SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
"At some point as a country, we have to reckon with what happens. It's not enough to express sympathy. You don't see this kind of murder, on this scale, with this kind of frequency in other advanced countries on earth." - President Obama.
Discuss.
- A Hectic Day at Church, and Then a Hellish Visitor
- Charleston relatives 'forgive' shooting suspect in court
- Latest on church shooting: Black, white pastors get together
- Terrorism v hate crime: How US courts decide: After the murder of nine black Americans at a church in Charleston, South Carolina by a white man, advocates and commentators are calling for suspect Dylann Roof to be described as a terrorist.
- Why we shouldn't call Dylann Roof a terrorist
- We Asked a Lawyer if Dylann Roof Could Face Terrorism Charges
- As Media Labels Roof 'Troubled Loner,' Justice Department Moves Forward With Domestic Terrorism Charges
- Was the South Carolina shooting a hate crime or a terrorist attack?
- Terrorism in Charleston demands the government act like black lives matter
- Criminal Justice Professor Discusses Charleston Shooting Suspect Dylann Roof
- Dylann Roof's friend: 'He never said anything racist': Christon Scriven, 21, told the BBC's Rajini Vaidyanathan that Mr Roof "wanted to shoot that school up - UCA university of Charleston - it's 3 miles up the street from that church."
- Mitt Romney Calls on South Carolina to Remove Confederate Flag at Capitol
- Dylann Storm Roof Photos Found on Website [manifesto archive]
- Here's What Appears to Be Dylann Roof's Racist Manifesto
- Photos Of Dylann Roof, Racist Manifesto Surface On Website
- BBC: The collection of photographs found on a website also show 21-year-old Dylann Roof burning the US flag and visiting a former slave plantation.
- Possible manifesto of Dylann Roof draws from hate group's text, expert says
- Police: Charleston church shooting suspect Dylann Roof is on suicide watch
- Charleston Church Shooter Dylann Roof Was Loner Caught in 'Internet Evil': Family
- The Mainstream Media Is Showing Its Bias In Charleston Massacre. And It's Ugly.
- Rick Perry: Charleston massacre was an 'accident' caused by drugs — not guns
- Suboxone: What is the drug linked to Charleston shooting suspect?
Original Submission
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Madness takes its toll.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Covalent on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:34AM
Australia used to have mass shootings...then they eradicated the cause of mass shootings: Guns. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/)
I'm an American, and I regularly hear the old trope "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
This is a load of garbage. People physically can't kill PEOPLE (ninjas notwithstanding), they can, at most, kill PERSON. But a weak little neo-Nazi can't go into a black church and kill 9 people. He can try, but he's most likely going to get pummeled by the 9 people he's trying to kill.
The science on this is all but irrefutable: Countries with guns have lots of gun violence. Countries without guns have nearly 0 gun violence.
So, how is this a SN topic? The real question is "How do we get rid of all of the guns?" Getting rid of them should be pretty obvious to people who understand facts and data. But we could have a pretty significant discussion about the means of their eradication. Buybacks? Voluntary forfeiture? Ammunition restrictions? And what about that pesky 2nd amendment? And how do we get Congress on board with this?
It's real science to figure this mess out!
You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:40AM
Must be nice living in Napa Valley or the Hamptons. You know you can sell those properties for a handsome profit and go even further and better, right?
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:53AM
Have you ever heard of knives and blunt instruments? People will be nasty regardless of the means available.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by timbojones on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:29AM
The vast majority of people will be unable to kill 9 people with a knife or a bat before one of the 9 puts a stop to it. Guns are more lethal from longer range.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tftp on Sunday June 21 2015, @04:33AM
The vast majority of people will be unable to kill 9 people with a knife or a bat before one of the 9 puts a stop to it.
Have you ever heard about Oklahoma City bombing [wikipedia.org]?
