There are reports that Trump is asking people about trying to buy Greenland from Denmark (It's not clear how serious this is). On one hand, that sounds kind of neat. I wouldnt necessarily be opposed to something like that.
On the other hand, I have absolutely no faith in our country not royally f**King Greenland up. I bet within a generation, we'd stripmine/frack the hell out of the place. The USA also has an absolute horrible track record with respecting Inuit people, and I suspect this would continue in Greenland as a territory. It might be better for the world and Greenland if Denmark holds onto it...
That seems a far-fetched proposal. Greenland is a separate country within the Danish realm with autonomy over most matters - the main exceptions being defense and foreign affairs. Its status is thus similar to Scotland within the UK. The idea that Greenland could be sold to another country seems a total non-starter to me. Looking back at history might suggest differently, given that so much of the US was in fact bought from other countries (there's a map here showing the derivation of US ownership of land, including purchases from France, Russia, Mexico etc). The US has in fact bought land from Denmark before (the US Virgin islands). However, all such purchases were in the colonial era. While Trump may wish to return to that sort of world I don't think it's going to happen.
The idea that the country could be invited to break away from the Danish realm and join the US as a state is a bit more possible, but it still seems very unlikely to me. The US does have a slight interest there already in that they signed a 1951 joint agreement with Denmark (the country of Denmark, not the wider realm) to defend Greenland and, geographically, it would make more or less as much sense for Greenland to be part of the US as Alaska. However, I guess that politicians in Greenland would be extremely suspicious of the reasons why the US would be interested in taking them on.
It's definitely true that some there would like to see more exploitation of their natural resources - and they did agree in 2013 to end a ban of the mining of radioactive materials. I think those moves though are part of a desire for independence and I doubt whether Trump could convince them otherwise. Part of the reason for that is his denial of climate change. The part of the world most affected by climate change to date is the arctic and the evidence for how fast things are changing is much more obvious in Greenland than in most places as a result of the existing ice sheet covering the land melting (see this recent story about the monitoring work on this by NASA). Trump is looking to take advantage of the fact that the melting of the ice makes exploiting oil and gas reserves easier, but I doubt that the (social-democratic) government or the people of Greenland would accept his assurances that such exploitation as part of the US would be for their own good.
You've probably thought it through more than the President. He probably thought about it after he saw a segment on it on Fox News about it's unexploited resources and that's the extent of it.
There are reports that Trump is asking people about trying to buy Greenland from Denmark (It's not clear how serious this is). On one hand, that sounds kind of neat. I wouldnt necessarily be opposed to something like that.
On the other hand, I have absolutely no faith in our country not royally f**King Greenland up. I bet within a generation, we'd stripmine/frack the hell out of the place. The USA also has an absolute horrible track record with respecting Inuit people, and I suspect this would continue in Greenland as a territory. It might be better for the world and Greenland if Denmark holds onto it...
That seems a far-fetched proposal. Greenland is a separate country within the Danish realm with autonomy over most matters - the main exceptions being defense and foreign affairs. Its status is thus similar to Scotland within the UK. The idea that Greenland could be sold to another country seems a total non-starter to me. Looking back at history might suggest differently, given that so much of the US was in fact bought from other countries (there's a map here showing the derivation of US ownership of land, including purchases from France, Russia, Mexico etc). The US has in fact bought land from Denmark before (the US Virgin islands). However, all such purchases were in the colonial era. While Trump may wish to return to that sort of world I don't think it's going to happen.
The idea that the country could be invited to break away from the Danish realm and join the US as a state is a bit more possible, but it still seems very unlikely to me. The US does have a slight interest there already in that they signed a 1951 joint agreement with Denmark (the country of Denmark, not the wider realm) to defend Greenland and, geographically, it would make more or less as much sense for Greenland to be part of the US as Alaska. However, I guess that politicians in Greenland would be extremely suspicious of the reasons why the US would be interested in taking them on.
It's definitely true that some there would like to see more exploitation of their natural resources - and they did agree in 2013 to end a ban of the mining of radioactive materials. I think those moves though are part of a desire for independence and I doubt whether Trump could convince them otherwise. Part of the reason for that is his denial of climate change. The part of the world most affected by climate change to date is the arctic and the evidence for how fast things are changing is much more obvious in Greenland than in most places as a result of the existing ice sheet covering the land melting (see this recent story about the monitoring work on this by NASA). Trump is looking to take advantage of the fact that the melting of the ice makes exploiting oil and gas reserves easier, but I doubt that the (social-democratic) government or the people of Greenland would accept his assurances that such exploitation as part of the US would be for their own good.
