Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
Well, I see you deleted your message, so I've edited mine. Are you just awake? :p
(edited)
(edited)
And from American perspective, the Second Amendment is also protection AGAINST police. America ain't Europe, luckily for them.
We are not America, luckily for us...
We are not America, luckily for us...
It would be interesting to compare USA and the whole Europe (so that they are similarly big) in terms of massa shootings.
In 38 years of my Lyfe I do not remember one single massa shooting in Italy (my country) but I remember at least 3 in USA....but also one in Norway, but possibly I don't remember things happened when I was a kid.
Not that Italy is free from shootings, bombs, and other horrible crimes in general but it seems to be quite free from massa shootings. And yes, her weapons are not free.
In 38 years of my Lyfe I do not remember one single massa shooting in Italy (my country) but I remember at least 3 in USA....but also one in Norway, but possibly I don't remember things happened when I was a kid.
Not that Italy is free from shootings, bombs, and other horrible crimes in general but it seems to be quite free from massa shootings. And yes, her weapons are not free.
@Kwast: This sounds like would be todays teachers beasts cutting children with knives and hanging them on trees. We see that more problematic are clients/students who actually ignore gun restrictions.
@borkos007: Well, maybe you alone would like to rather die than shoot on other person. But in this case you have to protect children and in all mass killings its not only you who are involved. Much bigger problem for majority of people would be panic than moral problems. Hell, majority of people wish death for such murderers.
@borkos007: Well, maybe you alone would like to rather die than shoot on other person. But in this case you have to protect children and in all mass killings its not only you who are involved. Much bigger problem for majority of people would be panic than moral problems. Hell, majority of people wish death for such murderers.
problem is, when you have a gun to protect yourself, it doesn't necessarily mean you know how to properly use it. I for sure would shoot, but I would also for sure miss, as when I'm nervous, I start to tremble ^^
I have read somewhere that none of the mass shootings was ended by a civilian using a gun.
They often commit suicide.
Morgan Freeman’s brilliant take on what happened yesterday :
“You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here’s why.
It’s because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he’ll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.
CNN’s article says that if the body count “holds up”, this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer’s face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer’s identity? None that I’ve seen yet. Because they don’t sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you’ve just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.
You can help by forgetting you ever read this man’s name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news.”
Morgan Freeman’s brilliant take on what happened yesterday :
“You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here’s why.
It’s because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he’ll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.
CNN’s article says that if the body count “holds up”, this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer’s face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer’s identity? None that I’ve seen yet. Because they don’t sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you’ve just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.
You can help by forgetting you ever read this man’s name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news.”
They often commit suicide.
But if the argument would hold, the killer would be taken down after a couple of shots by somebody carrying a gun.
I can imagine that the amount of people in America actually carrying a gun on them is not that much higher than it is here, because according to the statistics that I found, half of the Americans say they have a gun, which should theoretically mean that at almost every shooting somebody could take down the killer.
When (At which rate of homocides by guns) would you find intervention by gun control justified? Currently, the homocide is at around 3 people out of 100.000 that get killed by gunfire in the US (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list) .
In the Netherlands, the homocide rate (by firearms, but also by other methods) is 0,97 per 100.000 (http://zakelijk.infonu.nl/juridisch/92064-het-aantal-moorden-in-nederland-en-friesland-in-2011.html - In Dutch)
(edited)
But if the argument would hold, the killer would be taken down after a couple of shots by somebody carrying a gun.
I can imagine that the amount of people in America actually carrying a gun on them is not that much higher than it is here, because according to the statistics that I found, half of the Americans say they have a gun, which should theoretically mean that at almost every shooting somebody could take down the killer.
When (At which rate of homocides by guns) would you find intervention by gun control justified? Currently, the homocide is at around 3 people out of 100.000 that get killed by gunfire in the US (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list) .
In the Netherlands, the homocide rate (by firearms, but also by other methods) is 0,97 per 100.000 (http://zakelijk.infonu.nl/juridisch/92064-het-aantal-moorden-in-nederland-en-friesland-in-2011.html - In Dutch)
(edited)
I can imagine that the amount of people in America actually carrying a gun on them is not that much higher than it is here, because according to the statistics that I found, half of the Americans say they have a gun, which should theoretically mean that at almost every shooting somebody could take down the killer.