Carried out by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, the bombing killed 168 people[1] and injured more than 680 others.[2] The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a 16-block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings,[3][4] causing an estimated $652 million worth of damage.
The perpetrators had no guns. They had nothing except a moving van full of common fertilizer and common fuel. You'd wish they had guns - they'd kill fewer people that way.
What would someone like Dylann Roof do if he had no gun? Let's even assume that hunting guns, smooth bores and rifles, are also outlawed. Possibility #0: he'd buy a gun on the black market. Those exist in all countries of the world. Possibility #1: he'd make a firebomb out of a couple of canisters of gasoline. If the exits are blocked, the chance of survival is not very high. Possibility #2: he'd use a poison on something that victims eat, drink, or inhale. Possibility #3: he'd be killing his victims one by one, in dark alleys, with nothing more than a kitchen knife or a bat. Possibility #4: he'd drive a heavy SUV into a crowd. You can see already where that goes - the list of possibilities is endless.
People say that it's not guns that kill people because indeed it's someone's ill will that kills people. Guns may make it easier for a weakling like this Dylann Roof. But that does not change anything in principle - the real problem is that now and then you have a psycho in the society. That psycho can always get to controls of something large and dangerous and jam them, causing serious issues. You just have to accept that. The actual damage from such psychos is very small in comparison to, say, deaths from smoking. Jack the Ripper killed only five victims - but he is still remembered. This is illogical.
But imagine that your wish has materialized, and all guns in the country are gone. No criminal can get one, no matter what. You walk in a dark alley, and a few robbers are stopping you. Will you be safe now? Note that they have their fists, their bats, and their knives. Have you ever seen a knife wound? I do not wish you to see one, especially on yourself. A knife is a perfectly silent weapon; it can be easily manufactured; it requires no ammo; it is cheap; it leaves no ballistic fingerprints; it is light and small. Do you really prefer to meet a knife-wielding robber? A gunman cannot shoot you to scare you - it's all or nothing; if he fires, the robbery is over. An attacker with a knife can cut you piece by piece. An attacker with a sword can easily kill a hundred people in closed quarters.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Tork on Sunday June 21 2015, @04:33AM
Have you ever heard of knives and blunt instruments? People will be nasty regardless of the means available.
Yeah, that's why many modern armies still just use swords.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday June 21 2015, @05:57AM
Yeah, that's why many modern armies still just use swords.
All modern armies still use knives. Special forces soldiers are trained to use them. Swords are not used anymore, but only because the warfare changed from face to face fight to a distance fight. This is not the case when a deranged killer wants to kill a whole family or, as it was in this case, a whole room of people.
You can say that a sword requires skill and training. This is only partially true. You'd have to be a skilled swordsman if you fight an equally skilled opponent - say, an experienced soldier - who also has a sword. If you are not just as good as he is, you will not survive. However a killer only needs to be better with a sword than an old woman who has only bare hands to protect herself. Other posters already mentioned a massacre in China that was done only with knives. Firearms are easier to use, but their removal from the scene does not change the fact that some people want to kill other people. Modern technology provides many ways to accomplish that even if there are no guns.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @06:22AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2015, @03:26PM
Yeah, that's why many modern armies still just use swords.
Hmm... I wonder why, when I was in Basic Training in 1987, they had us doing bayonet drills, then.
(And, actually, a big chunk of it was actually aggression training and not actually learning to fight with bayonet. But we had it, nonetheless.)
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday June 22 2015, @03:33PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday June 21 2015, @07:30AM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing [wikipedia.org]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting [wikipedia.org]
Same day, gues which one had 27 deaths, which one had 0.
But yeah, Guns!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @08:40PM
Red herring. So what that other objects can be used to kill people? What does that have to do with the fact that guns are deadly and have no purpose other than murder? So because I can kill somebody with a wrench, nuclear bombs should be legal for individuals to own?
