Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Justinr on July 22, 2016, 01:44:54 pm
-
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdc_1469207830
Another shooting in Germany with 11 feared dead.
Edit, another report says just three dead, but that's still three too many.
-
Our sympathies are with Germany, of course.
It does show, however, that mass shootings can happen regardless of whether a country has strict or lax gun controls.
-
It does show, however, that mass shootings can happen regardless of whether a country has strict or lax gun controls.
Slobodan,
Let's keep the distinction between gun crime and terrorism/acts-of-war , shall we ? In the meantime a second, distinct police op is underway in the centre. It's too early to say what the real nature of these latest incidents are - so suggest a modicum of restraint and empathy.
Edit:
Apparently now at least 6 dead and and the elite anti-terror unit GSG9 called upon.
-
Slobodan,
Let's keep the distinction between gun crime and terrorism/acts-of-war , shall we ? In the meantime a second, distinct police op is underway in the centre. It's too early to say what the real nature of these latest incidents are - so suggest a modicum of restraint and empathy.
Edit:
Apparently now at least 6 dead and and the elite anti-terror unit GSG9 called upon.
+1
There is also talk of the gunmen being from the far right, this being the anniversary of Anders Breivik's massacre in Norway has not gone unremarked upon.
-
Let's keep the distinction between gun crime and terrorism/acts-of-war , shall we ?
And exactly what the hell is the distinction? You're just as dead in either case and just as defenseless without a weapon.
-
Let's keep the distinction between gun crime and terrorism/acts-of-war , shall we ?
IMO you're doing your case a disservice using "arguments" like that.
Dallas massacre for you is a gun crime, but 3 men killed in a shopping center is an act of war/terrorism? What kind of logic is that?
Once again, I have no firm opinion as whether guys should be sold freely in the US. I do have firm opinion about Russia though: guns should not be traded freely here.
And I have firm opinion about one more thing: if you are going to discuss something on a public forum, be prepared to back your opinion with facts and logic, do not just stubbornly repeat your belief until everyone is sick and tired of it.
-
And exactly what the hell is the distinction?
Hi Russ,
How about motive ?
You're just as dead in either case and just as defenseless without a weapon.
Obviously, but it makes a big difference in case one wants to find a way of preventing the next shooting. Identifying the root cause, may allow to solve it better/faster.
Maybe that's the big difference between some of our cultures. Some want to prevent new tragedies from happening, and others just pile up more guns which increases the likelihood of more tragedies happening. Pro-active versus Reactive. It would be fully consistent with what I was taught during a multi-day Cross Cultural Skill training. And the cultural differences within Europe are also huge.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I've started to think about a way to sooth children seeing this on the news by showing them a globe of the Earth pointing to where each shooting is happening and how far away it is in comparison to the entire planet so they don't think it's going to happen to them. Then I'ld show them Google maps satellite view of the exact location and zoom out just to further establish a perspective.
These shootings are a tragedy for sure and the lives not to be made small, but living in fear can ruin more lives from a global sense.
-
I've started to think about a way to sooth children seeing this on the news by showing them a globe of the Earth pointing to where each shooting is happening and how far away it is in comparison to the entire planet so they don't think it's going to happen to them. Then I'ld show them Google maps satellite view of the exact location and zoom out just to further establish a perspective.
These shootings are a tragedy for sure and the lives not to be made small, but living in fear can ruin more lives from a global sense.
+1
Cheers,
Bart
-
Dallas massacre for you is a gun crime, but 3 men killed in a shopping center is an act of war/terrorism? What kind of logic is that?
It would help if you read what I actually wrote.
You must have missed the part ' It's too early to say what the real nature of these latest incidents are. '
Jumping to conclusions and warped logic seem to be all yours.
-
...Identifying the root cause, may allow to solve it better/faster....
Of course.
In the last several mass shootings in the States, about which we just had 18 pages of discussion, the root cause was terrorism (Baton Rouge, Dallas, Orlando, San Bernardino). And yet you guys kept harping on about gun control. Misidentifying the cause as guns, instead of terrorism, surely ain't going to solve it better/faster.
-
...the real nature..
Again, does it matter? It was a mass shooting, the same subject we've been discussing in another thread. In the U.S. case, you (rhetorical) argued that it doesn't matter what was the real nature, whether guns were legal or illegal, crime, terrorism or suicide, all it mattered is... (lax) gun control. Now, in your case, all of a sudden (tight) gun control doesn't matter, but the "real nature" does!?
-
Of course.
In the last several mass shootings in the States, about which we just had 18 pages of discussion, the root cause was terrorism (Baton Rouge, Dallas, Orlando, San Bernardino).
No it wasn't, it was AFAIK an act out of utter frustration. What you thought was the cause is in fact just another symptom, and that the problem lies much deeper within.
And yet you guys kept harping on about gun control. Misidentifying the cause as guns, instead of terrorism, surely ain't going to solve it better/faster.
Guns are symptoms as well (providing a false sense of security), the root cause is deeper.
As for this thread, we do not know enough details yet, although I saw a video clip where (one of) the perpetrator(s) was heard discussing with presumably a spectator of the developing scene before it went horribly wrong. The spectator said in German, "you're an ass-hole, you can't go shooting people in a mall", and the perpetrator said, "I will draw my gun", and "I am a German, I haven't done anything, shut your trap". Or words to that effect. I'd have to see/hear it again to be more accurate.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Of course.
In the last several mass shootings in the States, about which we just had 18 pages of discussion, the root cause was terrorism (Baton Rouge, Dallas, Orlando, San Bernardino). And yet you guys kept harping on about gun control. Misidentifying the cause as guns, instead of terrorism, surely ain't going to solve it better/faster.
how much was terrorism here = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States ?
-
Politicians are conflating terrorism with the availability of guns like stopping drunk driving by getting rid of cars. If guns weren't available, terrorists would use bombs or trucks as in Nice, a method which apparently kills more people than guns. We have to concentrate on defeating the terrorist. But of course the politicians don't want to discuss that because then they would have to admit they're not doing much. So they "spin" the issue into gun control and distract the voter. Would the people in Paris, Nice and Munich be alive today if there were no guns or would they be alive if there were no terrorists?
-
No it wasn't, it was AFAIK an act out of utter frustration...
Oh, dear Lord!
"A rose by any other name..."
Ok, let's use that term. So, Charlie Hebdo, Paris, Nice, etc. must have been simply cases of "utter frustration" too? They must have bee utterly frustrated that the West was not getting how just their cause is.
-
Oh, dear Lord!
"A rose by any other name..."
Ok, let's use that term. So, Charlie Hebdo, Paris, Nice, etc. must have been simply cases of "utter frustration" too? They must have bee utterly frustrated that the West was not getting how just their cause is.
No, other issues were the root cause. For example, the Belgians who were involved in the Paris attacks were already convicted criminals in Belgium, and were marginalized youths without any future, and they used the situation in Syria as justification for their acts, making themselves feel important by supporting a goal they knew little about. They were easy targets for ISIS to recruit.
And the other attacks have all different root causes, although they all finally chose the situation in Syria as justification for their acts.
Cheers,
Bart
-
These shootings are a tragedy for sure and the lives not to be made small, but living in fear can ruin more lives from a global sense.
Fear sells. You're absolutely right Tim and showing the globe as you did helps put things into perspective. Meanwhile, in just the US, well over 30,000 people die a year from the flu!
-
Irony:
-
Hey, just a reminder as to why I started the last post. Australia had just marked the anniversary of the Port Arthur massacre and twenty years with strong gun control and not a mass murder.
The original post.
"Dallas massacre
What does it take for Americans to see that their gun laws are f**ked up?
Depressed,
Yep, it was about gun control, it had nothing to do with terrorism. Don't conflate the two. America does a great job of controlling homeland terrorism. It also does a lousy job of stopping its citizens from shooting each other, particularly mass shootings.
Cheers,
-
Once again, I have no firm opinion as whether guys should be sold freely in the US. I do have firm opinion about Russia though: guns should not be traded freely here.
Agreed, from an Australian perspective (in relation both to what you said, and to what you probably meant ;) ). America's gun culture and gun laws and gun ownership are America's business. But from where I sit they look like one of its misfortunes rather than one of its glories. I (with most of my fellow citizens) am happy that we have more restrictive laws, lower gun ownership and less gun-related death. In the end, all other things being equal, the more guns, the more misuse of guns - that particular expression of liberty seems to come at a price which we firmly don't want to pay. Of course our gun laws don't give us immunity, but I am glad that our terrorists and disgruntled crazies have a harder time getting hold of these particular tools and I am glad that our police seem less inclined to fear that they will be shot when they make a traffic stop. And if I wanted to hunt or target shoot again (I used to do both), I could, after filling in some forms and visiting my local police station. The restriction on my freedom strikes me as acceptable.
-
Slobodan,
Let's keep the distinction between gun crime and terrorism/acts-of-war , shall we ?
Again, does it matter? It was a mass shooting, the same subject we've been discussing in another thread. In the U.S. case, you (rhetorical) argued that it doesn't matter what was the real nature, whether guns were legal or illegal, crime, terrorism or suicide, all it mattered is... (lax) gun control. Now, in your case, all of a sudden (tight) gun control doesn't matter, but the "real nature" does!?
No it wasn't, it was AFAIK an act out of utter frustration. What you thought was the cause is in fact just another symptom, and that the problem lies much deeper within.
Guns are symptoms as well (providing a false sense of security), the root cause is deeper.
As for this thread, we do not know enough details yet, although I saw a video clip where (one of) the perpetrator(s) was heard discussing with presumably a spectator of the developing scene before it went horribly wrong. The spectator said in German, "you're an ass-hole, you can't go shooting people in a mall", and the perpetrator said, "I will draw my gun", and "I am a German, I haven't done anything, shut your trap". Or words to that effect. I'd have to see/hear it again to be more accurate.
Cheers,
Bart
Hey, just a reminder as to why I started the last post. Australia had just marked the anniversary of the Port Arthur massacre and twenty years with strong gun control and not a mass murder.
The original post.
"Dallas massacre
What does it take for Americans to see that their gun laws are f**ked up?
Depressed,
Yep, it was about gun control, it had nothing to do with terrorism. Don't conflate the two. America does a great job of controlling homeland terrorism. It also does a lousy job of stopping its citizens from shooting each other, particularly mass shootings.
Cheers,
Slobodan:
I think you're gonna have to get a tag team together to keep these folks from triple teaming you. They've come up with a three step to never allow a consistent story to be analyzed. To tom b any shooting in America is the fault of gun laws plain and simple. But if you point to a mass killing in a country with very strict gun laws like France or Germany then Manoli will say you are confusing gun violence with terrorism. Then if you want to analyze this terrorism in, say, Nice or Germany then BartvanderWolf will scold you for not realizing that the underlying cause is frustration or possibly a bad hair day. You cannot win.
P.S. Also notice that regardless of what rationale each of these team mates is assigning to the problem they mostly ignore the inconsistency between their versions and even support each other. The ones criticized are only those questioning the anti-american narrative. Very predictable but very good at avoiding consistent analysis of the problem.
-
in relation both to what you said, and to what you probably meant ;)
First, got confused since I did not imply any secondary meaning... And then I re-read my post :D
-
It seems the gunman in Munich was 18 years old, shot lots of people killing 8, then turned the gun on himself. Motives as of yet unknown.
The sort of act very hard to defend against in any country with or without strict gun controls with a determined attacker who is also prepared to die themselves. Sad for all concerned including the kid who committed the act.
Jim
-
Mostly the same members arguing over very similar subjects and none of the previous threads had a satisfactory conclusion? How many pages before the thread gets locked? :(
-
The ones criticized are only those questioning the anti-american narrative.
Nothing like hyperbole and a good dose of gaussian blur to obfuscate the issue, eh ?
Ken Cameron's post (#20) above, puts it succinctly and well.
-
Irony:
Nice connection, but again it's how you look at things.
For instance in 2013 Germany had > 3500 traffic death. So while these gunman attacks are bad and shouldn't happen I find that the atmosphere of fear and doom that is created around them is out of proportion with the number of casualties by this cause. The US had about 34.000 traffic death in 2013. So what creates a bigger doom I ask myself? All these traffic death are senseless as well and many could be prevented if people would be a bit more patient in traffic, follow the rules, didn't drive under the influence and basically be a bit more careful. And while there are programs working on that the amount of communication and public outrage/fear over these death are much less then the outrage and fear over criminal and/or terrorist killings, while the numbers are orders of magnitude higher.
While I believe it would be a good thing that the US would do more to make getting guns (especially for nutters and criminals) a bit harder and better controlled I also agree that gun control is not the solution to the problems. There's too many illegal guns and other means (bombs, trucks, ....) for criminals and terrorists to create the havoc they are after. I agree with Bart that the root cause of all this is deeper.
I don't think they have found the motivation of the gunman (or men) in Germany yet, but I find it remarkable that it's happening on the 5th anniversary of the Anders Breivik massacre in Norway. I wouldn't be surprised if the shooting in München didn't come from the minds of ISIS, but from the minds of an ultra right wing extremist. We'll see how it develops and what new information about this will become available over the coming days.
EDIT: just found a newspaper article saying that the gunman was an 18 year old German born man with Iranian roots. So my conclusion above was premature :-[
-
For instance in 2013 Germany had > 3500 traffic death. So while these gunman attacks are bad and shouldn't happen I find that the atmosphere of fear and doom that is created around them is out of proportion with the number of casualties by this cause. The US had about 34.000 traffic death in 2013.
Must be due to the lower speed limits on American highways (or greater proportion of cars with automatic transmission and cruise control).
-
Must be due to the lower speed limits on American highways (or greater proportion of cars with automatic transmission and cruise control).
It's off topic for the discussion here, but the US has 4 times the inhabitants vs. Germany and 10 times the number of traffic death. So the US roads are a lot less save, despite lower speed limits and use of automatic transmission/cruise control.
Also if you look per Billion miles driven the US has a ~50% higher traffic death rate vs. Germany (4.9 in Germany vs. 7.1 in the US)
-
Nothing like hyperbole and a good dose of gaussian blur to obfuscate the issue, eh ?
Ken Cameron's post (#20) above, puts it succinctly and well.
Pattern recognition. Hard to miss.
-
Analyzing information: http://www.ted.com/talks/julia_galef_why_you_think_you_re_right_even_if_you_re_wrong (http://www.ted.com/talks/julia_galef_why_you_think_you_re_right_even_if_you_re_wrong)
-
Food for thought:
"Norway has strong gun control and committed humane values. But they didn’t prevent Anders Breivik from opening fire on a youth camp on the island of Utoya in 2011? His clean criminal record and hunting license had allowed him to secure semiautomatic rifles, but Norway restricted his ability to get high-capacity clips for them. In his manifesto, Breivik wrote about his attempts to legally buy weapons, stating, “I envy our European American brothers as the gun laws in Europe sucks ass in comparison.”
In fact, in the same manifesto (“December and January – Rifle/gun accessories purchased”, Breivik wrote that it was from a US supplier that he purchased – and had mailed – ten 30-round ammunition magazines for the rifle he used in his attack."
Cheers,
-
P.S. Also notice that regardless of what rationale each of these team mates is assigning to the problem they mostly ignore the inconsistency between their versions and even support each other. The ones criticized are only those questioning the anti-american narrative.
Two things on your post above:
-1- I don't think there is a "team" of people trying to "win" an argument, there's different people with different opinions so why should these all be consistent? Reading all the threads about this issue I have seen many different reasonings for and against gun control and on both sides there have been inconsistencies between supporting their case. I don't see any problem with that, since it's coming from individuals and not teams.
- I think there's plenty of mutual criticizing between people generally for and generally against gun control.
In my mind as soon as you are trying to place people in "camps" part of the value of this discussion is lost.
That's why I like Slobodan's credo below his avatar so much. "When everybody thinks the same .... nobody thinks", we all should keep thinking as individuals and not just blindly follow one line if we think we're on the same "team"
-
Food for thought:
"Norway has strong gun control and committed humane values. But they didn’t prevent Anders Breivik from opening fire on a youth camp on the island of Utoya in 2011? His clean criminal record and hunting license had allowed him to secure semiautomatic rifles, but Norway restricted his ability to get high-capacity clips for them. In his manifesto, Breivik wrote about his attempts to legally buy weapons, stating, “I envy our European American brothers as the gun laws in Europe sucks ass in comparison.”
In fact, in the same manifesto (“December and January – Rifle/gun accessories purchased”, Breivik wrote that it was from a US supplier that he purchased – and had mailed – ten 30-round ammunition magazines for the rifle he used in his attack."
Cheers,
But despite all of this he still got his rounds and made his vicious killings. Without the controls in Norway (or other countries with tight controls) it might happen more or with greater magnitude but gun control alone is in my mind never going to solve the issue.
-
Two things on your post above:
-1- I don't think there is a "team" of people trying to "win" an argument, there's different people with different opinions so why should these all be consistent? Reading all the threads about this issue I have seen many different reasonings for and against gun control and on both sides there have been inconsistencies between supporting their case. I don't see any problem with that, since it's coming from individuals and not teams.
- I think there's plenty of mutual criticizing between people generally for and generally against gun control.
In my mind as soon as you are trying to place people in "camps" part of the value of this discussion is lost.
Pieter:
I'm just noting that really all the other camps will cooperate against one particular camp. Basically the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It's pretty transparent.
-
Pieter:
I'm just noting that really all the other camps will cooperate against one particular camp. Basically the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It's pretty transparent.
Well, my point is that I think there are no "camps" or "teams". I also see no enemies, I just see people with a different opinion then mine but for the world I can't see them as enemies.
-
Well, my point is that I think there are no "camps" or "teams". I also see no enemies, I just see people with a different opinion then mine but for the world I can't see them as enemies.
Use whatever descriptions you are comfortable with. The effect is the same. Whether you're on a debating team, playing chess, soccer or fighting a war, the dynamic is basically the same. Win, lose, draw. The differences are the names we give to the tools and tactics.
-
Hi Russ,
How about motive ?
If somebody's shooting at me I don't give a damn about his motive. I just want to stop him.
. . . in case one wants to find a way of preventing the next shooting. Identifying the root cause, may allow to solve it better/faster.
Oh yeah. Here comes that "root cause" thing the left always trots out. The only way to stop the shooter is to shoot him before he starts shooting. If you're going to wait for the cops to arrive you're going to be too late. If you're still alive you can worry about the "root cause" later.
By the way, when some guy stands there yelling "Allahu Akbar" as he mows down a bunch of kids, you may not be able to identify the "root cause," but some of us have a pretty clear idea what it is.
-
And the cultural differences within Europe are also huge.
They may be huge but self-defense doesn't seem to be a high priority, which is why the UK and the US have to keep going over there and saving their asses.
-
... Motives as of yet unknown...
German-Iranian... Hmmm... Yelling "Allahu Akbar!"... Hmmm...let me think about it.
;)
-
Use whatever descriptions you are comfortable with. The effect is the same.
I don't think so. My enemies are for instance ISIS, people who drive a truck down the boulevard in Nice, people who fire guns in schools and shopping centers, people who detonate bombs at airports and underground stations. We want to stop those at all cost, incl. killing them if that's needed. In debating teams, politics and sports I think of them as opponents, obviously I want my side/team to win but if I don't there is something like good sportsmanship and having a chat with the others after the game (irrespective if you lost or won). Here on the forum I see it as people with different opinions who try to convince others of their point, among photographer friends. I try not to confuse the latter two with the first, since that would take a lot of fun out of my life.
-
They may be huge but self-defense doesn't seem to be a high priority, which is why the UK and the US have to keep going over there and saving their asses.
