail.asp?area=bgrecords&type=skulls) (Alaska)
Record Grizzly Bear (https://www.boone-crockett.org/bgrecords/worldrecordsdetail.asp?area=bgrecords&type=skulls) (Alaska)
Record Black Bear (https://www.boone-crockett.org/bgrecords/worldrecordsdetail.asp?area=bgrecords&type=skulls) (Utah)
Record Mountain Lion (https://www.boone-crockett.org/bgrecords/worldrecordsdetail.asp?area=bgrecords&type=skulls) (Canada)
Record Wolf (http://www.enkivillage.com/largest-wolf.html) (Canada)
Record Moose (https://www.boone-crockett.org/bgRecords/WorldRecordsDetail.asp?area=bgRecords&type=MOOSE) (Alaska)
Record Elk (http://www.boone-crockett.org/bgRecords/WorldRecords.asp?area=bgRecords) (Utah)
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rgJ3Tq8OLGM/TYjGr65wYbI/AAAAAAAAD9M/_m3gUqj9IZI/s1600/homicides-per-100000-by-method-us-canada-demographic-similar-2006-all.png)
It would appear that Canadians have merely substituted stabing and clubbing for firearms as a percentage of the total homicide rate, per nation.
Rand
-
My original post was "What does it take?"
It was partly about gun control which has worked very well in Australia to prevent mass shootings, murders and suicides.
It was also about that tipping point where a society realises that things aren't working and does all it can to make things work for the better!
Cheers,
-
And here's an interesting statistic from Australia:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-ZwV97qD/0/L/i-ZwV97qD-L.jpg)
As I said earlier, it is, in my view, more about the evil that mankind does, and the erosion of moral consensus.
Rand
-
And here's an interesting statistic from Australia:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-ZwV97qD/0/L/i-ZwV97qD-L.jpg)
As I said earlier, it is, in my view, more about the evil that mankind does, and the erosion of moral consensus.
Hi Rand,
Although it's just one source of information (I have not verified against others, or more recent stats), there is an additional interesting aspect it shows.
Apparently, people who do kill or commit a crime (most don't) will use the closest thing at hand to commit that e.g. homicide. I suppose (don't know if statistics are available) that the number of knifes available, dwarfs the number of guns available ..., yet a disproportionately lower number of those available potential 'weapons' seems to be used to actually kill someone (else). And all those knifes do not seem to merely replace the reduced availability of guns as a weapon of choice.
So availability alone seems to not explain the number of casualties (as we already knew from other countries), but it's just harder to kill several dozens of people with a knife than with an automatic weapon (or accidentally kill someone else), which helped the drop in the gun related homicides.
There does seem to be something wrong with the people and their political/social system if one nation on our planet thinks that guns are a solution to everything, despite the unmatched amount of killing it generates.
We should be careful to directly apply those statistics to other countries/cultures (without corrections for local differences), because we do know (from their specific statistics) that in the USA a disproportionate number of gun violence takes place (see the PostScriptum I've added at the end of this post). That's not only because of the availability (and resulting accidents), but also due to other (social) factors. So statistics that show a ratio between gun vs knife killings in the USA itself should also be educational.
Anyway, in Australia is seems to help to reduce the number of guns that are in free circulation, and people do not really pick another alternative to do the same thing. Maybe they just woke up to their prior insane behavior. Congratulations.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4863
Figure 7. on page 6 of the PDF confirms also in the USA, a disproportionate number of firearm related homicides compared to the much more abundantly available knifes (and blunt objects) as weapon of choice.
-
An interesting read: Arms by A.J. Somerset (https://www.amazon.com/Arms-Culture-Credo-J-Somerset/dp/1771960280)
-
I like shotguns too, and agree with you on home-defense. This (http://www.benelliusa.com/m4-tactical-shotgun) bad boy is under my bed, whilst my Glock is on my night stand ;)
Interestingly, the M4 costs exactly the same as D500 and they both fit under the bed. However, once the initial purchase is made, D500 is less expensive to operate.
-
Interestingly, the M4 costs exactly the same as D500 and they both fit under the bed. However, once the initial purchase is made, D500 is less expensive to operate.
Ha, and I bet he shoots with that D500 more often than he needs to use a firearm to provide a meal, or protect from getting killed (especially by a wild animal)... So overall, a much better deal. ;)
While guns are only one of the various issues that are involved in these tragedies, I still find this type of comparison (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/194/rate_of_all_gun_deaths_per_100_000_people/10,18,31,50,65,66,69,86,91,105,125,128,136,148,149,172,192,11) very telling that something is rotten. Maybe it's in the water that people drink ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
I'm given to the belief that you could largely blame the shops, or, rather, those who run 'em.
In the goode olde days, when men worked and women stayed at home bringing up the family, keeping the home fire burning (presumably only in winter) and the food natural, there was fairly full employment, fewer prisons existed and there was always room within them for those in need of a socially-sponsored vacation.
And hire-purchase didn't exist.
Then things began to change. Buying stuff you couldn't really afford became the norm: everybody got into debt to some degree; women then had to find work in order to rescue the family and keep the bailiffs away; men began to find themselves in competition with women in the workplace and that tended to keep wages down. Other men became afraid of the women who turned out to be more intelligent than they were, and unnatural workplace sexual competiton became a sour note undermining society.
The more women who worked, the greater the stock of working people grew. In one sense more money was being circulated, and so came the opportunity to sell more and raise prices down the ever-lengthening distribution chain to meet the new incomes available for the milking.
Nobody stayed at home anymore - they discovered they couldn't afford to - and so other people found jobs looking after the kids who would otherwise be abandoned, alone with a glass of milk, a sandwich and a tv set. That paying for these minders took away so much of what the newly working spouse could earn didn't seem to be noticed...
Just like the fucking guns, then: the more you have the more intractable the situation becomes. Norman Rockwell wasn't popular by accident: he touched upon the happy lifestyle that almost everybody wanted to have. And they still do, only their own greed and that of those who pander to their appetites has denied it to them. You get what you sow.
Just think: had the attempted and typically Turkish delight - aka coup d'état - happened but a month ago, we'd probably, as Brits, still have the entire European continent ours for the enjoyment of, imminent travelling bogeymen driven far from popular myth and fear.
As I mentioned, reaping and sowing follow an impartial, immutable natural rhythm.
The record crowds of tourists filling the port make me happy to live a klick from the sea. The sewerage system is holding up locally, but appears a little enthusiastic closer to the beach! Happy days! Aren't blue flags reassuringly deceitful?
Rob C
-
Everyone I know has a firearm. Many of us are army veterans or hunters. How many of the people I know have harmed another person with a gun? Zero. Why? Because we're good people (is it wrong to say that?). Something to think about. Yes, it's easy to say that it's a people problem, not a gun problem...but it's absolutely true. People in all parts of the world find ways to murder each other even if they don't have access to a gun. Also, many people in the world find themselves oppressed by their own pot-bellied dictators because they have no way to defend themselves and their liberty. Think about the reason why the millions of us that own guns have never use them improperly and you'll know the reason for the gun violence and who's responsible. One one side, you have hard-working honest people who just want to enjoy life, be prosperous, live in peace and be left alone and those people would never ever have a thought of shooting another human being except in self defense. One the other side, you have mentally ill people (yes there are many cases of mentally ill people causing deaths by gun) and lazy, corrupt, criminal-minded people who cause problems for the rest of us. Those people are a burden to society and there's really no place for them in a civilized, peaceful society/republic/democracy.
-
While guns are only one of the various issues that are involved in these tragedies, I still find this type of comparison (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/194/rate_of_all_gun_deaths_per_100_000_people/10,18,31,50,65,66,69,86,91,105,125,128,136,148,149,172,192,11) very telling that something is rotten. Maybe it's in the water that people drink ...
Cheers,
Bart
It's a very misleading chart, Bart, and if you don't know that you should. I suspect you do. The most obvious error is that the chart doesn't deal with murders. It deals with "gun deaths," deliberately implying that gun deaths are murders. To have any meaning you'd have to remove suicides from the chart, along with proper self-defense deaths, plus a few other categories I haven't time at the moment to research.
So how DO people in Netherlands commit suicide? Knives? Poison?
-
Bart, one thing I forgot to mention: When you whittle down the misleading crap in that chart to actual murders you'll still find the U.S. out in front. and there's a reason for that. Thanks to decades of left-wing governments we've managed to create some pretty awful ghettos where most of the gun murders take place. Chicago is a prime example. So far, Netherlands has managed pretty much to avoid that by maintaining a reasonably homogeneous society, which helps to keep clashes to a minimum. But keep watching. If you guys don't solve your refugee problem you're going to see something that will astound you. France is beginning to learn that lesson. You guys had better pay attention. You think people in your country can't get guns, but people in any country can get guns or make them. Ever hear of a zip gun? Check it out. Also, as long as you can get fertilizer it's even easier to make a bomb than it is to make a zip gun. You'd be a hell of a lot better off if your good citizens were armed.
-
It's a very misleading chart, Bart, and if you don't know that you should. I suspect you do. The most obvious error is that the chart doesn't deal with murders. It deals with "gun deaths," deliberately implying that gun deaths are murders.
Hi Russ,
So, a gun death that isn't a murder is okay??? As I've said before, more guns is more accidents as well.
And then there are people who get shot but that live to tell. They are not included in those numbers, so please do not try to only use numbers if they suit your agenda. Denial that there is a problem will never help to solve things.
So how DO people in Netherlands commit suicide? Knives? Poison?
They apparently are even more creative that the people in the USA, because hardly anyone has a gun they will have to be ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart, one thing I forgot to mention: When you whittle down the misleading crap in that chart to actual murders you'll still find the U.S. out in front. and there's a reason for that. Thanks to decades of left-wing governments we've managed to create some pretty awful ghettos where most of the gun murders take place. Chicago is a prime example. So far, Netherlands has managed pretty much to avoid that by maintaining a reasonably homogeneous society, which helps to keep clashes to a minimum.
Really? FYI, in 2015 (latest number) some 21.7% (3,665,321 out of 16,900,726) of the population is of non-Dutch decent in the first or second generation (one or both parents are from other countries). Maybe it helps that they also are not allowed to have a gun without permit.
We tend to use different methods of solving issues than with lethal force.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Russ,
So, a gun death that isn't a murder is okay??? As I've said before, more guns is more accidents as well.
And then there are people who get shot but that live to tell. They are not included in those numbers, so please do not try to only use numbers if they suit your agenda. Denial that there is a problem will never help to solve things.
They apparently are even more creative that the people in the USA, because hardly anyone has a gun they will have to be ...
Cheers,
Bart
And there are people who get hit by trucks and live to tell about it. There were a few in France. What's that got to do with anything? And as far as accidents are concerned, accidental vehicle-associated deaths are many multiples of gun deaths but I don't see you suggesting we should eliminate automobiles.
And the question of whether or not a suicide by gun is okay or not sort of bypasses the question. If you're gonna commit suicide you're probably better off doing it with a gun than with a knife or even with poison. It's like the old Ogden Nash advice about seduction: "Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker." The only problem with a gun is that it usually leaves a mess for somebody else to clean up. That's just not being a good guy, so I guess Netherlands suicides are just neater people.
-
Really? FYI, in 2015 (latest number) some 21.7% (3,665,321 out of 16,900,726) of the population is of non-Dutch decent in the first or second generation (one or both parents are from other countries). Maybe it helps that they also are not allowed to have a gun without permit.
We tend to use different methods of solving issues than with lethal force.
Cheers,
Bart
From which other countries? Makes a lot of difference. My oldest son lived in the Netherlands for a while and his wife lived there before they were married. She's fluent in Dutch, and her sister and brother-in-law own the largest English language bookstore in Amsterdam. They visit fairly often. My point is that I have at least a passing understanding of what goes on in Netherlands. You folks simply don't have many of the kinds of disruptive elements we have in the U.S.