Oohhh, this is great! I think we should put in a bid for Scotland. If it's not Scottish it's crap!
Maybe we could offer to buy Taiwan from China, too. Two China problem solved with one stroke of the pen! Maybe India would be willing to sell us Kashmir. Heck with being the policemen of the world, we could be the territory-flippers of the world!
@Grond0 So you're telling me there's a chance?! : P
... - Headline on CNN "Greenland: We're not for sale". That's about that....
The total population of the place is only about 57,000 and they don't have a particularly high standard of living - offering them a worthwhile bribe therefore wouldn't take a lot by US standards. As I said I think its highly unlikely the Greenlanders would accept that anyway, but I wouldn't totally rule it out .
Re: Israel's Muslim lawmaker ban: Interestingly, AIPAC has issued a statement condemning the ban.
Re: Greenland purchase: An interesting strategic move, but only if you don't think climate change is a "hoax". The retreating glaciers are uncovering some good, arable land. As the global temperature increases, the growing season in the far north will get longer. As an aside, last month a city in Sweden recorded the first ever greater than 90 F temperatures north of the Arctic Circle.
Seems like if members of Congress are not allowed to enter Israel, then neither should our money. Its time to stop funding the Israeli war machine. If we have to pay Israel $9 Million a day, they aren't our "friend". They're selling something and we're buying it.
Puerto Rico would confirm for us that the US has a bad track record of treating autonomous islands like shit.
This. If I recall, Rosello's hand-picked replacement was not confirmed correctly so he could not be governor so that job went to the Minister of Justice (or whatever her title is; I would have to double-check my cheat notes).
re: guns....there will always be guns and high-profile events. If you want to reduce those then stop trying to limit guns and start making people aware of how to turn themselves and their locations from soft targets into hard targets. Don't live in fear--increase your awareness, arm up, and be ready to fight back.
re: Talib and Omar being barred from visiting Israel. They are not representatives of the State Department, they are not on committees directly relating to Israel, and their constituents/districts are not located there. Only Ms. Talib has a legitimate reason--in any official capactity--to visit that country because her grandmother lives there. In fact, she submitted a humanitarian request to visit her grandmother and that was approved, so she could have gone. However, she *declined* the offer because she dislikes Israel more than she loves her own grandmother. Sorry, granny--you take a back seat to your granddaughter's political agenda.
We don't need any oil or natural gas which might be located in Greenland. The United States is already the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world and we are on track to energy independence--by the end of this year, our oil and natural gas production will exceed our annual consumption so we won't need to import oil or natural gas from anyone.
After referring to the possible size of an offer for Greenland earlier I thought I would look up some figures. President Truman made an offer to buy Greenland of $100m in 1946, at a time when purchasing sovereign territory seemed much less outlandish than it does now. If you just take account of inflation that offer would be worth $1,316m in 2019. However, for this type of purchase it's also appropriate to take account of the change in purchasing power of the US. Since 1946 real GDP has increased by about 950%. That means that the equivalent purchasing power now to Truman's $100m would be $12,500m.
If you gave an equal share of that to every resident that would be $219,000 each. That wouldn't be a fortune to them and I doubt if it would sway most people, but I suspect it would be enough to make at least some of the inhabitants consider an offer seriously - even if they believed the offer was being made as a commercial transaction that the US would expect to profit from by exploiting resources.
Greenland gets a good chunk of change from Denmark annually to help keep it sustainable. I highly doubt a GOP government would give this type of package.
Truman looking to purchase Greenland in the 50s is a result of the Cold War and having landmass closer to Russia. It had political considerations then, but truthfully there is no political motivation to purchase it now unless the US wants more sway in the Arctic Countries negotiations now that the Northern Passage is opening up, however, I don’t see Denmark giving up their seat for any amount of money.
This is just a ploy to change the news cycle (again) and maybe another lie to peddle to his base.
Although playing Tropico 6 recently it reminds me of a radio broadcast from that game that goes “a new world map has been reveal where the Axis and Allies have both lost ground but Tropico was able to annex Greenland and Antarctica!”
The NYC Medical Examiner has officially ruled Epstein's death a suicide. The conspiracy theories will live on for years in various corners of teh Interwebz but that officially closes his case. Now comes the long task of assessing and valuing his tangible (furniture, real estate, vehicles, art, etc) and financial assets ahead of the civil cases as plaintiffs make their legitimate claims to pieces of his estate. Someone else claims to have spotted Ms. Maxwell at an In-n-Out in California; I won't say that is impossible but I find it highly unlikely--she is still named in criminal cases and has thus probably left the country.