The last time the UK came to bail out the mainland was 70 years ago I think. And both the Taliban and ISIS were partly formed based on failed US foreign policy, so while we should indeed grateful for the support the US is given the Western World in the war on terror (I mean this, it's not a cynical remark) I think there is also a part for which the US is responsible.
-
Mostly the same members arguing over very similar subjects and none of the previous threads had a satisfactory conclusion? How many pages before the thread gets locked? :(
Good point, and pretty much inevitable when folks refuse to play it straight. Cricket did have some spiritual value after all, I now realise!
But wait: Pakistan plays lots of it too... oops!
-
I don't think so. My enemies are for instance ISIS, people who drive a truck down the boulevard in Nice, people who fire guns in schools and shopping centers, people who detonate bombs at airports and underground stations. We want to stop those at all cost, incl. killing them if that's needed. In debating teams, politics and sports I think of them as opponents, obviously I want my side/team to win but if I don't there is something like good sportsmanship and having a chat with the others after the game (irrespective if you lost or won). Here on the forum I see it as people with different opinions who try to convince others of their point, among photographer friends. I try not to confuse the latter two with the first, since that would take a lot of fun out of my life.
enemy/opponent/friends to be convinced
Sure why not? ally/team mate/friends in agreement
I remember the old line, "with friends like these who needs enemies?" What I notice is the start of these threads being such friendly neutral themes such as:
"What does it take for Americans to see that their gun laws are f**ked up?"
"Fifty plus dead, what does it take for Americans to take gun control seriously."
"What would it take for Trump to win?"
Now if these were by Americans then I'd say they were legitimate. Or if the other non-Americans chastised the author for rudeness then I'd say that was friendly. But actually what you get is a dog-pile of leftist talking points. So it's really hard to see how friendliness is part of the equation. Of course maybe politeness is no longer considered a virtue in other parts of the world. But when exactly the same occurrence (a mass shooting) in two different locations predictably elicits completely opposite reactions from the same people I tend to believe honest good feelings are not present.
-
The latest reports are that the gunman had no ties to any "terrorist" organization, but seems to be a nutter who was fascinated with mass shootings. More info may well yet emerge.
The hyperbolic statements above about how motivations don't matter when someone is shooting at you might, on the surface, justify some citizens shooting cops first, jic the officer might overreact to dangerous movements like raising one's hands and shoot the citizen instead.
You see how silly hyperbole is?
-
The latest reports are that the gunman had no ties to any "terrorist" organization...
So, in order to be an Islamist terrorist, one needs to be a card-carrying member?
-
The latest reports are that the gunman had no ties to any "terrorist" organization, but seems to be a nutter who was fascinated with mass shootings. More info may well yet emerge.
The hyperbolic statements above about how motivations don't matter when someone is shooting at you might, on the surface, justify some citizens shooting cops first, jic the officer might overreact to dangerous movements like raising one's hands and shoot the citizen instead.
You see how silly hyperbole is?
Sure. When someone shouts allahu akbar and starts shooting little kids he's probably just a frustrated Cannon or Nikon shooter registering his disapproval of all those stupid mirrorless camera enthusiasts. No islamic extremists here. Just move along.
-
...but seems to be a nutter...
I thought that enlightened European countries do not allow nutters to have access to guns?
-
I thought that enlightened European countries do not allow nutters to have access to guns?
I think they try to avoid allowing access to guns to everyone.
If you like target shooting, buy an air rifle. Or even a Walther air pistol: it was good enough for 007 to model with for his famous poster!
Because the same person can certainly learn to drive and use that licence to drive as licence to kill does not, in any way, mean that making the access of firearms simple a good idea. The net result/intention is to make the possibilities open to the would-be killer as few as possible. As I've remarked before, I would love a legal gun for my own self-protection, but realise that having that, legally, would simply make it all the more easy for the guy in the black hat to do the same, and if not get his legally, get it by stealing somebody else's. Seems they are good at that.
Thing is, this ain't mathematics: two negatives do not make a positive.
I think people bringing in the concept of anti-Americanism are flirting with red herrings; I don't think I've seen anyone here being anti-American, simply venting frustration at laws which aid these terrible slayings, a political system financed and distorted by the very people making the weapons, and their blatant, open buying of politicians. It's incredible to anybody outside the system that it's legal to do that. But there you go; it's how it is.
Non-Americans find it hard to tell if that means Americans approve or do not approve of the system; seems many of them hold very different views on that subject.
Rob
-
... I don't seen anyone here being anti-American, simply venting frustration...
Oh, no, Rob! That means, according to Bart, that someone will soon start shooting us. ;)
-
... blatant, open buying of politicians. It's incredible to anybody outside the system that it's legal to do that...
It is an often used misconception by non-Americans. If anyone thinks that campaign contributions equal campaign success, you better see this (millions of dollars):
-
I thought that enlightened European countries do not allow nutters to have access to guns?
I'm surprised you're surprised Slobodan.
I thought you've been advocating that gun control doesn't mean the bad guys and nutters don't have access to guns anymore.
Or was it a cynical remark? ;)
-
I'm surprised you're surprised Slobodan.
I thought you've been advocating that gun control doesn't mean the bad guys and nutters don't have access to guns anymore.
Or was it a cynical remark? ;)
I sometimes deliberately omit a winking smiley at the end. Keeps people guessing. And I wouldn't say "cynical," just a friendly teasing :)
-
I sometimes deliberately omit a winking smiley at the end. Keeps people guessing. And I wouldn't say "cynical," just a friendly teasing :)
I think I got that. Btw, the title of your png made me smile, "money doesn't buy happiness". I think we already know that for a long time.
Out of interest, in those figures does Trump's number include his own money he poored into his campaign, or is it just the contributions from other sources?
-
enemy/opponent/friends to be convinced
Sure why not? ally/team mate/friends in agreement
I remember the old line, "with friends like these who needs enemies?" What I notice is the start of these threads being such friendly neutral themes such as:
"What does it take for Americans to see that their gun laws are f**ked up?"
"Fifty plus dead, what does it take for Americans to take gun control seriously."
"What would it take for Trump to win?"
Now if these were by Americans then I'd say they were legitimate. Or if the other non-Americans chastised the author for rudeness then I'd say that was friendly. But actually what you get is a dog-pile of leftist talking points. So it's really hard to see how friendliness is part of the equation. Of course maybe politeness is no longer considered a virtue in other parts of the world. But when exactly the same occurrence (a mass shooting) in two different locations predictably elicits completely opposite reactions from the same people I tend to believe honest good feelings are not present.
To my defense I would say I never started those threads and never spoke words like that. I know I rubbed you the wrong way with some critical remarks about the republican party (which I still stand behind) and as a reward you immediately painted me in the left wing, Hillary supporting, gun control supporting anti-American crowd. That's what I mean that there are no teams. If you read my posts in this and other similar threads you will see I never made any remark that supported Hillary or the democrats, that I'm right of center European, that there are some aspects of Trumps policy I support, that I don't think gun control will solve the issue of mass shootings and that I have worked and lived in America too long to not appreciate the American society. I'm only not going to apologize for someone else's rude behaviour on the forum but I think I have kept my comments non-personal, reasonably polite and well motivated. You're free to disagree with me, but please don't blame me for things I never said.
-
... Out of interest, in those figures does Trump's number include his own money he poored into his campaign, or is it just the contributions from other sources?
Here is a link to the whole table:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html?_r=0
It doesn't, however, provide an answer to your question. This article does (and yes, he self-financed $50 millions so far):
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/forgiving-campaign-loans-trump-fulfills-his-pledge-self-fund-primary-n613536
-
...I'm only not going to apologize for someone else's rude behaviour on the forum but I think I have kept my comments non-personal, reasonably polite and well motivated...
So it wasn't you who sent me this PM (in the middle of the gun-control debate)?:
"You little prick...how many women and children you murdered"
;)
-
So it wasn't you who sent me this PM (in the middle of the gun-control debate)?:
"You little prick...how many women and children you murdered"
;)
No, I was the one who sent the one saying "do your parents have more nutty children like you" :P
Btw, thanks for the links. Interesting to see both democrats Trump any of the republican candidates [pun intended]
-
It is an often used misconception by non-Americans. If anyone thinks that campaign contributions equal campaign success, you better see this (millions of dollars):
I refer to the already elected lot that blocks every attempt at introducing gun control law Obama has attempted: are you suggesting the gun lobby doesn't lobby, and doesn't pay for candidates to stand?
Rob
-
Oh, no, Rob! That means, according to Bart, that someone will soon start shooting us. ;)
It will probably be an American doing the shooting then, because we have very few guns ourselves. ;)
Besides that, it would more likely be due to a frustration about suffering decades of ethnic profiling and bigotry, than a frustration about a speed limit on a practically deserted highway in the middle of the night. There are levels of frustration, you know.
Cheers,
Bart
-
"Mostly the same members arguing over very similar subjects and none of the previous threads had a satisfactory conclusion? How many pages before the thread gets locked?"
Just to avoid confusion – I locked my "What does it take?" thread. It was morphing into a Republican vs Democrat debate which as we all know can be quite intractable. And therein lies the rub. Gun control can only work when a society is united and says enough is enough. It also has to have strong borders to keep out weapons from other countries. America is a huge part of the problem as it contributes so many deadly weapons to the world.
Cheers,
-
... America is a huge part of the problem...
Tom,
What is your obsession with America and its guns? By any measure, Europe, with its strict gun control, has had more mass shootings than the U.S. in recent years. Where is your despair and disgust with that?
-
It's off topic for the discussion here, but the US has 4 times the inhabitants vs. Germany and 10 times the number of traffic death. So the US roads are a lot less save, despite lower speed limits and use of automatic transmission/cruise control.
Also if you look per Billion miles driven the US has a ~50% higher traffic death rate vs. Germany (4.9 in Germany vs. 7.1 in the US)
That was exactly my point. The US road are actually quite safe, it's their drivers who aren't and engage in all kinds of non-driving activities, while cruising at politically correct 60mph.
-
Slobodan
1,000 mass shootings in 1,260 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like
Yeah, I know that this definition includes injured, but I bet one of your family got shot you wouldn't write it off.
The story (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence)
I can't see how you can't think that is not a giant problem to be solved.
The only solution I've heard is to add more guns, over ten million last year to the over three hundred million in circulation.
We get a lot of news coverage for America and with the long winded Presidential campaign there is a fair amount of fatigue and despair. Australia's defence policy is tied to America's so we can tend to be dragged into conflicts by proxy.
We also get a lot of American television (so much so that we have to have quotas for local content). People get shot all the time in television dramas, it seems to no big deal. So yeah, America features greatly in Australian lives, obviously so much more than you think.
As for Europe, in Australia our news coverage is about Britain with occasional reference to France and Germany. The only other times we read about Europe is if there is a conflict, terrorist attack or if they are going broke. The rest of Europe is a big black hole.
Cheers,
-
1,000 mass shootings in 1,260 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like
The only solution I've heard is to add more guns, over ten million last year to the over three hundred million in circulation.
We get a lot of news coverage for America and with the long winded Presidential campaign there is a fair amount of fatigue and despair. Australia's defence policy is tied to America's so we can tend to be dragged into conflicts by proxy.
Cheers,
I think you are wasting your keyboard Tom.
More Americans will be killed in America by guns fired by Americans in the next 18 months than were killed in the entire 10 years of the Vietnam War.
Americans obviously are happy with their situation otherwise they would do something about that instead of trying to fix the rest of the world, which is actually pretty safe.
-
Tom, you don't seem to be reading what I posted, so I'll repeat it:
Europe has more mass shootings than the U.S.
-
... More Americans will be killed in America by guns fired by Americans in the next 18 months than were killed in the entire 10 years of the Vietnam War...
Either you know something about the future 18 months that we don't (civil war, race war?) or you don't know what you are talking about. Total gun related death is typically about 12,000 per year, so 18,000 per year and a half, while total military casualties in the Vietnam war were about 58,000. And once again, ⅔ of those are suicides.
-
Either you know something about the future 18 months that we don't (civil war, race war?) or you don't know what you are talking about. Total gun related death is typically about 12,000 per year, so 18,000 per year and a half, while total military casualties in the Vietnam war were about 58,000. And once again, ⅔ of those are suicides.
I don't know about Civil War, but Mr Google when asked "Gun deaths America" says
"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) and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000), 21,175 by suicide with a firearm, 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms-"
So about 33,000 deaths and 73,500 non fatal injuries in a year. 18mths is pretty close to Vietnam.
Your other comment about
"Europe has more mass shootings than the U.S."
We call Europe a continent. It actually has a whole lot countries with a population over twice the USA. A lot of those countries have a lot of civil issues especially in the Eastern Bloc.
If still in denial try this from the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html?_r=0
-
The last link doesn't seem to work well. Try this one. Information is everywhere if you care to read it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/
-
That was exactly my point. The US road are actually quite safe, it's their drivers who aren't and engage in all kinds of non-driving activities, while cruising at politically correct 60mph.
Sorry I misunderstood you, but indeed we're saying exactly the same.
Btw, the other analogy is that roads, cars, guns, trucks are all "safe". It's only when we (mis)use them unfortunate things are going to happen.
-
The last link doesn't seem to work well. Try this one. Information is everywhere if you care to read it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/
Bob - too good a chart from the NYT article to go unnoticed.
Attached below ..
-
Sure. When someone shouts allahu akbar and starts shooting little kids he's probably just a frustrated Cannon or Nikon shooter registering his disapproval of all those stupid mirrorless camera enthusiasts. No islamic extremists here. Just move along.
Not that it matters a whole lot, but the latest news is that on the computer of the Munchen shooter they found a lot of material about Anders Breivik and related right wing mass shootings. Also I've seen nowhere he shouted "alluha akbar". So even though he was from Iranian descend his motivation didn't seem to come from Islamic terrorism.
-
Slobodan,
You asked: What is your obsession with America and its guns?
I told you, Australian television is dominated by American television. As I'm retired I get to watch a lot of it. There is a constant onslaught of gunfights, gun crime and brandishing guns.
As an ex teacher this headline "Since 2013, there have been at least 189 school shootings in America — an average of nearly one a week. (https://everytownresearch.org/school-shootings/)' is alarming.
As Australia in an English Speaking country most of our news is from Britain and America. So we get to hear a lot from the two nations, there is no need for translation. Britain doesn't have a lot of gun problems. Except for Northern Ireland regular bobbies don't have guns. It does have other problems and Honour Killing is equally upsetting.
Europe has more mass shootings than the U.S.
As I wrote, we get very little news from Europe other than France, Germany and sometimes Italy.
France has had problems for quite some time due to its colonial activities. It has a very volatile population and has had so for a long time.
As I said the rest of Europe is a black hole on Australian television.
A quick look at the figures shows you're right. Eastern Europe seems to be a major problem. Australia has had minimal immigration from Eastern Europe. It doesn't report on it unless a country implodes or something major happens.
To be host if I think about Europe I only think about Western Europe of which nearly all of our European immigrants have come from.
So if you compare all of Europe with the USA then you are correct. If you take out Eastern Europe things seem to be a different.
Gun violence is abhorrent wherever it happens. Gun violence in America gains my attention by the nature of America's dominance of our media. Unfortunately – out of sight, out of mind.
Cheers,
-
Europe has more mass shootings than the U.S.
Slobodan,
You should know that the Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe) is a Continent consists of many (~50) very different countries. The European Union is only a subset (currently 28) of those with, on average, much more developed/educated/wealthy member countries and with lower crimes/homicides/gun accidents/ etc. than the other ones.
So unless you are deliberately trying to cloud the issue, you'd have to be more specific when you talk numbers (and back them up with credible sources).
And as I said before, each (Western) European country has different issues, so you cannot simply add them up and hope to understand the underlying forces from the average. Doing so would be naive, at best. In the USA there are also differences per State, but not all reports show those details, the country average is usually what is given. Europe is not a country, the USA is.
And back to the topic of this thread, as is seems at the moment, the German 18 year old boy had been bullied in school and became a loner. His frustrations with life in Germany (and living in not 'the best' part of it) probably were shaped by that. The reports about his mental state are not clear yet, but some say he had been under psychiatric treatment (including that he himself seemed to have shouted that in response to a man who was verbally arguing with him).
A deranged young man, frustrated with the cards that life dealt to him, is not the same as Islamic Terrorism. As I said, understanding the motivation (the deeper core issues) is important if we want to learn something that allows us to reduce the risk of it happening again. Prevention is cure. Reaction alone, is primitive and unhelpful in the longer term.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Slobodan,
You asked: What is your obsession with America and its guns?
I told you, Australian television is dominated by American television. As I'm retired I get to watch a lot of it. There is a constant onslaught of gunfights, gun crime and brandishing guns.
As an ex teacher this headline "Since 2013, there have been at least 189 school shootings in America — an average of nearly one a week. (https://everytownresearch.org/school-shootings/)' is alarming.
As Australia in an English Speaking country most of our news is from Britain and America. So we get to hear a lot from the two nations, there is no need for translation. Britain doesn't have a lot of gun problems. Except for Northern Ireland regular bobbies don't have guns. It does have other problems and Honour Killing is equally upsetting.
Europe has more mass shootings than the U.S.
As I wrote, we get very little news from Europe other than France, Germany and sometimes Italy.
France has had problems for quite some time due to its colonial activities. It has a very volatile population and has had so for a long time.
As I said the rest of Europe is a black hole on Australian television.
A quick look at the figures shows you're right. Eastern Europe seems to be a major problem. Australia has had minimal immigration from Eastern Europe. It doesn't report on it unless a country implodes or something major happens.
To be host if I think about Europe I only think about Western Europe of which nearly all of our European immigrants have come from.
So if you compare all of Europe with the USA then you are correct. If you take out Eastern Europe things seem to be a different.
Gun violence is abhorrent wherever it happens. Gun violence in America gains my attention by the nature of America's dominance of our media. Unfortunately – out of sight, out of mind.
Cheers,
"As I wrote, we get very little news from Europe other than France, Germany and sometimes Italy.
France has had problems for quite some time due to its colonial activities. It has a very volatile population and has had so for a long time.
As I said the rest of Europe is a black hole on Australian television."
.........................................................................................
Tom, if you watch Britain's Sky News you would think that everything that happens happens only in England.
Due to difficulties in getting the alternative BBC programmes on the tv (I have to go to the computer to watch BBC on the monitor, or connect up the cable to the tv in the sitting room), I have also been watch a lot of France 24 via the tv. It gives lots more pan-European news than do the UK stations - so insular - further explaining the easy slide into Brexit: you fear the unknown, and when it's just twenty miles away, there be dragons for sure!
Quite why European news seems so fixated with US elections is beyond me: perhaps it's just cheap tv soaps drama. However, it also shows that Britain is every bit as lousy in its idea of political campaigning as anywhere else: all about ad homs and little about anything else. Probably because all sides know how little they will actually be able to do should it be their turn to find power. Every party gets broken promises stuck in its face, so perhaps they all have become aware of the danger, and just attack each other instead of making more eventual easy ammunition for the other side.
Amazing how nobody even mentions the Liberals (or whatever they called themselves last time I looked), anymore; wouldn't surprise me if this will turn out to be the last throes of traditional Labour and the birth of the new will be a neo-Communist organization. It's already being mooted that the 'left' isn't actually interested in gaining office anymore (explaining broadly unelectable leaders), but absolutely interested in developng a rabid and extreme left. They don't need to win elections: they only need to disrupt the workplace, and have lots of experience and expertise in doing that already. Chaos is the name of the game.
It's said folks get what they let happen to them... as we found out.
-
Also I've seen nowhere he shouted "alluha akbar". So even though he was from Iranian descend his motivation didn't seem to come from Islamic terrorism.