(Score: 5, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:56AM
You and I are diametrically opposed. My solution, is to allow EVERYONE to have a gun. If anyone in that church had been armed, that person might have defended himself and all his friends. If EVERYONE had been armed, then our little White Supremacist freak might have killed one, or even two, before everyone else blew him into eternity.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/pastor.shoots.assailant.in.church.gun.battle/45185.htm [christiantoday.com]
We are largely a nation of hoplophobes.
One of the more warped aspects of our hoplophobia is, even before the US became a nation, we decided that the black people are the most dangerous, and therefore they must be disarmed. Gun laws are applied differently, based on race, and they always have been. Hoplophobia and Negrophobia combined help to ensure that a white guy can kill a large number of black people when he decides to do so.
http://r.duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.uri.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1142%26context%3Dsrhonorsprog [duckduckgo.com]
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/the-long-racist-history-of-gun-control-in-america/ [theblaze.com]
Arm the masses. An armed society is a polite society. Everyone can be like me - i fear neither guns, nor black people.
(Score: 5, Touché) by SpockLogic on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:17AM
My solution, is to allow EVERYONE to have a gun.
Would you make it compulsory or just subsidize the purchase for "dem po' folk" Either way you have everlasting thanks from the bottom line of the American small arms manufacturing industry. I'm sure they will be putting a check in the mail soon.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @02:37AM
Neither. Top quality guns may be out of the reach of "dem po folk", but there are lesser quality guns available for the price of designer jeans and sneakers. No one needs financial assistance to purchase a firearm in this nation.
No one should be REQUIRED to own a weapon, any more than he should be prohibited from owning a weapon.
The crimes that need to be addressed is how a weapon is used. Owning a weapon should never be deemed a crime, in and of itself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:22AM
> Everyone can be like me
Delusional? Ideological?
Considering the reason gun ownership is at all time highs is because of fear of the black man, I don't by your hoplophilia as based on anything more than circular reasoning.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Tork on Sunday June 21 2015, @04:35AM
An armed society is a polite society.
Fear is not a synonym of polite.
i fear neither guns, nor black people.
You wouldn't see it just yet, but what you will fear are morons.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @05:00AM
Actually, fear and polite are near synonyms. The politest, sweetest people in the world have learned to be polite because they fear disapproval. There are people who fear an unkind response or a disapproving look more than I have ever feared a gun.
I already fear morons. Morons vote. Morons often win elections. Morons lobby for gun laws. Morons get driver's licenses every day. Morons abound on the internet. Morons are permitted to use telephonse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTuXiK7-7iU [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Sunday June 21 2015, @05:21AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @05:50AM
"Fear of disapproval and fear of being shot are not equivalent."
Says who, exactly? Are you perhaps a professional psychologist? Fear is fear. Maybe you've interviewed women who have been trapped in psychologically abusive relationships? Do you dismiss those women as not really being abused, since they can't show you any scars?
"it doesn't play out like you've seen in the westerns."
I guess I should ask if your experiences with weapons is restricted to Hollywierd representations. Mine are not. I've often mentioned one of my own experiences in life. I stopped at a McDonald's in Manhattan late one night, to grab a burger, on my way out of town. The customer ahead of me, a young black male, went fishing in his saggy-baggy jeans for money to pay for his purchase, and dropped a pistol on the floor. He quickly picked the weapon up, and shoved it back in his pocket. This DID make me nervous, primarily because New York has such strict gun control laws.
Two mornings after, I stopped for breakfast in western Texas. I walked between vehicles in the parking lot with weapons prominently displayed in gun racks in the windows. When I stepped inside, I immediately identified three men who were wearing side arms. After visiting the men's room, and finding a seat, I scanned the crowd a little closer. About fifty customers scattered among the many tables and booths - and about half of them were armed. And, do you know what? I felt no fear, no anxiety in that environment. And - NOT all the armed people were "white" either. At least two Mexican-Americans and one African-American were armed. The "white" people may or may not have all been "white" anyway - this town has a strong Native American heritage.
