Of course I believe that*, and I would say it especially applies during the Trump era. I don't think its much of a strech to believe the political bias of individuals will affect the way they view, percieve, and cover events (not to mention what they choose to cover and sensationalize in the first place), and when the community you are in very solidly leans one particular direction that would only get worse. When they feel personally insulted by the person they are trying to cover this would again only get worse, though fault of that lies squarely on Trump. The echo chamber effect is real.
No one is immune from bias. Least of all journalists.
*and by that I mean my original statement that left wing media deserves no less skepticism and is no more trustworthy than right wing and that this describes most mainstream outlets.
You had me until the very last part. Rather than parsing out and reflecting upon each individual news source, you're just lumping "Mainstream outlets" into one ultra liberal bloc of biased journalism akin to breitbart.
You're completely right that left wing media deserves no less skepticism and is no more trustworthy than right wing. That's irrefutably true. WaPo may be as biased to the left as Fox is biased to the right, but the journalistic standards they are held to is much higher than something like Breitbart. The legit side of Fox News is also held to a higher standard (They lose a LOT of ground when they decide to conflate news with entertainment, and used to let someone like O'Reilly hide from requirements of journalistic integrity by saying he was only trying to entertain).
Of course I believe that*, and I would say it especially applies during the Trump era. I don't think its much of a strech to believe the political bias of individuals will affect the way they view, percieve, and cover events (not to mention what they choose to cover and sensationalize in the first place), and when the community you are in very solidly leans one particular direction that would only get worse. When they feel personally insulted by the person they are trying to cover this would again only get worse, though fault of that lies squarely on Trump. The echo chamber effect is real.
No one is immune from bias. Least of all journalists.
*and by that I mean my original statement that left wing media deserves no less skepticism and is no more trustworthy than right wing and that this describes most mainstream outlets.
I agree with you on this as written, but we should differentiate between biased people trying to accurately describe the world and biased people trying to advance their political agenda. I really believe that most mainstream outlets fall primarily into the first category. Reporters' biases definitely affect their perception, but that doesn't mean they aren't usually giving a good-faith description of what they perceive.
I also agree with you, as I've said before, that liberal bias is more common than conservative bias among journalists. That means there are fewer (predominantly) good-faith right-wing outlets than (predominantly) good-faith left-wing outlets. That's unfortunate, but it's not a good reason to treat intentional propaganda outlets as morally equivalents to mere biased reporting.
That's why I took issue with your original comment: The sources in question included Breitbart and the Federalist, and I do not think those are remotely on the same plane of journalistic legitimacy as the most mainstream of center-left outlets, e.g., NYT and WaPo, even accounting for the many mistakes the latter have made.
I wish to visit the Beamdog HQ in Edmonton, and purchase a ticket to fly.
My real name is checked against the No-Fly list, compiled by US intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
I arrive at the airport, where my identification is checked against the name used to purchase the ticket. The ID must meet the standards as specified by the REAL ID act passed by congress.
I proceed to the TSA checkpoint for entry into the boarding area.
My ID and boarding pass are checked and verified.
I am subjected to a metal detector and/or millimeter-wave scan for weapons.
My carry-on bags are x-rayed.
Various items of electronics or clothing are examined individually.
I may be randomly selected for a more in-depth search and check.
My checked bags go through the same process.
While in the TSA line or in the concourse, law enforcement agents patrol, looking for suspicious activity. They employ dogs trained to sniff for contraband or explosives.
My boarding pass is checked as I board, again with an ID check.
The cockpit doors are locked.
There is a chance of having an armed sky marshal on board, increased since 9/11.
For every bullet point on this list you can say two things: it would not stop a determined terrorist, and is an inconvenience for a legal traveler like myself.
There is no 100% effective way to stop a terrorist attack, which is why you approach it from the stance of risk mitigation: every one of these steps adds one more place a terrorist can make a mistake, get noticed, and stopped. Since you cannot reliably prevent a terrorist attack you simply try to add additional failure nodes.