Here's the clip.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/07/22/witness-gunman-killed-children-in-munich-shooting-lead-todd-live.cnn
-
Here's the clip.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/07/22/witness-gunman-killed-children-in-munich-shooting-lead-todd-live.cnn
In the clip they say that a muslim woman whose son was in the bathroom while the killer was loading his gun reports that he shouted allahu akbar. Maybe she was mistaken. Probably what he said was I'm going to kill a bunch of kids because I was bullied by my german neighbors and as a protest against lax american gun laws but make sure you know that this is not gun violence due to european (and australian) gun laws which are highly effective and finally let the record show that I don't approve of ISIS (or ISIL or IS) so don't you dare say that or I'll get really upset.
-
Here's the clip.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/07/22/witness-gunman-killed-children-in-munich-shooting-lead-todd-live.cnn
I haven't heard any of this in the European media and this second piece of eyewitness news from the woman was only told by the anchor man and was not covered in the part with the English female voice and the text running besides it. I give a lot of credibility to the German authorities who have reported the large amount of ultra-right wing mass killing material found in the boys room. But it is certainly possible he's been motivated for his acts by both ultra right wing terrorism as well as Islamic terrorism (or just by mass killings in general). Since he's dead we'll never know for sure I think.
-
[The missing word at the end of the quote is "cry" - source: CNN]
-
I give a lot of credibility to the German authorities...
That would be the same authorities that tried initially to hide thousands of sexual assaults by refugees during the last New Year street celebrations?
-
Slobodan,
You should know that the Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe) is a Continent consists of many (~50) very different countries....
Thanks, Bart!
As an American, how would I know that? I can hardly find Europe on the map of the world. We only get baseball and (real) football news here, and only if something explodes over there, what you call Europe.
-
That would be the same authorities that tried initially to hide thousands of sexual assaults by refugees during the last New Year street celebrations?
Slobodan:
I misunderstood this forum. You aren't perturbed by the unshakable adherence to the various versions of the progressive narrative on display in this and other threads and anything you say is completely negated. It's what's called a stable state in physics. I leave you all to enjoy.
Best regards,
John
-
That would be the same authorities that tried initially to hide thousands of sexual assaults by refugees during the last New Year street celebrations?
I think you forgot the wink again ;)
-
As an American, how would I know that?
Slobodan, was it not you who told in one of the threads that you or your ancestors (as well as the surname) have former Servo-Croatian roots? If not, then I'm mistaken.
I can hardly find Europe on the map of the world. We only get baseball and (real) football news here, and only if something explodes over there, what you call Europe.
You are smarter than that ... ;)
Cheers,
Bart
-
Slobodan, was it not you who told in one of the threads that you or your ancestors (as well as the surname) have former Servo-Croatian roots?...
Ooops, I did it again (forgot the wink) :)
Yes, I am a Serbian-American, born and raised in former Yugoslavia, lived in Russia (eight years, while working for American companies there), Spain (four), USA (12) and visited 30 other countries on three continents. And yes, that was sarcasm (in the previous post). In other words, I do not need a lecture of what Europe is.
-
...They don't need to win elections...
Indeed, Rob... they crave a revolution (from the latest flag-burning event, organized by the Revolutionary Communist Party, during RNC - "Revolution... Nothing Less," it reads)
-
Hang in there Slobodan. They can't lay a glove on you.
-
Today's Dilbert cartoon (http://dilbert.com/strip/2016-07-24) is not a bad summary of the state of the world.
-
For the purpose of this debate and previous ones (which is mass shootings and gun control, by the way), it doesn't matter whether Europe is a continent, or whether it has five, 50, or 500 countries, or how different those countries are. What matters is that it has a single, unique characteristic among all of them: tight gun control. And yet...
-
For the purpose of this debate and previous ones (which is mass shootings and gun control, by the way), it doesn't matter whether Europe is a continent, or whether it has five, 50, or 500 countries, or how different those countries are. What matters is that it has a single, unique characteristic among all of them: tight gun control. And yet...
And yet what? What has that to do with mental instability, or discrimination, or religion, or social instability, or ...?
Really Slobodan, you should not 'forget' those smilies when you are not serious ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
And yet...
According to the graph in post # 70 of this thread it shows that in a lot of countries in Europe you have a 5-10 times lower chance (in homicides per capita) to be killed then in the US. Obviously there is no evidence on a connection to gun control and I'm sure there will be people who will point out the weakness in this statistical analysis but it still tells you something in the US is vastly different from a large number of other countries.
The table from the American Journal of Medicine gives more details
-
And yet what? What has that to do with mental instability, or discrimination, or religion, or social instability, or ...?...
Nothing. And that was precisely my point.
"And yet..." was meant to mean that Europe has more mass shootings than the USA, in spite of much tighter gun control.
And I was dead serious.
-
Peter, you et al are again moving the goal post, i.e., the subject matter of this thread (and previous ones) - which is mass shootings.
As it was pointed before by John, when we start analyzing one aspect (mass shootings and gun control), you (rhetorical) switch to overall shootings. We start analyzing and breaking down overall shootings, you switch to terrorism, we start about that, you switch to mental issues, and on and on in circles we go.
"And yet..." in spite of much tighter control, mass shootings are happening in Europe at the same or higher rate than in the States, regardless of causes and modalities. In other words, tighter gun control, which is advocated ad nauseum here and elsewhere is NOT the answer.
-
...US is vastly different from a large number of other countries....
Yes.
-
Peter, you et al are again moving the goal post, i.e., the subject matter of this thread (and previous ones) - which is mass shootings.
As it was pointed before by John, when we start analyzing one aspect (mass shootings and gun control), you (rhetorical) switch to overall shootings. We start analyzing and breaking down overall shootings, you switch to terrorism, we start about that, you switch to mental issues, and on and on in circles we go.
"And yet..." in spite of much tighter control, mass shootings are happening in Europe at the same or higher rate than in the States, regardless of causes and modalities. In other words, tighter gun control, which is advocated ad nauseum here and elsewhere is NOT the answer.
Don't misunderstand me Slobodan. There is no et. al. here (I've mentioned that before in my discussion with John) I'm just giving you my personal opinion. I'm even agreeing with you that gun control is not the way to prevent homicides and mass shootings. The only thing my post pointed out is that in the US you have a higher probability to get killed by a firearm in a homicide or not by a firearm in a homicide then in several countries in North-West Europe. Whether that's by mass shootings or individual act I don't care that much, the people are just as dead.
-
Yes.
Now the question is do you accept that? If yes, fine, every democracy can choose that for themselves. If you don't accept it what do you suggest your government does about it?
-
Now the question is do you accept that? If yes, fine, every democracy can choose that for themselves. If you don't accept it what do you suggest your government does about it?
I do accept that. That is the price Americans are willing to pay for their freedom.
As for the government, I do not want them to do anything (other than closing a few loopholes, perhaps) - there lies a philosophical difference between the US and the nanny states of Europe. I do want them to do what their actual job is (rather than micromanaging individuals), i.e., creating a legislative environment conducive to a decent job creation, legalizing drugs (to take a criminal component out of it - responsible for about 50% of all crimes), and taking a better care of mentally ill.
-
I do accept that. That is the price Americans are willing to pay for their freedom.
You are not hearing the silent majority who are fed up with the lack of preventative action.
Preventing Gun Violence Without Just Talking About The Gun (http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Preventing-Gun-Violence-Without) | Nicole Hockley | TEDxUniversityofNevada.
Cheers,
Bart
-
You are not hearing the silent majority who are fed up with the lack of preventative action.
Preventing Gun Violence Without Just Talking About The Gun (http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Preventing-Gun-Violence-Without) | Nicole Hockley | TEDxUniversityofNevada.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, how sure are you it's a silent majority
Don't misunderstand me, I'm as sick of any mass shooting, terrorist act and homicide as you are and every person killed is one too many.
But if there is really a majority to tackle the problem in the US why doesn't that get reflected in the election results?
-
I do accept that. That is the price Americans are willing to pay for their freedom.
Well, it wouldn't be the price I would like to pay for my freedom, so the conclusion is we've both probably ended up in the country that serves our interest on this aspect best.
I don't know why you are using the derogatory term "nanny state" to countries with gun control. I think the majority over here is OK with more gun control. Nothing "nanny" about that, just executing the will of the people (as in the US).
-
And so it continues today here in Germany:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/24/syrian-refugee-kills-woman-with-machete-in-southern-germany/
Peter
--
-
... I don't know why you are using the derogatory term "nanny state" to countries with gun control. I think the majority over here is OK with more gun control. Nothing "nanny" about that, just executing the will of the people (as in the US).
Another philosophical difference between the US and Europe.
I do not see Europe as the "will of the people" entity. The origin of the government power there is diametrically opposite. It comes first from God, then King/Queen, then the government. People there (including Australia) are still Queen's subjects.
The United States are formed in an antithetically different way: "We the people [with guns, btw]..." decided to form a government, and give it as much or as little power as we wish. In Europe, it is the government that gives its subjects certain rights. And given the long history of serfdom, the people are apparently glad they are given any rights.
OK, exaggerated a bit, but just to make a point.
-
Another philosophical difference between the US and Europe.
I do not see Europe as the "will of the people" entity. The origin of the government power there is diametrically opposite. It comes first from God, then King/Queen, then the government. People there (including Australia) are still Queen's subjects.
The United States are formed in an antithetically different way: "We the people [with guns, btw]..." decided to form a government, and give it as much or as little power as we wish. In Europe, it is the government that gives its subjects certain rights. And given the long history of serfdom, the people are apparently glad they are given any rights.
OK, exaggerated a bit, but just to make a point.
Well, some Europeans and other non-Americans got a lot of heat in this and similar threads about how they could be so arrogant to critique the American policies while not (or no longer) being part of that society.
Let me just conclude that the pot is blaming the kettle that it's black ;)
For many countries you're referring to (incl. Australia and the UK) the king/queen is a pure symbolic function and can only speak under the authority of the chosen government. That's certainly true for the country I was born as well as the country I now live in.
And with respect to being subject to God above king/queen, if certain more conservative voices (which are a significant part of the Republican party) in the US get into power you might be subject to a lot more authority given by the bible versus a secular government upholding the freedom of religion (which is also in the bill of rights).
-
And with respect to being subject to God above king/queen, if certain more conservative voices (which are a significant part of the Republican party) in the US get into power you might be subject to a lot more authority given by the bible versus a secular government upholding the freedom of religion (which is also in the bill of rights).
Pieter, before you go off on tangents like this one you need to become familiar with the U.S. Constitution. The guys who put that together were quite familiar with the threats posed by various kinds of thugs. There are plenty of built-in firewalls against what you're suggesting. And, I might add, there are very few such firewalls in most European countries including yours.
-
Pieter, before you go off on tangents like this one you need to become familiar with the U.S. Constitution. The guys who put that together were quite familiar with the threats posed by various kinds of thugs. There are plenty of built-in firewalls against what you're suggesting. And, I might add, there are very few such firewalls in most European countries including yours.
Time will tell Russ, currently I'm less worried about that in Europe then in the US. I agree the constitution is well put together and very good. I'm a secular guy at heart so I hope you're right but some interpretations I'm reading from certain circles in the US give me the creeps.
-
Bart, how sure are you it's a silent majority
Don't misunderstand me, I'm as sick of any mass shooting, terrorist act and homicide as you are and every person killed is one too many.
But if there is really a majority to tackle the problem in the US why doesn't that get reflected in the election results?
Hi Pieter,
As an optimist, and I still give some credit to the normal people, I do not believe that the majority are gun fundamentalists.
I'm pretty confident that if the question were asked if people want more, or fewer mass killings, the answer would be as I expect, fewer. Since that is not going to automagically happen by itself, some things need to be done, preventative action needs to be taken.
However, we apparently are not allowed to discuss / analyze what the root causes are that would need to be addressed...
Cheers,
Bart
-
I'm a secular guy at heart so I hope you're right but some interpretations I'm reading from certain circles in the US give me the creeps.
Some give me the creeps too -- mostly the ones from the left. But if you know anything about U.S. history you know there always have been political movements giving people the creeps. I think the soon-to-be breakup of the EU is even creepier. The thing simply isn't working, but to go back to the bad old days (like the days when I was a kid) is a truly creepy thought.
-
However, we apparently are not allowed to discuss / analyze what the root causes are that would need to be addressed...
Well, in the spirit of "freedom of speech" I don't think anybody can disallow that here, although some other members will ridicule and stereotype that as "leftist talk" and claim it should not be undertaken by in their eyes arrogant non-US citizens. :o
So I can understand your hesitation to go further. :-\
-
Gee, guys, if 24 pages were not enough to prove your case and get to the bottom of rooth cause...
-
Some give me the creeps too -- mostly the ones from the left. But if you know anything about U.S. history you know there always have been political movements giving people the creeps. I think the soon-to-be breakup of the EU is even creepier. The thing simply isn't working, but to go back to the bad old days (like the days when I was a kid) is a truly creepy thought.
I agree Russ, I hope some of our leaders will get going and transform the EU into something that is representative of the majority of the population and not end in umpteen micro management rules that don't make sense in the big picture and don't address the real questions. Going back to the old isolationist ways is not the solution. And I get the creeps from most populists and extremists, irrespective if they're right or left. I think both sides on the extreme are equally dangerous.
-
Gee, guys, if 24 pages were not enough to prove your case and get to the bottom of rooth cause...
So what's your solution then?
Cheers
Bart
-
Nobody knows what's the solution (except Trump who claims to have the right answers to everything), but it seems that the bombing season is just getting under way.
In Ansbach in Bavaria, there was an explosion Sunday night with one dead and at least 10 injured.
-
Another philosophical difference between the US and Europe.
I do not see Europe as the "will of the people" entity. The origin of the government power there is diametrically opposite. It comes first from God, then King/Queen, then the government. People there (including Australia) are still Queen's subjects.
In this paragraph, "europe" becomes a meaningless concept, and not only because it somehow includes Australia. "European" countries have very diverse constitutional arrangements and gods, kings and queens play little or no part in most of them. Many european countries had "revolutions" which set aside practical ecclesiastical and regal authority in much the same way as did the American revolution. Symbolism is of course another story. America has god and the flag, european countries a wide range of equivalents. Certainly there are stories to be told about conflict between the power of the state and the rights of individuals in "european" countries, as there are in all countries. But it doesn't seem to me as if the outcome is simplistically in favour of the state in "european" countries and of the individual in America, where, after all, the Constitution hasn't prevented the state from giving its citizens legal racial segregation for most of its history, the war on drugs with its multiple adverse consequences including an astonishingly high prison population rate, hi-tech intrusions on personal privacy and local police forces armed to the teeth with surplus military equipment. In this context I can't think of any Nation State that is better than a not unmixed blessing, either in europe or in the americas.
-
Gee, guys, if 24 pages were not enough to prove your case and get to the bottom of rooth cause...
Gee Slobodan, you don't seem to get the fact that you can't send your child to school in safety in America because of guns.
"Since 2013, there have been at least 189 school shootings in America — an average of nearly one a week".
In NSW the biggest threat to school children is peanuts and peanut products, both of which are banned in schools. Training in the use of EpiPens is mandatory.
Hey, I'm in a 4 star hotel in Bali. Those socialist bastards made me pay into a superannuation scheme so I would be comfortable in my retirement. I'll be moving into a new apartment in Sydney soon. Oh yeah, four out of the ten most liveable cities in the world are Australian.
Liveable cities (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/08/daily-chart-5)
I live a very comfortable life in one of the most liveable cities in the world. I don't need a gun and except for security officers they are nowhere to be seen. Did I say I don't need a gun and never have.
Freedom, it is a double edged sword.
For the most part Australia has struck a very good balance, America has done a not so good job, it seems to be that rhetoric is more important than results. For me it is far better to have a very liveable life than to own a gun!
Cheers,
-
Summary of last week 4 violent acts in Germany:
Wuerzburg - 17 year old Afghan refugee using an ax and knife - injures 4 people
Munich - by 19 year old Iranian-German, illegal handgun, 9 dead, 26 injured
Reutlingen - 21 year old Syrian, using a machete - 5 injured
Ansbach - 27 year old Syrian, using an improvised bomb with metal fragments - one dead, 12 injured
On one hand, Germany strict gun laws didn't prevent these attacks. None of the bad guys used a legally obtained gun.
On the other hand, if the guns in Germany could be obtained as easily as in USA, with 1.1 million refugees in 2015 alone, some of them being disgruntled, mentally unstable or criminal, the number of attacks and dead would be likely much higher
-
Summary of last week 4 violent acts in Germany:
Wuerzburg - 17 year old Afghan refugee using an ax and knife - injures 4 people
Munich - by 19 year old Iranian-German, illegal handgun, 9 dead, 26 injured
Reutlingen - 21 year old Syrian, using a machete - 5 injured
Ansbach - 27 year old Syrian, using an improvised bomb with metal fragments - one dead, 12 injured
On one hand, Germany strict gun laws didn't prevent these attacks. None of the bad guys used a legally obtained gun.
On the other hand, if the guns in Germany could be obtained as easily as in USA, with 1.1 million refugees in 2015 alone, some of them being disgruntled, mentally unstable or criminal, the number of attacks and dead would be likely much higher
Hi,
I agree that easy access to instruments that are designed to kill, does not help. While they are just instruments and their availability is not the root cause, it also shows that unstable people or criminals will always find a tool to do what they think that they must do. But why make it easier than necessary?
Here (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting) is an overview of what happens when guns are very accessible, they will be used and because they are designed to kill, they are effective. Do pay attention to the higher number of non-lethal injuries, often not reported in the usual statistics !
Again, gun possession is a symptom, and reducing availability helps, but it is not the solution. It is one of many things that can be done to improve the situation. It is usually even more effective to focus on the root cause of these acts of violence, and reduce the risk of them happening in the first place. But then one should be willing to investigate those root causes, and not only focus on the symptoms.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... if the guns in Germany could be obtained as easily as in USA, with 1.1 million refugees in 2015 alone, some of them being disgruntled, mentally unstable or criminal, the number of attacks and dead would be likely much higher
Just repeating it, Les, in the hope that it might produce a sliver of cognition ...
-
Again, gun possession is a symptom, and reducing availability helps, but it is not the solution. It is one of many things that can be done to improve the situation.
Hi Bart,
I'm not sure 'symptom' is the right word and in searching for the 'solution' there are intervening steps that would help. Curtailing the ease with which guns, particularly military-grade guns, can be acquired would be such a step.
M
-
I'm not sure 'symptom' is the right word and in searching for the 'solution' there are intervening steps that would help. Curtailing the ease with which guns, particularly military-grade guns, can be acquired would be such a step.
M., I agree, and one can do not just one or the other, but both at the same time. Things like (addressing symptoms) repairing the aberrations of military grade weapons being sold to civilians, especially with inadequate periodic background checkups, as blocked by the Republican Congress members, AND (preventative) making a start to address the social issues that seem to be one root cause, and the adoration of violence on TV and in Games, to name a few (!)).
I do think guns are more a symptom, than e.g. something constitutional (which it also is, but not exclusively). I'm not so sure that gun possession is praised to the skies only due the US Constitution, because many Americans do not even have guns. But there is a large group of people who think that their government cannot be trusted (and neighbors / strangers / etc.), and they need guns to protect themselves against the Government they themselves helped to get in power. There are some opportunities for improvement on those aspects as well, it seems. A more trustworthy government might also help, less influenced by personal gain (campaign donations (https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiOr4DWvo7OAhUMahoKHVbUBCoQFggeMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fgraphics%2Fnational%2Fnra-donations%2F&usg=AFQjCNEGOVv_q8JsCvanEYop6LbhtEP3Gw) and/or bribes) and Lobbyists (often former politicians).