The US should get bids out there for the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Chechnya before China beats us to it! New Caledonia would be a great 51st state too! I think you're all missing the great opportunities here. Northern Ireland anybody? How about Catalonia? Hell, some countries might sell themselves too. Moldavia, Bulgaria, Bosnia, and a bunch of the Stans might get on board. We could even have an East AND a West Georgia!
re: guns....there will always be guns and high-profile events. If you want to reduce those then stop trying to limit guns and start making people aware of how to turn themselves and their locations from soft targets into hard targets. Don't live in fear--increase your awareness, arm up, and be ready to fight back.
Your proposed solution is to live in fear and accept it and fix your buildings. Buildings don't shoot people.
People with guns shoot people. Our schools look like prisons these days now because of security scanners and walls and fences and cops. It didn't used to be this way and this is not normal.
We are the only country with this amount of mass shootings. We don't need to free guns any more than they already are.
The difference between us and other countries is we have way more guns. There are more guns than Americans.
It's the guns, not video games, not mental illness, not architecture, nor any other excuse. Other countries have more or less the same rate of mental illness. Other countries play the same video games, see the same media, have architecture that is the just as or even less hardened. They don't have the gun massacre problems we have. Some countries are more religious, some are less religious that doesn't affect it either. What's the difference? The massive amount of guns. Throwing more guns at the problem won't solve the problem it will only make gun manufacturers richer.
The NYC Medical Examiner has officially ruled Epstein's death a suicide. The conspiracy theories will live on for years in various corners of teh Interwebz but that officially closes his case. Now comes the long task of assessing and valuing his tangible (furniture, real estate, vehicles, art, etc) and financial assets ahead of the civil cases as plaintiffs make their legitimate claims to pieces of his estate. Someone else claims to have spotted Ms. Maxwell at an In-n-Out in California; I won't say that is impossible but I find it highly unlikely--she is still named in criminal cases and has thus probably left the country.
Yesterday the autopsy came back that he had broken his neck. Now, for the longest time I was under the assumption that breaking your neck was the ENTIRE GOAL of hanging yourself. Yet most people (including most media outlets) framed it as adding to the suspicion. At this point, we could have video of him doing it, and it still wouldn't satisfy people. The amount of people who would have to be on the take and sworn to secrecy for life at this point now has to include at least a few more people in the office of the medical examiner.
In other news that should have Trump more worried than anything, the yield curve has inverted. What does this mean?? To put it simply, longer term commitment to bonds usually results in a higher yield on your investment. But now we have a situation where the 2-year bonds are yielding more than the 10-years bonds, despite the shorter-term investment. Every time this has happened in the last 35 years, it has signaled a recession.
Yesterday the autopsy came back that he had broken his neck. Now, for the longest time I was under the assumption that breaking your neck was the ENTIRE GOAL of hanging yourself. Yet most people (including most media outlets) framed it as adding to the suspicion. At this point, we could have video of him doing it, and it still wouldn't satisfy people. The amount of people who would have to be on the take and sworn to secrecy for life at this point now has to include at least a few more people in the office of the medical examiner.
In other news that should have Trump more worried than anything, the yield curve has inverted. What does this mean?? To put it simply, longer term commitment to bonds usually results in a higher yield on your investment. But now we have a situation where the 2-year bonds are yielding more than the 10-years bonds, despite the shorter-term investment. Every time this has happened in the last 35 years, it has signaled a recession.
Actually breaking your neck is preferable when you hang. If you do it right you die in a few seconds. If you don't do i right, you suffocate for a couple minutes.
The only GOOD news about the inversion, is it's not immediate. It has an average lead time of something like 16 months. So probably right after the new president is sworn in in 2021.
re: guns....there will always be guns and high-profile events. If you want to reduce those then stop trying to limit guns and start making people aware of how to turn themselves and their locations from soft targets into hard targets. Don't live in fear--increase your awareness, arm up, and be ready to fight back.
Weird how after Australia banned guns they didn't keep having mass shooters.
Turning their locations into hard targets won't protect people. It'll put people in more danger. If a shooter comes into a place and people pull their pieces more people are likely to die in the confusion.
re: guns....there will always be guns and high-profile events. If you want to reduce those then stop trying to limit guns and start making people aware of how to turn themselves and their locations from soft targets into hard targets. Don't live in fear--increase your awareness, arm up, and be ready to fight back.
Weird how after Australia banned guns they didn't keep having mass shooters.
However, analyses like this are quite simple and miss a lot of important data. For example, looking at official homicide data from the Australian government, we can see that the sharp decline occurred years after the NFA was enacted. A 2003 study backs this up, noting that homicide rates were already falling before the NFA.