-
And the question of whether or not a suicide by gun is okay or not sort of bypasses the question. If you're gonna commit suicide you're probably better off doing it with a gun than with a knife or even with poison.
You started focusing on suicides, not me.
BTW. Suicide rate per 100,000 people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate): USA 12.1, Netherlands 8.2. It seems we are less suicidal (or less effective) as well.
Cheers,
Bart
-
From which other countries?
The 21.7 % are split between 55.6 % (2 038 509) from non-Western countries, and 44.4 % (1 626 812) from Western countries.
Something like 21% of all those from foreign origin are Turkish and Moroccan, and an additional large group (13.6 % of all) is from the Caribbean/South American region (Suriname, and the (former) Dutch Antilles), the rest is made up of other smaller groups (making it some 180 different countries of origin in total).
Also do not underestimate that we're the 5th densest populated country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density#Most_densely_populated_countries.2Fregions) (of those with more than 10 million inhabitants) of the world and most are concentrated in Western part of the country, so it is not that we easily get to avoid one another.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The 21.7 % are split between 55.6 % (2 038 509) from non-Western countries, and 44.4 % (1 626 812) from Western countries.
Something like 21% of all those from foreign origin are Turkish and Moroccan, and an additional large group (13.6 % of all) is from the Caribbean/South American region (Suriname, and the (former) Dutch Antilles), the rest is made up of other smaller groups (making it some 180 different countries of origin in total).
Cheers,
Bart
Let me quote from one of the more enlightened posts on this thread: "If you guys don't solve your refugee problem you're going to see something that will astound you. France is beginning to learn that lesson. You guys had better pay attention. . . You'd be a hell of a lot better off if your good citizens were armed."
-
Let me quote from one of the more enlightened posts on this thread: "If you guys don't solve your refugee problem you're going to see something that will astound you. France is beginning to learn that lesson. You guys had better pay attention. . . You'd be a hell of a lot better off if your good citizens were armed."
Funny you'd say/quote that, because most refugees (for humanitarian reasons) that are now coming from the Middle East are the result of the regionally disruptive Iraq war (you know, Bush and WMDs and all that).
Adding weapons in the mix only makes matters more difficult.
And the (cultural/political/financial/ethnographic) situation in France is very different from most other Western-European countries. France is not a model that can be applied to the rest.
Cheers,
Bart
-
You can bet there'll be weapons in the mix, Bart. If you think these refugees are all just poor folks run off their land by a local upheaval you're even more gullible than I think you are. For your sake I'll pray that the weapons are just guns.
-
Let me quote from one of the more enlightened posts on this thread: "If you guys don't solve your refugee problem you're going to see something that will astound you. France is beginning to learn that lesson. You guys had better pay attention. . . You'd be a hell of a lot better off if your good citizens were armed."
I'm not sure that you appreciate this but should you wander around the UK declaring such a message to all and sundry you will at best be gently shunned or at worst sectioned. More likely you will accumulate a rag tag bunch of weirdos desperate to alleviate their inner angst or some tragic incident in the past by shooting feck out of the nearest playground.
-
Don't worry Justin, I won't be wandering around the UK.
And I've had enough of this absurdity. I'm outta here.
-
Don't worry Justin, I won't be wandering around the UK.
And I've had enough of this absurdity. I'm outta here.
I know know, all the world is marching out of step except you.
-
... you're even more gullible than I think you are.
In other words: "I'm SO much smarter than you" 8)
Bye bye, RSL
-
It's a very misleading chart, Bart, and if you don't know that you should. I suspect you do. The most obvious error is that the chart doesn't deal with murders. It deals with "gun deaths," deliberately implying that gun deaths are murders. To have any meaning you'd have to remove suicides from the chart, along with proper self-defense deaths, plus a few other categories I haven't time at the moment to research.
So how DO people in Netherlands commit suicide? Knives? Poison?
True story.
Friend's quite overweight brother had been having problems with diabetes, high blood pressure, fatigue, depression, and number of other side effects from all the medications he's been ingesting. Finally, his daughter talked some sense into him, got him on a healthy diet, with which he complied, he lost some weight and his health normalized enough, so that he was able to stop insuline injections. Unfortunately, after six months or so, he fell back into the old groove, and had to resort to taking the old medications, including the insuline injections. When his daughter saw him again and asked why did he stop his diet, his answer was "It's easier to get the shots". Sadly, the shots were not enough to cure the illness and he felt so rotten, that he eventually committed a suicide using a handgun.
Two more points:
- The poor fellow resided in Canada, where gun laws are quite strict, but he managed to buy a handgun illegally. So often, even in a country with strict gun laws, whover wants a gun, can find ways to get one.
- Even more importantly, if he had continued eating more carots and brocoli and stayed on the health diet, he wouldn't have relapsed into serious diabetes and depression, consequently wouldn't have purchased the revolver and he might have been still alive. Which leads to a conclusion that also many of the shooting criminals might be not eating properly.
-
In other words: "I'm SO much smarter than you" 8)
Bye bye, RSL
Only thing is, in so many cases, he is.
Rob
-
Baton Rouge, today: seven police officers shot, three dead. Still think armed civilians a good idea?
-
Rob,
...in so many cases, he is.
List them.
-
Baton Rouge, today: seven police officers shot, three dead. Still think armed civilians a good idea?
That's what you get when you elect an American President who blames the police instead of the criminals. We won't elect another like that again. Hate to say it but these killers will just make Trump's lead bigger.
-
That's what you get when you elect an American President who blames the police instead of the criminals. We won't elect another like that again. Hate to say it but these killers will just make Trump's lead bigger.
Do you have some direct quotes or links of Obama "blaming" the police? Most of what we get to see in the European media is Obama supporting the police and condemning violence against them.
-
Do you have some direct quotes or links of Obama "blaming" the police? Most of what we get to see in the European media is Obama supporting the police and condemning violence against them.
Sure, here are a few.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-ferguson-violence-20140814-story.html
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-ferguson-violence-20140814-story.html
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/19/politics/obama-zimmerman/
Basically if a police officer is involved with an African American, from Obama's point of view he's always wrong.
-
Hi Rand,
Although it's just one source of information (I have not verified against others, or more recent stats), there is an additional interesting aspect it shows.
Apparently, people who do kill or commit a crime (most don't) will use the closest thing at hand to commit that e.g. homicide. I suppose (don't know if statistics are available) that the number of knifes available, dwarfs the number of guns available ..., yet a disproportionately lower number of those available potential 'weapons' seems to be used to actually kill someone (else). And all those knifes do not seem to merely replace the reduced availability of guns as a weapon of choice.
So availability alone seems to not explain the number of casualties (as we already knew from other countries), but it's just harder to kill several dozens of people with a knife than with an automatic weapon (or accidentally kill someone else), which helped the drop in the gun related homicides.
There does seem to be something wrong with the people and their political/social system if one nation on our planet thinks that guns are a solution to everything, despite the unmatched amount of killing it generates.
We should be careful to directly apply those statistics to other countries/cultures (without corrections for local differences), because we do know (from their specific statistics) that in the USA a disproportionate number of gun violence takes place (see the PostScriptum I've added at the end of this post). That's not only because of the availability (and resulting accidents), but also due to other (social) factors. So statistics that show a ratio between gun vs knife killings in the USA itself should also be educational.
Anyway, in Australia is seems to help to reduce the number of guns that are in free circulation, and people do not really pick another alternative to do the same thing. Maybe they just woke up to their prior insane behavior. Congratulations.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4863
Figure 7. on page 6 of the PDF confirms also in the USA, a disproportionate number of firearm related homicides compared to the much more abundantly available knifes (and blunt objects) as weapon of choice.
Bart,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. As crude as this sounds, guns would seem naturally to be preferred for homicide because they are more efficient and often are used from at least some distance. Stabbing someone to death is an up-close-and-personal kind of thing and would be avoided by most intent on homicide given that they have a choice. Kind of like the difference between a nice "sanitary" killing of people with drones operated from an air conditioned box hundreds or thousands of miles from those being killed, as opposed to soldiers in hand to hand combat with the enemy.
I'm all for appropriate gun control. I don't think, however, that even if there were very stringent gun control laws passed in the US that it would prevent even one of the kind of incidents we've seen recently. The cat is out of the bag, so to speak. Short of a complete ban on private firearm ownership there are so many firearms already in circulation that anyone who "really wants to" get such weapons for evil purposes can easily do so and will be able to do so for many many decades to come. A total ban on private firearm ownership would most likely start a revolution in this country, leading to citizen groups in a shooting war with authorities .
In my view there is no secular cure for the problem of evil, and when societies will not even acknowledge evil as evil, then the likelihood that society can in any way effectively suppress evil by civil means, no matter the methodology, isn't very promising. Post modern relativism, along with post modern philosophy that states that all "metanarratives" are only about power, is killing the west, and the U.S. in particular. The questions of post modernist philosophy are good ones, the problem is that the loss of any moral consensus in the US leaves us without any relevant answers.
I know this seems as though it is completely off the topic, but in my view it is the root of the problem.
Rand
-
Only thing is, in so many cases, he is.
Rob
Enlighten me, please. If he's smarter than me, I'd love to know how.
-
Baton Rouge, today: seven police officers shot, three dead. Still think armed civilians a good idea?
At least not for hateful Nation of Islam members:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/17/baton-rouge-shooter-gavin-eugene-long-was-nation-of-islam-member-railed-against-crackers-on-youtube-channel-video/
And not good for mentally disturbed people either. Perfectly fine for the millions of us good citizens who never bother anyone.
Just thinking out loud...I wonder why nations that have strict guns laws still have a police force or even an army??? Anyone know?
-
Cleveland, Ohio (CNN)The head of Cleveland's largest police union is calling on Ohio Gov. John Kasich to temporarily restrict the state's gun laws during this week's Republican National Convention following Sunday's shooting in Louisiana that killed three officers and wounded at least three others.
"We are sending a letter to Gov. Kasich requesting assistance from him. He could very easily do some kind of executive order or something -- I don't care if it's constitutional or not at this point," Stephen Loomis, president of Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association, told CNN. "They can fight about it after the RNC or they can lift it after the RNC, but I want him to absolutely outlaw open-carry in Cuyahoga County until this RNC is over."
-
Sure, here are a few.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-ferguson-violence-20140814-story.html
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-ferguson-violence-20140814-story.html
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/19/politics/obama-zimmerman/
Basically if a police officer is involved with an African American, from Obama's point of view he's always wrong.
Thanks, I read these references with great interest. My conclusion is that it's not a black and white [pun not intended] as your conclusion and there's a lot more balanced information in there.
Coming back to the question of this thread "What does it take?" my conclusion is that a return to a normal debate would be the first step.
As long as there are large groups who scream (not the same groups shout these at the same time)
- Obama is always wrong
- Blacks are mostly criminals and shy to work
- White Police officers are mostly racist
- Trump only spreads lies
- All Muslims are terrorists
- ...... etc.
without any balance and having some appreciation for other opinions the society will remain split and violence will (in my mind) only increase.
Opinions should be based on more then just the sound bites the parties wish to spread.
-
Just thinking out loud...I wonder why nations that have strict guns laws still have a police force or even an army??? Anyone know?
Because gun crime in many European countries represents only a tiny fraction of illegal activities such as theft, fraud, child molestation, motoring offences. I think that's a possibility.
-
Enlighten me, please. If he's smarter than me, I'd love to know how.
1. If you reread your own post to which I was replying, you'll note that both your original post (to which I responded) and my reply implied a 'general' sense of the word 'you' and not a specific as in you, Peter McLennan; however, perhaps you did prefer to assume a message directed to you, personally, by Russ, which would be quite out of character for him to do. The fact that you use the words 'in other words' demonstrates that you are putting interpretation into play rather than direct quotation and sense derived therefrom.
"In other words: "I'm SO much smarter than you" 8)
Bye bye, RSL"
2. Should you care to look at Russ's websites, read his writings and into his photographs, you would have to be suffering from an acute dose of voluntary blindness if you couldn't see that his observational and expressive abilities go way beyond those usually found here in LuLa and in the general world outwith this little microcosm within which we swim.