Not an easy task, but it is insane to not at least make a serious effort. I prefer to focus on things that can be done (even if they are hard to do), instead of focusing on the things that cannot be done. More productive that way.
Cheers,
Bart
-
And continues ...
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/25/us/fort-myers-nightclub-shooting/index.html
Two people are dead and at least 14 others were injured after a shooting at a Florida nightclub, Fort Myers police Capt. Jim Mulligan said.
Police are investigating two other related scenes.
Sad.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... if the guns in Germany could be obtained as easily as in USA, with 1.1 million refugees...
Or they can drive a truck. No machine gun produced as many fatalities in a single attack.
Then again, why not go for the root cause and not have let in* 1.1 million refugees in the first place?
*Edited for clarity
-
They just had a party in a rented villa in southern England - reportedly yardie gangsta types - and one person shot dead at around 2.30 am folowing a police check on the venue about four hours earlier.
The world has finally lost its marbles.
At least it bears out my theory, voiced here before, that for the UK, the problem began back in '47 with the Independence/Partition of India and similar passport deal with the Caribbean; one Enoch Powell was crucified for warning of what lay ahead.
Too late for Brexit to make much difference.
Rob
-
Then again, why not go for the root cause and not have 1.1 million refugees in the first place?
BINGO !
Cheers,
Bart
-
Or they can drive a truck. No machine gun produced as many fatalities in a single attack.
Then again, why not go for the root cause and not have 1.1 million refugees in the first place?
That, Slobodan, is the mammoth in the room. Thank our politicians and collective bleeding hearts, both for meddling in the wars and getting involved in the exodus.
Trump's Mexican wall dance would be in fine tune on the borders of the Med.
Rob
-
Refugee complaining about too many refugees. :o
-
Or they can drive a truck. No machine gun produced as many fatalities in a single attack.
More abject stupidity.
Or they can fly a plane. No machine gun produced as many fatalities in a single attack.
-
/* deleted
-
Refugee complaining about too many refugees. :o
I am not (a refugee).
-
More abject stupidity.
Or they can fly a plane. No machine gun produced as many fatalities in a single attack.
Thanks for adding to my point.
Also, thanks for that civilized qualifier, Manoli. When you start losing an argument, start throwing insults, eh?
-
A nice summary of our inter-continental debates (I wonder what an Australian would say):
-
Hi Manoli. I see you deleted your somewhat intelligent post.
But I didn't say that all citizens should be armed though I do think every citizen should have the right to be armed. Under our Constitution we have that right, and even though the left would like to rip out that part of the Constitution it ain't gonna happen.
On the other hand, there are certain citizens who should be required to be armed, trained in the use of their arms, and required regularly to demonstrate proficiency if they want to keep their jobs. Top of my list would be college professors. A university has a responsibility to protect its students even though we stopped calling it in loco parentis so the darlings can pretend they're adults even though they insist on being in a safe space. High schools have a similar responsibility, but since those schools are wards of the state the state should be required to provide armed guards. Gun free zones don't get the job done.
Anyone who thinks gun free zones are a solution hasn't come into contact with the real world. Believe it or not, Manoli, it's still the Wild West, and if you haven't come face to face with that fact yet, you will. You won't tell us where you are, but I suspect you're somewhere in Europe. Better keep a close watch behind you. The West is getting wilder day by day.
-
Quote from: LesPalenik on Today at 04:15:57 AM
... if the guns in Germany could be obtained as easily as in USA, with 1.1 million refugees...
Or they can drive a truck. No machine gun produced as many fatalities in a single attack.
Then again, why not go for the root cause and not have 1.1 million refugees in the first place?
One could say that the root cause was really the Americans meddling in Syria and not finishing the job. And then supporting a conflict with three armed parties fighting against each other isn't exactly the best recipe for success.
-
One could say that the root cause was really the Americans meddling in Syria and not finishing the job. And then supporting a conflict with three armed parties fighting against each other isn't exactly the best recipe for success.
... I prefer to focus on things that can be done (even if they are hard to do), instead of focusing on the things that cannot be done...
Things that can be done: not letting refugees in (your own decision)
Things that cannot be done (by you): Changing American policies
-
Bomber pledged allegiance to IS (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36882831)
Then again, who's bright idea was to place Muslim refugees in a building with THAT on top!?
-
Shouldn't be a problem, Slobodan. Jesus is in the Koran in several places. He's held in high regard.
-
Also, thanks for that civilized qualifier, Manoli. When you start losing an argument, start throwing insults, eh?
Slobodan –
The insults and obnoxious retorts have been all yours since page 3 of the previous thread, and this is/was meant to be a civilised discussion (not an argument) on gun control. Zero to do with terrorism – see the OP and (#10) .
So no, nothing to do with losing any argument, the reply was simply replicating your warped logic.
-
Hi Russ,
Yes, I did delete the post, principally because I thought that the latter part may have been considered antagonistic – and that was not the intention. But I'm pleased that I, more or less, understood your position correctly. Thanks for the clarification.
I can understand, to a degree, your point of view, but coming from a different culture and background – we'll have to agree to disagree on a few points. [/smiley-face]. The notion of armed professors and guards in Universities (think Oxford & Cambridge) is so incongruous that, to Brits, it's tantamount to Disneyland on hallucinogens .
And yes, I'm a Brit, of European descent, Europe based.
Not sure if the West is getting wilder, as you put it, or rather there's an unpalatable swing to an extreme, far-right populism. Whatever it is, it'll be defeated – but not before there exists a credible opposition. Don't underestimate Europe. The EU ultimately won't fall apart, it's here to stay and, much as it pains me to say it, the Brits got this one wrong.
M
-
Slobodan –
The insults and obnoxious retorts have been all yours since page 3 of the previous thread...
Oh, dear! :( :o ??? :-\
-
The notion of armed professors and guards in Universities (think Oxford & Cambridge) is so incongruous that, to Brits, it's tantamount to Disneyland on hallucinogens .
And I'm sure they'll continue to believe that right up to the hour when an ISIS murderer blows away a classroom full of people.
-
Oh, dear! :( :o ??? :-\
Shame on you Slobodan! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
And I'm sure they'll continue to believe that right up to the hour when an ISIS murderer blows away a classroom full of people.
If the ISIS attack is anything like the Zaventem/Brussels Maalbeek bombers then nobody will be aware until the device detonates. A gun ain't much use then.
I also don't have a lot of confidence in a professor with a small handgun against a few guys walking in with a Kalashnikov, especially if the ISIS guys know the only one in the room who is armed is standing in front of the classroom at the board. Even the armed guard at the Charlie Hebdo office didn't stand a chance against the surprise attack.
-
The notion of armed professors and guards in Universities (think Oxford & Cambridge) is so incongruous that, to Brits, it's tantamount to Disneyland on hallucinogens .
As someone who in his youth did try hallucinogens at Disneyland (S.Cal), I can say it didn't suck! ;D
But yes, the idea you point it is IMHO silly. But then I've got some wacked out brain cells from my youth.
-
Things that can be done: not letting refugees in (your own decision)
Things that cannot be done (by you): Changing American policies
You would think so, but for some reason, Frau Merkel won't listen.
-
If the ISIS attack is anything like the Zaventem/Brussels Maalbeek bombers then nobody will be aware until the device detonates. A gun ain't much use then.
I also don't have a lot of confidence in a professor with a small handgun against a few guys walking in with a Kalashnikov, especially if the ISIS guys know the only one in the room who is armed is standing in front of the classroom at the board. Even the armed guard at the Charlie Hebdo office didn't stand a chance against the surprise attack.
All quite true, Pieter, but you're forgetting the professor in the next room. At least he can confine the slaughter to a single room if he knows what he's doing. If not, everybody in the building is screwed. Your approach seems to be to throw up your hands and surrender. Gee. . . Sounds a lot like WW II.
-
Even the armed guard at the Charlie Hebdo office didn't stand a chance against the surprise attack.
I think that was not just an armed guard, but a actually a genuine armed policeman on assigned duty (not extra work off duty)
-
I am not (a refugee).
guilty by association !
-
Or they can drive a truck. No machine gun produced as many fatalities in a single attack.
just because he did not find a 2nd person to sit along w/ him with the machine gun firing ... the lack of planning.
-
In a country far, far away, and with a gun control far, far stricter than here:
19 dead, 20 injured in knife attack outside Tokyo (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/07/25/knife-attack-japan/87544148/)
-
In a country far, far away, and with a gun control far, far stricter than here:
19 dead, 20 injured in knife attack outside Tokyo (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/07/25/knife-attack-japan/87544148/)
And your point is ..., that with more guns this would not have happened, or what????
Cheers,
Bart
-
And your point is ..., that with more guns this would not have happened, or what????
I am sure you know what my point is: that determined individuals will find a way in spite of gun control.
As a secondary point, yes, if someone inside the house actually had a gun, the carnage could have been stopped with less fatalities.
You found it pertinent to post the news about two dead in Florida earlier today, just because it was gun-related. I thought it equally pertinent to mention 19 fatalities not gun-related.
-
And your point is ..., that with more guns this would not have happened, or what????
Cheers,
Bart
It could just mean that some people are just sick...all types of objects are around all of us, every day, that are capable of human destruction.
Peter
-
And I'm sure they'll continue to believe that right up to the hour when an ISIS murderer blows away a classroom full of people.
I had the impression that in the USA at least, classrooms full of people are generally blown away by disgruntled former students and other natives without connections to ISIS. Here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States) are some of the facts.
The serious point, though, is that arming teachers and professors is a suggestion that, at the moment, is simply outside the ambits of rational discourse and political possibility in many countries outside the USA. Contrary to your apparent belief, this isn't because everyone else is naive, stupid or has a poor war record. The USA differs from my country (Australia) and many others in its "gun culture", which I take to include attitudes to and public discourse about guns, their accessibility, the extent of gun ownership, the uses to which guns are actually put, and regulation and the politics around these things. And this is not one of the aspects of american life which we envy. In this area (certainly not in all), we pretty much unanimously prefer to be the way we are rather than the way you are - one outcome of the way we are being a much lower incidence of all kinds of gun violence including classroom shootings.
Now of course, we could change our minds about all this. Over the next ten years we are likely, or IMO certain, to come under domestic attack by terrorists using guns and other weapons and it is perfectly possible that our disgruntled former students may imitate some of yours in turning to violence. When these things happen, we may decide that part of the solution is arming our teachers. In making that decision, we will look closely at the USA example and will find it interesting if there turns out to be evidence that your different approach to guns has protected you against gun violence inflicted on innocents in classrooms, as some of you apparently believe to be the case now.
(
-
I am sure you know what my point is: that determined individuals will find a way in spite of gun control.
I think most people already said as much, they'll use whatever it is that they have access to.
As a secondary point, yes, if someone inside the house actually had a gun, the carnage could have been stopped with less fatalities.
You found it pertinent to post the news about two dead in Florida earlier today, just because it was gun-related. I thought it equally pertinent to mention 19 fatalities not gun-related.
Ah, so that's what was bugging you. Well, 'your' 19 deaths trump 'my' 2 deaths, so you win?
Sad.
Cheers,
Bart
-
As an ex teacher this headline "Since 2013, there have been at least 189 school shootings in America — an average of nearly one a week. (https://everytownresearch.org/school-shootings/)' is alarming.
Tom, I wrote a page or so back that you were wasting your keyboard.
Settle back, relax, and be grateful that you are living in a country where kids can go to school without being shot.
Nothing is going to change in the US. Most of them have never travelled to other countries. As for American TV, I love the one where it starts "Each year x million Americans leave the safety of our shores to visit other countries". Like, that's a bad thing, or less safe? If you peruse the For Sale section many of them can't even post to other countries.
We in Australia have just been through the longest election campaign ever. Nearly 8 weeks of torture! In the US they spend a whole year of a 4 year term just on getting elected. The result, whatever that is, is going to be someone who doesn't even have the support of half in their own party. The president that gets elected is just a figurehead. He (or she) says "we are going to make people stop at red lights" and congress says "no you are not, it is our constitutional right to go through red lights".
Let them be and settle back with a cold one.
While doing that Google "Jim Jefferies Gun Control" and have a laugh. Even the Americans can laugh at it.
" https://www.google.com.au/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Jim+Jefferies+Gun+Control&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gfe_rd=cr&ei=S5aWV7SxF8XN8gfWzY3oAw"
-
... Ah, so that's what was bugging you. Well, 'your' 19 deaths trump 'my' 2 deaths, so you win?
No, that is not it. I did not ask you what's your point when you posted the news. You, however, found it necessary to question my posting.
As for the numbers, you et al keep insisting on how America has much more mass shootings than the rest of the developed world. In other words, you have no problem with comparing numbers when "your" numbers trump "our" numbers (which they actually do not, as I posted before).
-
California school district votes to allow teachers to carry guns in the classroom (http://www.salon.com/2016/04/13/california_school_district_votes_to_allow_teachers_to_carry_guns_in_the_classroom/)
Armed teachers in classrooms are no longer a reality reserved for states like Texas and Indiana, but now the norm in at least one California school district.
California’s Kingsburg school board unanimously voted Monday night to allow school staff members to carry guns on school grounds, reported the Sacramento Bee. The new policy, which is effective immediately, will allow up to five staff members to carry guns on campus and even inside classrooms. Recently passed California state laws grants individual districts and superintendents the authority to allow guns on campus.
P.S. Since Bart likes to question my motivation in posting things, I am posting this to show that Russ is not crazy, as some of you apparently think, in suggesting to arm teachers.
-
As a secondary point, yes, if someone inside the house actually had a gun, the carnage could have been stopped with less fatalities.
A 26 yr old man has, singlehandedly, killed at least 19 people, injured 45 others , about 20 seriously, in a knife attack at a facility for disabled people. It's another mass killing. It's unlikely that anyone within that home would have been physically competent enough to use any weapon in self defence.
Yes, had a policeman been there, any policeman let alone an armed policeman, the attack would have been less murderous. That there wasn't isn't any reason to advocate an armed civil defence force in preference to a police presence, armed or otherwise.
Your point is, what ?
-
... It's unlikely that anyone within that home would have been physically competent enough to use any weapon in self defence...
I assume such homes have caregivers, staff?
My suggestion was hypothetical, in answer to Bart's prodding.
I can fully understand that in a society where such things happen extremely rarely, it does not occur to anyone there is a need to have at least one member of the stuff armed. I live in a safe neighborhood and thus have very little incentive to acquire a gun, for instance. There was no initiative to arm teachers in America in the past either, until those things have become more frequent. A lot of arms existed in America even before mass school shootings started, and yet there were no mass school shootings, until recently.
Now that they are frequent, what to do? Pretend they are not happening? Or prepare to defend oneself and the students?
-
I assume such homes have caregivers, staff?
Yes, they do. Apparently the attacker was an employee of the facility.
-
No, that is not it. I did not ask you what's your point when you posted the news ...
It was written right there, "Sad (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=111811.msg925086#msg925086)".
Cheers,
Bart
-
On a side note, I wanted to assure our Australian friends that I am really happy for you that you have such a blissful life there (no sarcasm here). Or our friends in any other part of the globe where they enjoy where they are or who they are.
I am aware there are many blissful spots on this planet. The thing is, we can not choose where we are born and, more often than not, where we live. I did not ask to be uprooted from my home town by the events outside my control. I did not ask to be sent to Russia. My choice of Spain came as a result of a coincidence. Move to the States, the same.
The point being, the blissfulness of certain places is a result of many factors, many of which unique, historical or otherwise, which makes it rather difficult to transplant their way of life onto some other place.
If you ask me a hypothetical question, a world without guns or a world where everybody has them, I would chose the one without. But we do not live in a hypothetical world. When you come to America, you can't just cherry-pick what you like about it and discard what you don't. You take the whole package, the good with the bad. America has a gun history. Fought for independence and federation with guns. Survived expansion to the West with guns. Cultivated individualism along the way. Put it (guns) into its Constitution.
Along the way, the same forces that made it #1 superpower economically and militarily (individualism, personal freedoms, and fierce competition), created internal violence and crime. As long as they exist, the need to protect oneself against that violence will remain. You can't have the world superpower with the population consisting of Budist monks.
America is unique (as is Australia, Holland, etc.) and you can't just Frankenstein-ize it by picking healthcare from Canada, gun-control from Japan, etc.
-
I am sure you know what my point is: that determined individuals will find a way in spite of gun control.
Sure, some of them will. But the easy availability of guns makes it easier to do more damage quickly. Guns are effective killing machines - much better than knives, trucks etc and easier to manage than explosives. Unfortunately, there seems no real prospect of any reduction in the availability of guns in the USA. The limited gun control initiatives that have been taken or are politically feasible seem unlikely to make guns significantly harder to come by, given the number already in circulation, and action to reduce that number seems politically a long way out of the question. A high rate of gun-related violence (compared with other first world countries) is a burden our american brothers and sisters will probably continue to bear. Or, as some of them seem to think, a badge of honour.
As a secondary point, yes, if someone inside the house actually had a gun, the carnage could have been stopped with less fatalities.
That is certainly possible. Or, in a confused situation where people are milling around, the carnage could have been increased through friendly fire. Most gun owners are pretty incompetent and pistols are very hard to shoot accurately. Even trained police and soldiers often miss, beyond point blank range. The accuracy with which good guys shoot in the movies isn't an accurate representation of reality.
-
Yes, they do. Apparently the attacker was an employee of the facility.
So he would of had access to the gun, if they had one. Great plan.
-
On a side note, I wanted to assure our Australian friends that I am really happy for you that you have such a blissful life there (no sarcasm here).
It's not sarcasm, it's reality. Australia is F###ing amazing, thanks.
As long as we can stop getting dragged into wars started by others that they can't win.
-
If you ask me a hypothetical question, a world without guns or a world where everybody has them, I would chose the one without. But we do not live in a hypothetical world. When you come to America, you can't just cherry-pick what you like about it and discard what you don't. You take the whole package, the good with the bad. America has a gun history. Fought for independence and federation with guns. Survived expansion to the West with guns. Cultivated individualism along the way. Put it (guns) into its Constitution.
America is unique (as is Australia, Holland, etc.) and you can't just Frankenstein-ize it by picking healthcare from Canada, gun-control from Japan, etc.
I agree with this and I often say something similar to Australians who simply can't understand America's relationship to guns. I have been fortunate enough to have it explained to me by American friends who are gun-owners and gun-lovers and who I know to be educated and reasonable people.
-
It's not sarcasm, it's reality...
Bob, you argue with me even when I pay you a compliment!?
-
As long as we can stop getting dragged into wars started by others that they can't win.
We have never been dragged into a war. We have entered all of them entirely of our democratically expressed free will. Sometimes unwisely, sure.
-
We have never been dragged into a war. We have entered all of them entirely of our democratically expressed free will. Sometimes unwisely, sure.
Wise assumes that you are told all of the information and that the information is correct.
I was in the Army Reserve during Vietnam, so I supported that.
Looking back, what was that about?
We invade Vietnam (against the United Nations directive) to stop the "Yellow Peril" that didn't exist. It was "All the way with LBJ".
Dropped 8 times more bombs than WW2.
Years later change Vietnam to Iraq, Change Yellow Peril to WMD, change LBJ to G Bush 1. Then Iraq 2 and G Bush 2.
When Russia drove into Afghanistan to stop the Taliban we were told about the "poor Taliban", an oppressed people that needed to be helped to stop those nasty Russians. So the US gave them weapons. Who is fighting the Taliban now?
So next time a someone tells you you have to go into a country and shoot people who live there maybe we should be ask a few more questions.