A report from 2007 titled “Gun laws and sudden death: Did the Australian firearms legislation of 1996 make a difference?” also noted that homicides were already falling prior to the NFA being enacted, and found that the NFA did not speed up the declining rate of homicides in Australia. More recent studies still find that the decline in homicides can not be attributed to the NFA, since non firearm homicides also sharply declined in the same period:
Source : https://mises.org/power-market/why-gun-control-doesnt-explain-australias-low-homicide-rates
US had no mass shootings before the national firearms act of 1934.
People committed mass killings with legal firearms
People committed mass killings with Ilegal firearms
People committed mass killings with cars
People committed mass killings with trucks
People committed mass killings with fire
(...)
Two of the people killed in the Dayton shooting were struck by police bullets in the crossfire when the cops were trying to take out the shooter. Again, these are not people walking around with f*****g pistols and handguns. They are wielding death machines that are literally SPRAYING bullets everywhere they turn, bullets that are being fired with such speed and ferocity that victims often look like a bomb went off inside their bodies. Where are these calm executioners who are have so much ice-water in their veins that in this kind of situation, they are going to take a deep breath, pull out their concealed weapon, and calmly shoot the perpetrator in the head?? When has this ever taken place??
What do you imagine would have happened in the movie theater shooting in Aurora if someone happened to be strapped with their own automatic weapon in the dark?? Double the number of bodies is likely the answer. Are people really do delusional that they think the teacher in the first-grade classroom at Sandy Hook should, in addition to teaching kids how to add and subtract, should also be ready at all times to become a commando at the drop of a hat?? There could have been 50 people with their own guns in Las Vegas and it would have done jack-shit, because the killer was firing an automatic weapon from a hotel room overlooking the concert ground. This idea that if everyone is just strapped to the teeth then everything is going to be fine is a fantasy-land where everyone walking the street is a potential Wyatt Earp, when the overwhelming likelihood is that, without extensive training, nearly EVERYONE who finds themselves in a sudden situation where a guy is unloading rounds out of an assault rifle is going to panic just like everyone who doesn't have a gun. Because the instincts to respond in the way every gun advocate thinks they magically will in such a situation is completely antithetical to normal human reactions. Nevermind the fact that the VAST majority of people have absolutely no interest whatsoever in walking around with a gun on them while going about their normal course of business.
re: guns....there will always be guns and high-profile events. If you want to reduce those then stop trying to limit guns and start making people aware of how to turn themselves and their locations from soft targets into hard targets. Don't live in fear--increase your awareness, arm up, and be ready to fight back.
Weird how after Australia banned guns they didn't keep having mass shooters.
However, analyses like this are quite simple and miss a lot of important data. For example, looking at official homicide data from the Australian government, we can see that the sharp decline occurred years after the NFA was enacted. A 2003 study backs this up, noting that homicide rates were already falling before the NFA.
A report from 2007 titled “Gun laws and sudden death: Did the Australian firearms legislation of 1996 make a difference?” also noted that homicides were already falling prior to the NFA being enacted, and found that the NFA did not speed up the declining rate of homicides in Australia. More recent studies still find that the decline in homicides can not be attributed to the NFA, since non firearm homicides also sharply declined in the same period:
Source : https://mises.org/power-market/why-gun-control-doesnt-explain-australias-low-homicide-rates
The full report you refer to can be found here. Essentially the argument in the report is that there was a downward trend in gun deaths before 1996 and the fall seen from 1997 onwards was just a continuation of that - and therefore unaffected by the legislation. I agree that it's not possible to separate out the affect of multiple social pressures and trends. However, I would take the view that it's worthwhile trying to tackle the problem of gun violence in multiple ways, rather than just taking the line that it's impossible to prove beyond doubt any of those are effective and therefore we'll just do nothing. It seems to me likely that a major part of the reason for declining deaths is societal concern about those - and legislation reflecting that concern is part of the overall social pressure being exerted.
Here's a graph taken from the report showing the downward trend in firearm homicides. The graph includes lines for upper and lower 95% confidence intervals using a form of regression analysis - explaining the authors' argument that the reduction was just the continuation of an existing trend. I imagine though that, if there were a similar trend in the US at the moment, there would not have been the same level of discussion in this thread.