Go outwith that, and you find a man who managed to get a very enviable education, signed up to fly fighters for his country, managed a lot of vital radar services and developed a software company which he eventually sold; managed to educate several children and ensure they reached full personal development allowing them golden careers themselves, was able to own three homes at the same time without crying aloud at the pain. If that's not unusual, if you can match that yourself - since you wish to assume the burden personally - I'll happily grant you that you are far superior at least to myself - no contest!
Rob
-
Because gun crime in many European countries represents only a tiny fraction of illegal activities such as theft, fraud, child molestation, motoring offences. I think that's a possibility.
A very likely one!
Rob C
-
Some disturbing numbers that I have heard in the last week:
Refugees, Displaced People Surpass 60 Million For First Time, UNHCR (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/20/482762237/refugees-displaced-people-surpass-60-million-for-first-time-unhcr-says)
Half of the Wold's 30 million slaves are children (http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/01/16/report-half-of-worlds-30-million-slaves-are-children/)
One million dead in Iraq (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties)
As my OP asks, "What does it take…" to get our priorities right? (Buying more guns, I think not.)
Cheers,
-
Rob,
If you reread your own post to which I was replying, you'll note that... my reply implied a 'general' sense of the word 'you' and not a specific as in you, Peter McLennan…
If you re-read post 200 you’ll note that Russ explicitly addressed Bart:
You can bet there'll be weapons in the mix, Bart. If you think these refugees are all just poor folks run off their land by a local upheaval you're even more gullible than I think you are.
If you re-read post 204 you’ll note that Peter paraphrased Russ, hence “you” mandatorily refers to Russ explicitly addressing Bart:
In other words: "I'm SO much smarter than you"
…my reply implied a 'general' sense of the word 'you'…
Your reply is irrelevant, given that your explanation demonstrates a failure to reason.
-
Having read this thread and others in the past on the subject of gun control in the US, I can see it appears to be an intractable problem. To me it seems ludicrous to have so many dangerous weapons among the general population, but I can see the powerful lobbying by the pro-gun faction and the not-so-thinly veiled threats to start an uprising if the government tries to ban guns is going to make any control very difficult.
I live in the UK so see things from a UK perspective. I can say that if I get involved in a road-rage incident, or my neighbour across the road has a mental melt-down, or if I catch a burglar in my house, the very last thing I would ever expect would be for them to be brandishing a gun. We live in a town of 20,000 people. Is there a single hand-gun in the town? Probably not. A few shotguns - mainly on farms I should think. Would I prefer to live in a similar town where half the population owned guns? No I would not.
Very difficult for the US to turn back the clock I appreciate. What I do find odd is when so many of it's citizens are happy with the current state of affairs. Armed escalation is a very easy path, de-escalation much more difficult.
Jim
-
Just a little public service announcement. Tell 'em, Chris Rock... :D
How not to get your a** kicked by the police
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8
-
in a town of 20,000 people. Is there a single hand-gun in the town? Probably not. A few shotguns - mainly on farms I should think. Would I prefer to live in a similar town where half the population owned guns? No I would not.
Jim
Jim
How many hand guns do you want? Apparently it is very easy to acquire a hand gun even in Droitwich in sleepy Worcestershire. It won't be very good but it will work.
Do you know that one definition of a decommissioned gun (for which no licence is required) is that the ammunition is no longer available? How long do you imagine a workshop would take to convert it to take some readily available ammo? I hope I'm out of date on the law but I don't think I am.
If used for target shooting at a club you can own a pistol but they either require a long barrel or an extended stock to make it impossible to hide about your person and of course none of them can be carried or used in a public place. The rules are strict about that. You also have to meet quite an extensive set of requirements before being granted a licence (other than a shotgun) which can take weeks or months to come through and is weapon specific.
So, I'm guessing in your town of 20,000 there will quite a few illegal and legal pistols.
I think we are fortunate that we really don't expect anyone to have a gun and react in a totally different way to countries where firearms are more commonplace and that I think is one reason we are fortunate in gun crime. We must not be complacent :)
Mike
-
Mike
My main point was that the fear of somebody pulling a gun on me or my family is fairly miniscule. A fist yes, a knife - possible. But guns - no. I do also realise that in some cities the rules are slightly different, but not very. Probably a worry if you are a drug dealer in a big city. I can also imagine it is not impossible to get hold of a gun if one were determined, but the fact they are illegal (mostly) and not freely available means negligible gun crime.
In the UK a decommissioned gun has to be made incapable of firing any projectile - usually by welding a plug into the barrel and barrels to be slotted. Just being obsolete does not count!
Jim
-
I agree with what you say. I don't give the possibility of being confronted with a gun a second thought, ever.
You seem to be right about welding things etc. Deactivated guns (http://dwsuk.org/Deactivated-Weapons-FAQ) I had a client who was a gun dealer and he explained some of the rules to me. I must have got muddled. I was I meant Historic guns for which ammunition is no longer manufactured. Apparently there was a thriving trade in the importation and reactivation of such guns but I suspect legislation may have caught up.
-
That's what you get when you elect an American President who blames the police instead of the criminals....
+1
-
Do you have some direct quotes or links of Obama "blaming" the police? Most of what we get to see in the European media is Obama supporting the police and condemning violence against them.
One needs to read between the lines. Also, he is too smart to openly blame the police. His latest speech on the subject, that was supposed to be a eulogy for the five slain officers, was absolutely disgusting and shameless recruiting rally for a domestic terrorist organization (BLM). He first eulogized the five officers, then immediately proceeded to justify the reasons for their execution (slavery, Jim Craw, "systemic racism," "white privilege," etc.). The same thing New York mayor De Blasio did, resulting in the execution of two NY police officers shortly thereafter. Obama speeches are typically a smorgasbord, so that everyone can find something: he condemns Islamic terrorism (though he doesn't name it so), then in the same breath provides justification for it (the Crusades). He "supports" the police, then continues about "systemic racism" in it.
No wonder then, that just a few days after the speech in which he supposedly supported the police and condemned their execution, a new execution took place (Baton Rouge).
-
+1
I do not understand the selective rejection. "President Obama sought to calm the increasingly tense situation in Ferguson, Mo., on Thursday, saying there was “no excuse” for "excessive force" by police or for looting or violence aimed at law enforcement."
BTW do we know that this is exactly what he said?
So, should he instead have applauded "excessive force" by police, or encouraged "looting or violence aimed at law enforcement"?????
Does not make sense, the country sounds very lost for direction and in dire need of common sense instead of knee-jerk polarized reactions that brings out the worst in people.
Really disappointing.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Obama speeches are typically a smorgasbord, so that everyone can find something:
Sounds like a politician, maybe he is too nuanced for some.
He "supports" the police, then continues about "systemic racism" in it.
You mean he shouldn't address issues?
No wonder then, that just a few days after the speech in which he supposedly supported the police and condemned their execution, a new execution took place (Baton Rouge).
Really a classic. So it's that speech that directly caused the frustration (maybe suffering from PTSD) in a war veteran who risked his life for the USA, and suddenly gave him the idea, let's shoot some cops some 763 miles from home.
Denial of the fundamental issues will never solve them. Obama seems to address those issues (https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/11/24/president-obama-delivers-statement-ferguson-grand-jurys-decision), and calls for restraint, on all sides.
Cheers,
Bart
-
He (Obama) "supports" the police, then continues about "systemic racism" in it.
No wonder then, that just a few days after the speech in which he supposedly supported the police and condemned their execution, a new execution took place (Baton Rouge).
There's a different kind of racism going on with police culture that gets painted with a broad brush due to the fact from so many accounts and interviews of how police treat each other that police see them selves as part of a brotherhood, a gang that protects their own that seems to trump "Serve and Protect".
It makes them appear as if they don't police them selves with regard to how a few of their members don't honor the badge and community they serve when they don't do their job when treating a certain race of people differently than other races. Maybe it's a one time incident like the Rodney King issue in the early '90's. They're not all bad, right?
Why are we seeing so many incidences NOW over 20 years after the Rodney King incident? Why weren't there more videos between that time? Is it because now we all have cellphones and can immediately upload the recording to social media for millions to see?
So most educated people who thought this was just an isolated incident are now aware of the proliferation of video recording devices availed to the public creating a new awareness that maybe this isn't an isolated incident with a few cops. Maybe there is an unspoken racism going on with this brotherhood of police who don't rat on each other like some gang and that this has been going on for decades but no one could produce evidence? Kind of like the Ku Klux Klan.
Not knowing for sure makes those of a certain race who feel they are being targeted because of so many videos of bad exchanges with police over minor infractions spread across the country (not isolated to one particular city by one corrupt cop) creates this new racism/prejudice toward cops as culture/gang by those who feel targeted.
This Tavis Smiley interview of former police chief Norm Stamper describes this unavoidable bad police culture that must be dealt with if we're ever going to make any headway...
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/former-police-chief-norm-stamper/
-
...You mean he shouldn't address issues?
That is exactly what I meant. Not to address the "issues" in the same breath as eulogizing the officers killed by his previous addressing of the "issues." Btw, I put "issues" in quotation marks as there are no issues of that kind.
-
... like the Rodney King issue...
Remember that the officers involved were acquitted in a jury trial?
-
There are no direct quotes because Obama doesn't say or mean those things. You have to "read between the lines" or just make it up to suit your agenda.
No matter what he says a certain segment will always say he is lying, insincere, or trying to incite violence. He isn't and most people believe that. They just aren't as loud.
-
Remember that the officers involved were acquitted in a jury trial?
Isolated incident with no evidence that they were brutalizing Mr. King. I wonder what the jury had for evidence to show the police were just doing their job.
The video shows Mr. King continually moving and rolling around on the ground, so maybe the police wanted him to stop doing that because they feared for their lives.
Something else on the flip side of this issue is that due to this awareness of the proliferation of video recording devices by the public is that some of these incidences could be staged to goad the police into becoming violent so the perp can sue the city. When in doubt follow the money.
Some of these exchanges seem way over the top ridiculous that police could turn a busted tail light into a shooting.
-
...You have to "read between the lines" or just make it up to suit your agenda...
Make it up? He eulogizes the officers and the same breath brings back slavery, Jim Craw, etc. It is not even "between the lines," it is all there in the open, providing "justification" for the execution. The message is there: this country is STILL so racist, even after voting a black man into the white house (2x), that the only way for blacks is to resist it every step of the way, argue with cops, resist arrest, and ultimately violently rise against them.
-
... I wonder what the jury had for evidence...
While not perfect, jury trial, as practiced in this country, is by far the best justice system on this planet, compared to alternatives. 12 people, sitting for days, listening to both sides of the story and seeing all available evidence, then locked into deliberation until all 12 have a unanimous decision, is hard to beat. You and I see only this or that angle of the story, and only a fraction of the evidence, while we all have our own idea of what justice is. So, when in doubt, I tend to trust the jury and the official justice.
What is the alternative? American Idol-type of mob phoning in their votes "guilty" or "not guilty"?
-
Make it up? He eulogizes the officers and the same breath brings back slavery, Jim Craw, etc. It is not even "between the lines," it is all there in the open, providing "justification" for the execution. The message is there: this country is STILL so racist, even after voting a black man into the white house (2x), that the only way for blacks is to resist it every step of the way, argue with cops, resist arrest, and ultimately violently rise against them.
You just admitted there are no quotes supporting your claim. Why do you think he mentioned those issues? Could it have anything to do with the protest those police were working being deeply connected to those same issues?
Did you see exactly what he said about them?
Here's (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/07/12/remarks-president-memorial-service-fallen-dallas-police-officers) the speech in question.
-
Did you see exactly what he said about them?
Here's (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/07/12/remarks-president-memorial-service-fallen-dallas-police-officers) the speech in question.