The whole gun thing reality is that guns are big business.
Check these
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/02/americas-gun-business-by-the-numbers.html
-
Wise assumes that you are told all of the information and that the information is correct.
I was in the Army Reserve during Vietnam, so I supported that.
Looking back, what was that about?
We invade Vietnam (against the United Nations directive) to stop the "Yellow Peril" that didn't exist. It was "All the way with LBJ".
Dropped 8 times more bombs than WW2.
Years later change Vietnam to Iraq, Change Yellow Peril to WMD, change LBJ to G Bush 1. Then Iraq 2 and G Bush 2.
When Russia drove into Afghanistan to stop the Taliban we were told about the "poor Taliban", an oppressed people that needed to be helped to stop those nasty Russians. So the US gave them weapons. Who is fighting the Taliban now?
So next time a someone tells you you have to go into a country and shoot people who live there maybe we should be ask a few more questions.
The whole gun thing reality is that guns are big business.
Check these
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/02/americas-gun-business-by-the-numbers.html (http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/02/americas-gun-business-by-the-numbers.html)
Bob, I agree with most of your post, especially that we should "ask a few more questions" before going to war. The point I was making is that to say we were "dragged" is ducking our collective responsibility for decisions that we made, as a nation, through our democratic political process.
-
Bob, I agree with most of your post, especially that we should "ask a few more questions" before going to war. The point I was making is that to say we were "dragged" is ducking our collective responsibility for decisions that we made, as a nation, through our democratic political process.
Fair call.
-
Refugee and immigrant.
http://www.ssi.org.au/faqs/refugee-faqs/148-what-is-the-difference-between-a-refugee-and-a-migrant
-
All quite true, Pieter, but you're forgetting the professor in the next room. At least he can confine the slaughter to a single room if he knows what he's doing. If not, everybody in the building is screwed. Your approach seems to be to throw up your hands and surrender. Gee. . . Sounds a lot like WW II.
That riposte seems a bit below the belt. For a man who went to war in a state-of-the art aircraft backed by the richest most powerful nation on earth to belittle a man who's country was invaded by (at the time) the most destructive and effective military machine (the German army) seems quite thoughtless. Especially as it was only 20 years after their country had been devastated by the First World War. Belgium is a tiny country easily overrun in a short time.
Jim
-
What happens if class room assistants and teachers don't want to be armed? I don't think that they could be forced to and collectively they would probably vote not to be.
-
Your approach seems to be to throw up your hands and surrender. Gee. . . Sounds a lot like WW II.
Where did you get the idea we would throw up our hands and surrender, no need to make derogatory and wrong assumptions. It doesn't help your case.
And while indeed the US army did a great job in WWII it didn't all happen for altruistic reasons and had a healthy dose of self interest mixed in.
-
Come on guys, give it a rest.
You are all getting more and more etrenched and it isn't going anywhere good.
This has sunk into nothing whatsoever to do with logic or reasoned argument, but just verbal combat: why make enemies where you don't have to? Just walk away and let peace return. I've seen other forums disintegrate - don't screw this one!
Call it a draw and have a coffee.
;-)
Rob C
-
Rob, you're correct, but I feel the need to make one last comment or two.
The upshot seems to be that some people believe that it's normal to have guns and that they feel safer if they have them. But is it working? Are things at least trending in that direction? If not, don't you think they should be by now? It's not as if it's difficult for all you "good guys" to have guns. Shouldn't you be out these fighting crime and "terrorists" and preventing shootings and whatever else, just a bit more often by this time? I'm not hearing about any of that. Shouldn't you feel safer by now, is what I'm asking?
Because that's not the impression I get. It's a small and perhaps not representative sample of opinion that we've read in this thread and others, but I am not getting the impression that you generally feel safe. There are fears of ISIS blowing up your cities, when it seems to me that those groups may have shot their wad. They can't seem to form a state in their own backyard, how are they going to take over Chicago. Not even the Chicago cops can do that.
Professors mandated to carry guns? Really? Do you honestly think that's going to happen or that it will work? It's ok in some jurisdictions to blast some guy on your front porch without having to assess if there is any danger. Is this situation really making you feel free?
I am thinking again about that caregiver in Florida who was shot 3 times in the leg last Monday and the increasingly lame excuses for what happened. Accidental discharge was one that appeared on this site. The police union had another howler that I read about. Forgetting all that for the moment, my question about that is this. In a situation where the caregiver and autistic guy did not present any obvious demonstrated danger to anyone, including themselves or the police (and wouldn't we have heard by now if there had been?), my question is not why the guy was "accidentally" shot, my question is why were their weapons even unholstered in the first place? Are guns making you feel safer or are you all walking the streets in permanent fear because you're worried everyone else is packing?
Because to listen to Trump's ending speech at the convention, with talk of danger and destruction and evil criminal migrants (although home-grown american "terrorists" have done more than their fair share of random killing, don't you think?), and to listen to some of the descriptions of the state of your society on these pages lately, I have to confess that you're sounding a little paranoid to me.
Is present day culture inducing such widespread anxiety in your citizens that it's causing people to run around guns a blazing as if you were living in the (largely fictitious) "Wild West"? As I have asked before, what's the upside?
-
Come on guys, give it a rest.
.......
Call it a draw and have a coffee.
;-)
Rob C
Rob, which thread here in LL which involved strong opinions and strong characters did ever reach a homogeneous conclusion? ;)
I think the discussion here is still reasonable polite and reasoned and while we don't all agree (to the contrary :P) new points keep get added.
But I agree, as soon as ad hominem attacks get the violent majority the thread is better left alone or closed, but until then what's the harm in running a few more circles.
-
Call it a draw and have a coffee.
Scottish humour ... ( and yes, you Yanks, note the spelling ... !)
[/* levity mode ON]
-
Scottish humour ... ( and yes, you Yanks, note the spelling ... !)
[/* levity mode ON]
Highly humorous...
Peter
-
Professors mandated to carry guns? Really?
Has anyone asked the professors whether they WANT to carry guns ?
So far, in Europe, we rely on our security services and police forces to provide that protection. And considering that the recently installed President of NYU is an ex Vice Chancellor of Oxford University, I don't see that idea gaining much traction. Indeed, looking at the rest of the Profs and academics in the recent NYU Salute, the very last thing the majority of them should have is a firearm.
Anyway, continuing [/* levity mode ON], I'm sending a recommendation to the President of HBO to start a new series, starring Russ and Slobodan, as modern day Republican 'Cheech & Chong' replacements. Blockbuster stuff .
-
Simple Republican economics, how do we cut costs (think Reagan).
Homeland Security': The Trillion-Dollar Concept That No One Can Define (https://www.thenation.com/article/homeland-security-trillion-dollar-concept-no-one-can-define/)
I love my guns and my right wing beliefs, is it worth (almost?) one trillion dollars?
Something to think about for the dynamic duo.
Cheers,
-
Has anyone asked the professors whether they WANT to carry guns ?
They wouldn't have a choice. It'd be learn the routine, qualify and carry, or start looking for a job. I spent 26 years in the military and never was really happy when I had to carry a gun. Some things just have to be done even if you'd rather pretend they don't.
So far, in Europe, we rely on our security services and police forces to provide that protection.
As has been demonstrated again and again security services and cops can't be everywhere at once.
-
On a side note, I wanted to assure our Australian friends that I am really happy for you that you have such a blissful life there (no sarcasm here). Or our friends in any other part of the globe where they enjoy where they are or who they are.
I am aware there are many blissful spots on this planet. The thing is, we can not choose where we are born and, more often than not, where we live. I did not ask to be uprooted from my home town by the events outside my control. I did not ask to be sent to Russia. My choice of Spain came as a result of a coincidence. Move to the States, the same.
The point being, the blissfulness of certain places is a result of many factors, many of which unique, historical or otherwise, which makes it rather difficult to transplant their way of life onto some other place.
If you ask me a hypothetical question, a world without guns or a world where everybody has them, I would chose the one without. But we do not live in a hypothetical world. When you come to America, you can't just cherry-pick what you like about it and discard what you don't. You take the whole package, the good with the bad. America has a gun history. Fought for independence and federation with guns. Survived expansion to the West with guns. Cultivated individualism along the way. Put it (guns) into its Constitution.
Along the way, the same forces that made it #1 superpower economically and militarily (individualism, personal freedoms, and fierce competition), created internal violence and crime. As long as they exist, the need to protect oneself against that violence will remain. You can't have the world superpower with the population consisting of Budist monks.
America is unique (as is Australia, Holland, etc.) and you can't just Frankenstein-ize it by picking healthcare from Canada, gun-control from Japan, etc.
+1
However, it should be possible to learn from others (everybody included) what works better and what not. One of the issues is the weapons industry and the lobbyists. Reducing the dependency from that will have (longer term) positive effects. Government systems are not cast in concrete, they evolve over time. Not really Frankenstein, but common sense.
"Since 1998, the National Rifle Association has donated $3,781,803 to current members of Congress." (link (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/nra-donations/)).
Also interesting is to see the NRA rating (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/gun-legislation/?tid=a_inl) focusing on predominantly the Republican (House and Senate) members (with A and A+ ratings), instead of the Democrats (with mostly F ratings).
And that's only one source of financial influencers.
It is interesting to observe that almost in unison, as a result of the indoctrination, the response to threats is; more guns, instead of soul-searching or looking for preventative measures. The only one to benefit is the weapons industry.
So while history has played a role in the acceptance of guns in the USA, current history is written by money. Innocent victims be damned, it seems (a bit like how the Tobacco industry used to operate).
Cheers,
Bart
-
They wouldn't have a choice. It'd be learn the routine, qualify and carry, or start looking for a job.
This is where, with respect, your argument starts to fall apart.
You joined the military. It's a reasonable expectation that not only would you need to carry a gun, but that you may have to use it.
A university professor, teacher, academic - it's not part of his CV, nor part of his vocation.
Why would I want to lose a good teacher for something that's out of his domain ? I wouldn't.
Also, today that's a somewhat simplistic view. Recently I had an 'enlightening' few hours with police at Heathrow Airport, combined with a demo of their armed capabilities (some of them, not all). Those officers are equipped better than you'd expect any paramilitary to be. And they're trained to use them to full effect. No professor is ever going to fill that role. Nor should they.
-
Most of the folks here are convinced that people who believe in the right to bear arms are foolish. Fine. That's your belief. Those of us who think gun ownership is wise have several reasons to believe what we do. Some of them are historical and some are in the news today. We know that a tyrannical government must confiscate all the guns before they curtail the rest of people's rights (e.g. the Nazis). We also know that right now the world is beset with Islamic extremists and other extremists who will shoot you or blow you up if you're lucky. Worst case they'll carve you up ( http://heatst.com/uk/exclusive-france-suppressed-news-of-gruesome-torture-at-bataclan-massacre/ )
So both as a national policy and as an insurance policy to save ourselves and our families from slaughter we choose to put up with the difficulties of guns. If you can't understand that then too bad. But I know for a fact that if any of you who preach against guns were one of those poor people trapped in the Bataclan and waiting to be tortured and murdered, you would have traded everything you had for a gun. At the least you could have given yourself a clean death.
-
Imagine how many lives might have been saved had a few of those people on that avenue in Nice been armed as the guy with the truck began crashing and crushing through the crowd. Yes, a couple folks might have been hit by stray bullets or ricochets, but a hell of a lot less than 84 likely would have died waiting for the police to respond effectively.
Those of you who think there are nice, neat solutions to violent attacks are living in a dream world. Violence, when it comes, isn't a neat package that will respond well to good intentions. I have a pretty high regard for the correspondents on LuLa and I hope none of you will have to learn about reality the hard way.
-
Two attackers claiming allegiance to ISIS and yelling Allahu Akbar, beheaded an 86 year old Priest in Northern France during Mass this morning.
-
Two attackers claiming allegiance to ISIS and yelling Allahu Akbar, beheaded an 86 year old Priest in Northern France during Mass this morning.
Yes, and so it continues...., and this one is at only one of several places in Africa where such things happen.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-36892048
Cheers,
Bart
-
A university professor, teacher, academic - it's not part of his CV, nor part of his vocation.
Why would I want to lose a good teacher for something that's out of his domain ? I wouldn't.
Well, there's a workable alternative, manoli: Universities could pay to have an armed guard in each classroom.
-
Well, there's a workable alternative, manoli: Universities could pay to have an armed guard in each classroom.
Exactly - we're getting closer , I don't know about each classroom but certainly campus, buildings, whatever each establishment needs to enforce security. It's not a new concept - private security (read:additional policing) is already deployed extensively throughout Europe for any number of reasons. If that entails doubling the size of the police force, then double it, at least they'll then be trained and appropriately armed.
Look, it's a new paradigm - the West needs to respond. The question is how, not if.
-
... Look, it's a new paradigm - the West needs to respond. The question is how, not if.
Amen, brother!
-
Exactly my friend. Not "if" but "how?" Problem is, it's going to be expensive to fight back against this religious army and our Socialist approaches to so many other things have pretty much tapped out the gold mine (otherwise known as the taxpayers). If people would realize we're at war we might be able to mobilize them, but their betters are telling them these horrendous attacks are just criminal acts -- to be taken care of by the cops. (Nothing here to see folks. Just move on.) They're going to have to learn the hard way. I suspect the people who were on that street in Nice are convinced now, but that's not enough.
-
Let's just pose for a second our first-world debates and see what a horrible/wonderful world we live in - a condemnation and ode to humanity at the same time:
-
Shouldn't be a problem, Slobodan. Jesus is in the Koran in several places. He's held in high regard.
I am sure the French priest would be glad to know :(
-
He probably already knew it. Roman priests are pretty thoroughly educated on things like that. Unfortunately he wasn't Jesus -- just a priest.
-
Imagine how many lives might have been saved had a few of those people on that avenue in Nice been armed as the guy with the truck began crashing and crushing through the crowd.
Imagine how many innocent bystanders might have been shot by such untrained people or by the people who should be armed and shooting (police) NOT knowing if those folks with guns where the good guys or the bad guys! Of course, the NRA would have us believe anyone with a gun is a 'good guy'.
Let's leave guns to the pro's and not the amateurs.
-
Hi Andrew. I can tell you're really familiar with firearms. Maybe you didn't read the rest of what I wrote.
-
Hi Andrew. I can tell you're really familiar with firearms. Maybe you didn't read the rest of what I wrote.
I did read what you wrote which implies that if more bystanders had guns, the outcome could have been 'better'. I think it is just as likely the outcome would be worse and explained why.
As for being familiar with guns, yes but no expert. I must have been 10 years old when I fired my first rifle (a 22 I still own). I lived through the LA riots and after, decided I needed a gun for home protection. I bought a shotgun that's never been fired. I bought a 9MM that has been used at an indoor shooting range (I took a gun class) but not in over 25+ years. I don't care if I had to give em up, they mean nothing to me. And if I was foolish enough to suspect I needed guys to fight so called government tyranny, I'm no match for the fire power of the government.
-
Fair enough, Andrew.
So what you're telling me is that it's better for the crowd to wait for the cops to arrive, while the murderer keeps mowing them down at a great rate, than for a few people in the crowd to stop the whole shebang with some well-placed shots. You're assuming everybody with a gun is a novice and can't hit the broad side of a barn. Maybe that's been your personal experience with your own shooting, but it's not generally true. Furthermore, even if somebody gets hit during the shootout that's still better than the alternative.
-
Fair enough, Andrew.
So what you're telling me is that it's better for the crowd to wait for the cops to arrive, while the murderer keeps mowing them down at a great rate, than for a few people in the crowd to stop the whole shebang with some well-placed shots.
Potentially very much so! But not sit around and wait, get the hell out of the way if possible.
As for all this fear, the spec's state that 90+ people a day are killed on US highways. You want to be fearful of a common occurrence we all conduct nearly every day, fear that. Or the flu. 610,000 people die of heart disease in the United States every year. And they get fatter and take care of themselves less and less while worrying about terrorists. It's silly.
Fear sells. I'm not buying it. That's when the terrorists win. I don't need an assault riffle any more than I need a bazooka or an F15 I can't fly.
I'm assuming that of all those folks shooting around each other, (some able and some not able to strike the side of a barn), my chances of surviving (the tiny possibility I'll be caught up in a terrorist attack) are far more dangerous with more bullets flying around. I'll take my chances on the police who are trained to use firearms in such situations rather than some follower of Duck Dynasty with a firearm.
-
Yes it continues. A Priest was slain today in France, by isis guys. Inside his church. Poor man was 82 years old. If government don't take drastic actions many will form militia and some more guys will die, for sure.
-
Andrew, for the life of me I can't grasp what highway deaths have to do with the war we're in.
Yes. Let's take our chances on the police. Those guys are well trained and, for the most part, excellent people. Only problem is that once the call is in it takes a while for them to respond. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, people are being mowed down by a truck or by a guy in the middle of a gay bar shooting everybody in sight. If that's your preference, as we used to say in Korea during that war: "Rotsa ruck."
And I certainly agree: you shouldn't try to fly an F15.
-
... it takes a while for them to respond...
Three hours in the case of Orlando shooting. In the meantime, the whole gun-free zone was his playground.
-
Andrew, for the life of me I can't grasp what highway deaths have to do with the war we're in.
Yes. Let's take our chances on the police. Those guys are well trained and, for the most part, excellent people. Only problem is that once the call is in it takes a while for them to respond. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, people are being mowed down by a truck or by a guy in the middle of a gay bar shooting everybody in sight. If that's your preference, as we used to say in Korea during that war: "Rotsa ruck."
And I certainly agree: you shouldn't try to fly an F15.
Policemen can't sort every problems on this planet. They are far under-numbered. I'm for citizenship self defence, 100%. Engineers needs to develop a new sort of non lethal weapon, but extremely efficient. Even tazers are too dangerous. To be able to carry and use this weapons you'll need a training course, a psychological evaluation and a permit, renewed every years. It will allow people to react immediately, in the street, to neutralise or to try to neutralize a problem.
Since streets are full of cameras, I think there is no problem for armed flying police drones. One drone in each streets.
Like the non lethal weapon, a percentage of citizens will follow training course, deep psychological evaluation, police approval to be able to summon the drones when necessary. This will also necessitate ground targeting with ir, to indicate the intelligent ammunition launched by the drone who is the target. The operator should be over state secrecy under a period of 5 to 10 years.
Financing such project will cost far less than thousand of policemen in the streets.
-
Andrew, for the life of me I can't grasp what highway deaths have to do with the war we're in.
The unreasonable fear of terrorists!
Yes. Let's take our chances on the police. Those guys are well trained and, for the most part, excellent people.
So here's some chilling facts:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/wp/2015/12/26/2015/12/26/a-year-of-reckoning-police-fatally-shoot-nearly-1000/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/wp/2015/12/26/2015/12/26/a-year-of-reckoning-police-fatally-shoot-nearly-1000/)
Now imagine a street filled with non trained folks and dozen's of guns. You think more bullets flying makes you safer? I don't.
-
To be able to carry and use this weapons you'll need a training course, a psychological evaluation and a permit, renewed every years.
And yet, in the US, that's not the case with the millions of guns. You can be on the no fly list but have no problem buying a gun. Don't get me wrong, I like your idea of some non lethal device but you think Americans will pick that instead of a gun and that they would following your sound logic: a training course, a psychological evaluation and a permit, renewed every years?
-
... In NSW the biggest threat to school children is peanuts and peanut products...