As an analogy to gun control and preventing gun deaths, it's not ideal. Air travel is, after all, a privilege and not a constitutionally-protected right. However it is exceptionally difficult to have a meaningful discussion about gun rights and gun control when every proposal gets isolated and summarily dismissed because it inconveniences legal gun owners and won't stop criminals, when we use a similar mitigation strategy for other seemingly intractable problems. We can have meaningful and constructive debate around such proposals if we instead focus on whether they're worth the trade-off, because none of them is going to an end-all, be-all solution.
I grew up on a farm in the country, where guns are tools: they put food on your plate, protect your livestock (and livelihood) from predators, and protect your family and friends because the nearest law enforcement is far away. I've since lived in cities, where guns are tools of oppression: they keep youths trapped in a cycles of gang violence, they're used to facilitate robberies and other crimes, and they're used in anger for retaliation or vengeance. This is not a problem with a simple, or timely, solution, and the gap between the sides seems to widen--I have no answers, no insight to share.
I don't think either gun control or gun-toting citizens will prevent suicidal gun massacres. To my knowledge, every time one of these massacres ends, it's because the police, and not any private citizen, arrived and shot them down or arrested the shooter.
The good guys with guns are police officers. Whether we have gun control or whether we don't have gun control, police officers are the people who are actually bringing these massacres to an end.
Actually even that's not true.
Generally, the perpetrator(s) end up suiciding.
Average time of a mass shooting incident is almost certainly less than 10 minutes. Sandy Hook was 5 minutes. Virginia Tech was a couple hours but the guy first shot two people, did various activities while everyone was busy responding to his first shooting, then had the big shooting that went on for about 10-12 minutes. Vegas was 10 minutes.
All three of those were suicides. Columbine was suicides. Having gone over a list of 50 or so of them, I'd say roughly three-quarters of mass shootings wind up with the perpetrator suiciding. Although police MIGHT be effective at at least CONTAINING the shooter inside a building.
Average response time of police in numbers significant enough to take down a mass shooter: More than 5 minutes. It's not going to be just the closest cop (which actually could probably be done in less than a minute I'd guess), you're going to want to get at least the 3 closest cops if not more like half a dozen.
I wish to visit the Beamdog HQ in Edmonton, and purchase a ticket to fly.
My real name is checked against the No-Fly list, compiled by US intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
I arrive at the airport, where my identification is checked against the name used to purchase the ticket. The ID must meet the standards as specified by the REAL ID act passed by congress.
I proceed to the TSA checkpoint for entry into the boarding area.
My ID and boarding pass are checked and verified.
I am subjected to a metal detector and/or millimeter-wave scan for weapons.
My carry-on bags are x-rayed.
Various items of electronics or clothing are examined individually.
I may be randomly selected for a more in-depth search and check.
My checked bags go through the same process.
While in the TSA line or in the concourse, law enforcement agents patrol, looking for suspicious activity. They employ dogs trained to sniff for contraband or explosives.
My boarding pass is checked as I board, again with an ID check.
The cockpit doors are locked.
There is a chance of having an armed sky marshal on board, increased since 9/11.
For every bullet point on this list you can say two things: it would not stop a determined terrorist, and is an inconvenience for a legal traveler like myself.
There is no 100% effective way to stop a terrorist attack, which is why you approach it from the stance of risk mitigation: every one of these steps adds one more place a terrorist can make a mistake, get noticed, and stopped. Since you cannot reliably prevent a terrorist attack you simply try to add additional failure nodes.
As an analogy to gun control and preventing gun deaths, it's not ideal. Air travel is, after all, a privilege and not a constitutionally-protected right. However it is exceptionally difficult to have a meaningful discussion about gun rights and gun control when every proposal gets isolated and summarily dismissed because it inconveniences legal gun owners and won't stop criminals, when we use a similar mitigation strategy for other seemingly intractable problems. We can have meaningful and constructive debate around such proposals if we instead focus on whether they're worth the trade-off, because none of them is going to an end-all, be-all solution.