Thanks for the link. I didn't have time to look it up, but I did take the time to read it.
Impressive, and a very coherently built speech.
He also sort of held a mirror for everybody to have a look at their own role, I guess some posters mistook that for a window when they saw something rotten ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Self-righteous. It's amazing to see it on display...
Self-righteousness is a feeling or display of moral superiority derived from a sense that one's beliefs, actions, or affiliations are of greater virtue than those of the average person
-
You just admitted there are no quotes supporting your claim...
You lost me there.
... Why do you think he mentioned those issues? Could it have anything to do with the protest those police were working being deeply connected to those same issues?..
The only way he should have mentioned those "issues" in relation to the protest was to say: "I apologize if you mistook my misguided leftist blabbering for true reasons to protest. Go home, obey the law and stop being disproportionally criminal and the police will stop disproportionally interacting with you."
Or he could have just repeated Martin Luther Kings' words (emphasis mine):
“Do you know that Negroes are 10 percent of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of its crimes? We’ve got to face that. And we’ve got to do something about our moral standards,” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. told a congregation in 1961. “We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world, too. We can’t keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves.”
-
Self-righteous. It's amazing to see it on display...
Self-righteousness is a feeling or display of moral superiority derived from a sense that one's beliefs, actions, or affiliations are of greater virtue than those of the average person
Don't be so hard on yourself.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Don't be so hard on yourself.
Ah, Bart finally displaying a sense of humor, even crossing to the dark side of caustic sarcasm! Welcome to the club, mate! ;)
-
You lost me there.
I guess I must have overlooked the quotes that support your claims.
The only way he should have mentioned those "issues" in relation to the protest was to say: "I apologize if you mistook my misguided leftist blabbering for true reasons to protest. Go home, obey the law and stop being disproportionally criminal and the police will stop disproportionally interacting with you."
Or he could have just repeated Martin Luther Kings' words (emphasis mine):
I think what he actually said it pretty in line with what MLK said. What people claim he said or meant is way over the top. So I sort of agree with you there.
I thought this was pretty even-handed:
We know that the overwhelming majority of police officers do an incredibly hard and dangerous job fairly and professionally. They are deserving of our respect and not our scorn. (Applause.) And when anyone, no matter how good their intentions may be, paints all police as biased or bigoted, we undermine those officers we depend on for our safety. And as for those who use rhetoric suggesting harm to police, even if they don’t act on it themselves -- well, they not only make the jobs of police officers even more dangerous, but they do a disservice to the very cause of justice that they claim to promote. (Applause.)
We also know that centuries of racial discrimination -- of slavery, and subjugation, and Jim Crow -- they didn’t simply vanish with the end of lawful segregation. They didn’t just stop when Dr. King made a speech, or the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act were signed. Race relations have improved dramatically in my lifetime. Those who deny it are dishonoring the struggles that helped us achieve that progress. (Applause.)
But we know -- but, America, we know that bias remains. We know it. Whether you are black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or of Middle Eastern descent, we have all seen this bigotry in our own lives at some point. We’ve heard it at times in our own homes. If we’re honest, perhaps we’ve heard prejudice in our own heads and felt it in our own hearts. We know that. And while some suffer far more under racism’s burden, some feel to a far greater extent discrimination’s sting. Although most of us do our best to guard against it and teach our children better, none of us is entirely innocent. No institution is entirely immune. And that includes our police departments. We know this.
-
Honestly, I have no idea why LuLa allows a open discussion forum here. It's much more enjoyable just visiting for photography. So sorry I decided to click on the Coffee Corner forum ;-)
-
We know that Obama is a gifted speaker. As I said, he provides a smorgasbord of opinions in the same speech. The first part was meant to placate the police as not to boo him on stage or turn their backs on him during the speech (as NY cops did when De Blasio delivered a similar speech). And then he goes proceeds with his, and the left's, favorite talking points.
The third paragraph you quoted, Matt ("But we know...") is particularly vile and dangerous. There was no place for it in the same speech and for the same occasion. Claiming that "the bias remains," that there is "racism," "discrimination," "institutional racism," "police racism" is a dangerous, vile accusation, far from the truth. It, however, provides ammunition (pardon the ominous pun) for the blacks at al to perpetuate their sense of victimhood, and provides justification for their "fight" against the police and the "system."
-
Honestly, I have no idea why LuLa allows a open discussion forum here...
Since America is meddling in everyone else's affairs around the world, this LuLa forum is the only place where non-Americans can return the favor and tell us how much we suck ;)
-
We know that Obama is a gifted speaker. As I said, he provides a smorgasbord of opinions in the same speech. The first part was meant to placate the police as not to boo him on stage or turn their backs on him during the speech (as NY cops did when De Blasio delivered a similar speech). And then he goes proceeds with his, and the left's, favorite talking points.
The third paragraph you quoted, Matt ("But we know...") is particularly vile and dangerous. There was no place for it in the same speech and for the same occasion. Claiming that "the bias remains," that there is "racism," "discrimination," "institutional racism," "police racism" is a dangerous, vile accusation, far from the truth. It, however, provides ammunition (pardon the ominous pun) for the blacks at al to perpetuate their sense of victimhood, and provides justification for their "fight" against the police and the "system."
Ok well I disagree. But now we do have something concrete to disagree on. :)
-
While not perfect, jury trial, as practiced in this country, is by far the best justice system on this planet, compared to alternatives. 12 people, sitting for days, listening to both sides of the story and seeing all available evidence, then locked into deliberation until all 12 have a unanimous decision, is hard to beat. You and I see only this or that angle of the story, and only a fraction of the evidence, while we all have our own idea of what justice is. So, when in doubt, I tend to trust the jury and the official justice.
What is the alternative? American Idol-type of mob phoning in their votes "guilty" or "not guilty"?
Clearly you didn't bother to find out facts on the evidence which is what I asked for. Why can't the public view the evidence or is the public just lazy and would rather just draw conclusions according to their political view of how the world works. To hell with facts, the world IS flat!
-
Listen what a black police sherif, a supporter of the "racist" Trump, by the way, has to say about race, Obama lies (his words, not mine) and the police:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/18/us/wisconsin-sheriff-david-clarke-i-predicted-this/index.html
-
Clearly you didn't bother to find out facts on the evidence which is what I asked for. Why can't the public view the evidence or is the public just lazy and would rather just draw conclusions according to their political view of how the world works. To hell with facts, the world IS flat!
So, instead of 12 people examining the evidence, you advocate a mob vote?
-
Listen what a black police sherif, a supporter of the "racist" Trump, by the way, has to say about race, Obama lies (his words, not mine) and the police:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/18/us/wisconsin-sheriff-david-clarke-i-predicted-this/index.html
Really good find, Slobodan. With the mention of the KKK in that video it's almost as if they were responding to what I was pointing out in my initial post on the frequency of public video captures of police exchanges with black individuals.
But that's just one Sheriff talking about something he doesn't have nor couldn't acquire all the facts on.
-
So, instead of 12 people examining the evidence, you advocate a mob vote?
No, I want to know the facts they based their decision on and make it public for everyone to read so the public at large in regards to how videos show one thing and the jury sees something else. The CNN Sheriff interview didn't mention any provable facts. It was just heated arguments.
If people keep seeing so many videos showing people getting killed by police and the law makes it difficult for the public at large to see the facts then it's a problem created by lack of communication.
Videos speak a million words to a million people where a jury speaks to only 12. Not an admirable dissemination of information for a world filled with information, in fact too much information for anyone to have the time to cull through.
-
Thanks, I read these references with great interest. My conclusion is that it's not a black and white [pun not intended] as your conclusion and there's a lot more balanced information in there.
Yes your conclusion is yours. The answer as to whether more Americans agree with me or you will be answered in November. I believe (and the polls seem to be agreeing) that the majority of Americans would rather elect a very flawed man like Donald Trump as president than allow the leftists to pander to violence and anarchy. We'll know in less than four months.
-
... Videos speak a million words to a million people where a jury speaks to only 12...
So you do advocate American Idol mob-style voting instead of a jury trial? Fair enough, but I'd personally stick with the time-proven concept.
As for the frequency of videos... it is entirely possible that the public display of those videos creates a false impression about the frequency of such events, due to an availability bias.
I remember a quiz question in a class on decision making: "Which cause of death is more frequent, car accidents or heart attack?" Typically, a dominant answer in a class of 80 people is "car accidents" (wrong). The reason being that we all read in the media about almost every car accident that happens in our neighborhood, but only about heart attacks when it concerns someone famous. In other words, we are biased by the information available to us.
Similar thing with those videos. Only those that portray something shocking become viral. When a man bites a dog is shocking, not the other way around. When a policeman shoots someone unarmed and black, that is shocking and goes viral. When a policeman shoots a white unarmed guy, nobody notices, and it doesn't go viral. When a policeman is shot on duty, it is just "normal," that is what we paid them for, and it doesn't go viral. When police risk their lives to save somebody, it doesn't become viral.
So, as a result, the dominance of that one type of viral videos creates the impression that that type of behavior is the norm. While in reality, it is just the fact of life that shit happens sometimes, and in the grand scheme of things, it isn't a proof of "systemic racism" but simply a proof that noise happens no matter what (to return to the photographic lingo).
-
...If you guys don't solve your refugee problem you're going to see something that will astound you...
"A teenage Afghan refugee armed with an axe and knife injured four people on a train in southern Germany before being shot dead by police..."
-
So you do advocate American Idol mob-style voting instead of a jury trial? Fair enough, but I'd personally stick with the time-proven concept.
Good grief, Slobodan. Why do you argue with the logic of a teenager? That's what you sound like when you twist what I said into simplistic assumptions like that.
I said the information as to how the jury arrived at their decision should be made as public as the video and media presented the lack of facts. Videos don't tell the whole story, but that's how it's perceived by hot heads who want to use it to retaliate against the police.
-
"A teenage Afghan refugee armed with an axe and knife injured four people on a train in southern Germany before being shot dead by police..."
I cannot think of a better reason as to why civilians should not be armed, can you imagine a bunch of trigger happy lads'n'lasses firing off shots at a madman in a crowded train? I dread to think what the death toll would be in such a case
-
.. you twist what I said into simplistic assumptions like that...
Ok, my bad, I misunderstood your position.
-
I cannot think of a better reason as to why civilians should not be armed, can you imagine a bunch of trigger happy lads'n'lasses firing off shots at a madman in a crowded train? I dread to think what the death toll would be in such a case
Much lower than otherwise:
-
Long-ish, but worth every word - a black cop's view on cops and blacks, posted on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/jay.stalien/posts/911372818974402
Excerpts (emphasis mine):
Complaint: Police always targeting us, they always messing with the black man.
Fact: A city where the majority of citizens are black (Baltimore for example) …will ALWAYS have a higher rate of black people getting arrested, it will ALWAYS have a higher rate of blacks getting stopped, and will ALWAYS have a higher rate of blacks getting killed, and the reason why is because a city with those characteristics will ALWAYS have a higher rate of blacks committing crime.
Complaint: More black people get arrested than white boys.
Fact: Black People commit a grossly disproportionate amount of crime. Data from the FBI shows that Nationwide, Blacks committed 5,173 homicides in 2014, whites committed 4,367.
Complaint: Blacks are the only ones getting killed by police, or they are killed more.
Fact: As of July 2016, the breakdown of the number of US Citizens killed by Police this year is, 238 White people killed, 123 Black people killed, 79 Hispanics, 69 other/or unknown race.
Black Lives do not matter to most black people. Only the lives that make the national news matter to them. Only the lives that are taken at the hands of cops or white people, matter. The other thousands of lives lost, the other black souls that I along with every cop, have seen taken at the hands of other blacks, do not matter. Their deaths are unnoticed, accepted as the “norm”, and swept underneath the rug by the very people who claim and post “black lives matter”.