Or torture:
Australia: Children stripped, assaulted and tear-gassed (http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/26/asia/australia-juvenile-detention-center-abuse/index.html)
-
I'm shooting TLD (long range shooting). Since army I never stopped training myself to shoot at 50/100/500/600m with different kind of ammos. The more precise fire arm is the carbine. I also shoot with handgun when it's possible, with french version of SWAT, the BAC. Sometimes a guys pass by the stand with very fancy weapons and some target to destroy.
The first time I tried a handgun it was a glock 21, 9mm. Blimey... you need a load of training to be able to shoot the target, especially over 20m. I unloaded the refile in no time and hit rate was 15%.
Handguns are too dangerous especially in the street. So I understand this is a problem in US because untrained ppl buy handguns ... and can kill by accident others in the street. I'm not for that at all. Your gun should stay at home and only to protect your family or your home.
-
Or torture:
Australia: Children stripped, assaulted and tear-gassed (http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/26/asia/australia-juvenile-detention-center-abuse/index.html)
An awful story which leaves many Australians sickened and ashamed. For the record, it happened in a prison ("juvenile detention centre") rather than a school, and part of the problem is that the kids in question have probably not spent much time in a classroom.
-
Or torture:
Australia: Children stripped, assaulted and tear-gassed (http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/26/asia/australia-juvenile-detention-center-abuse/index.html)
Also a really feeble attempt to move attention from the subject.
This incident was so rare that it attracted the attention of the Prime Minister.
News stories of shootings in the US don't even make the news unless there is something really unusual about them as they are so common.
If a man is shot in the street in the US unarmed and with his hands up by police then that makes the news. So do mass shooting of kids in schools. We don't have that.
Every kid that dies in a school in the US is the responsibility of those that choose to do nothing about it other than to say they need more guns.
-
....the tiny possibility I'll be caught up in a terrorist attack...
This is a real problem in terms of the practical difficulty in getting a decision to spend a lot of public money. I don't doubt that in some places the risk of terrorist or non-terrorist violent attacks on schools and public places is real and will increase. But it will still be tiny. We may see more armed guards, but I suspect that most of them will never fire a shot in anger and I am not convinced that their presence will significantly deter psychologically or ideologically deranged attackers who don't fear death. I worry that bored armed guards being paid minimum wage might be more of a threat than a solution. Maybe we will need to think about multi-skilling the guards so they can have something rewarding and useful to do for most of their working lives. Imagine a job description including weapons but also a wider range of skills which mitigate a wider range of risks. I am thinking of those "root causes". One of my kids attended a school which had a head of discipline known as "sarge". A former army sergeant major about nine feet tall, he was able to inspire fear in hormonal teenage boys and deal very quickly with incidents, but was also at the centre of the school's anti-bullying program and a loved and trusted confidant for kids having any kind of hard time. And he wasn't on minimum wage. "Send in the guns" is surely never going to be more than part of the solution, any more than "send in the counsellors". I wonder if the two could be combined, either in individuals on in a program. Or, if not, whether we need some other kind of lateral thinking.
-
An interesting podcast (http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/02-saigon-1965) (about 30 min long) about the mistakes of the past.
There has been some disparagement of the search for the "root cause" of some problems in these pages. Insofar as the current fear of ISIS is concerned, it might be useful to recall that ISIS didn't exist 10 years. It might be a beneficial exercise to try and understand what happened between then and now, so that maybe we can avoid doing it again. Maybe someone has, who knows. And yes, I know, trying to understand that won't help anyone who is being run down by a truck.
-
Also a really feeble attempt to move attention from the subject...
Sorry, mate, didn't realize that the only subject allowed in this thread is America-bashing orgy.
-
... it might be useful to recall that ISIS didn't exist 10 years. It might be a beneficial exercise to try and understand what happened between then and now...
They didn't. But then again, El Qaida did. And Taliban before that. And while each next incarnation makes the previous look like a church choir, they have the same roots. As for what happen between then and now, I think the picture is worth a thousand words (reposting from another thread, sorry, Manoli):
-
Just some simple observations:
1. A significant number of `mass shooters' choose to arm themselves with semi-automatic long guns with high cyclic rates of fire and large capacity magazines. (the `professional level' of personal weapons if you like)
2. Most handguns are significantly less powerful, less accurate and have lower capacity magazines (more `consumer level' equivalents).
3. Lots of things come into play in a fire fight but it's generally true to say that the more heavily armed (and possibly armoured) and prepared protagonist is likely to emerge the victor.
4. The first/highest priority target in a `random' or terrorist shooting situation is likely to be the person who poses the biggest threat to the shooter(s). i.e. the `citizen' with the handgun (and, by drawing fire, quite possibly anyone close by, such as a partner, colleague or child).
5. The likelihood of being caught in a terrorist incident is extremely remote. However, should it occur the best defence might be a good pair of running shoes!
-
Sorry, mate, didn't realize that the only subject allowed in this thread is America-bashing orgy.
I am mostly seeing in the thread what I feel myself and have tried to express in my posts, a sympathetic and respectful interest in a problem of which the American manifestation is well known to us all because of America's centrality in the multinational media, but which affects many other countries in different ways, perhaps requiring different responses. I warmly admire America and don't go in for bashing it. I wondered whether your post was a contribution to the issues being discussed or just an opportunistic and mildly distasteful debating point, but decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. There was some evidence to the contrary. After all, the Australian episode appears to have nothing to do with terrorism or mass shooting. On the other hand, you might simply have been responding to some over-enthusiastic Australian patriotism, and I was reluctant to believe that you would use an sickening example of child abuse merely to make a debating point. Perhaps you could explain what you think we should learn about the subject of the thread (or anything else) from the incident you mentioned. There are certainly some hard lessons for Australia.
-
Imagine how many lives might have been saved had a few of those people on that avenue in Nice been armed as the guy with the truck began crashing and crushing through the crowd. Yes, a couple folks might have been hit by stray bullets or ricochets, but a hell of a lot less than 84 likely would have died waiting for the police to respond effectively.
Russ, in my mind you've either picked the wrong example or are way too optimistic about the effectiveness of a few small handguns in the hands of amateur trained people. If you look at the pictures of the truck after the incident it took the trained police a multitude of shots from high power guns to neutralize the driver. I think in this case a few small hand guns on the boulevard would only have made more casualties, not less. I agree a handgun in the hands of a good guy can in some cases (eg. a school or gay bar shootout) prevent a bigger massacre, but with the truck in Nice no way.
-
Slobodan et al,
"Using numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we found that from 2001 to 2013, 406,496 people died by firearms on U.S. soil. (2013 is the most recent year CDC data for deaths by firearms is available.) This data covered all manners of death, including homicide, accident and suicide.
According to the U.S. State Department, the number of U.S. citizens killed overseas as a result of incidents of terrorism from 2001 to 2013 was 350.
In addition, we compiled all terrorism incidents inside the U.S. and found that between 2001 and 2013, there were 3,030 people killed in domestic acts of terrorism.* This brings the total to 3,380."
2,996 people died in 911, my quote.
I'm not into America bashing, however you seem to have a major problem that is not being addressed. English is the lingua franca of the world and as the largest English speaking country in the world you command attention, good and bad.
Actions speak louder than words, "406,496 people died by firearms on U.S. soil" since 2001 speaks loudly to me (oh! add another 70,000 odd since then). What is scary is the numbers are close to half those in the Iraq, a deadly war zone.
Something to think about…
-
Russ, in my mind you've either picked the wrong example or are way too optimistic about the effectiveness of a few small handguns in the hands of amateur trained people. If you look at the pictures of the truck after the incident it took the trained police a multitude of shots from high power guns to neutralize the driver. I think in this case a few small hand guns on the boulevard would only have made more casualties, not less. I agree a handgun in the hands of a good guy can in some cases (eg. a school or gay bar shootout) prevent a bigger massacre, but with the truck in Nice no way.
Hi Pieter, Have you ever fired a handgun? If so, which one? Maybe a 22?
-
Slobodan et al,
"Using numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we found that from 2001 to 2013, 406,496 people died by firearms on U.S. soil. (2013 is the most recent year CDC data for deaths by firearms is available.) This data covered all manners of death, including homicide, accident and suicide.
According to the U.S. State Department, the number of U.S. citizens killed overseas as a result of incidents of terrorism from 2001 to 2013 was 350.
In addition, we compiled all terrorism incidents inside the U.S. and found that between 2001 and 2013, there were 3,030 people killed in domestic acts of terrorism.* This brings the total to 3,380."
2,996 people died in 911, my quote.
I'm not into America bashing, however you seem to have a major problem that is not being addressed. English is the lingua franca of the world and as the largest English speaking country in the world you command attention, good and bad.
Actions speak louder than words, "406,496 people died by firearms on U.S. soil" since 2001 speaks loudly to me (oh! add another 70,000 odd since then). What is scary is the numbers are close to half those in the Iraq, a deadly war zone.
Something to think about…
Well as part of et al (just call me Al) I'll respond. Looking at the CDC latest figures the US has about 40,000 suicides a year. So a good chunk of your average of about 31,000 firearm deaths are from suicide. On top of that suicide is only the tenth leading cause of death in the US. Murder is a very small contributor to mortality. Now factor in that most gun deaths are done by criminals (murderers) and you realize that even if guns were illegal (like in France and Germany) bad people will get guns. So all you are trying to do is disarm the good guys. As charmingly stated by some poet "if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns." I'd rather have a say in what happens when the bullets start flying. You don't.
-
Hi Pieter, Have you ever fired a handgun? If so, which one? Maybe a 22?
Yes, but what has that to do with what happened in Nice? I wasn't there.
-
You have this idea that a handgun wouldn't have been able to stop that truck. I'd like to know which handguns you've fired and are familiar with.
-
You have this idea that a handgun wouldn't have been able to stop that truck. I'd like to know which handguns you've fired and are familiar with.
Well, I'm not the only one in this thread, several of your countrymen in this thread agree with that as well.
And sorry, I've shot hand guns while living in and visiting the US, but unlike photo cameras I've shot in my life I don't remember which brand or caliber.
But let me turn the question around, if it took a multitude of bullets from heavy police guns to stop the truck how do you think a small hand gun fired by a non-professional shooter on a busy boulevard in the dark when multiple people weren't even aware what was happening would have stopped it sooner then the police did?
-
You have seen the photos of the truck. It took an awful lot of shots to stop the truck. Hey, about once a year a good guy stops a tragedy becoming a major tragedy.
However, don't think a gun protects your family, if you are a woman having a gun in your home can be more dangerous than not having one.
Just thinking,
-
Well as part of et al (just call me Al) I'll respond. Looking at the CDC latest figures the US has about 40,000 suicides a year. So a good chunk of your average of about 31,000 firearm deaths are from suicide.
Hi,
Raising the suicide deaths by firearm issue is a deliberate discussion distraction from the real issue. However, the 21,334 suicides by firearms are 50% out of 42,773 total suicides by any method (according to 2014 reports). But that number is even dwarfed by the 84,258 annual non-fatal firearm injuries (in 2014). More guns tend to kill and hurt more people, not fewer.
Murder is a very small contributor to mortality.
Sure, but does that make even a single avoidable murder less important? And, e.g. obesity is much harder to control than irresponsible gun ownership, unless the latter is deliberately made more difficult (e.g. by blocking a vote to expand background checks and ban gun sales to those on the no-fly watch list, on June 22nd).
Now factor in that most gun deaths are done by criminals (murderers) and you realize that even if guns were illegal (like in France and Germany) bad people will get guns. So all you are trying to do is disarm the good guys.
The thought that one will be able to defend oneself against an assault with a gun in such a stressful situation, is questionable to say the least (especially when facing a military grade automatic assault weapon). Trying to get the hell away from the spot is more likely to help.
Cheers,
Bart
-
You have this idea that a handgun wouldn't have been able to stop that truck. I'd like to know which handguns you've fired and are familiar with.
a broken clock shows the right time twice a day... even a lucky shot from a bb gun can kill a driver (say hit him in the eye @ close distance through an open window), but a hail of bullets from behind when it passed already might as well just increase the number of dead around ;D ...
-
You have seen the photos of the truck. It took an awful lot of shots to stop the truck. Hey, about once a year a good guy stops a tragedy becoming a major tragedy.
However, don't think a gun protects your family, if you are a woman having a gun in your home can be more dangerous than not having one.
Just thinking,
Sorry guys, it didn't "take an awful lot of shots to stop the truck." It only took one well-place shot. But several cops were firing on full-automatic, or at least as fast as they could, so there are a lot of bullet holes in the windshield. One well-trained guy with a 45 or even a 38 special or a powerful 9mm probably could have killed the driver.
And Tom, please give me the source of the statistics that say if you're a woman having a gun in the house can be more dangerous than not having one. You say you're "just thinking" that statistic and I'd guess that's about right, because such statistics don't exist. Figures don't lie, but liars figure, and I know there are plenty of liars cooking up such figures. It's true that accidents sometimes happen to people who don't know what they're doing with a gun, don't handle it correctly and don't store it safely. But you might want to look for statistics that tell you how many home invasions are aborted by women with guns or by their husbands with guns. It's a rather large number -- much larger than the number of gun accidents.
I know you guys would like to just throw up your hands and surrender, but these folks aren't gonna let you do that. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.
-
Hi Pieter, Have you ever fired a handgun? If so, which one? Maybe a 22?
exactly, now you suggest him to get a gun and start firing at will if he thinks that there is an attack happening ;D
-
The thought that one will be able to defend oneself against an assault with a gun in such a stressful situation, is questionable to say the least (especially when facing a military grade automatic assault weapon). Trying to get the hell away from the spot is more likely to help.
Cheers,
Bart
Whether it is questionable or not is case specific. The point is having the option of trying to save yourself and others. The majority of people in the US want that option. The majority of people in Europe and Australia do not. Good luck to them. But when the killers come I know which option I'd like to have. Imagine if one of the parishioners in the French church happened to have a gun and had put some holes in the men who murdered the priest. That would be a happy ending.
-
Whether it is questionable or not is case specific. The point is having the option of trying to save yourself and others. The majority of people in the US want that option. The majority of people in Europe and Australia do not. Good luck to them. But when the killers come I know which option I'd like to have.
A burglar is after money/laptop/phone/maybe a TV, not your life.
Cheers,
Bart
-
A burglar is after money/laptop/phone/maybe a TV, not your life.
Cheers,
Bart
I said killer not burglar. When they come for you there's no substitute for a gun. It's the great equalizer. Even an 85 pound woman can stop a 250 lb maniac if she's trained.
-
I said killer not burglar. When they come for you there's no substitute for a gun. It's the great equalizer. Even an 85 pound woman can stop a 250 lb maniac if she's trained.
Why would they come and kill you?
How many have you prevented from doing so?
I can think of some unlikely hypothetical cases as well, but in reality?
Sounds a bit like too much NRA Kool-aid ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Even an 85 pound woman can stop a 250 lb maniac if she's trained.
even a toddler if he is lucky ... now I am all for training including very detailed regular background checks (say annually), regular psycho evaluation & drug testing (again annualy), fingerprining and DNA sample @ your cost and annual check by law enforcement that you still have the gun in your possession... if you want to own a gun - please own, but invest in that
-
Why would they come and kill you?
How many have you prevented from doing so?
I can think of some unlikely hypothetical cases as well, but in reality?
Sounds a bit like too much NRA Kool-aid ...
Hypothetical? I've heard of a bunch of people in Orlando, Paris and Munich who know better, now. But you wanted to know why some people want the right to defend themselves as they see fit. That's why. You can do as you see fit.
-
A burglar is after money/laptop/phone/maybe a TV, not your life.
At this point, Bart, you start to sound desperately naive.
When I was in Russia, there was this team of burglars caught (ultimately). They explained that initially they would just tie people inside the house, but after one of those was able to identify one of them and he got caught, they simply decided that from then on it is much "safer" to kill everybody. And they did. Multiple times.
Many stories here in the states of rapes and murder after a robbery. These aren't your gentleman jewelry thief a la David Niven (The Pink Panther, 1963). Here, they are vicious, brutal criminals who see rape and murder after a break in as the job's fringe benefit.
-
You paint a wonderful picture of your country of choice.
I thank the Gods that I have absolutely no desire to visit or live in the USA.
I thank them too.
-
Gunman Shot After Trying to Rob Pokémon Go Players (http://time.com/4423062/pokemon-go-gun-shooting-las-vegas/)
An armed man was shot after he and an accomplice tried to rob a group of people playing Pokémon Go at a Las Vegas park.
A group of six people were at Big League Dreams park after 4 a.m. Monday playing the game when the man and a driver came up in an SUV and demanded their possessions at gunpoint, according to police. A player who has a concealed weapons permit pulled out his gun, and both sides exchanged fire, officials said.
-
You paint a wonderful picture of your country of choice...
I've been here 12 years and have yet to see a gun (ok, did see it once, visiting my friend who is a former military) or experience violence.
My teenage daughter went to a shooting range and said it was pretty cool. She, however, has been a victim of a violent iPhone robbery by a black girl (caught and arrested on the spot).
-
Geez, Slobodan, you felt the need to highlight she was a black girl?
Yes.
-
Gunman Shot After Trying to Rob Pokémon Go Players (http://time.com/4423062/pokemon-go-gun-shooting-las-vegas/)
I assume it is this same attempted robbery (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/26/pokemon-hunter-shoots-gunman-during-botched-robbery-attempt/)? Now everybody will have (anecdotal) evidence of this particular case to use as an excuse. And there are more interesting links on that page, like the Two Pokémon Go players that were shot at by a homeowner in Florida last week after being mistaken for burglars.
Good thing that the guy was trained enough to hit the perpetrator, or did he also shoot the other person in the Pokémon group? If not, would that person have been shot had there not been an exchange of gunfire? Details matter.
Another, somewhat puzzling fact is what were they doing there at 4:00 AM? Maybe summer holidays?
I understand that catching Pokémon is addictive, but at that hour?
In general, it's also not very wise to flaunt your phones, but hé, kids without parental guidance do stupid things. I see them walking, and on bicycles, here as well while they are oblivious to the traffic around them... At least they are unlikely to get robbed at gun point here, but with a knife they still might (although it's less likely that all of them would get hurt by a knife if they'd disperse).
Cheers,
Bart
-
I know you guys would like to just throw up your hands and surrender, but these folks aren't gonna let you do that. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.
Russ, why do you always bring up the "other extreme" if we don't agree with your ideas. There's plenty of middle ground between arming every civilian and throwing up your hands and surrendering.
-
Quite true, Pieter. The middle ground is where the truck was crushing people.
-
Quite true, Pieter. The middle ground is where the truck was crushing people.
What a cheap cop-out, always better to bluff then just answering the question.
-
Geez, Slobodan, you felt the need to highlight she was a black girl?
Ok, Keith, this time I won't mention the skin color of the perps:
-
... would that person have been shot had there not been an exchange of gunfire?...
It is possible that gunmen would be satisfied with the loot and leave everyone alive. However, it is not given, on the contrary:
Teen Shot After Handing Over Cellphone During Robbery Dies (http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Teen-Shot-After-Handing-Over-Cellphone-During-Robbery-Dies-241018731.html)
A South Side college student who was shot despite handing his cellphone over to two robbers died Saturday, the Chicago Sun-Times is reporting...“Whatever they asked for, he gave it to them and they still shot him,”
-
What a cheap cop-out, always better to bluff then just answering the question.
Okay, Pieter. We're at war. Tell me what you think the "middle ground" is in this war -- or for that matter, any war. What was the middle ground in WWII? Was it surrendering?
Or don't you think we're at war.
I think we're at a point where we either fight or die. That means finding an effective way to fight these bastards. Arming ourselves would be a start.
-
a black girl
you are not supposed to name the color !!!
-
At this point, Bart, you start to sound desperately naive.