Guns. I have zero fear of guns - it's PEOPLE that you need to fear. The gun-toting moron? You mean like Zimmerman? I'll take my chances on meeting his dumb ass.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Tork on Sunday June 21 2015, @06:11AM
As for my experience I had a friend of mine at work pull a Derringer on me and go "stick em up!". Then he went "ha ha, kidding, it's not loaded". He then discovered a bullet in the chamber and said oops. If I wasn't frozen in fear I would have inserted the broom I was holding into him.
You want more of these dipshits armed, they're nowhere near as rare as you think. This is the same country that made Jerry Springer popular.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @06:52AM
You only need be a human being to see that the earth is flat, and that the sun, the moon, and the stars revolve around us.
Once again, fear is fear. Hoplophobia is not a very good position from which to make rational arguments. Your fear of morons is rational, your fear of weapons is not rational. Do something about the morons, and the weapons become a non-issue.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Tork on Sunday June 21 2015, @06:59AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @12:44PM
You only need be a human being to see that the earth is flat, and that the sun, the moon, and the stars revolve around us.
The tide goes in, the tide goes out!!
Fucking brilliant in your idiocy.
(Score: 1) by Dogeball on Sunday June 21 2015, @05:27PM
Do something about the morons
What? Kill them? Imprison them? How do you identify them (before they do something moronic in my vicinity with a lethal weapon)?
You keep using this word 'hoplophobia', i.e. an irrational fear of weapons. Please stop conflating a desire to keep guns away from morons (for which gun-control is prerequisite) with an irrational fear of the gun itself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @09:32PM
You have to realize the word 'hoplophobia' does not mean an irrational fear of weapons.
It is a neologism specifically created as a tool to denigrate the arguments of people who argue for any form of gun control. It is no different from terms like feminazi and SJW - a convenient way for angry, slow-witted people to avoid having to test the mettle of their positions through engagement and debate.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday June 22 2015, @02:24AM
What's irrational about fearing an object designed to make it really easy for just about anybody to kill me? I grant you, a gun in the hands of a non-aggressive non-idiot is not anywhere close to as dangerous as that same gun in the hand of an idiot or violent aggressor, but that doesn't mean it isn't dangerous. If I'm in a place with a gun, even in a seemingly safe place like a holster of a cop or security guard, you bet your tuchas I'm keeping an eye on it. In my basic observance of my environment for potential threats to my life, I'm now having to include "that guy with a gun goes crazy and starts shooting", or even "that guy with a gun tries to shoot the guy standing next to me (because the guy next to me was also trying to open fire) and hits me instead".
And yes, guns are more dangerous than knives or swords and such, because guns can kill me from much further away. That's why people have guns instead of carrying broadswords around.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2015, @04:18PM
The difference between Canadian gun ownership and US gun ownership is that in Canada owning a gun is a privilege and the hoops you need to jump through to own one emphasizes the responsibility involved. In the USA, the emphasis on gun ownership as a right results in a large number of gun owners only caring about the power of gun ownership and not caring about the responsibility of owning a device designed to deal death.That difference in attitude (and filter on competency) is what causes the differences in level of abuse. Substitute Switzerland for Canada if you prefer and the same paragraph is true.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @09:38PM
Your claim that they're the same is quite extraordinary, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Show some proof that they're the same if you expect us to buy such ridiculous crap.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 22 2015, @06:05PM
The gun-toting moron? You mean like Zimmerman? I'll take my chances on meeting his dumb ass.
And I suspect that if you aren't pounding his head into a concrete sidewalk, he might even come across as a nice guy who just wants to play cop.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 23 2015, @01:28AM
You may be right. It's more his style to threaten women and old men. Oh, but wait, I am an old man.