It's perhaps also worth posting this article from the BMJ. That uses essentially the same dataset, but comes to different conclusions - in this case the authors' view is clear that the legislation was responsible for the continuing downward move in deaths. I think a major part of the reason for the difference in view is that this study is aimed more at multiple shooting incidents, rather than just overall homicide statistics. That seems appropriate to me as the restrictions in Australia were specifically related to longer guns, i.e. the weapons nearly always used in mass shootings. Using the criteria in the report (at least 5 innocent deaths in a single shooting) there were no mass shootings in the 10 years after the legislation was passed - up to the time this report was produced. For what it's worth it's still the case today that there have been no further such mass shootings (though there have been a few shooting incidents resulting in fewer numbers of deaths).
Grond0, why only look to firearms homicide? In your opinion if the number of firearms homicides goes down by "X" but the number of homicides with knifes, poison, fire, etc goes up by "N*X" (with N > 1 obviously), the gun control is a success?
That only confirms what i think. Gun control advocates doesn't wanna solve any problem. They just hate firearms. And guess what, before firearms, the world was much more violent and the violence was mostly those with access to firearms VS those without it(colonies mostly). What happens if only the government and criminals have access to firearms and an prostitute who owns an revolver to defend himself from an potential violent drunk costumer will be treated as an criminal by owning an firearm? Even if she lives in a place where his activity is legal? Not everybody lives in a gated community with private security and high income area where the police can arrive in few minutes. Some people has risky jobs, some lives in remote places with dangerous animals, an federal law will affect from Florida do Alaska.
This is why the media barely talks about the arson attack on Kyoto animation. Was an attack killed far more than most massacres with """"assault rifles"""" on US, and was made in a country where even illegal firearms are hard to obtain due geographical reasons.
Grond0, why only look to firearms homicide? In your opinion if the number of firearms homicides goes down by "X" but the number of homicides with knifes, poison, fire, etc goes up by "N*X" (with N > 1 obviously), the gun control is a success?
That only confirms what i think. Gun control advocates doesn't wanna solve any problem. They just hate firearms. And guess what, before firearms, the world was much more violent and the violence was mostly those with access to firearms VS those without it(colonies mostly). What happens if only the government and criminals have access to firearms and an prostitute who owns an revolver to defend himself from an potential violent drunk costumer will be treated as an criminal by owning an firearm? Even if she lives in a place where his activity is legal? Not everybody lives in a gated community with private security and high income area where the police can arrive in few minutes. Some people has risky jobs, some lives in remote places with dangerous animals, an federal law will affect from Florida do Alaska.
This is why the media barely talks about the arson attack on Kyoto animation. Was an attack killed far more than most massacres with """"assault rifles"""" on US, and was made in a country where even illegal firearms are hard to obtain due geographical reasons.
For the question as you posed it, i.e. would I prefer to have fewer people killed with guns or more without guns, I would prefer the former. However, that doesn't seem to be a sensible question to me. I'm not aware of any evidence suggesting that reducing homicides by firearms will increase overall homicides and there's little evidence of any substitution at all. Here's the graph of overall homicides from the same report you quoted before as supporting your case.
You can see the 95% confidence intervals are much wider apart than the graph for firearms homicides - that reflects that a regression analysis of past total homicides is a poor predictor of future homicides (the correlation is much stronger just in relation to firearms homicides). However, it seems clear to me the data do not suggest that the reduction in firearms homicides has been replaced by other forms of homicide - and that view is stated in the report as well ("The results do not support the possibility of displacement to the use of other weapons in relation to homicide (non-firearm) post-NFA.").
I fail to see how my views support your conclusion that "Gun control advocates doesn't wanna solve any problem." I think the evidence is beyond argument that the US has an unusually high level of mass shootings. In numbers of deaths you can make the case that's not a great problem, but these types of attacks have an impact on people's perceptions far greater than the real level of danger (in the same way as terrorism - and there's obviously some cross-over between those categories). I don't hate firearms, but I do think certain categories of firearms are unnecessary for the general population and restricting those (as part of a wider change intended to make them socially unacceptable) would help with the mass shooting problem.
In relation to perception of danger it's perhaps worth making the point that someone carrying a gun is more likely, not less likely, to be injured or killed by a gun. A prostitute carrying a gun may well feel safer, but in reality she is not safer. In recent years there's been a similar sort of problem in the UK with young people carrying knives. The evidence is clear that carrying a knife increases, not reduces, the danger of the young person being injured by a knife. However, that's often not their perception. Education, particularly by those with "street-cred", such as ex-gang members, is one way to tackle this issue.
As for other forms of attacks, no-one is suggesting that guns are the only way to hurt other people. The fact though remains that the US is out of line with similar countries in relation to gun violence, not in relation to wider forms of violence. In that context I think it makes sense to consider what is causing that discrepancy and try and tackle that.