When I was in Russia, there was this team of burglars caught (ultimately). They explained that initially they would just tie people inside the house, but after one of those was able to identify one of them and he got caught, they simply decided that from then on it is much "safer" to kill everybody. And they did. Multiple times.
wearing masks was apparently above the IQ level
-
Or don't you think we're at war.
don't start the war in the first place... it is like sending marines to prop banana companies down south not so long time ago
-
you are not supposed to name the color !!!
Except when it is a black man shot by a white cop? ;)
-
don't start the war in the first place... it is like sending marines to prop banana companies down south not so long time ago
While we can agree on that in principle, it is irrelevant in the given situation. Whether we are guilty or not, we are under attack. The only question then is do we defend ourselves or surrender?
-
Except when it is a black man shot by a white cop? ;)
And he is lying on the ground with his arms in the air.
I guess the rest of the world will never understand the US, and why they still have such an enormous race problem.
-
I guess the rest of the world will never understand the US, and why they still have such an enormous race problem.
Many but clearly not enough of us US citizens don't understand either.
-
You have this idea that a handgun wouldn't have been able to stop that truck. I'd like to know which handguns you've fired and are familiar with.
With the greatest respect Russ. Really!!!
The effectiveness of handguns is not in question however, the chances of a `citizen', even a well practiced one, being able to incapacitate a rapidly moving fanatic, obscured by the body of a truck, at night, on a street crowed with panicked, stampeding people, without warning are, I believe, vanishingly small.
As I understand it, there were armed police in the vicinity. A far more likely outcome may be the `good guy' getting shot by police in the confusion of an `active' incident.
I understand that nobody likes to feel powerless. The simple reality however, is that sometimes we all are. No weapon can offer complete or reliable protection against people who are determined to do us harm.
Perhaps it's time to ask questions (of ourselves as well as others) first. And, by better understanding `what' and `why', reduce the need to shoot altogether.
-
...I guess the rest of the world will never understand the US, and why they still have such an enormous race problem.
The US doesn't have a race problem, at least not in the sense you think we have. The US has a problem with the leftie politicians clinging to a race card for vote-pandering purposes. And certain segments of the population clinging to it as a universal excuse for things happening to them that they are otherwise responsible for.
-
... the chances of a `citizen', even a well practiced one, being able to incapacitate a rapidly moving fanatic, obscured by the body of a truck, at night, on a street crowed with panicked, stampeding people, without warning are, I believe, vanishingly small...
Well, [people wirh]* guns actually did stop the truck, so your point is completely pointless.
EDITED to preempt smarty-pants comments ;)
-
Okay, Pieter. We're at war. Tell me what you think the "middle ground" is in this war -- or for that matter, any war. What was the middle ground in WWII? Was it surrendering?
Or don't you think we're at war.
I think we're at a point where we either fight or die. That means finding an effective way to fight these bastards. Arming ourselves would be a start.
Russ, why don't you first answer the question I asked you.
So far I answered all the questions you asked me, so I don't see why I should keep doing that if you're not returning the favour.
-
Well, guns actually did stop the truck, so your point is completely pointless.
But not the type of guns that might be taken by civilians to an event like this (if it would have been allowed like in the US)
-
Well, guns actually did stop the truck, so your point is completely pointless.
Ah, now you are being mischievous Slobodan. Surely you accept the wisdom of the NRA in these matters. To paraphrase their mantra: `Guns don't stop trucks, people stop trucks'!
(Especially properly vetted, trained and disciplined people who, in sufficient numbers and with the necessary firepower and ammunition did indeed kill the perpetrator - Oh! but they didn't `stop the truck'. It was already stationary when the fatal shots were fired. Their earlier attempts to stop it, using handguns, whilst it was in motion, failed.)
-
I guess the rest of the world will never understand the US, and why they still have such an enormous race problem.
These are two separate questions.
As to the former: the very first step when trying to understand anything is to call a spade a spade.
-
These are two separate questions.
As to the former: the very first step when trying to understand anything is to call a spade a spade.
Oh dear - I sense a thread-lock is impending.....
Jim
-
Oh dear - I sense a thread-lock is impending.....
Long overdue.
-
... It was already stationary when the fatal shots were fired...
OMG, did you just admit that French cops shot an unarmed man after he stopped resisting!?
-
But not the type of guns that might be taken by civilians to an event like this (if it would have been allowed like in the US)
This is how civilians come to an event here:
-
OMG, did you just admit that French cops shot an unarmed man after he stopped resisting!?
According to at least one update on France24 he got out of the truck firing.
Rob
-
Oh dear - I sense a thread-lock is impending.....
While I hate censorship, I hope it will ASAP.
Luminous Landscape Forum (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php)> The Art of Photography (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php#c29)> The Coffee Corne (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?board=33.0)r
WTF has this got to do with art, photography or anything but two (or more) sides that will never come to agreement. Pointless.
Better time spent arguing Mac vs. PC, Nikon vs. Canon, Pacific Ocean vs. Atlantic etc. Even coffee vs. tea! At least some of that involves facts and science. Time to move on and hit the 'don't notify' button.
-
This is how civilians come to an event here:
Slobodan, I can only say I find such images redolent of insanity.
I hope it never catches on over here. Can you imagine all those cowboys trying to be heroes at the same time? Holy shit. Who'd need the bad guys?
Rob
-
Slobodan, I can only say I find such images redolent of insanity.
I hope it never catches on over here. Can you imagine all those cowboys trying to be heroes at the same time? Holy shit. Who'd need the bad guys?
Have you noticed that those events, known to turn violent when Bernie Jugend attacked such rallies before, remained peaceful? I wonder why ;)
-
... WTF has this got to do with art, photography...
"A forum for open discussion of both photographic and non-photographic topics of a general nature"
-
Russ, why do you always bring up the "other extreme" if we don't agree with your ideas. There's plenty of middle ground between arming every civilian and throwing up your hands and surrendering.
Okay Pieter, I'll try to answer your question(s). What do you mean by "the other extreme?" Are you admitting that your position is extreme? In my estimation, it is. The idea that a society should disarm its members is clearly extreme. The people trying to kill you will ALWAYS find a way to arm themselves. You say "we." Do you mean Pieter? Who else is included in "we?" Finally, I'll ask you again: what do you mean by a middle ground? If somebody's trying to kill you you have two choices: kill him or die. Where's the middle ground? Sooner of later the people of Belgium are going to be faced with those alternatives. It's probably not going to happen in my lifetime, but you're 27 years younger and I'll guarantee it's going to happen in your lifetime.
-
While I hate censorship, I hope it will ASAP.
Luminous Landscape Forum (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php)> The Art of Photography (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php#c29)> The Coffee Corne (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?board=33.0)r
WTF has this got to do with art, photography or anything but two (or more) sides that will never come to agreement. Pointless.
Better time spent arguing Mac vs. PC, Nikon vs. Canon, Pacific Ocean vs. Atlantic etc. Even coffee vs. tea! At least some of that involves facts and science. Time to move on and hit the 'don't notify' button.
+1
-
OMG, did you just admit that French cops shot an unarmed man after he stopped resisting!?
The immature reaction is highly insensitive and shows no respect for the casualties and their family. Not sure why you'd find this is funny, but it would explain some of the earlier comments; apparently you're not interested in a serious discussion, just an attempt of cheap scoring of points.
Some reports say he was shooting back, some say he briefly even got out of the cabin shooting. It was also not known if the truck was filled with explosives.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The immature reaction is highly insensitive and shows no respect for the casualties and their family. Not sure why you'd find this is funny, but it would explain some of the earlier comments; apparently you're not interested in a serious discussion, just an attempt of cheap scoring of points....
Bart, this is the third time you et al resort to moral shaming when presented with arguments. When you do not like points presented, you labeled them "cheap" and "disrespectful." Let alone labeling me "immature" or worse. I am starting to resent that.
I presented so far plenty of reasoned arguments, supported by sources, that go beyond the knee-jerk reaction and superficial reading of headlines or stats, so typical for your side of the argument, from people who never set foot to the States, let alone lived here.
Most of those arguments you et al chose to ignore. When repeated (far less frequently than the other side repeats theirs) I am scorned for repetitiveness.
If you do not understand the point I am making with sarcasm, ask for clarification. In this particular case, it was simply mocking the way accidental shootings by cops here are interpreted by you et al. It is always a sign of "deeper" issues, "systemic racism," "cops out of control," etc., never justified or accidental.
For the record, I applaud the French cops who took out the SOB.
-
Okay Pieter, I'll try to answer your question(s). What do you mean by "the other extreme?" Are you admitting that your position is extreme? In my estimation, it is. The idea that a society should disarm its members is clearly extreme. The people trying to kill you will ALWAYS find a way to arm themselves. You say "we." Do you mean Pieter? Who else is included in "we?" Finally, I'll ask you again: what do you mean by a middle ground? If somebody's trying to kill you you have two choices: kill him or die. Where's the middle ground? Sooner of later the people of Belgium are going to be faced with those alternatives. It's probably not going to happen in my lifetime, but you're 27 years younger and I'll guarantee it's going to happen in your lifetime.
OK, thanks Russ. Thanks for pointing out the mistake; "we" in my earlier post needs to be "I". However you didn't say why you always choose the "other extreme" as I call it. I think it's a bad debating technique if you want to achieve some common understanding, and I'll explain what I mean by that below.
Your position is everybody should be free to arm himself so one can defend oneself in case a bad guy comes at you with a truck/knife/gun/bomb/ etc. However I don't agree with that (I think this cure is worse then the ailment) and then your response is what I call blaming me for the "other extreme" position i.e that you suggest that the only thing that can happen short of arming all civilians is surrender, throw up your arms and get killed. However I never said that, so it's pure speculation from your side.
What I mean by middle ground is that during events like these there should be sufficient trained armed guards/policemen available spread out over the area to neutralize a killer, they set up road blocks (as they should have done in Nice) so a truck/car can't enter a pedestrian zone and take other diligent anti-terrorism measures. So no, I won't throw up my arms, surrender and get killed, if security forces are around I expect they will get this guy before he gets me. I know it ain't perfect and they can't be everywhere at once, but even with good guy gun carriers around in the US still innocent people get killed, so that system ain't perfect either. Which scenario will play out better is depending on the specific circumstances at the event, but I don't think one is fundamentally different in effectiveness vs. the other.
You'll probably disagree and that's fine, but my main point is that there's a lot of possibilities between plenty armed civilians versus desperately surrendering because of lack of options. So when you don't agree with someone else's position don't ridicule it to the extreme, since that's usually not what the other person had in mind.
-
Bart, this is the third time you et al resort to moral shaming when presented with arguments.
Slobodan, not all are arguments, but misplaced (as you call it) 'Sarcasm'.
When you do not like points presented, you labeled them "cheap" and "disrespectful." Let alone labeling me "immature" or worse. I am starting to resent that.
Then maybe consider to stop provoking such qualifications, and engage in an honest discussion, or not.
I presented so far plenty of reasoned arguments, supported by sources, that go beyond the knee-jerk reaction and superficial reading of headlines or stats, so typical for your side of the argument, from people who never set foot to the States, let alone lived here.
There we go again. So people who have never set foot in the USA, are not capable of forming an opinion based on a variety of sources (or even the same sources as we rarely are eye-witnesses ourselves)? And even those who have set foot, should have lived there before being able to form an opinion? Is that what you are saying? I don't mind if people who have never set foot outside of the USA have an opinion of 'Europe' (and make clear what they mean by that), because that gives an opportunity to correct the wrong assumptions. One might even learn something.
Most of those arguments you et al chose to ignore.
Sure, if they are only meant to derail the discussion, or make no sense at all except from a bigoted (either sincere or as Devils Advocate) point of view. The comments that did make sense were mostly responded to as far as I followed it, although I do not necessarily agree with all responses from what you call "et al" (who ever that may be to you).
When repeated (far less frequently than the other side repeats theirs) I am scorned for repetitiveness
.
I wouldn't know, but if the remarks were not contributing to furthering the discussion, it makes little sense to repeat them. If you really think you have a point, then it should be open for debate, but then it might need a better presentation than in the shape of an uncommented link that's (deliberately) open to interpretation. People can get tired having to guess what's being suggested.
If you do not understand the point I am making with sarcasm, ask for clarification.
Maybe a suggestion. Placing mostly sarcastic replies gets a bit tiresome.
In this particular case, it was simply mocking the way accidental shootings by cops here are interpreted by you et al. It is always a sign of "deeper" issues, "systemic racism," "cops out of control," etc., never justified or accidental.
Which would be an interesting topic for discussion on its own, if you were not comparing e.g. a man on the ground with his arms raised in the air still being shot (and the policeman reacting that he didn't know why he shot), with police officers who risk their lives in an attempt to stop a potential terrorist. It's such non-nonsensical comparisons that suggests that you do not take the matters or those contributing to the discussion serious.
For the record, I applaud the French cops who took out the SOB.
Yes, they were very brave, and had to do the inevitable. Not because they were trigger happy or preconditioned to expect the worst and shoot first then ask, but because there was no other way.
Listen, I know that we are not going to solve the issues of the world in these threads, so I at least try and use the opportunity to learn about some of the other positions, or inform about my point of view. Who knows, there might be an argument that makes some sense.
Polarization and Isolation is not an honest answer to uncertainty, it's demagogy, we also saw what happened just after the Brexit referendum. People who have worked very hard to contribute to British society, where told by people in the street or on public transportation to get out of the country, purely based on ethnicity. Primitive sentiments.
I can only hope that that is not the prevailing level of discourse on LuLa.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. In the light of this discussion a potentially interesting movie tip: My name is Kahn (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1188996/).
-
... bigoted...
... use the opportunity to learn...
You can't help using labels of mass destruction and that condescending tone, can you?
-
You can't help using labels of mass destruction and that condescending tone, can you?
I learn something new every day, and hope to do a lot more of that. I can recommend it.
Cheers,
Bart
-
And the senseless killing continues:
http://abc7chicago.com/news/2-killed-2-shot-in-back-of-the-yards;-witness-suffers-fatal-asthma-attack/1446695/
An argument over a parking spot, settled with guns.
I'm just calling it as it is. Lunacy. More guns kill and hurt more people.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... An argument over a parking spot, settled with guns...
You make it sound so innocent... while failing to mention that it is another gang-related, black-on-black violence, in a ghetto, committed with illegal guns.
-
You make it sound so innocent... while failing to mention that it is another gang-related, black-on-black violence, in a ghetto, committed with illegal guns.
Source? Maybe not the best of neighborhoods, don't know, but gang-related (or is that a premature assumption based on the neighborhood and that some involved were linked to belonging to a gang, same gang, different gangs)? Black-on-black, I wouldn't know, Illegal guns, dunno, can't guns be had legally in the USA?
If you do a bit of soul searching, aren't you presuming a bit too much instead of basing judgements/qualifications on facts (I couldn't find any, maybe you can?), and thereby risk stereotyping parts of the population?
Cheers,
Bart
-
OK, thanks Russ. Thanks for pointing out the mistake; "we" in my earlier post needs to be "I". However you didn't say why you always choose the "other extreme" as I call it. I think it's a bad debating technique if you want to achieve some common understanding, and I'll explain what I mean by that below.
Your position is everybody should be free to arm himself so one can defend oneself in case a bad guy comes at you with a truck/knife/gun/bomb/ etc. However I don't agree with that (I think this cure is worse then the ailment) and then your response is what I call blaming me for the "other extreme" position i.e that you suggest that the only thing that can happen short of arming all civilians is surrender, throw up your arms and get killed. However I never said that, so it's pure speculation from your side.
What I mean by middle ground is that during events like these there should be sufficient trained armed guards/policemen available spread out over the area to neutralize a killer, they set up road blocks (as they should have done in Nice) so a truck/car can't enter a pedestrian zone and take other diligent anti-terrorism measures. So no, I won't throw up my arms, surrender and get killed, if security forces are around I expect they will get this guy before he gets me. I know it ain't perfect and they can't be everywhere at once, but even with good guy gun carriers around in the US still innocent people get killed, so that system ain't perfect either. Which scenario will play out better is depending on the specific circumstances at the event, but I don't think one is fundamentally different in effectiveness vs. the other.
You'll probably disagree and that's fine, but my main point is that there's a lot of possibilities between plenty armed civilians versus desperately surrendering because of lack of options. So when you don't agree with someone else's position don't ridicule it to the extreme, since that's usually not what the other person had in mind.
Hi Pieter, No, I don't just think everybody should be free to arm himself. I think that along with the gun goes a responsibility to learn to use it wisely. I think I've mentioned this before, but my grandfather gave me my first rifle when I was twelve. He made me understand that I should never point that gun at anyone unless I intended to kill him. He also trained me to use it responsibly.
But in the end, I think every individual has a God-given right to defend himself. That used to mean learning to fight with fists or with knives or with lances or with battle axes. But the danger has escalated, and to defend yourself properly you need to keep up with the times. That means it doesn't pay to bring a fist or a knife or a lance or a battle axe to a gunfight. As I said earlier, any bad guy can get a gun. I don't care where in the world he is, he can do that. Why should I be prevented from having access to a reasonable defense. And yes, the only reasonable alternative is to throw up your hands and surrender, hoping the guy will spare you. These people won't. So I want access to a gun.
Sure, there's always a chance that in the melee you'll be hit by a stray shot from some clutz who doesn't know what he's doing. But that average is better than being surely gunned down by the guy who's trying to kill you.
Yes, it's nice to think that there always should be armed guards to neutralize a killer, but that simply isn't always possible. Why would the cops have been there in force during the truck murders? Who'd have thought a truck would be used for that purpose? You can't always have somebody hanging over you to defend you. In the end, you're responsible for your own defense and for the defense of your family. I take that responsibility pretty seriously. Do you?
Sorry I seemed to ridicule you. Unfortunately the standard European attitude toward weapons and self-defense lends itself to ridicule.
-
An immortal quote, from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.
Can the same be said about internet forums, I wonder...
-
Source?...
The one you provided.
... Maybe not the best of neighborhoods, don't know, but gang-related (or is that a premature assumption based on the neighborhood and that some involved were linked to belonging to a gang, same gang, different gangs)? Black-on-black, I wouldn't know, Illegal guns, dunno, can't guns be had legally in the USA?
If you do a bit of soul searching, aren't you presuming a bit too much instead of basing judgements/qualifications on facts (I couldn't find any, maybe you can?), and thereby risk stereotyping parts of the population?
The benefit of living here is that I do know what kind of neighborhood Back of the Yards is and who lives there.
A group of around 100 people gathered...to celebrate the life of a man who was killed in a gang shooting in 2012....Police said Childs and the 25-year-old woman were documented gang members...
Childs is the guy who started the shooting and ended up dead, btw.
Yes, guns can be had legally in the US. Given that between 89% and 97% of all gun crimes are committed with ILLEGAL guns, my assumption is on a pretty solid statistical ground. Besides, which criminal or gang member worth its salt is going to use a legal gun traceable back to him?
-
I have read arguments on both sides of the debate here. I completely disagree with both Slobodan and Russ on most points, however both have made some interesting comments. I particularly liked Slobodan's paragraph a while ago about the culture of the US and that it is not possible to just pick bits of other cultures and make a Frankinstein (or similar).
Giving everyone a gun is not going to stop terrorists and to think so is fantasy. Particularly as the terrorists are prepared to die, and not many of their targets are.
Fact is there is no easy answer. The gun lobby will always find a reason why they need to keep their guns. I can only say that to live in a place where everyone is armed would be my nightmare scenario. Will it happen? Maybe. I hope not.
Russ and Slobodan - I think you're wrong, but I can see your points of view.
Jim
-
Particularly as the terrorists are prepared to die. . .