This'll probably get me put on a watch list now, but I honestly don't understand why the massive security attention on planes.
Planes hold a couple hundred people, tops. Airport terminals can be thousands.
If I was a terrorist, I'd rather see about filling a cargo truck with some cheap explosive and doing a repeat of Oklahoma City.
If the goal is to kill as many people as possible, as cheaply as possible, then that's always seemed the way to go. Hit where people are packed, not where people have been winnowed out into the few.
Much like that terrorist that just ran over people in a packed street during a major holiday in France with a semi-truck. It looked be like fish in a barrel.
I am severely aggravated every time I have to fly because of the ridiculous amount of security screening. The shoes and belt thing is demeaning, and the gels/liquids is aggravating.
And the chance of the TSA catching terrorists is already at a very low probability. I have more faith in the cops stopping an active shooter before he/she suicides than the TSA's draconian security procedures catching weapons.
Because we KNOW the TSA is failing well over half the time, despite everything millions of people have to do every day to fly.
Because they flunked catching them last year. And 3 years ago. And 5 years ago. And failing SPECTACULARLY. 3 years ago they failed 67 out of 70 random tests. Last year it was somewhere between 70-80% failure.
Hell, actually, on my last flight (international even!). I took a non-regulation sized tube of toothpaste (3.5oz by itself!) there. And back.
Meanwhile, god knows what it's costing the American economy because of lost productivity of standing around in lines. I would not be surprised if it was in the single-digit billions.
Or, as an article on Vox states, the TSA is literally killing hundreds of people per year indirectly because people rather drive than deal with the extra time and hassle, and driving is more unsafe than flying.
Granted, I'm not saying NO security measures, just the absurd ones.
I like Italians! Actually, I tried so hard to remember all the derogatives I grew up hearing, I forgot to proofread...
Huh, I didn't know Canuck was a derogative term until I looked it up. That's how nice Canadians are. You can insult us to our face and we'll just name a hockey team after it.
I like Italians! Actually, I tried so hard to remember all the derogatives I grew up hearing, I forgot to proofread...
Huh, I didn't know Canuck was a derogative term until I looked it up. That's how nice Canadians are. You can insult us to our face and we'll just name a hockey team after it.
You haven't named a team the Dudley Do-Rights yet...
@SorcererV1ct0r someone has already responded to the chart you included of Irish homicides. In relation to England & Wales the spike shown on the chart was entirely due to the Harold Shipman case - a doctor who killed 172 elderly patients using drugs, i.e. a case entirely irrelevant to the use of guns. Detailed figures on UK homicides over time can be found here.
A better comparison to the introduction of gun control would be to look at the number of gun deaths - there was no increase in the UK in these after 1997.
In relation to the mises article you linked there was a major error in that. It suggested that homicides in the UK were only counted if there was a conviction - and that if cases where no arrest was made were removed from US figures then homicide numbers would be more than halved. I think the point the article was referring to was that the Homicide Index in the UK is originally based on deaths the police class as homicide. However, if it is later determined that a death was not homicide (for instance because a court agreed it was the result of self defense) then the death is removed from the index. The absence of an arrest has no effect on the UK figures.
You've made a lot of references to the ineffectiveness of gun control in preventing terrorist atrocities, such as the Charlie Hebdo case in France. However, no-one has suggested in this thread that gun control would provide more than a small benefit against terrorism (though people have suggested that even a small benefit would be better than no benefit at all). I have though posted several times that gun control would be expected to make a major difference to the problem of mass shootings in the US - most of which are not carried out as suicide attacks by terrorists or as part of wider criminal activity.
As I think you've already recognized the US is not a particularly violent country overall and nor does it have unusually high levels of mental health problems. What it does have is an incredibly high (by international standards) number of mass shootings. If you think there is no link with the availability of guns & the cultural perception of guns as enhancing personal power, then what do you think the cause is?
I like Italians! Actually, I tried so hard to remember all the derogatives I grew up hearing, I forgot to proofread...