You need to take a serious look at Zimmerman. Trouble follows that man like a shadow. There is something seriously wrong with him. I sure hope you're not one of those who hold Zimmie up as a hero. Long before he met Martin, he was fired from a bouncer job for smashing some chick's face into a wall. He was in court for assaulting a law officer. He has since threatened an ex-wife, an ex-girlfriend, and a father-in-law with a weapon. He has a bit of a feud going on with some other guy, who has shot at him. Zimmie is a trouble magnet.
I suspect that one day, we'll read of Zimmerman eating his own damned gun. The man is unstable.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 23 2015, @02:32AM
You need to take a serious look at Zimmerman. Trouble follows that man like a shadow.
So what? Given how much of his troubles follow an incredibly terrible part of his life, I'm willing to give him some time to figure things out. After all, who else is going to have stuff like that published in national news? He reminds me of Rodney King, the guy who was brutally beaten up by four LA cops. That guy never really changed his stripes either and for a few years the press would report that sort of thing. Life moves on. Maybe Zimmerman will become a better man, maybe not.
But I know you wouldn't be taking your chances just meeting him on the street.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 21 2015, @08:18PM
You wouldn't see it just yet, but what you will fear are morons.
Morons with guns are a far less dangerous problem by orders of magnitude than morons with cars or a screwdriver.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday June 21 2015, @08:36PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 22 2015, @12:21AM
If by 'orders of magnitude' you mean '1/3rd'
I mean at least two orders of magnitude.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday June 22 2015, @01:43AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 22 2015, @01:47AM
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday June 22 2015, @02:16AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 22 2015, @03:13PM
The difference between those two isn't anywhere near 100, it's more like 3.
Let us keep in mind that accidental gun deaths [washingtonpost.com] were around 600 in 2014. Meanwhile the number of deaths due to automobile accidents [wikipedia.org] were over 32,000 in the previous year. I drive a fair amount and I don't hang out with morons with guns. So there's the two or more orders of magnitude difference. Frankly, I think it's a lot more than two orders of magnitude hence my fear of morons with screwdrivers.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday June 22 2015, @03:30PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 22 2015, @04:02PM
I was going by the ~10,000 gun deaths the US racks up every year, which is not limited to accidental gun deaths.
I wasn't because most of those deaths are suicides or shootings of various categories of people that I don't belong to (such as gang members or people who live in high crime areas).
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday June 22 2015, @04:53PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 22 2015, @06:02PM
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday June 22 2015, @06:31PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 22 2015, @11:27PM
Do you believe there are too many morons behind the wheel?
Of course, I do. It's the price of a free society though.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 23 2015, @05:00AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 23 2015, @03:29PM
Then why are you okay with more morons with guns?
Because it's not a significant increase in harm or risk and as a result I get a freer society.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 23 2015, @04:56PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 23 2015, @11:45PM
Wouldn't lowering the age that people can get driver licenses do the same thing?
I don't know. Would it?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday June 24 2015, @12:11AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 24 2015, @08:36PM
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday June 25 2015, @06:26AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Sunday June 21 2015, @06:29AM
Fine; after all it is your country, do what you please with it
Just make sure you stay inside it while holding your gun and make sure you enjoy your country alone; because it is very likely no tourist would enjoy the prospect of being shot in the back by a bored teenager [smh.com.au]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @06:48AM
I suppose that you noticed the bored teen is being prosecuted? He should be facing the death penalty. Rights and responsibilities are inseparable. Those who violate other's rights are responsible, and in this case, the violator should be put to death. Eye for an eye, if you will.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Sunday June 21 2015, @07:53AM
I suppose you noticed Chris Lane is still dead?
As a potentially-dead tourist, what happens with the shooter is irrelevant to me: why risk it in US, there are other places where I can die accidentally in more meaningful way (embracing a stingray, mauled by a lion through the car window, etc).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @08:09AM
I'm glad that you recognize that you can die anywhere - including the safety of your own home. I suppose that you can do a statistical analysis to determine the likelihood of your being killed by any of the hazards you mention.