Exactly, Jim. You've got the picture. And the name of the game is to make sure they do before you do.
-
Jim, I appreciate your input. I agree there are no easy answers.
I do not own a gun, do not advocate giving everyone one, or mandating teachers to carry it. I do however, understand that there are people who want to have (or keep) one, including teachers, and I understand their rationale.
I posted (twice) examples of good guys stopping an attack (those examples contain names, dates, and locations, so easy to verify). No, it is not going to stop terrorists or lunatics from launching an attack, nor it guarantees zero casualties. There will be innocent killed in the cross-fire, but the overall level of casualties has been significantly lower so far.
I wish we would live in a gun-free world. But unless we all start riding unicorns, it is just a wish. The reality is harsh, and every nation tries to find an answer for itself, based on its history and culture. Most Americans have it in their genes that it is their own responsibility to protect themselves. That does not mean a negation of the government's role in providing safety for its citizens.
I think that those advocating confiscation of guns are wrong.
-
The benefit of living here is that I do know what kind of neighborhood Back of the Yards is and who lives there.
Yes, I figured that you (coming from Chicago) would know something about that particular neighborhood, but you do not know the details of what happened either.
Childs is the guy who started the shooting and ended up dead, btw.
According to 'a source'. Was that an independent source, or related to the girls? You and I do not know.
Yes, guns can be had legally in the US. Given that between 89% and 93% of all gun crimes are committed with ILLEGAL guns, my assumption is on a pretty solid statistical ground. Besides, which criminal and gang member worth its salt is going to use a legal gun traceable back to him?
So statistically that would be a high probability, but not a certainty. Then why present it as a fact?
You know, a while back we had a person in the Netherlands who was convicted to a lifelong imprisonment for a charge of multiple murders, also based on the statistical likelihood that she was the cause of the 7 hospital deaths and 3 attempted deaths (reanimations). After 5 years the case was reopened and 2 years later she was released due to miscarriage of justice. I'd be very careful with blindly following statistics. You and I have enough experience (even in the same Corporation) with statistics to know how they can be (ab)used, and how not to use them if one is objective.
It should be the case that a suspect is assumed to be not guilty, until he/she is proven guilty. I see little of that in these presumptions.
I sense a kind of fatalism that 'it is as it is', and therefore no effort is made to look at ways to prevent these things from happening. Not easy, I know, but still. The standard reaction is, more guns. And because more guns kill and/or hurt more people, it makes no sense, unless one has given up.
I haven't looked at the latest crime statistics, but isn't the crime rate falling in the USA (or is that due to a different method of reporting)? If so, does one actually understand why that is? Seems pretty useful info, maybe something can be learned?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yes, it's nice to think that there always should be armed guards to neutralize a killer, but that simply isn't always possible. Why would the cops have been there in force during the truck murders? Who'd have thought a truck would be used for that purpose? You can't always have somebody hanging over you to defend you. In the end, you're responsible for your own defense and for the defense of your family. I take that responsibility pretty seriously. Do you?
Russ, thanks for the answer. I think on most of it we'll have to agree to disagree. Nothing personal from my side, just different backgrounds and experiences in life.
But on the above paragraph there's a few points I would like to point out. I think in Nice the police and security dropped the ball. They mainly flocked together in a large group rather then spreading out in teams of two and they failed to set up a decent road block so trucks could not easily enter the pedestrian area, despite the fact that this scenario (crook driving a truck to kill people) is a standard scenario that is tested (and countermeasures taken) for many mass events in Belgium and the Netherlands. So for me Nice is an example how it should not have been done if I would be in charge of security over there. If you spend the money and resources on protection you have the duty to employ them as efficient as possible and not let your guard down because "it's unlikely something will happen".
Second point, I also take my safety and safety of my family very serious, but I focus my attention on matters that have a much higher chance of happening then a terrorist attack. Safe driving, safe cars, home fire protection, working at heights and ladder safety, electricity etc. etc. All these items have orders of magnitude higher mortality rate (if it goes wrong) then a terrorist or homicide attack so that's where I get the biggest bang for the buck in being prudent and safety conscious and taking all reasonable counter measures to ensure me and my family don't get hit. For protection against terrorist attacks I rely on the public services trained and employed to do so. Despite what a lot of politicians and populists are trying to tell us, statistically the chance of getting hit by a homicide or terrorist attack is very low (where I live), I think the amount of spreading fear and doom is out of proportion with the actual issue.
-
I think we can agree on a lot of things, Pieter. In fact, I can't find anything to disagree with in this post.
And I probably need to tell you that even though I owned rifles, shotguns, pistols, hand-loaded for all of them, cast bullets for a few, and though at 14 I (briefly) was Michigan junior smallbore champion, and was (voluntary) captain of the pistol team at Richards-Gebaur Air Force base, I haven't owned or handled a gun since I came back from Vietnam in 1965.
But that doesn't mean I'm not concerned about what I see happening. Someone I read recently pointed out that though the Bible describes some pretty horrendously violent happenings, it doesn't prescribe them. On the other hand, the Koran, which I read a couple decades ago does prescribe violence against unbelievers. There are those who claim that attacks by Muslims are carried out by people who are outside the mainstream of Muslim belief, but that simply isn't so.
The fact that Europe, and to some extent the U.S., is voluntarily accepting an invasion of people who don't understand Western values, want to live under Sharia law, and include people who intend to follow the dictates of their religion to the death, scares the hell out of me. What do you do when you face a mass of people, most of whom aren't killers, but who agree with or even urge on the killers amongst them? Eventually you have to deal with the problem or watch your civilization collapse. I'm not willing to let that happen, and if necessary I'll go back to being armed to prevent it. Waiting for the cops doesn't get the job done. It would be nice if it did.
-
I'm digging into dnc cash sheet and it's pretty interesting.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails//fileid/1619/828
-
I'm digging into dnc cash sheet and it's pretty interesting.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails//fileid/1619/828
Suggestion - How about making this a new topic?
And then in that new topic, you might give a hint of what you find interesting.
Brad
-
But that doesn't mean I'm not concerned about what I see happening. Someone I read recently pointed out that though the Bible describes some pretty horrendously violent happenings, it doesn't prescribe them. On the other hand, the Koran, which I read a couple decades ago does prescribe violence against unbelievers. There are those who claim that attacks by Muslims are carried out by people who are outside the mainstream of Muslim belief, but that simply isn't so.
Hi Russ,
The concerns about spreading violence are universal. Religions (of almost any variety, even some Buddhists) and other extremely dogmatic convictions have historically been a source of intolerance and resulting violence. That violence is usually a sign of weakness, since verbal persuasion, or compromise) is apparently not considered as feasible. Sometimes it is used as a tool to get people to unite, by creating an outside threat (e.g. Inquisition, witch-hunts, WMD, foreigners, etc.). So people either get hung up about dogmatic believes or they are played by others.
Sometimes there is an actual threat that people can agree about, and that's when (both preventative and curative) action is warranted. Also when one of the earlier mentioned groups are disrupting to the functioning of society as a whole, one can use lawful means (e.g. Law enforcement officers, judges/courts) to correct such behavior.
The problems that we are discussing though, are mostly caused by those who do not play by the book.
The fact that Europe, and to some extent the U.S., is voluntarily accepting an invasion of people who don't understand Western values, want to live under Sharia law, and include people who intend to follow the dictates of their religion to the death, scares the hell out of me.
That would scare me as well, but most of those folks do not pose a threat, because they are simply trying to flee from certain death in their homelands. They are humanitarian casualties, refugees, if they even make it alive across dangerous seas in crummy vessels.
Then there is a small number of bad guys/gals, a few rotten apples in a basket full of good ones. But let's not make that potential threat larger than it is, because many terrorists are home grown/radicalized. One should ask why they are so susceptible for some the hate-speech that is preached by populists and/or extremists.
Again, their tool of violence is a sign of weakness. So to prevent it, we'd have to understand it first and then address it efficiently (i.e. not adding more fuel to the fire, but still effectively).
What do you do when you face a mass of people, most of whom aren't killers, but who agree with or even urge on the killers amongst them? Eventually you have to deal with the problem or watch your civilization collapse.
Since we agree that is not what we want, we must understand what it is they agree with (maybe they don't agree with everything), and perhaps lead by example and show them that they perhaps are wrong in their social/religious pre-programming concepts, and maybe we can get a bit less uptight about some of our own hang-ups. We do not even necessarily (especially within one generation) need to fully integrate, we can agree to co-exist while upholding the Nation's laws (e.g. non-discrimination). In fact, cultural diversity can be a blessing, look at the USA, most inhabitants have non-native (e.g. Indian) ancestral lineage.
I'm not willing to let that happen, and if necessary I'll go back to being armed to prevent it. Waiting for the cops doesn't get the job done. It would be nice if it did.
One of the reasons that I have trouble with such (knee-jerk more guns 'solution') reactions is that it is not a solution, it's a last resort at best. I think that there are many things that can be done before we only have that left.
Another reason why I have difficulty with a 'solution' that brings it's own set of drawbacks, is that I come from a society that somewhat proves (so it's not just theory) that there are alternative possible.
Today the crime statistics for the year 2015 in the Netherlands were published. We scored the lowest annual number of man-slaughters/homicides in 20 years, while the population has grown (dis-proportionally due to net immigration compensating for low birth rates) from 15,493,889 to 16,980,049. The crime statistics even include non-Dutch residents, e.g. refugees and tourists, so its the total or all crime recorded within the borders.
An analysis of those 120 victims shows that those from foreign origin represent the largest number from that group. And of those, the largest number of victims is due to (illegal) gun violence amongst non-westerners (often from the (former Dutch) Antilles, Morocco and Turkey). The still sad total came to 120 people on a population of almost 17 million people.
So despite the influx of foreigners, many of them refugees, 'locals' have relatively little to fear.
I'm not saying that will remain so forever, because we also know (as was confirmed by an analysis of the FBI) that defeating ISIS in their middle-East home-turf will generate more asymmetrical warfare in the form of terrorism elsewhere, which is a sign of weakness, but still not something we'd like to have more of.
So what should be done, is not pile up more guns (and gun accidents), but improve the capabilities of Law enforcement and Security services, but without stretching the legal boundaries beyond the legal limits. And even stretching those limits should not be an automatism, because that would ultimately lead to a society that is no longer free (which is also one of the Terrorist goals, have the system turning on its own citizens, and then collapse). We also need to make better use of what we call field-coaches, people from the communities that work with the communities to spot the bad apples, and attempt to cure the things that are wrong before they spiral out of control.
I'm sure we in the Netherlands are going to get hit by a terrorist attack someday. But I'm also sure that it is partly unavoidable (despite our trying to prevent it), and until it happens we live a happy life, not behind walls and crouched in a corner clutching a gun.
I wish the same happiness to others.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart, all I can say is that your naivety exceeds anything I've experienced until now. Have you ever read the Koran?
At this point I'm going to drop out of this thread. It's hopeless, and, unfortunately, useless.
-
Bart, all I can say is that your naivety exceeds anything I've experienced until now. Have you ever read the Koran?
My Arabic language abilities are nothing to boast about, so I've read translated parts of it (which already loses some of the intent depending on the translation) yes, and also the Bible (e.g. Old Testament, if taken literally, and out of the context of time) is not an example of how we (should) deal with each other today, in civilized/modern societies. Dogmas start where people stop to think.
At this point I'm going to drop out of this thread. It's hopeless, and, unfortunately, useless.
If you've given up, then maybe only guns will be the last resort. Hope you stay safe though, because Yesterday (July 28th), there were another 3 (out of some 211 to date) mass shooting incidents in the USA, Baltimore Maryland, Chicago Illinois (already mentioned), and Elmira New York, adding 2 killed and 11 injured to this years saddening totals. I would not find that acceptable to continue happening at such a scale ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
My Arabic language abilities are nothing to boast about, so I've read translated parts of it (which already loses some of the intent depending on the translation) yes, and also the Bible (e.g. Old Testament, if taken literally, and out of the context of time) is not an example of how we (should) deal with each other today, in civilized/modern societies. Dogmas start where people stop to think.
Cheers,
Bart
But don't you see, Bart, that that's the entire point of it: getting back to primitive times and mores? When people buy into that religious concept by the millions, as they do, your idea of common sense cool and fraternity is meaningless: a one-sided pipe dream.
Rob
-
But don't you see, Bart, that that's the entire point of it: getting back to primitive times and mores? When people buy into that religious concept by the millions, as they do, your idea of common sense cool and fraternity is meaningless: a one-sided pipe dream.
Hi Rob,
That would be the case if those who really believe those things literally (across all religions), were to invade one's home country, and no preventative measures were taken. For the moment most of them are killing each other, because they prefer the 'wrong' version of a specific religion. Don't forget there are also hordes in 'the west' who believe the earth is only several thousand years old, to name only one aspect (who knows what else they believe they need to do), based on their scripture, ignoring scientific evidence.
But I do stay alert (yet not paranoid), and monitor the developments. And yes, there are things happening that I (and many of my countrymen) do not like, so we deal with them (but not by creating another monster of Frankenstein), and we learn as we go.
Cheers,
Bart
-
...lead by example and show them that they perhaps are wrong in their social/religious pre-programming concepts...
We've been leading by example the last 1000+ years. The trouble is, they do not like our example, as they see it as incompatible with their medieval mindset. But despair not, perhaps another thousand years and they'll get there?
-
This is how a true good-guy American fights a bad guy with a gun: :)
A bad guy in a car wash attempts carjacking with a gun pointing at the car owner... the good guy, with no gun, just a pair of balls of steel and a... pressure washer, fights back.
Or he could have surrendered his keys and wallet and let them drive the car away, with his disabled war-veteran brother inside, with a chance of finding him dead further down the road (already happened multiple times).
The rest of the story and the whole video of the incident here. (https://social.newsinc.com/media/json/69017/31187563/singleVideoOG.html?videoId=31187563&type=VideoPlayer/16x9&widgetId=2&trackingGroup=69017)
-
We've been leading by example the last 1000+ years.
Well, the examples were not all that pretty (even more recent ones), but who's perfect anyway.
The trouble is, they do not like our example, as they see it as incompatible with their medieval mindset. But despair not, perhaps another thousand years and they'll get there?
Yes, that's one issue if we were to focus on religion, or the lack of separation between religion and ideology. I'm always (only a bit) amazed by the public protest against the Western values in those countries and all of the sudden it seems like everybody has foreign flags to burn. Of course that would only be a real surprise if one didn't understand that these things get organized from the top down, and people get paid to come and protest.
In that light, it's also a bit hard to digest that some of the Arab countries (and sponsors of several terrorist factions) do almost nothing to aid their brethren in faith, who are fleeing Syria to avoid getting massacred. I saw a short street interview with man in Kuwait, who answered when asked why they didn't provide save harbor for the humanitarian refugees; "Kuwait is too expensive for them, they couldn't afford it." ... Actions speak louder than words.
The deluge of refugees (and some terrorists) is mostly a result of geo-politics, and there are very few (if any) with clean hands.
Cheers,
Bart
-
^
Agreed, Bart.
-
The rest of the story and the whole video of the incident here. (https://social.newsinc.com/media/json/69017/31187563/singleVideoOG.html?videoId=31187563&type=VideoPlayer/16x9&widgetId=2&trackingGroup=69017)
Love it. And (luckily) not a shot fired.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It's hard to keep my keyboard silent on this. I lurk on this site because it has so much to offer on techniques, professional opinions and the current state of the imaging industry which thrills me. For all that I've learned and gleaned from you people, I am deeply grateful. I'm not a professional; I am purely an amateur who has a degree from a little college of photography in Santa Barbara from a long time ago - and have pursued photography and printing for 40+ years... all for my own, personal satisfaction. But here in the Coffee Corner we have an emotional thread about gun violence, gun control and the socio-political culture of America in regards to those issues. This I am acquainted with on a professional level.
What I am is Law Enforcement. I am an Armorer/Gunsmith for a major police agency in Northern California. And I have been for almost 3 decades (after 12 years of military service). And my state is one of those benchmark governments who try to pass as much gun restriction as the Court and the public can endure. In fact, our Governor just signed 6 more bills into law to further restrict everything from ammunition sales to the sale of newly-designated "assault rifles." Now we could sit here and re-argue every philosophical point in the book about whether gun ownership is bad, is good, is stupid, or whatever. That's an endless circle anymore. The two opposing sides in this country are mentally entrenched with debate impossible. So I'm not going to.
What I will tell you, and I think I pretty much reflect the opinions of my colleagues in this state, is that the laws we are passing have absolutely no effect on our safety, on crime, or on gun violence in California whatsoever. All the new laws do is limit the access to firearms and ammunition to good citizens who do not commit the crimes that generated these new restrictions to start with. The ever-growing volume of gun prohibitions in this state have done nothing more than punish everyone BUT the criminals who deserve it. And since 1989 and the Roberti-Roos Assault Rifle Act they haven't had any measurable affect on violent crime rates in this state, either. Making the AR15 style rifle illegal will never impede a criminal or vicious person from getting one; ammunition restrictions will never prevent him/her from loading up that rifle, either. As a law enforcement member, I would like to see a change of tactic in our legislatures... and that would be punishing the criminals who use firearms to victimize the rest of the country. And do it severely... without applying another ponderous set of regulations on a hundred million gun owners in this country.
This is but my humble opinion so take it as you will. In fifteen months I retire and most of my shooting will be with my cameras at that point.
-
What I will tell you, and I think I pretty much reflect the opinions of my colleagues in this state, is that the laws we are passing have absolutely no effect on our safety, on crime, or on gun violence in California whatsoever.
What did?
http://www.msnbc.com/all/california-did-tough-gun-control-laws-cut (http://www.msnbc.com/all/california-did-tough-gun-control-laws-cut)
Gun violence across California dropped 56% from 5,500 gun deaths in 1993 to 2,935 in 2010, according to the study, which took into account California’s expanded population from about 30 to 37 million people over the same period.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/ (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/)
The 10 states with the lowest firearm age-adjusted death rates were, starting with the lowest: Hawaii (2.6), Massachusetts (3.1), New York (4.2), Connecticut (4.4), Rhode Island (5.3), New Jersey (5.7), New Hampshire (6.4), Minnesota (7.6), California (7.7) and Iowa (8.0).
Guns are expected to surpass car crashes for the number of American deaths caused in 2015. In 2013, there were 33,636 Americans killed by guns versus 33, 782 fatal crashes.
-
One factor affecting gun deaths everywhere is medical advances over the years, i.e., improved ability to save the wounded.
-
...Minnesota (7.6), California (7.7) and Iowa (8.0)...
And yet, both states close to California's rate have rather non-restrictive gun laws.
-
What did?
During those dates, crime rates went down nationwide - not just in Cali. It was a general trend. And some of that has to do with an aging population, medical care and the way the FBI stats were compiled at the time. What I am saying is most of the laws passed in California affected ownership of AR15 and SKS pattern rifles; and those are firearms that are very rarely used in crimes. If we had not passed those laws from 1989 forward, I think the gun death rates would have remained the same (or very close).
-
One factor affecting gun deaths everywhere is medical advances over the years, i.e., improved ability to save the wounded.
Correct, and the decline in suicides (many of which executed with a gun, if readily available) also brings down the totals. That's why I prefer to split the numbers up for more insight, and also show the firearm injuries (many more than deaths).
And to "D76", I have huge respect for the complex job that police officers have to do and the difficult circumstances (more so in some countries than others) that they have to do that job in. However, I'd imagine that it would produce a lot less stress knowing that the average person in the street (or in domestic disturbance cases) does not carry a weapon, or even a gun. And reduced stress also means fewer accidents.
Cheers,
Bart