Huh, I didn't know Canuck was a derogative term until I looked it up. That's how nice Canadians are. You can insult us to our face and we'll just name a hockey team after it.
I always thought it was because of the hockey team.
A better comparison to the introduction of gun control would be to look at the number of gun deaths - there was no increase in the UK in these after 1997.(...)
So doesn't matter if the rapes, if tortures, murderers. etc, etc, etc become extreme more frequent. Only "gun violence" matters?
Note that in USA according to this "gun violence" statistics, if someone invade a farm and get killed, is "gun violence"(yes, statistics tends to put self defense and suicide as "gun violence), but if gun control is approved and the attacker invade the farm, kill all man and rape all woman, then is not "gun violence"... What scenario is better?
This morning, after another weak (and frankly, not believable) call for tougher background checks, Trump went whole hog on arming 20% of the teachers in America in classrooms.
First off, one month from now, I will be doing a post following up on Trump's "bump stock memo" and the Congressional action he claimed he was for this morning. Let's see if anything comes of either. If so, great. I'm not holding my breath.
But a thought for this morning: isn't it a little rich that the people who don't believe teachers should have tenure think they are qualified to act as armed guards in their own classroom?? Also, this "plan" would like put hundreds of millions of dollars right back into the pockets of the gun manufacturers.
You might also want to consider the fact that the National Rifle Association does not appear to include any statistics on the impact of guns on crime on their web-site. They also lobby hard, i.e. pay politicians, to prevent government sponsored research in this area. The reason why they do that seems obvious to me - they know that the evidence directly contradicts their stated position on the value of guns and therefore do their best to prevent that evidence becoming more widely known to the public.
A better comparison to the introduction of gun control would be to look at the number of gun deaths - there was no increase in the UK in these after 1997.(...)
So doesn't matter if the rapes, if tortures, murderers. etc, etc, etc become extreme more frequent. Only "gun violence" matters?
Note that in USA according to this "gun violence" statistics, if someone invade a farm and get killed, is "gun violence"(yes, statistics tends to put self defense and suicide as "gun violence), but if gun control is approved and the attacker invade the farm, kill all man and rape all woman, then is not "gun violence"... What scenario is better?
Dude, you posted a chart relating to the homicide rate. That's what he, and other posters, responded to. Are you criticising your own choice of chart here?
Also, he asked a question regarding the relatively high number of mass shootings. Probably better to answer that before posing more of your own.
I agree with the general uselessness of the TSA and the frustration of flying. I simply used it as it's the easiest one to rack up steps where terrorists can fail.
If I was a terrorist, I'd rather see about filling a cargo truck with some cheap explosive and doing a repeat of Oklahoma City.
This was actually my second choice for an example. After the OKC attack restrictions and tracking were placed on purchases of fertilizer that can be used in bomb making, background checks were added for box truck rentals, federal buildings added bollards to prevent traffic flow near them, there was increased vigilance for loitering vehicles, and the FBI focused more on domestic terror threats. None of these steps individually solve the problem and are generally a nuisance to law-abiding citizens, but they create additional points of failure for such plots.
Pointing out that, let's say, a ban on bump stocks inconveniences legal gun owners and won't stop criminals doesn't really add to the conversation. Would such a ban actually have an impact on decreasing gun violence? Would it be more or less effective than other measures available? Would it pass constitutional muster? If so, is the loss of individual liberty an acceptable trade-off for the projected impact? These are where the discussion gets difficult, yes, but also interesting.
And before someone claims 'loss of individual liberty is never an acceptable trade-off': even enumerated constitutional rights are not absolute, though it sets a substantial bar to overcome. The classic example of non-protected free speech is yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater. It's because your individual liberty to free speech--yelling 'fire'--is not outweighed by the liberty lost by the other patrons having life and limb endangered.
One side the countries with highest gun per capta. Other side, countries with highest homidice rate
The unique south american country in this list is Uruguay. And Uruguay have about 0.5% of Brazil murder numbers. The European countries with more guns / 100 hab are safer than countries with strict gun control.