I'll grant that if I were not American, I probably wouldn't consider vacationing in the US, but that has more to do with invasive searches at the airport than anything else. I just can't imagine submitting to a rectal exam done by a skinny ferret faced freak who dropped out of high school, and his fat partner who sits across the room fondling his genitals as I'm "searched". But, I wouldn't be terribly worried about being shot to death by some bored retard after I got past the official government perverts at the airport.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday June 21 2015, @08:29AM
But for the others still willing - if everybody carries a gun in US and is prepared to use, I guarantee you the cost travel insurance in US is going to skyrocket.
You are sceptical, think won't happen? Another two just coming not two days after SC: West Phily - 7 wounded in random shooting [foxnews.com] and Detroit - 1 dead 9 wounded [huffingtonpost.com]. I don't know and I don't care what bias the reality has, these are facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday June 21 2015, @11:36AM
Yeah, and I have to say the grand canyon is a big meh. Yellowstone is pretty unique, and monument valley is cool, so you'd miss out on that. And new york is an amazing city--paris and tokyo don't even come close. But a person can have a perfectly satisfying vacation without ever stepping foot in america. It's a big wonderful world with lots of amazing stuff in it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday June 21 2015, @11:24AM
Have you ever wondered why when people like Obama say "other advanced countries" much of the rest of the world responds "what do you mean by 'other'?"
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:03PM
Those who violate other's rights are responsible, and in this case, the violator should be put to death.
That doesn't follow.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @03:03PM
Yes - if you take a life unlawfully, your life is forfeit. I have no problem with 'an eye for an eye' laws. And, no, that philosophy won't make the entire world blind. Only those who commit the crimes will be blinded - or in this case, executed.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday June 21 2015, @05:27PM
Yes - if you take a life unlawfully, your life is forfeit.
Unlawfully? So if it was lawful, then it's okay? If, for instance, the law said that the government could murder anyone it wanted, then it would be fine?
Also, again, that doesn't follow. That someone murdered someone else does not mean we need to give the government the power to murder captured people. Putting aside the countless 'mistakes' the government makes which result in the conviction of innocent people (a good reason to oppose the death penalty by itself), the power to murder people who have already been captured is a feature of big government, and one I cannot support.
It might not make the whole world blind, but it makes your government a mere group of thugs.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @06:23PM
Perhaps you've heard of the Magna Charta, and English Common Law.
Granted, lawmakers could pass a law that goes against established law - but many members of the public won't accept it. The sheeple might, but there will be those of us who fight it.
The people have the right to demand that the perpetrators of heinous crimes be put to death. I have problems with the standard of proof - that needs to be improved. "Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" needs to be upped a little bit for capital cases. That standard needs to be reinforced with real, hard evidence, like DNA evidence. See, I can agree that to many mistakes have been made, and I'm happy to work toward correcting those mistakes. But - we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Keep capital punishment, and ensure that it is only applied in truly heinous cases that are proven beyond doubt.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday June 21 2015, @06:46PM
The people have the right to demand that the perpetrators of heinous crimes be put to death.
They have the right to demand it, but the government also doesn't have to carry out their wishes. If it does, then it's just a group of thugs.
But - we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The death penalty, is, to me, not a baby, but a piece of garbage. I say throw it out, even absent any problems with the standards of proof.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:00AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-20861342 [bbc.com]
http://www.psni.police.uk/index/updates/updates_campaigns/one_punch_awareness.htm [police.uk]
I'll agree that it's hard to kill 9 people with your hands (although a knife can work well).
Killing a single person physically isn't as hard as imagined.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:24AM
Countries with guns have lots of gun violence. Countries without guns have nearly 0 gun violence.
Where do you find these near zero gun countries that live in some gun-crime-free-utopia?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @02:50AM
Countries with guns have lots of gun violence. Countries without guns have nearly 0 gun violence.
Where do you find these near zero gun countries that live in some gun-crime-free-utopia?