Comments
That seems a far-fetched proposal. Greenland is a separate country within the Danish realm with autonomy over most matters - the main exceptions being defense and foreign affairs. Its status is thus similar to Scotland within the UK. The idea that Greenland could be sold to another country seems a total non-starter to me. Looking back at history might suggest differently, given that so much of the US was in fact bought from other countries (there's a map here showing the derivation of US ownership of land, including purchases from France, Russia, Mexico etc). The US has in fact bought land from Denmark before (the US Virgin islands). However, all such purchases were in the colonial era. While Trump may wish to return to that sort of world I don't think it's going to happen.
The idea that the country could be invited to break away from the Danish realm and join the US as a state is a bit more possible, but it still seems very unlikely to me. The US does have a slight interest there already in that they signed a 1951 joint agreement with Denmark (the country of Denmark, not the wider realm) to defend Greenland and, geographically, it would make more or less as much sense for Greenland to be part of the US as Alaska. However, I guess that politicians in Greenland would be extremely suspicious of the reasons why the US would be interested in taking them on.
It's definitely true that some there would like to see more exploitation of their natural resources - and they did agree in 2013 to end a ban of the mining of radioactive materials. I think those moves though are part of a desire for independence and I doubt whether Trump could convince them otherwise. Part of the reason for that is his denial of climate change. The part of the world most affected by climate change to date is the arctic and the evidence for how fast things are changing is much more obvious in Greenland than in most places as a result of the existing ice sheet covering the land melting (see this recent story about the monitoring work on this by NASA). Trump is looking to take advantage of the fact that the melting of the ice makes exploiting oil and gas reserves easier, but I doubt that the (social-democratic) government or the people of Greenland would accept his assurances that such exploitation as part of the US would be for their own good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Purchase
Oohhh, this is great! I think we should put in a bid for Scotland. If it's not Scottish it's crap!
Maybe we could offer to buy Taiwan from China, too. Two China problem solved with one stroke of the pen! Maybe India would be willing to sell us Kashmir. Heck with being the policemen of the world, we could be the territory-flippers of the world!
... - Headline on CNN "Greenland: We're not for sale". That's about that....
The total population of the place is only about 57,000 and they don't have a particularly high standard of living - offering them a worthwhile bribe therefore wouldn't take a lot by US standards. As I said I think its highly unlikely the Greenlanders would accept that anyway, but I wouldn't totally rule it out
Re: Greenland purchase: An interesting strategic move, but only if you don't think climate change is a "hoax". The retreating glaciers are uncovering some good, arable land. As the global temperature increases, the growing season in the far north will get longer. As an aside, last month a city in Sweden recorded the first ever greater than 90 F temperatures north of the Arctic Circle.
This. If I recall, Rosello's hand-picked replacement was not confirmed correctly so he could not be governor so that job went to the Minister of Justice (or whatever her title is; I would have to double-check my cheat notes).
re: guns....there will always be guns and high-profile events. If you want to reduce those then stop trying to limit guns and start making people aware of how to turn themselves and their locations from soft targets into hard targets. Don't live in fear--increase your awareness, arm up, and be ready to fight back.
re: Talib and Omar being barred from visiting Israel. They are not representatives of the State Department, they are not on committees directly relating to Israel, and their constituents/districts are not located there. Only Ms. Talib has a legitimate reason--in any official capactity--to visit that country because her grandmother lives there. In fact, she submitted a humanitarian request to visit her grandmother and that was approved, so she could have gone. However, she *declined* the offer because she dislikes Israel more than she loves her own grandmother. Sorry, granny--you take a back seat to your granddaughter's political agenda.
We don't need any oil or natural gas which might be located in Greenland. The United States is already the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world and we are on track to energy independence--by the end of this year, our oil and natural gas production will exceed our annual consumption so we won't need to import oil or natural gas from anyone.
If you gave an equal share of that to every resident that would be $219,000 each. That wouldn't be a fortune to them and I doubt if it would sway most people, but I suspect it would be enough to make at least some of the inhabitants consider an offer seriously - even if they believed the offer was being made as a commercial transaction that the US would expect to profit from by exploiting resources.
My favorite headline on this was "Trump's Green New Deal"
That amount of money would really help people who happen to find themselves "unemployed...in Greenland!".
Anyone?
I don't know. That sounds inconceivable ; )
Truman looking to purchase Greenland in the 50s is a result of the Cold War and having landmass closer to Russia. It had political considerations then, but truthfully there is no political motivation to purchase it now unless the US wants more sway in the Arctic Countries negotiations now that the Northern Passage is opening up, however, I don’t see Denmark giving up their seat for any amount of money.
This is just a ploy to change the news cycle (again) and maybe another lie to peddle to his base.