That most cops dread the thought of having to shoot someone, and never see the turmoil and mental anguish that a cop goes through after having to kill someone to save his own life. Instead they believe that we are all blood thirsty killers, because the media says so, even though the numbers prove otherwise. I realize that they truly feel as if the death of cops will help people realize the false narrative that Black Lives Matter, when all it will do is take their movement two steps backwards and label them domestic terrorist.
-
Thanks for the perspective, Slobodan.
This quote needs a little clarifying for accuracy...
Complaint: More black people get arrested than white boys.
Fact: Black People commit a grossly disproportionate amount of crime. Data from the FBI shows that Nationwide, Blacks committed 5,173 homicides in 2014, whites committed 4,367.
...Blacks, according to the US census, only make up 12.3% of the total U.S. population, whites 63%.
-
Slobodan
This is the second time you've posted that 'good-guys.jpg' - statistical testimony as to why all should carry guns. An unverified source and 8 incidents in 18 years - is that the best you can do to support what can only be described as a desire to return to the Wild West ?
Smacks of desperation.
-
14 pages and counting ...
Do any of the pro-gun lobby, in this thread, actually believe that WERE there to be a blanket ban on individuals owning handguns and military-grade weaponry , there wouldn't be a reduction in the number of deaths resulting from gun-crime ?
-
Slobodan
This is the second time you've posted that 'good-guys.jpg' ...
Only because it is a long thread and many simply do not bother to read it all, or overlook it, judging by the repetition of the same arguments throughout the thread. But thanks for noticing.
-
14 pages and counting ...
Do any of the pro-gun lobby, in this thread, actually believe that WERE there to be a blanket ban on individuals owning handguns and military-grade weaponry , there wouldn't be a reduction in the number of deaths resulting from gun-crime ?
And to further prove my point of people not really reading the whole thread carefully, here we go again, the same argument over and over again.
So let me try again: there will be a reduction. But of course! How else? You ban car driving on Sunday, there will be a reduction of car accidents on Sunday. You totally ban cars, there will be a reduction in car accidents. Duh! That's just truism.
As Rand47 pointed out in an earlier post (go look it up, no more public service from me ;) ), crimes overall are not going to change much. Gun crimes will be replaced by xyz crimes.
-
So let me try again: there will be a reduction. But of course! How else?
Well, good, at least that's one small step forward - it also so happens to directly contradict your earlier assertion...
What does it take for non-Americans to see that has nothing to do with gun laws?
-
"A teenage Afghan refugee armed with an axe and knife injured four people on a train in southern Germany before being shot dead by police..."
Lucky he did not have an automatic rifle then. He was eventually shot dead by police. That seems a better result than everyone being armed and having a shootout.
Tragic all round though.
Jim
-
Whilst these threads are interesting enough, there's the ever-present danger of people taking them all too seriously. That's not to deny, in the least, the seriousness of the topìcs, but the fact remains that nothing will be resolved on this website and the almost inevitable conclusion will be either a locking or, worse, permanent damage made to otherwise amicable enough relationships between photographers.
It's impossible to get any absolute agreement between people in the same city, never mind in different countries; we derive attitude almost as much from experience as we do via conditioning from the cradle. Is this all worth the candle, since it isn't going to fix anything, and we can't even agree whether the same things need fixing?
Rob C
-
What does it take?
I'm in Bali at the moment. The Bali bombing was one of those events that changed a nation's attitudes. Instead of a rush to hostilities between Australia and Indonesia it was the start of a conversation of how can we make things safe and well.
I'm glad to say that Jemaah Islamiah has vanished, East Timor was solved without casualties and Ache seems to be stable.
If the world's largest muslim country can do that there is hope.
Cheers,
-
... nothing will be resolved on this website and the almost inevitable conclusion will be either a locking or, worse, permanent damage made to otherwise amicable enough relationships between photographers.
Rob,
Good to see you're back to your humorous old self. Just to point out that the thread that recently got locked wasn't about current affairs but very much between photographers and hardly amicable.
And if that isn't enough of an example, one OP - 'hasselbladfan' - got so upset he started his own topic entitled 'Have you noticed ?' and within a day and two pages , didn't just lock the thread but deleted the entire topic - lock, stock and barrel ! (*)
Considering, this thread seems quite benign.
M
(*) .. and that thread was Doug P, Steve Hendrix, Bernard and Paul2660 discussing the X1D ..oh, and Rob C - you know the one where you said " All these threads are nothing more than bullshitting and thinking aloud. " Clearly, hasselbladfan didn't agree ...
[/* levity mode ON]
-
Rob,
Good to see you're back to your humorous old self. Just to point out that the thread that recently got locked wasn't about current affairs but very much between photographers and hardly amicable.
And if that isn't enough of an example, one OP - 'hasselbladfan' - got so upset he started his own topic entitled 'Have you noticed ?' and within a day and two pages , didn't just lock the thread but deleted the entire topic - lock, stock and barrel ! (*)
Considering, this thread seems quite benign.
M
(*) .. and that thread was Doug P, Steve Hendrix, Bernard and Paul2660 discussing the X1D ..oh, and Rob C - you know the one where you said " All these threads are nothing more than bullshitting and thinking aloud. " Clearly, hasselbladfan didn't agree ...
[/* levity mode ON]
Yeah, I know; I've pretty much given up on hoping to find public agreement on anything. After some years on the Internet I've come to fear that I would no longer recognize agreement if it came up and gave me a kiss on the cheek. Could be worse: could still find myself suckered into replying to some of these assholes, but the accumulation of disappointments in people eventually built up thickly enough to stop me caring or wasting time.
On the other hand, I find some ammusement when I note that some actually spend time trawling through my really old posts looking for banana skins! Amazing they should care so much; almost flattering, in a way. (Incidentally, this isn't a reference to your quotation above.)
;-)
Rob
-
Yeah, I know; I've pretty much given up on hoping to find public agreement on anything.
;-)
Rob
Why would you hope for that, Rob? There'ld be no point for discussing anything. It would be a very boring conversation.
And as for these types of heated exchanges damaging relationships among photographers here, I don't see that happening at all especially since it's a relationship similar to pen pals. No one is buying anyone here a beer, helping anyone re-shingle their roof, babysitting their grandkids, etc.
I guess it depends on what is considered a relationship. I find these exchanges more interesting than what I see of people in my local town who most of the time are staring at their cellphones. "Pokeman, GO!"
-
... No one is buying anyone here a beer...
I would...when in Chicago, just let me know :)
-
I would...when in Chicago, just let me know :)
Ditto Puerto Pollensa.
Rob
-
... I'm in Bali at the moment. The Bali bombing was one of those events that changed a nation's attitudes. Instead of a rush to hostilities between Australia and Indonesia it was the start of a conversation of how can we make things safe and well...
Enjoy you stay... lovely place (Bali).
On the other hand, earlier this year:
AUSTRALIANS have been warned that terrorists might be in the “advanced stages of preparing attacks” in Indonesia and travellers are urged to take precautions, just days after a similar warning about neighbouring Malaysia.
“Recent indications suggest that terrorists may be in the advanced stages of preparing attacks in Indonesia,” the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) said in an updated travel advisory on Thursday.
“We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in Indonesia, including Jakarta, Bali and Lombok, due to the high threat of terrorist attack.”
-
On the other hand, earlier this year:
“We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution ...
Meaning exactly what?
No doubt well intended by the authorities, but kind of useless without further elaboration, and even then ....
Shit happens, and some places are more of a risk than others.
Cheers,
Bart
-
1. Why would you hope for that, Rob? There'ld be no point for discussing anything. It would be a very boring conversation.
2. And as for these types of heated exchanges damaging relationships among photographers here, I don't see that happening at all especially since it's a relationship similar to pen pals. No one is buying anyone here a beer, helping anyone re-shingle their roof, babysitting their grandkids, etc.
3. I guess it depends on what is considered a relationship. I find these exchanges more interesting than what I see of people in my local town who most of the time are staring at their cellphones. "Pokeman, GO!"
1. Agreement doesn't only mean identical thinking on everything (in which case I'd agree with your view - there wouldn't even be need to write); it can also stretch to interchanging ideas, and opinions, with agreeable people which some few here turn out not to be.
2. I refer, of course, to the relationships online, here on LuLa: there are those I think of as interesting and with whom I'd be perfectly happy to spend time; others whose opinions are valuable on things technical; some few whose photography inspires a lot of respect and that, of itself, predisposes my feelings towards them; there are yet others I wouldn't want to meet anywhere.
3. I have said pretty much the same thing about groups sitting around in restauarants, heads bowed to the cellphone god at the cost of the physical possibilites beside them. Of course, it might be that the real people are not actually ever connecting, and certainly not as interesting as the virtual ones...
But ironically, is what they do any more absurd than conversing on Lula?
Best not go there too deply!
Rob
-
Interestingly, the M4 costs exactly the same as D500 and they both fit under the bed. However, once the initial purchase is made, D500 is less expensive to operate.
:D
In classic irony, I keep my D500 in a gun safe, but the Benelli M4 under my bed.
However, the Benelli doesn't cost me much to operate, since I never fire it (except for the rare sojourn to the gun range).
-
That's what you get when you elect an American President who blames the police instead of the criminals.
+1
+2
The pieces of ---- that were killed were lifetime thugs, of no earthly use to anyone.
I will copy your post, Slobodan: https://www.facebook.com/jay.stalien/posts/911372818974402
-
We know that Obama is a gifted speaker. As I said, he provides a smorgasbord of opinions in the same speech. The first part was meant to placate the police as not to boo him on stage or turn their backs on him during the speech (as NY cops did when De Blasio delivered a similar speech). And then he goes proceeds with his, and the left's, favorite talking points.
The third paragraph you quoted, Matt ("But we know...") is particularly vile and dangerous. There was no place for it in the same speech and for the same occasion. Claiming that "the bias remains," that there is "racism," "discrimination," "institutional racism," "police racism" is a dangerous, vile accusation, far from the truth. It, however, provides ammunition (pardon the ominous pun) for the blacks at al to perpetuate their sense of victimhood, and provides justification for their "fight" against the police and the "system."
Ok well I disagree. But now we do have something concrete to disagree on. :)
Is Obama a "gifted speaker" ... or just another talking head with a puppeteer's hand up his @$$
https://www.facebook.com/donaldtrumppresident/videos/606879372808623/?pnref=story
Quite frankly, I think Obama's presentation of the same "hand-crafted speech" sucked compared to both Deval Patrick's and John Edward's rendition of the same sheeyat.
-
Recently watched a news report about the current Republican Convention. Apparently the area surrounding the Convention building/grounds is an open-carry zone but tennis balls are one of the items which are forbidden. It would actually be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Marv
-
1. Agreement doesn't only mean identical thinking on everything (in which case I'd agree with your view - there wouldn't even be need to write); it can also stretch to interchanging ideas, and opinions, with agreeable people which some few here turn out not to be.
2. I refer, of course, to the relationships online, here on LuLa: there are those I think of as interesting and with whom I'd be perfectly happy to spend time; others whose opinions are valuable on things technical; some few whose photography inspires a lot of respect and that, of itself, predisposes my feelings towards them; there are yet others I wouldn't want to meet anywhere.
3. I have said pretty much the same thing about groups sitting around in restauarants, heads bowed to the cellphone god at the cost of the physical possibilites beside them. Of course, it might be that the real people are not actually ever connecting, and certainly not as interesting as the virtual ones...
But ironically, is what they do any more absurd than conversing on Lula?
Best not go there too deply!
Rob
Rob, I agree with everything you said. I guess the only good disagreement is when it brings new information. When it just repeats or points out the obvious then it becomes boring as well.
I just found out that the Pokeman Go craze sweeping the country evident from more people out and about in my town more than usual are using that game app to get them out of the house and exercising. A TV news story yesterday had a volunteer Pokeman Go support service group in my local park providing water bottles and aid to the players because they are so focused on the game some are injuring them self.
It's just getting really weird.
-
"Approximately 1.4 million people have been killed by firearms in the U.S. between 1968 and 2011."