Uruguay is the safest country in South America and the country with more guns / 100 hab
A better comparison to the introduction of gun control would be to look at the number of gun deaths - there was no increase in the UK in these after 1997.(...)
So doesn't matter if the rapes, if tortures, murderers. etc, etc, etc become extreme more frequent. Only "gun violence" matters?
Note that in USA according to this "gun violence" statistics, if someone invade a farm and get killed, is "gun violence"(yes, statistics tends to put self defense and suicide as "gun violence), but if gun control is approved and the attacker invade the farm, kill all man and rape all woman, then is not "gun violence"... What scenario is better?
Dude, you posted a chart relating to the homicide rate. That's what he, and other posters, responded to. Are you criticising your own choice of chart here?
Also, he asked a question regarding the relatively high number of mass shootings. Probably better to answer that before posing more of your own.
- Self defense is not homicide - Suicide is not homicide - But according to "gun violence statistics" are forms of gun violence.
A homicide with poison, car, knife, etc still a homicide. People who advocate from gun control ignores that guns can be obtained illegally and that there are a lot of other ways to kill. Also if i wanna kill someone, i rather do with a illegal arm.
...They also lobby hard, i.e. pay politicians, to prevent government sponsored research in this area...
It's funny to hear conservatives politicians argue that high school kids are paid to lobby against guns which they are not and then these REPUBLICANS ARE GETTING ACTUALLY PAID BY THE NRA. They are literally paid to lobby for guns and are once again total and complete hypocrites.
This morning, after another weak (and frankly, not believable) call for tougher background checks, Trump went whole hog on arming 20% of the teachers in America in classrooms.
First off, one month from now, I will be doing a post following up on Trump's "bump stock memo" and the Congressional action he claimed he was for this morning. Let's see if anything comes of either. If so, great. I'm not holding my breath.
But a thought for this morning: isn't it a little rich that the people who don't believe teachers should have tenure think they are qualified to act as armed guards in their own classroom?? Also, this "plan" would like put hundreds of millions of dollars right back into the pockets of the gun manufacturers.
I believe I saw something that said the NYPD is happy with a hit rate for it's officers of like 18%. That's great to give teachers guns and have them hit their target 18% of the time. I feel it is beyond stupid idea to arm teachers. First of all they are highly underpaid as it is, these are not people that need additional expenses. Their job is to teach children. That's tough enough without taking on additional roles as armed prison guards.
This guy is such a clown.
What's the 45? His shirt size or to remind him he's president and got the most votes ever for one candidate except for the zillions of illegal votes for clinton. hahaha this guy.
I guess this debunks a bit that he can't read. Apparently he can sorta read. I don't think that's his handwriting if you've ever seen his squiggly line signatures he does on his executive orders you'd not think so.
One thing for sure is he doesn't hear them, his mind is old and he's stuck in his ways. He'll never change unless to be more of a mean bigoted old man.
@SorcererV1ct0r I'm surprised you posted that table as I don't think it supports your argument. The table clearly shows that the US has a higher homicide rate than similarly developed nations. The fact that some other nations have much higher rates still doesn't mean that the US couldn't and shouldn't improve their position.
As for Uruguay it may have less of a problem with gang violence than some other South American countries, but it still has higher gun deaths per capita than the US. A better comparator for the US would be Sweden, which has virtually the same per capita number of guns as Uruguay, but less than 15% of the gun deaths (the position on gun deaths and per capita ownership is similar in many other countries, e.g. Germany, Norway, France, Canada, Iceland).
The easy availability and cultural significance of guns in the US is the reason why suicides are so high there, so I think this certainly deserves attention as well as the homicide rate. The article I posted earlier includes links to evidence in relation to gun suicides as well as gun homicides.
There are certainly other ways to kill, but not as quickly and easily as with guns. Mass shootings occur every week or so in the US. I don't remember a single mass knifing being reported there.