Arguing with a turn of phrase does not somehow invalidate the original point.
If you have to devolve to literalistic pedantry to defend your position, you've already conceded.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @03:35AM
Arguing with a turn of phrase does not somehow invalidate the original point.
Maybe people should be more clear.
If you have to devolve to literalistic pedantry to defend your position, you've already conceded.
Non sequitur. Someone doesn't 'concede' merely because they don't like your use of a language or don't assume they can guess what you're thinking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @09:46PM
I'm not sure about that. Just like how its a given that an opponent in a debate has conceded when they begin resorting to ad hominems and insults, its fair to say that if somebody uses an interpretation that nobody else would just to suit their argument that they're equivocating, and the intentional usage of fallacies to support one's argument oly occurs when there are no valid ones left; with no valid arguments left, they have in essence conceded.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2015, @02:20AM
Just like how its a given that an opponent in a debate has conceded when they begin resorting to ad hominems and insults
Also a non sequitur. They only concede when they say they concede, by definition. Unless you think you can read thoughts. These are just arbitrary 'rules' placed on debates that make no sense in reality.
I don't like it when theists tell me I actually believe in god in my heart. I wouldn't like it if someone told me I "conceded" because I violated some arbitrary debate rule they or others made up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2015, @01:08AM
If somebody's argument is only supported by fallacies it is invalid by definition. No matter how long you continue pushing your invalid position, it will remain invalid. An invalid argument is one that has been conceded by default.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @04:35AM
Where do you find these near zero gun countries that live in some gun-crime-free-utopia?
Take a trip to Singapore or Malaysia.
Be sure to put a single bullet in your stuff where it will be easily discovered.
(You don't even need to have a gun.)
See you in a few decades.
Japan has an amazingly low firearm death rate.
Only the Yakuza (Mafia) has guns--and the tattoos and missing fingers make those guys very obvious to the cops, so carrying around guns routinely is definitely out.
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Sunday June 21 2015, @07:04AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday June 21 2015, @07:09AM
Pressed the wrong key!
It isn't just the number of guns, but the way they are controlled. And it also has a lot to do with the mental attitude of those who own the weapons.
However, all those countries that have stricter gun control laws than the US have fewer shootings per capita - who would have thought it? In the case of Switzerland, about 10% of the number in the USA.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:39AM
Getting rid of them should be pretty obvious to people who understand facts and data.
Not at all. Not everyone thinks the ends justify the means. I would oppose the NSA's mass surveillance even if it turned out to be effective, for example.
And what about that pesky 2nd amendment?
The only constitutional thing to do is to amend the constitution. But that should be obvious.
And how do we get Congress on board with this?
Congress doesn't actually care about freedom, so if you can make the idea more popular, it shouldn't be too hard.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @02:34AM
"eradicated the cause of mass shootings: Guns."
More nonsense. The cause of a killing is hatred, envy, greed, or some twisted glory, or fear. The gun is the preferred TOOL in many killings, but the TOOL didn't CAUSE the crime.
Load of garbage, you say? Yes, indeed, you posted a load of garbage. Please, refresh your acquaintance with the scientific method.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @03:21AM
I would add that those things you describe are systemic to other issues.
We do not have enough jobs. When you dont have a job you end up warehoused in this nation. You end up living off the gov with no way out. Eventually you feel trapped and have nothing to lose. We think we can tax our way to prosperity. Instead we let our political class let all of our jobs go to the lowest bidder.
I only as if you people say we can remove 1 of our rights which other ones will be up for grabs when it is politically convenient? Our constitution is designed to *limit* the government. Not make it bigger.
One of the freedoms I have is owning a gun. It is a freedom I do not engage in. But I defend.
(Score: 2, Informative) by tftp on Monday June 22 2015, @01:59AM
The cause of a killing is hatred, envy, greed, or some twisted glory, or fear. The gun is the preferred TOOL in many killings, but the TOOL didn't CAUSE the crime.