I despair, what does it take to stop this ridiculous concept that having more guns stops gun deaths!
I despair that felons, mentally ill people can get guns in the US without background checks or gun control, shame on American legislators.
I despair that US citizens seem superior when they create such mayhem in the world that over one million people have died in Iraq.
Mass shootings in the US are so embarrassing that Google has given up. Stop killing each other.
As I have pointed out, under gun control there hasn't been a mass shooting in Australia since Port Arthur.
What does it take?
Stop mass murders
Stop gun deaths
Stop stupid foreign policy (one million deaths is stupid foreign policy)
Don't put guns in the hands of criminals and mentally challenged people.
You get the picture!
Please don't elect Donald Trump!
-
Tom you're going to have to accept it: nothing's going to change on that score.
It is how it is, and it's way too late. In fact, as much as I hate the idea of armed civilians, were I living in the States and allowed to do so, I would also have a pistol as close by as I could. There's no glory in being the weakest in the pack. No glory and no common sense. In fact, I often wish that I had something at home with which to protect myself. In winter, I'm the only guy in my block. I am in no physical condition (or position) to play Kung Fu with anybody wishing to help himself to whatever I have at home.
The 'home is sacred' concept makes perfect sense: break in and expect to pay the price - the choice is yours to make; I'd rather you didn't force it upon me, but if you do... sadly, I'm not allowed the opportunity of holding the dominant hand.
It's never a simple choice, I guess, and you have to apply the rules as they are where you are.
Frankly, I think that the chance of banning guns in America is as great as seriously cutting state hand-outs in Britain. No political will for it, only rhetoric. You're better off making more photographs than worrying about it. I'd take my own advice, but as I realise that pretty much anything other than photography of people is ultimately meaningless for me, I have sort of decided to stop wasting even more time in front of the computer making beautiful, pointless images that have no future.
Rob
-
"Tom you're going to have to accept it: nothing's going to change on that score."
Hey Rob you are right. In the American psyche guns protect you. Unfortunately they also make it much easier to commit crimes and kill (often and with great ease, even school children can do it).
There were 214 gun deaths in Australia in 2014. Adjusting for population it's the equivalent of 3200 in the US. In the US there were 33,599 gun deaths in 2014 (that is 30,000 more deaths). Unfortunately that probably meant just under 20,000 gun suicides. Yep, guns can't protect you from yourself.
Look, I understand that Americans love their guns. It is totally stupid but that's their constitutional right. God help them.
Cheers,
-
Yes your conclusion is yours. The answer as to whether more Americans agree with me or you will be answered in November. I believe (and the polls seem to be agreeing) that the majority of Americans would rather elect a very flawed man like Donald Trump as president than allow the leftists to pander to violence and anarchy. We'll know in less than four months.
Yes, if you follow the advice given in this thread to "read between the lines" it suddenly becomes opinion and not fact. That's fine, everybody is entitled to their opinion.
We'll see who gets elected in November and I never said it wouldn't be Trump, I just implied that your statements on Obama were your opinion and not based on direct quotes and facts. If you just take pieces and sound bites from these articles you can spin a very negative as well as a very positive message, based on what you choose and how you rip it out of its context.
Btw, I find it amazing that the republican party keeps bashing and blaming others rather then come forward with their own program (other then bringing more Christian bibles in the US education program). The only thing holding them together is the hate of Hillary and while it may work I see some similarities with Germany in 1930, when they got a similar election rhetoric (and successful result) that they deeply regretted in 1945.
-
"Tom you're going to have to accept it: nothing's going to change on that score."
Hey Rob you are right. In the American psyche guns protect you. Unfortunately they also make it much easier to commit crimes and kill (often and with great ease, even school children can do it).
There were 214 gun deaths in Australia in 2014. Adjusting for population it's the equivalent of 3200 in the US. In the US there were 33,599 gun deaths in 2014 (that is 30,000 more deaths). Unfortunately that probably meant just under 20,000 gun suicides. Yep, guns can't protect you from yourself.
Look, I understand that Americans love their guns. It is totally stupid but that's their constitutional right. God help them.
Cheers,
Tom,
"In 2014, there were 2,160 males (18.4 per 100,000) and 704 females (5.9 per 100,000) that died by suicide, a total of 2,864 deaths (12.0 per 100,000), which equates to an average of 7.8 deaths by suicide in Australia each day."
In the US:
The annual age-adjusted suicide rate is 12.93 per 100,000 individuals
Looks like we both kill ourselves at pretty much the same rate. Since many of the US deaths are by firearm, what happens if you pull this statistic from your thinking about guns / gun deaths? Do you think Americans wouldn't kill themselves if they didn't have guns? Doesn't seem to work that way in your country. And, I'm not being insensitive to the issue of suicide, too many of my friends in the fire service have gone that route after retirment for me to be callous.
Rand
-
A report about another police officer who feared for his life because of a dangerous African-American: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/miami-police-shooting-hands-up_us_57903472e4b0bdddc4d32ad3?ir=Canada§ion=ca_canada&utm_hp_ref=canada (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/miami-police-shooting-hands-up_us_57903472e4b0bdddc4d32ad3?ir=Canada§ion=ca_canada&utm_hp_ref=canada)
At what point does a series of isolated incidents became a pattern?
-
...At what point does a series of isolated incidents became a pattern?
Every time someone wants to spin it so.
-
A report about another police officer who feared for his life because of a dangerous African-American: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/miami-police-shooting-hands-up_us_57903472e4b0bdddc4d32ad3?ir=Canada§ion=ca_canada&utm_hp_ref=canada (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/miami-police-shooting-hands-up_us_57903472e4b0bdddc4d32ad3?ir=Canada§ion=ca_canada&utm_hp_ref=canada)
At what point does a series of isolated incidents became a pattern?
I don't know about a pattern, but I do think that it says something about the sort of person who opts to join the police.
In my mind, it's a very dangerous job, and by definition demands a mindset/personality that can handle stress and rapidly developing situations. I should imagine that people able to meet those requirements do not grow on trees. However, there is an obvious need to fill uniforms and get them out into the world. Maybe that's the glitch: comes a point where you have to drop the standards you'd set simply to meet the numbers. Strikes me that there are quite a few such square pegs being slipped into round holes. Make the hole big enough and no problem...
Sure ain't a job I could have ever handled.
Rob
-
...statements on Obama were your opinion and not based on direct quotes...
Pieter, where would the world of arts, literature, psychology, etc. be if we would only rely on the literal meaning?
-
Pieter, where would the world of arts, literature, psychology, etc. be if we would only rely on the literal meaning?
That's not the point Slobodan. As soon as there is interpretation it becomes an opinion. Nothing wrong with that but let's call it what it is and not confuse it with facts.
It's a fact Mrs. Trump copied a speech from Mrs. Obama, it's an opinion when you say that's good or bad.
It's a fact Mrs. Trump lied when she said she wrote it all by herself, it's an opinion if you think that's good or bad.
It's a fact Mrs. Clinton lied about aspects of the e-mail traffic of her job as Secretary of State, it's an opinion if you believe that disqualifies her as next president of the US.
It's a fact that diplomas from the Trump University are a total fake, it's an opinion if you believe that disqualifies Mr. Trump as next president of the US or not.
....
....
....
-
... It's a fact Mrs. Trump lied when she said she wrote it all by herself...
It is not a fact, it is a lie (what you said above).
Since you like direct quotes, here it is: “I wrote it with as little help as possible,” which definitely isn' the same as "all by herself." And that's a fact. :)
-
It is not a fact, it is a lie (what you said above).
Let's call it a mistake ;)
Any mistakes in the other three?
-
Mass shootings in the US are so embarrassing that Google has given up.
Not sure I understand what you mean by this.
-
Let's call it a mistake ;)
Any mistakes in the other three?
I actually agree with you (on the distinction between facts and opinions):
-
That's not the point Slobodan. As soon as there is interpretation it becomes an opinion. Nothing wrong with that but let's call it what it is and not confuse it with facts.
It's a fact Mrs. Trump copied a speech from Mrs. Obama, it's an opinion when you say that's good or bad.
It's a fact Mrs. Trump lied when she said she wrote it all by herself, it's an opinion if you think that's good or bad.
It's a fact Mrs. Clinton lied about aspects of the e-mail traffic of her job as Secretary of State, it's an opinion if you believe that disqualifies her as next president of the US.
It's a fact that diplomas from the Trump University are a total fake, it's an opinion if you believe that disqualifies Mr. Trump as next president of the US or not.
....
....
....
What I find amazing about this whole tempest in a teapot re the supposed plagiarism is that the words, phrases, sentiments expressed could be found in thousands of speeches given for the last 200 years in the US, and probably way beyond that outside our borders. It would be like accusing her of plagiarism had she said "mom and apple pie." And, think of this, why in heck would she (or anyone else) knowingly steal from Michele Obama? Talk about giving your opponent a knife to stab you with. In the age of Google everyone knows that every word uttered by anyone in the political arena gets "googled." No one is that stupid, not even the Trumps. Had I the skills and the time, I'll bet I could create "side by side" video of Michele Obama's speech making it look like she stole "directly" from Nancy Reagan, Laura Bush, and probably Tokyo Rose.
I think the US is in deep trouble, no matter which of the two disgusting individuals is elected. But I have equal disgust for a media that has nothing better to do than tear down, accuse, denigrate someone who merely made a reasonably nice, oft repeated, paean to family, hard work, and the American notion that hard work and honesty can get you somewhere in this country. Fer Pete's sake!
Rand
-
I actually agree with you (on the distinction between facts and opinions):
Man, this is depressingly post-modern (the illustration). Facts = opinions as though that is the objective truth of the matter. If your opinion (fact claim) is that drinking poison is harmless, and my opinion (fact claim) is that it will kill you... I suspect that "facts as possibly objective truth" might prove itself very quickly one way or the other. There is of course a whole world of things that are claimed as "facts" that don't belong in that category - that's part of the problem. But to come to the conclusion, because of category errors, that facts = opinions, is intellectual suicide.
Rand
-
What I find amazing about this whole tempest in a teapot re the supposed plagiarism is that the words, phrases, sentiments expressed could be found in thousands of speeches given for the last 200 years in the US, and probably way beyond that outside our borders. It would be like accusing her of plagiarism had she said "mom and apple pie." And, think of this, why in heck would she (or anyone else) knowingly steal from Michele Obama? Talk about giving your opponent a knife to stab you with. In the age of Google everyone knows that every word uttered by anyone in the political arena gets "googled." No one is that stupid, not even the Trumps. Had I the skills and the time, I'll bet I could create "side by side" video of Michele Obama's speech making it look like she stole "directly" from Nancy Reagan, Laura Bush, and probably Tokyo Rose.
I think you're being way too nice and overestimating the intelligence of Mrs Trump and/or her advisors (which she said she used as little as possible ;)).
The way you define it any music played is plagiarism, because all the notes have been used before.
She even reused parts of the speech that weren't applicable to her youth and upbringing, that tells me enough.
But, as Slobodan pointed out, it's just an opinion, no more, no less 8)
-
I think you're being way too nice and overestimating the intelligence of Mrs Trump and/or her advisors (which she said she used as little as possible ;)).
The way you define it any music played is plagiarism, because all the notes have been used before.
She even reused parts of the speech that weren't applicable to her youth and upbringing, that tells me enough.
But, as Slobodan pointed out, it's just an opinion, no more, no less 8)
In classical music, a "quote" from another composer is often apparent. Even sometimes celebrated as homage. I don't see what you are saying as the least bit relevant to my original comments.
So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that Mrs. Trump either "all on her own" or with "a little help" intentionally and knowingly copied specific bits from Michele Obama to use in her speech, thinking that no one would notice? Yup, that's what I'd do. I'd go to the persons I'm trying to oppose and defeat as my source for writing a great speech in in furthering that effort. Makes perfect sense.
Rand
-
...But to come to the conclusion, because of category errors, that facts = opinions, is intellectual suicide.