There was a knife terrorist attack in Finland. You know why? Because it's fucking hard to get a gun in this country. You know why? Because it's highly regulated.
I'm down for increased armed security for schools (I don't care how expensive it is, these are our children's lives. Its not we don't overspend in other areas *cough*military*cough*). But for the love of all that is holy, if teachers ARE armed, please, please, make them use rubber bullets. At least that way THEY'RE inexperience won't be as likely to cause MORE deaths.
@SorcererV1ct0r I'm surprised you posted that table as I don't think it supports your argument. The table clearly shows that the US has a higher homicide rate than similarly developed nations. The fact that some other nations have much higher rates still doesn't mean that the US couldn't and shouldn't improve their position.
As for Uruguay it may have less of a problem with gang violence than some other South American countries, but it still has higher gun deaths per capita than the US. A better comparator for the US would be Sweden, which has virtually the same per capita number of guns as Uruguay, but less than 15% of the gun deaths (the position on gun deaths and per capita ownership is similar in many other countries, e.g. Germany, Norway, France, Canada, Iceland).
The easy availability and cultural significance of guns in the US is the reason why suicides are so high there, so I think this certainly deserves attention as well as the homicide rate. The article I posted earlier includes links to evidence in relation to gun suicides as well as gun homicides.
There are certainly other ways to kill, but not as quickly and easily as with guns. Mass shootings occur every week or so in the US. I don't remember a single mass knifing being reported there.
Compare cities with and without gun control in USA. Compare with Europe is a problem because Europe have a different demographic, different culture, different law enforcement... You should compare South America with South America, Europe with Europe(...) Uruguay have less gang violence exactly because be a gangster and rob, kill, enforce a parallel law against disarmed citizens is much safer than against armed citizens. And the criminality in Uruguay is concentrated near his northern border(Brazil)
Lowest crimialty by region : Europe : Switzerland and Czech republic South America : Uruguay Middle east : Israel and Cyprus.
All countries have high gun ownership compared with other countries in same region. Gun control will not make USA like UK in criminality. Will make all USA cities to be like Chicago/Detroid.
There was a knife terrorist attack in Finland. You know why? Because it's fucking hard to get a gun in this country. You know why? Because it's highly regulated.
There was a knife terrorist attack in Finland. You know why? Because it's fucking hard to get a gun in this country. You know why? Because it's highly regulated.
Homemade guns and illegally imported guns from eastern europe... Any Finish can get a gun
LULAC, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and a "coalition" of Texas lawyers (which could mean anything--it is the word in the article the Texas Tribune used) have filed a lawsuit in Federal court to attempt to stop the "winner take all" way Texas awards Electoral College votes in Presidential elections (48 out of 50 States use this method, by the way). Although the "winner take all" method has worked quite nicely for a long time, I could see updating it to a system under which EC votes are awarded based on the proportionate share of actual votes received--if you win only 37% of the popular vote then you won 37% of the EC votes.
Of course, this system really boils down to "eliminate the Electoral College", which probably isn't a bad thing (as we have discussed here before). Getting rid of the EC would force Presidential hopefuls to campaign outside of large urban areas in some States--in Illinois if you carry Cook County you carry the State--and it will change campaign strategy. Right now, before a Democrat has even been nominated, the future nominee can already count on 55 EC votes from California; if they could count on only 40 of those votes, however, they may approach different States differently rather than ignoring them as irrelevant because they are too small.
Anyway, as several of us have noted here the EC is a holdover from our very early days as a primarily agricultural society and the university-educated landowners wanted to make sure they couldn't be outvoted by the dirty, mostly-illiterate farmers who actually worked the land.
On a tangentially-related topic, our school calendar is a holdover from those days, as well. Why are students released from school for the summer? So they can stay at home and work the summer harvest on the family farm. This is 2018, not 1818--time to change the system.
Since we are changing the school system, we might as well do away with textbooks and issue students a tablet-based e-reader that has a digital copy of all their books and assignments on it--less to carry, they can't forget their books (but they may still misplace the reader from time to time), the readers can be centrally updated with book revisions as needed, etc.