Although playing Tropico 6 recently it reminds me of a radio broadcast from that game that goes “a new world map has been reveal where the Axis and Allies have both lost ground but Tropico was able to annex Greenland and Antarctica!”
Your proposed solution is to live in fear and accept it and fix your buildings. Buildings don't shoot people.
People with guns shoot people. Our schools look like prisons these days now because of security scanners and walls and fences and cops. It didn't used to be this way and this is not normal.
We are the only country with this amount of mass shootings. We don't need to free guns any more than they already are.
The difference between us and other countries is we have way more guns. There are more guns than Americans.
It's the guns, not video games, not mental illness, not architecture, nor any other excuse. Other countries have more or less the same rate of mental illness. Other countries play the same video games, see the same media, have architecture that is the just as or even less hardened. They don't have the gun massacre problems we have. Some countries are more religious, some are less religious that doesn't affect it either. What's the difference? The massive amount of guns. Throwing more guns at the problem won't solve the problem it will only make gun manufacturers richer.
(Sorry, I think I'm alone in finding this amusing, but I can't help it!)
Yesterday the autopsy came back that he had broken his neck. Now, for the longest time I was under the assumption that breaking your neck was the ENTIRE GOAL of hanging yourself. Yet most people (including most media outlets) framed it as adding to the suspicion. At this point, we could have video of him doing it, and it still wouldn't satisfy people. The amount of people who would have to be on the take and sworn to secrecy for life at this point now has to include at least a few more people in the office of the medical examiner.
In other news that should have Trump more worried than anything, the yield curve has inverted. What does this mean?? To put it simply, longer term commitment to bonds usually results in a higher yield on your investment. But now we have a situation where the 2-year bonds are yielding more than the 10-years bonds, despite the shorter-term investment. Every time this has happened in the last 35 years, it has signaled a recession.
Actually breaking your neck is preferable when you hang. If you do it right you die in a few seconds. If you don't do i right, you suffocate for a couple minutes.
The only GOOD news about the inversion, is it's not immediate. It has an average lead time of something like 16 months. So probably right after the new president is sworn in in 2021.
Weird how after Australia banned guns they didn't keep having mass shooters.
Turning their locations into hard targets won't protect people. It'll put people in more danger. If a shooter comes into a place and people pull their pieces more people are likely to die in the confusion.
However, analyses like this are quite simple and miss a lot of important data. For example, looking at official homicide data from the Australian government, we can see that the sharp decline occurred years after the NFA was enacted. A 2003 study backs this up, noting that homicide rates were already falling before the NFA.
A report from 2007 titled “Gun laws and sudden death: Did the Australian firearms legislation of 1996 make a difference?” also noted that homicides were already falling prior to the NFA being enacted, and found that the NFA did not speed up the declining rate of homicides in Australia. More recent studies still find that the decline in homicides can not be attributed to the NFA, since non firearm homicides also sharply declined in the same period:
Source : https://mises.org/power-market/why-gun-control-doesnt-explain-australias-low-homicide-rates
US had no mass shootings before the national firearms act of 1934.
People committed mass killings with legal firearms
People committed mass killings with Ilegal firearms
People committed mass killings with cars
People committed mass killings with trucks
People committed mass killings with fire
(...)
And Over 97% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/09/over-98-of-mass-shootings-occurred-on-gun-free-zones-research-shows
What do you imagine would have happened in the movie theater shooting in Aurora if someone happened to be strapped with their own automatic weapon in the dark?? Double the number of bodies is likely the answer. Are people really do delusional that they think the teacher in the first-grade classroom at Sandy Hook should, in addition to teaching kids how to add and subtract, should also be ready at all times to become a commando at the drop of a hat?? There could have been 50 people with their own guns in Las Vegas and it would have done jack-shit, because the killer was firing an automatic weapon from a hotel room overlooking the concert ground. This idea that if everyone is just strapped to the teeth then everything is going to be fine is a fantasy-land where everyone walking the street is a potential Wyatt Earp, when the overwhelming likelihood is that, without extensive training, nearly EVERYONE who finds themselves in a sudden situation where a guy is unloading rounds out of an assault rifle is going to panic just like everyone who doesn't have a gun. Because the instincts to respond in the way every gun advocate thinks they magically will in such a situation is completely antithetical to normal human reactions. Nevermind the fact that the VAST majority of people have absolutely no interest whatsoever in walking around with a gun on them while going about their normal course of business.
Well Jimmy Kimmell is now the honorary mayor of Dildo NL so you may already have a tiny section of it.