Ok, you lost me there. Who is saying that facts = opinions?
-
Yes Rand, I believe that and to me it shows how stupid the Trump campaign managed this part of the convention.
But be my guest and show the similarities between Michele's and Laura/Nancy's speech as convincingly as between Melania and Michele's speech and I might be tempted to change my opinion.
-
Ok, you lost me there. Who is saying that facts = opinions?
That's exactly what the cartoon/illustration is saying. Although, based on my response, the cartoon/illustration is a "drawing" of the category error.
Rand
-
Looks like my last illustration caused some unexpected interpretations, so how about this one (Australians included)?:
-
Btw, I find it amazing that the republican party keeps bashing and blaming others rather then come forward with their own program (other then bringing more Christian bibles in the US education program). The only thing holding them together is the hate of Hillary and while it may work I see some similarities with Germany in 1930, when they got a similar election rhetoric (and successful result) that they deeply regretted in 1945.
Christian bibles and hate of Hillary. Wow, Pieter your stereotyping of conservative motivations needs updating. But let's put that aside for a minute and identify why you like to discuss US politics instead of your own nation's affairs. Why don't you give me a glimpse of your nation and its politics. Explain to me the similarities and differences between your own land and the awful Americans. And since you say it reminds you of 1930s Germany, please remind me of what your homeland did to stop Germany in the second world war. I seem to remember in my propaganda history class that we for some unknown reason sent a few million of our young men to Europe to do something or other. I don't think we bashed or blamed too many of the victims. I think we had a plan of our own. It was called the Marshall Plan. And I believe it rebuilt most of Europe. Hillary wasn't there but I believe there were a good number of Christian Bibles in the hands of a lot of chaplains that were reading last rites over the fallen boys who gave their lives. And the head of that little effort was a man named Eisenhower and I believe he was a pretty good republican president and he had some pretty good plans of his own.
-
Yes Rand, I believe that and to me it shows how stupid the Trump campaign managed this part of the convention.
But be my guest and show the similarities between Michele's and Laura/Nancy's speech as convincingly as between Melania and Michele's speech and I might be tempted to change my opinion.
Well, how about this, exact words from the book, The Seven Habits Of Highly Effective People by Stephen R Covey :
"There is only one sure means of success. Number one, work hard for what you want in life. Number two, treat your word as your bond and always do what you say you're going to do. And number three, respect everyone and treat them with dignity even if you don't know them or agree with them. And always, always, take the opportunity to pass the values on to the next generation."
As I said, the equivalent of "mom and apple pie." So, now both Mrs. Obama and Mrs Trump are guilty of stealing from Stephen Covey? That is my real point. Saying what both Obama and Trump said is about as unique (and their own) as saying the sky is blue. To make a big deal out of that, as though is was some kind of underhanded theft is patently ridiculous.
Addendum: Lest I seem overly harsh, let me point out that the use of this kind of language "repetition" is as old as humanity. Oral tradition, story telling, is replete with "creedal statements" where "who we are and what we value" is put into the kind of creedal statement that Covey expresses in his book. As such, it is "the story we tell ourselves" in order to reinforce and pass along those values. As such, they belong to no one and everyone. I believe that both Mrs Obama and Mrs Trump were doing exactly that with what they said in their respective speeches, and telling us that their husbands will be "faithful to carry on our story and values." This is why I take umbrage with a "media" that is so seemingly dense and obtuse as to twist and distort what happened. They know better, based on what I said above (or they should). And, worse, if they really "don't know this" - then our society is in much worse shape than even I suppose it to be.
Rand
-
Looks like my last illustration caused some unexpected interpretations, so how about this one (Australians included)?:
Slobodan,
LOVE it! ;D
"Drop that bacon, and put your hands up!"
Rand
-
Rand, my compliments (on the Seven Habits... find)!
-
Wow, Pieter your stereotyping of conservative motivations needs updating.
Well, just tell me what else were important republican program items at the convention?
And the head of that little effort was a man named Eisenhower and I believe he was a pretty good republican president and he had some pretty good plans of his own.
And I think you're a bit liberal in you connection of the historical dots here. Eisenhower was the leader in the field in WWII but the "Commander in Chief" was Roosevelt and the Marshall plan was more from the Rooseveld/Truman era who were both good Democrats and the plan was over by the time Eisenhower became the 34th president. Eisenhower was indeed a good republican president, but for this convention he may have sided with Bush Sr. and Jr. who both decided to skip the honours of attending this years' GOP convention.
-
Looks like my last illustration caused some unexpected interpretations, so how about this one (Australians included)?:
As an American I say..........that bacon sure looks good!
-
Looks like my last illustration caused some unexpected interpretations, so how about this one (Australians included)?:
Well, this is my idea about an American breakfast ;D :
Makin' Bacon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2130F4rjPg)
-
Well, just tell me what else were important republican program items at the convention?
Returning the government to people who won't attack the bill of rights, specifically freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms (guns).
Now stop avoiding the question I asked. What do you believe in? What does your government stand for?
-
Rand, my compliments (on the Seven Habits... find)!
Ok, in the interest of full disclosure and truth, it appears that there is no evidence that such a passage exists in the Covey's book. I was too quick to take it for granted. My bad.
http://www.snopes.com/michelle-obama-plagiarized-stephen-r-covey/
-
Returning the government to people who won't attack the bill of rights, specifically freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms (guns).
Now stop avoiding the question I asked. What do you believe in? What does your government stand for?
Yup, I agree, forgot to mention that nominating Trump was another agenda item.
I don't know why I should answer your question since this thread is about US politics, not European politics but I give you something to bite on anyway: What I stand for, and what my country stands for is tolerance and freedom incl. no discrimination based on religion, gender, sexual orientation, background, race etc. etc. but a hard stand against crime and terrorism.
-
Ok, in the interest of full disclosure and truth, it appears that there is no evidence that such a passage exists in the Covey's book. I was too quick to take it for granted. My bad.
http://www.snopes.com/michelle-obama-plagiarized-stephen-r-covey/
Interesting. Doesn't negate my point about "creedal statements" however, though it does reinforce my statements about the evil that mankind does! Sad. Partisanship in any guise, for its own sake, and "at any cost" - is just ugly. A "fake quote" from Covey, weird, I wonder who dreamed that one up. Sorry to have posted without vetting. I'll bet Google's servers are smoking at the moment with people doing research on every word either of them has ever spoken.
Rand
-
Ok, in the interest of full disclosure and truth, it appears that there is no evidence that such a passage exists in the Covey's book. I was too quick to take it for granted. My bad.
http://www.snopes.com/michelle-obama-plagiarized-stephen-r-covey/
Great find Slobodan, saved me a trip to my attic where my copy of Covey's book is hidden somewhere. Wanted to do that since I didn't remember the contested "quote" (but granted, it was probably 20 years ago that I read it) so I wanted to make sure. Can't trust social media anymore these days, have to check and double check everything they say there. What a mess ;)
-
... Can't trust social media anymore these days, have to check and double check everything they say there. What a mess ;)
Yep.
-
Rand, my compliments (on the Seven Habits... find)!
Yes, a very nice piece of right wing smear fiction (http://www.snopes.com/michelle-obama-plagiarized-stephen-r-covey/) fabricated to suit your agenda. Bravo!
Oops. I was too slow. But it seems a lot of Trump's popularity comes from "facts" derived from similar sources.
-
Yep.
Priceless! ;D
Rand
-
Here's an interesting article "supposedly" from the New York Times (just to be safe about stuff found on the Internet! LOL)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/melania-trump-speech-meredith-mciver.html?_r=0
Rand
-
Sure ain't a job I could have ever handled.
Nor I, come to that.
But I wonder which this police officer was most afraid of, the autistic guy with the toy truck or the guy laying on the ground with his hands held high. What was so urgent that it required shots to be fired into the guy's leg, I wonder?
Hunters are required to know what they are shooting at to avoid killing animals that are not currently in season. Seems to me that it's not too much to ask that police officers be capable of at least that much, that is, minimally assess the situation. Surely even tax-strapped towns and cities in the USA could manage that much training.
-
...Seems to me that it's not too much to ask that police officers be capable of at least that much, that is, minimally assess the situation. Surely even tax-strapped towns and cities in the USA could manage that much training.
And yet, accidental discharge of a firearm will happen from time to time, no matter what.
-
According to that report (has there been an update?), the guy was shot 3 times. Three accidental discharges?
-
According to that report (has there been an update?), the guy was shot 3 times. Three accidental discharges?
I made a general statement. I have no idea what happened there and why. I just find it highly unlikely that the shooting was deliberate.
-
I made a general statement. I have no idea what happened there and why. I just find it highly unlikely that the shooting was deliberate.
Slobodan, come on! Nobody could stretch credulity that far!
The guy was not fit to work; he was on something; he's just crazy; he's too afraid. Take your pick. He just fits the current stereotyping to the letter!
Rob
-
I don't know why I should answer your question since this thread is about US politics, not European politics but I give you something to bite on anyway: What I stand for, and what my country stands for is tolerance and freedom incl. no discrimination based on religion, gender, sexual orientation, background, race etc. etc. but a hard stand against crime and terrorism.
Excellent. Now we're getting some where. You believe in freedom but not all freedom. For instance, the EU has very particular restrictions on freedom of speech. Many things that I could say in the US would get you arrested for hate speech in the EU. And as far as owning guns, that's like cannibalism in your land. So there are differences. Now how do the freedoms you listed interact with each other. If someone's religion requires that women cover their faces in public does his freedom of religion allow him to attack women without face coverings? And if not then isn't this a terrible racist act of eurocentric privilege? In general how do you balance all of these conflicting freedoms? I remember reading about a descendant of Van Gough who took Muslims to task for their behavior and he was shot and stabbed to death in the street in the Netherlands. Now that seems like a strange sort of tolerance. However in a country without either freedom of speech or the right to bear arms it's hard to see how you can be all that free when the definition of what's acceptable and what's not is no longer so black and white.
-
Excellent. Now we're getting some where. You believe in freedom but not all freedom. For instance, the EU has very particular restrictions on freedom of speech. Many things that I could say in the US would get you arrested for hate speech in the EU. And as far as owning guns, that's like cannibalism in your land. So there are differences. Now how do the freedoms you listed interact with each other. If someone's religion requires that women cover their faces in public does his freedom of religion allow him to attack women without face coverings? And if not then isn't this a terrible racist act of eurocentric privilege? In general how do you balance all of these conflicting freedoms? I remember reading about a descendant of Van Gough who took Muslims to task for their behavior and he was shot and stabbed to death in the street in the Netherlands. Now that seems like a strange sort of tolerance. However in a country without either freedom of speech or the right to bear arms it's hard to see how you can be all that free when the definition of what's acceptable and what's not is no longer so black and white.
As they say there's more roads that lead to Rome. What we stand for is very close or the same, only how we get there is different. And regards freedom: my right to wave my right arm stops where your nose starts. Same with freedom of speech, that stops where you are speaking to commit crimes or call on others to commit crimes. I have no problem with that.
For the rest you accuse me of stereotyping the republican party? Reading your post my advice is to not do to others what you don't want others to do to you.
And one last question for you now: does everybody in your country support what you and your country stand for? If I guess the answer to that my comment is, unfortunately neither do all people in my country.
-
For the rest you accuse me of stereotyping the republican party? Reading your post my advice is to not do to others what you don't want others to do to you.
And one last question for you now: does everybody in your country support what you and your country stand for? If I guess the answer to that my comment is, unfortunately neither do all people in my country.
Why would I not stereotype you what you feel justified in doing it to me. You pretend that your analysis of conservatives is objective but actually it's just the opinion based on your perspective. But since you won't admit that I am justified in using the same technique with you.
-
Why would I not stereotype you what you feel justified in doing it to me. You pretend that your analysis of conservatives is objective but actually it's just the opinion based on your perspective. But since you won't admit that I am justified in using the same technique with you.