I think (think, not know) that most of them have their weapon at home.
When (At which rate of homocides by guns) would you find intervention by gun control justified?
Their is no rate out there at which I'd allow gun control by the state. Why?
1) I'm in principle against all state intervention. You know I value and respect my principles and ideology. (The more relevant reason for me.)
2) Homicide rates are not only a result of the degree of state gun control. (Probably the more relevant one for you.)
(edited)
I think (think, not know) that most of them have their weapon at home.
When (At which rate of homocides by guns) would you find intervention by gun control justified?
Their is no rate out there at which I'd allow gun control by the state. Why?
1) I'm in principle against all state intervention. You know I value and respect my principles and ideology. (The more relevant reason for me.)
2) Homicide rates are not only a result of the degree of state gun control. (Probably the more relevant one for you.)
(edited)
that is actually true. This is not news. News is just telling what happened. And stop. But the media knows people are sensation lusted. They like this kind of stories. It sounds weird, but somewhere in their heart they are just happy it didn't happen to them. It's like people slowing down to look at a car crash. They just like to see it...
Let us assume, for the sake of the discussion, that there is a correlation (even if it would only be one innocent person who dies by accident as a consequence of a gunshot) between gun ownership and homocide rates (of innocent people, no robbers etc.). In my view, you then have a balancing issue between the right of the individual to carry a gun and the right of self-determination of life for the individual. The deeper thought behind my question was how you go about such an issue? Do you value the right of the individual to carry a gun more, or do you attach higher value to self-determination of life?
No matter how you turn it, misuse of a gun is dealt with through justice, as well as infringements of property rights (Against which you could defend yourself with a gun).
(edited)
No matter how you turn it, misuse of a gun is dealt with through justice, as well as infringements of property rights (Against which you could defend yourself with a gun).
(edited)
Banning guns in order to reduce the number of deaths by criminals (criminals tend to ignore the law) is like banning spoons to counter obesity in the States. Ridiculous.
Damn ....... :S
Damn ....... :S
In my view, you then have a balancing issue between the right of the individual to carry a gun and the right of self-determination of life for the individual.
Actually, you don't. (Following your assumption here.) Correlation doesn't say anything about causality. It is not the right to carry a gun that affects the killings. If I carry a gun (hypothetically, I'd never do that in real-life, I'm against weapons), I don't affect your right on self-determination.
You imposing taxes however does affect my right on self-determination :p
Do you value the right of the individual to carry a gun more, or do you attach higher value to self-determination of life?
The right on self-determination (of life) is the most important right there is, let that be clear.
No matter how you turn it, misuse of a gun is dealt with through justice
Of course it is. I'm not denying that. Carrying a gun is not misusing a gun though.
To be clear here: I'm not saying everyone should buy a gun. I agree that some behavior (like this) is totally insane. I'm just defending their right to be sick ;-)
(edited)
Actually, you don't. (Following your assumption here.) Correlation doesn't say anything about causality. It is not the right to carry a gun that affects the killings. If I carry a gun (hypothetically, I'd never do that in real-life, I'm against weapons), I don't affect your right on self-determination.
You imposing taxes however does affect my right on self-determination :p
Do you value the right of the individual to carry a gun more, or do you attach higher value to self-determination of life?
The right on self-determination (of life) is the most important right there is, let that be clear.
No matter how you turn it, misuse of a gun is dealt with through justice
Of course it is. I'm not denying that. Carrying a gun is not misusing a gun though.
To be clear here: I'm not saying everyone should buy a gun. I agree that some behavior (like this) is totally insane. I'm just defending their right to be sick ;-)
(edited)
Damn ....... :S
Thank you for this useful and well-explained remark. It's fully appreciated. Now go back to your sandpit.
(I guess you didn't read or you don't want to react on what Morgan Freeman said.)
Thank you for this useful and well-explained remark. It's fully appreciated. Now go back to your sandpit.
(I guess you didn't read or you don't want to react on what Morgan Freeman said.)