There was a knife terrorist attack in Finland. You know why? Because it's fucking hard to get a gun in this country. You know why? Because it's highly regulated.
Homemade guns and illegally imported guns from eastern europe... Any Finish can get a gun
Gun control din't prevented anyone from getting this submachine guns...
"A British STEN gun should be VERY easy to make with CNC machinery! And CNC equipment is available in the US. Heck even a good lathe operator could make them! And ammo? So much illegal drugs come in I don't see why illegal ammo wouldn't come in to.
Let's ballpark the idea of arming 20% of the teachers in this country (though I highly doubt you will find even that percentage who are willing to do this). There are 3.2 million teachers in the US. 20% is 640,000. Your average high quality 9mm handgun is $400. The logistics and licensing for a conceal and carry permit likely $200. The BARE MINIMUM amount of training that would be required so these teachers themsleves would not be a danger themselves would have to be upwards of $1000. So, conservatively, $1600 to arm and train each teacher. This is a BILLION dollar endeavor. But the price is, in a sense, immaterial. Teachers went to school to teach. They are not armed sentinels:
What do you mean why not? Please demonstrate your claim that any Finn can obtain a weapon. FWIW I don't think demonstrable, so perhaps you would like to rephrase your position.
I think the situation is that a Finn could theoretically obtain a weapon, but it would require either somehow smuggling the gun in from another country or learning how to build the entire weapon from scratch using your own materials, including the primer, shells, and powder for the ammunition.
Apparently getting a gun is sufficiently difficult that that particular terrorist decided to stage their attack using a knife instead of a gun.
I think the situation is that a Finn could theoretically obtain a weapon, but it would require either somehow smuggling the gun in from another country or learning how to build the entire weapon from scratch using your own materials, including the primer, shells, and powder for the ammunition.
Apparently getting a gun is sufficiently difficult that that particular terrorist decided to stage their attack using a knife instead of a gun.
I don't find any value in the bold part. That is hypothetical, the second statement is the reality of the situation.
Compare cities with and without gun control in USA.
The reference I posted earlier today (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/) includes an analysis of different areas in the US showing that crime (and not just gun crime) has reduced more in areas where gun permits are hard to get. As I said earlier that finding doesn't agree with the NRA rhetoric which is why they want to suppress research into the link between guns and crime.
I've had my say (and probably more than my say) on guns though, so won't be responding further on that topic for the time being.
Comments
You had me until the very last part. Rather than parsing out and reflecting upon each individual news source, you're just lumping "Mainstream outlets" into one ultra liberal bloc of biased journalism akin to breitbart.
You're completely right that left wing media deserves no less skepticism and is no more trustworthy than right wing. That's irrefutably true. WaPo may be as biased to the left as Fox is biased to the right, but the journalistic standards they are held to is much higher than something like Breitbart. The legit side of Fox News is also held to a higher standard (They lose a LOT of ground when they decide to conflate news with entertainment, and used to let someone like O'Reilly hide from requirements of journalistic integrity by saying he was only trying to entertain).
I also agree with you, as I've said before, that liberal bias is more common than conservative bias among journalists. That means there are fewer (predominantly) good-faith right-wing outlets than (predominantly) good-faith left-wing outlets. That's unfortunate, but it's not a good reason to treat intentional propaganda outlets as morally equivalents to mere biased reporting.
That's why I took issue with your original comment: The sources in question included Breitbart and the Federalist, and I do not think those are remotely on the same plane of journalistic legitimacy as the most mainstream of center-left outlets, e.g., NYT and WaPo, even accounting for the many mistakes the latter have made.
I'll bet less than 100 people monitoring these words would catch more than 99% of these assholes!
Generally, the perpetrator(s) end up suiciding.