Someone called Rodion Raskol'nikov [wikipedia.org] killed two people with an ax. He was driven by a social idea that needed testing. It does not matter if he had a knife, an ax, or a silenced gun. If none of that is available, he'd pick a brick in the street. Removal of a tool from the society will only lead to criminals switching to other weapons. Humans had no trouble finding a weapon from the very moment they climbed down the tree and walked upright. And then weaker victims would have no means of resisting a strong man. Do we want to return to the times when personal strength was everything, and personal intelligence meant nothing? What can ten highly enlightened beings sitting at Starbucks do against ten less enlightened beings with bats and chains and knives? Are they OK with their own murder?
Quite a few people point fingers at Europe as an example of a peaceful and disarmed society. However they ignore the fact that the European society is not disarmed. It's still armed - but the arms belong to the government and are used only by the government. The idea of a benevolent, all-wise government is very attractive; the only problem is that such governments don't exist. People who surrender their arms to the government also accept that the government will now control their life - no matter how good or how bad that government is or may become in the future. Life of a modern slave is not all that bad. However a slave, being a property, will receive only minimal protection by the government. In UK, for example, a subject is expected to curl up and die instead of striking his assailant. This is because the government does not worry much about loss of a single worker ant. But the same government fears weapons in hands of those worker ants - especially if those ants get tired of being randomly killed off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @03:32AM
He can walk in with a bucket of gas and dump it. Then light it.
I'd rather be shot dead than burn to death.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @06:56AM
And/or toss in a few grenades. And how about homemade explosives? Anyone with basic knowledge of chemistry can manufacture and use explosives. How about some nerve gas? How about crossbows? How about a crossbow fitted with an auto-loading mechanism running off a leaf blower motor? How about explosive arrows for the said crossbow?
Death by gunshot is better than any of those methods (and many more).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by shortscreen on Sunday June 21 2015, @07:55AM
Governments kill far, far more people than crazed lone gunmen do.
I say the govs disarm first, then the rest of us can consider it?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thesis on Sunday June 21 2015, @11:12AM
Gun bans or restrictions do not lead to a reduction in violent crime rates. Violent crime rates rise in such societies, and it has been well documented. But please, don't let facts and statistics get in the way of the government ingrained pedagogy of a world seen through rose colored glasses.
PDF warning: http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Australia_Gun_Buyback_EI.pdf [tripod.com]
Homicide weapon statistics as provided by the Australian government:
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/weapon.html [aic.gov.au]
There is even more statistical data available to anyone on the net from other countries, feel free to look them up. It is for you to decide as to what numbers thrown about by the governments and the media are cherry picked, and if and how they are manipulated.
Bans and restrictions only lead to a change in the tools used to commit violent crimes. It does not address the root of the problem, the persons commiting the crimes. With that being said, people kill people, regardless of the tools used...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Sunday June 21 2015, @11:27AM
The Rwandan genocide was mostly carried out with machetes and clubs. Guns are not a requirement for mass murder.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday June 22 2015, @03:41AM
Guns are not a requirement for mass murder.
Nobody is making that argument.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Sunday June 21 2015, @07:06PM
I think a person can kill people just fine without guns. See the below for just a handful of examples:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/29633/6-infamous-arsonists-and-how-they-got-caught [mentalfloss.com]
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gidds on Monday June 22 2015, @03:36PM
This story may have everything to do with SN, but I really can't tell, because I've no idea what it's about!
The name of a city, and a collection of 31 apparently random links, doesn't make a story, in my book. I'm not an American, and although I hear some news reports of US stories, I don't follow them closely enough for the mere mention of a city to give me any clue what on earth this is about (if indeed it is about any one topic); neither do I have enough time to plough through 31 separate links to find out what on earth the submitter actually wanted to discuss but couldn't be bothered to tell us...
Is there a simple explanation?
[sig redacted]