The full report you refer to can be found here. Essentially the argument in the report is that there was a downward trend in gun deaths before 1996 and the fall seen from 1997 onwards was just a continuation of that - and therefore unaffected by the legislation. I agree that it's not possible to separate out the affect of multiple social pressures and trends. However, I would take the view that it's worthwhile trying to tackle the problem of gun violence in multiple ways, rather than just taking the line that it's impossible to prove beyond doubt any of those are effective and therefore we'll just do nothing. It seems to me likely that a major part of the reason for declining deaths is societal concern about those - and legislation reflecting that concern is part of the overall social pressure being exerted.
Here's a graph taken from the report showing the downward trend in firearm homicides. The graph includes lines for upper and lower 95% confidence intervals using a form of regression analysis - explaining the authors' argument that the reduction was just the continuation of an existing trend. I imagine though that, if there were a similar trend in the US at the moment, there would not have been the same level of discussion in this thread.
It's perhaps also worth posting this article from the BMJ. That uses essentially the same dataset, but comes to different conclusions - in this case the authors' view is clear that the legislation was responsible for the continuing downward move in deaths. I think a major part of the reason for the difference in view is that this study is aimed more at multiple shooting incidents, rather than just overall homicide statistics. That seems appropriate to me as the restrictions in Australia were specifically related to longer guns, i.e. the weapons nearly always used in mass shootings. Using the criteria in the report (at least 5 innocent deaths in a single shooting) there were no mass shootings in the 10 years after the legislation was passed - up to the time this report was produced. For what it's worth it's still the case today that there have been no further such mass shootings (though there have been a few shooting incidents resulting in fewer numbers of deaths).
That only confirms what i think. Gun control advocates doesn't wanna solve any problem. They just hate firearms. And guess what, before firearms, the world was much more violent and the violence was mostly those with access to firearms VS those without it(colonies mostly). What happens if only the government and criminals have access to firearms and an prostitute who owns an revolver to defend himself from an potential violent drunk costumer will be treated as an criminal by owning an firearm? Even if she lives in a place where his activity is legal? Not everybody lives in a gated community with private security and high income area where the police can arrive in few minutes. Some people has risky jobs, some lives in remote places with dangerous animals, an federal law will affect from Florida do Alaska.
This is why the media barely talks about the arson attack on Kyoto animation. Was an attack killed far more than most massacres with """"assault rifles"""" on US, and was made in a country where even illegal firearms are hard to obtain due geographical reasons.
Bwahaha. No. How can we take you seriously after that easily disprovable lie?
How and Why do you think the NFA of 1934 EVEN EXISTS?!
For the question as you posed it, i.e. would I prefer to have fewer people killed with guns or more without guns, I would prefer the former. However, that doesn't seem to be a sensible question to me. I'm not aware of any evidence suggesting that reducing homicides by firearms will increase overall homicides and there's little evidence of any substitution at all. Here's the graph of overall homicides from the same report you quoted before as supporting your case.
You can see the 95% confidence intervals are much wider apart than the graph for firearms homicides - that reflects that a regression analysis of past total homicides is a poor predictor of future homicides (the correlation is much stronger just in relation to firearms homicides). However, it seems clear to me the data do not suggest that the reduction in firearms homicides has been replaced by other forms of homicide - and that view is stated in the report as well ("The results do not support the possibility of displacement to the use of other weapons in relation to homicide (non-firearm) post-NFA.").
I fail to see how my views support your conclusion that "Gun control advocates doesn't wanna solve any problem." I think the evidence is beyond argument that the US has an unusually high level of mass shootings. In numbers of deaths you can make the case that's not a great problem, but these types of attacks have an impact on people's perceptions far greater than the real level of danger (in the same way as terrorism - and there's obviously some cross-over between those categories). I don't hate firearms, but I do think certain categories of firearms are unnecessary for the general population and restricting those (as part of a wider change intended to make them socially unacceptable) would help with the mass shooting problem.
In relation to perception of danger it's perhaps worth making the point that someone carrying a gun is more likely, not less likely, to be injured or killed by a gun. A prostitute carrying a gun may well feel safer, but in reality she is not safer. In recent years there's been a similar sort of problem in the UK with young people carrying knives. The evidence is clear that carrying a knife increases, not reduces, the danger of the young person being injured by a knife. However, that's often not their perception. Education, particularly by those with "street-cred", such as ex-gang members, is one way to tackle this issue.
As for other forms of attacks, no-one is suggesting that guns are the only way to hurt other people. The fact though remains that the US is out of line with similar countries in relation to gun violence, not in relation to wider forms of violence. In that context I think it makes sense to consider what is causing that discrepancy and try and tackle that.