OK, fair point.
How about answering my question?
-
OK, fair point.
How about answering my question?
"And one last question for you now: does everybody in your country support what you and your country stand for? If I guess the answer to that my comment is, unfortunately neither do all people in my country".
Many people in America have forgotten (or never learned) what is in the Constitution. It may just be that these young people don't understand what it means to give up your freedom. They probably don't know what a serf is. We'll find out pretty soon. As far as other countries, it's hard for me to tell what they want.
-
... It may just be that these young people don't understand what it means to give up your freedom.
Ivy leaguers sign 'petition' to repeal First Amendment (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/16/yale-fail-ivy-leaguers-caught-on-video-clamoring-to-kill-first-amendment.html)
-
Ivy leaguers sign 'petition' to repeal First Amendment (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/16/yale-fail-ivy-leaguers-caught-on-video-clamoring-to-kill-first-amendment.html)
They pay $50,000 a year to turn their kids into morons. What a deal.
-
...The Seven Habits Of Highly Effective People...
According to Trump ;)
-
Many people in America have forgotten (or never learned) what is in the Constitution. It may just be that these young people don't understand what it means to give up your freedom. They probably don't know what a serf is. We'll find out pretty soon. As far as other countries, it's hard for me to tell what they want.
Interesting spin you put on there, since you're assuming that if people would know the convention they would support what your country stands for (or you didn't answer my question). I didn't ask about other countries, so that's OK.
I must applaud Trump on several things, some of his stands I find nuts but the main one where I support him is his support for LBGT community. The way he's taking on the party line there is exemplary. I just hope the new US government (whoever it will be) will be as vicious defending the "freedom of religion" as the current conservative efforts defending the "right to bear arms". You can't pick and choose from the constitution what you like and disregard other parts.
And as far as you saying that "hate of Hillary" is a stereotype, well if that isn't the case how do you explain the long periods at the convention in which thousands of people scant "Lock Her Up" and all the buttons and memorabilia with the same message being sold in large numbers at the convention. Giving this enormous out poor of this message I think it must be something the party stands for and not a stereotype. Obviously they're free to say so since we both support freedom of speech, but to downplay what's happening there as unjust stereotyping is for me a bridge too far.
-
OK, I started this thread because five police officers were shot and killed and I thought that it may be a tipping point (hey, they were all highly trained in using guns Slobodan?). Sandy Hook should have been the tipping point, and America now has mass murders every second week, surely that should be a tipping point.
In Australia we had a tipping point, the Port Arthur killing spree in which 35 people were killed and 23 wounded. Left and right wing members of Parliament banded together to prevent mass murders happening again. Hey, twenty years later not one mass murder.
Forget the left/right wing rhetoric, what do you suggest that America does to stop mass murders and can Americans actually get legislation through to enforce it?
As I said, I despair, the only solution to mass murders on this thread is from conservatives, "Get a gun!"
Really, "What does it take?"
I know Rob, I'm a delusional colonial, but there is always hope, isn't there?
Cheers,
-
Forget the left/right wing rhetoric, what do you suggest that America does to stop mass murders and can Americans actually get legislation through to enforce it?
I think the first requirement would be that a majority of the population agrees this issue as a problem. If there is no widespread acknowledgement of that among the voters I'm afraid noting will change. In a democracy the people will get the government and the policies that are supported by the majority. We can say what we want but if that's what the people of the US vote for who are we to say they're wrong? In my personal opinion they could do an awful lot to make the purchase of automatic assault weapons by nutters and criminals more difficult but as long as that is portrayed as a limitation of the 2nd amendment it won't happen. So it will need a lobby that is as strong and rich as the weapon industry lobby to try and make any change. But who has the energy and the resources to do that?
Maybe watch this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEdyYP-vERs) to see how assault weapons can be (mis) used for other purposes :D
-
Interesting spin you put on there, since you're assuming that if people would know the convention they would support what your country stands for (or you didn't answer my question). I didn't ask about other countries, so that's OK.
I must applaud Trump on several things, some of his stands I find nuts but the main one where I support him is his support for LBGT community. The way he's taking on the party line there is exemplary. I just hope the new US government (whoever it will be) will be as vicious defending the "freedom of religion" as the current conservative efforts defending the "right to bear arms". You can't pick and choose from the constitution what you like and disregard other parts.
And as far as you saying that "hate of Hillary" is a stereotype, well if that isn't the case how do you explain the long periods at the convention in which thousands of people scant "Lock Her Up" and all the buttons and memorabilia with the same message being sold in large numbers at the convention. Giving this enormous out poor of this message I think it must be something the party stands for and not a stereotype. Obviously they're free to say so since we both support freedom of speech, but to downplay what's happening there as unjust stereotyping is for me a bridge too far.
Look this is just silly. You're a leftist so why would you agree with republicans and disagree with leftists like Hillary. The only thing that is objectionable is you pretending that you are objective in your opinions. We like our freedoms. You prefer state control of just about everything. Good luck with that.
-
Except, Bart, the overwhelming majority of crime and incidents are caused by ILLEGAL guns, thus nothing to do with gun laws.
Do you actually believe that? Are you unable to see the flaw in your reasoning?
-
Look this is just silly. You're a leftist so why would you agree with republicans and disagree with leftists like Hillary. The only thing that is objectionable is you pretending that you are objective in your opinions. We like our freedoms. You prefer state control of just about everything. Good luck with that.
Sorry, you're wrong, you're stereotyping me because you can't win the argument another way. That's fine, it doesn't impress me.
I'm not pretending I'm objective, I'm just stating my opinion, I'm just sorry you can't deal with other opinions then your own.
Also the world is more complicated then "if you're right you follow the republicans in everything, if you're left you follow the democrats in everything", for me that's too much of a simplification that mainly leads to polarization and not to sustainable progress.
Politically I'm certainly right from center in Europe, I also like less state control but less extreme as some people in the US.
However since I can't vote there and you can it's up to you to follow your conscience, non-US citizens can't help with that ;)
-
Hey, this thread is about my disgust with mass shootings in America and how Americans can't/won't do anything about them. Hence the title, "What does it take?"
There has been a proliferation of mass shootings in America recently. This thread is about preventing mass shootings.
One of the nice things about starting a thread is that I can also end it. From the conversations so far is it really that hopeless? Is Australia such a strange anomaly?
Please keep on topic or I'll close the thread.
ONCE AGAIN I DON"T CARE ABOUT LEFT/RIGHT POLITICS.
I would love to hear how Americans would stop mass shootings!
Cheers,
-
Tom, I've given you my opinion on "what does it take" in posts 217 and 338. I'm not an American but I worked for an American company my whole career and have lived with the whole family in Texas for 3 years. So while you may not agree with what I wrote it's at least different from "more guns" and written with some first hand experience of living in the American society ;)
By all means close the thread if you don't want to discuss Left/Right politics, but since the whole debate about gun control is tangled up in Left/Right politics it's in my mind not as far Off Topic as you think and could lead to some insights on what it takes to reinstate a serene debate on gun control and preventing mass shootings. I think both sides on this debate are too extreme, and trying to convince with populistic sound bites. Just my opinion, no more, no less.
-
WOW, Tom, that's quite a post...
So unless people give you a concrete recipe, an action plan with a deadline, you won't be satisfied?
And discussing anything, however closely connected with the subject, if it's not literally the subject itself, then it's a no-no?
You should probably close this thread right away. And never start a new one on this topic, as I for the life of me can't see what good can ever come out of it if you're doing it with this attitude.
Also, shouting at people isn't very nice. I understand that in Australia you lost all deterrents to doing that, but in places where those people still have guns, it can be even dangerous, you know...
Hey, this thread is about my disgust with mass shootings in America and how Americans can't/won't do anything about them. Hence the title, "What does it take?"
There has been a proliferation of mass shootings in America recently. This thread is about preventing mass shootings.
One of the nice things about starting a thread is that I can also end it. From the conversations so far is it really that hopeless? Is Australia such a strange anomaly?
Please keep on topic or I'll close the thread.
ONCE AGAIN I DON"T CARE ABOUT LEFT/RIGHT POLITICS.
I would love to hear how Americans would stop mass shootings!
Cheers,
-
Hey, this thread is about my disgust with mass shootings in America and how Americans can't/won't do anything about them.
We are working on this. We have been working this for decades. The fact that murders have decreased is partially due to our efforts.
There is no one thing that can (poof) make mass killings vanish. I wish there were.
Our press is not making the job easier with the way they are reporting it. But then, at least in the US, the press is a for-profit business no longer a service so stories that make money (improve reader/viewership) results in larger advertising investments and therefore more profit for the news media. "If it bleeds, it leads" is the mantra for US press.
We may not be doing what, in your opinion, needs to be done. That's a fair observation.
We may not be doing things as fast as your opinion would like. That's a fair observation.
But to claim that we are not doing anything or worse don't want to do anything is an unfair observation and doing a disservice to those who are and have been working this issue for decades.
We are a big country with an often adversarial relationship between our federal government, our state governments and the individual. That is just how the USA runs. We do not have a king, nor do we have a federal legislative body with absolute control over the entire country. We have individual rights, state rights, and even federal rights. Some of them are in conflict and many have disagreements between them. In some cases, this can be a disadvantage, but, in my opinion, our system works pretty well pretty much of the time for pretty much all the issues.
But please be assured that there are very very few people in the US who are in favour of mass killings. We are concerned, and we do desire the problem to go away. We are working the problem.
-
Do you actually believe that? Are you unable to see the flaw in your reasoning?
It doesn't matter if I believe that or not. If you bothered to read the whole thread, you'd see that I provided studies and statistics showing that only between 3% and 11% of all gun crimes are committed with legal guns.
-
...I would love to hear how Americans would stop mass shootings!
Easy... We are just waiting for you to start a few more threads like this one. Please spread it beyond LuLa, so that more Americans become aware of your concerns for our well being. We are compassionate people, and would ultimately take heed of your wise words.
-
It doesn't matter if I believe that or not. If you bothered to read the whole thread, you'd see that I provided studies and statistics showing that only between 3% and 11% of all gun crimes are committed with legal guns.
'Gun crime' is a bit vague, and what about accidental deaths and non-lethal injuries? In the United States, the latest annual number of non-fatal firearm injuries in 2013 is 84,258 (= 2.51x the total number of deaths resulting from firearms. (source (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states))
Here are some more numbers to chew on (same source as above).
In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total
2014: 33,599
In the United States, annual firearm homicides total
2014: 10,945 (= 69% out of 15,809 total homicides by any means, and 33% of all firearms deaths)
In the United States, annual firearm suicides total
2014: 21,334 (= 50% out of 42,773 total suicides by any method, and 63% of all firearms deaths)
In the United States, annual unintentional shooting deaths total
2014: 586 (= 2% of all firearms deaths)
In the United States, annual shooting deaths in which the cause remains undecided total
2014: 270 (= 1% of all firearms deaths)
In the United States, annual legal-intervention gun homicides total
2013: 681 (= 2% of all firearms deaths)
So roughly 1/3rd of all firearms deaths is caused by homicide, and almost 2/3rd by suicide. But there are also 2.5x as many non-fatal firearm injuries as there are deaths.
It would be interesting to see what is done to reduce those numbers (corrected for population numbers). Part of a possible decline is caused by a general decline in suicides, but the gun related percentage of all suicides is stable.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart, Holland and the U.S. have practically the same suicide rates. Many other European nations have it even higher than us. You do not use guns for that. So, what has been done to reduce the number of suicides in Europe?
-
Hey, as I said, I just keep on hearing about mass shootings in America. Nothing seems to be done about it and nobody cares.
Look Americans, you can shoot each other up as much as you want with all your legal/illegal guns, its no skin off my back. Obviously nobody can ask you WTF you are doing, you are Masters of the Universe (or so Hollywood keeps telling me).
The simple answer I have received from my inquiry is that political dogma is much more important than public safety in America, sad but true.
Cheers,