Average time of a mass shooting incident is almost certainly less than 10 minutes. Sandy Hook was 5 minutes. Virginia Tech was a couple hours but the guy first shot two people, did various activities while everyone was busy responding to his first shooting, then had the big shooting that went on for about 10-12 minutes. Vegas was 10 minutes.
All three of those were suicides. Columbine was suicides. Having gone over a list of 50 or so of them, I'd say roughly three-quarters of mass shootings wind up with the perpetrator suiciding. Although police MIGHT be effective at at least CONTAINING the shooter inside a building.
Average response time of police in numbers significant enough to take down a mass shooter: More than 5 minutes. It's not going to be just the closest cop (which actually could probably be done in less than a minute I'd guess), you're going to want to get at least the 3 closest cops if not more like half a dozen. This'll probably get me put on a watch list now, but I honestly don't understand why the massive security attention on planes.
Planes hold a couple hundred people, tops. Airport terminals can be thousands.
If I was a terrorist, I'd rather see about filling a cargo truck with some cheap explosive and doing a repeat of Oklahoma City.
If the goal is to kill as many people as possible, as cheaply as possible, then that's always seemed the way to go. Hit where people are packed, not where people have been winnowed out into the few.
Much like that terrorist that just ran over people in a packed street during a major holiday in France with a semi-truck. It looked be like fish in a barrel.
I am severely aggravated every time I have to fly because of the ridiculous amount of security screening. The shoes and belt thing is demeaning, and the gels/liquids is aggravating.
And the chance of the TSA catching terrorists is already at a very low probability. I have more faith in the cops stopping an active shooter before he/she suicides than the TSA's draconian security procedures catching weapons.
Because we KNOW the TSA is failing well over half the time, despite everything millions of people have to do every day to fly.
Because they flunked catching them last year. And 3 years ago. And 5 years ago. And failing SPECTACULARLY. 3 years ago they failed 67 out of 70 random tests. Last year it was somewhere between 70-80% failure.
Hell, actually, on my last flight (international even!). I took a non-regulation sized tube of toothpaste (3.5oz by itself!) there. And back.
Meanwhile, god knows what it's costing the American economy because of lost productivity of standing around in lines. I would not be surprised if it was in the single-digit billions.
Or, as an article on Vox states, the TSA is literally killing hundreds of people per year indirectly because people rather drive than deal with the extra time and hassle, and driving is more unsafe than flying.
Granted, I'm not saying NO security measures, just the absurd ones. I feel bad that this line made me laugh out loud.
Edit: if we paid those 100 people $100k each per year that would only be $10M per year. Sounds like chump change to me...
A better comparison to the introduction of gun control would be to look at the number of gun deaths - there was no increase in the UK in these after 1997.
In relation to the mises article you linked there was a major error in that. It suggested that homicides in the UK were only counted if there was a conviction - and that if cases where no arrest was made were removed from US figures then homicide numbers would be more than halved. I think the point the article was referring to was that the Homicide Index in the UK is originally based on deaths the police class as homicide. However, if it is later determined that a death was not homicide (for instance because a court agreed it was the result of self defense) then the death is removed from the index. The absence of an arrest has no effect on the UK figures.
You've made a lot of references to the ineffectiveness of gun control in preventing terrorist atrocities, such as the Charlie Hebdo case in France. However, no-one has suggested in this thread that gun control would provide more than a small benefit against terrorism (though people have suggested that even a small benefit would be better than no benefit at all). I have though posted several times that gun control would be expected to make a major difference to the problem of mass shootings in the US - most of which are not carried out as suicide attacks by terrorists or as part of wider criminal activity.
As I think you've already recognized the US is not a particularly violent country overall and nor does it have unusually high levels of mental health problems. What it does have is an incredibly high (by international standards) number of mass shootings. If you think there is no link with the availability of guns & the cultural perception of guns as enhancing personal power, then what do you think the cause is?
Note that in USA according to this "gun violence" statistics, if someone invade a farm and get killed, is "gun violence"(yes, statistics tends to put self defense and suicide as "gun violence), but if gun control is approved and the attacker invade the farm, kill all man and rape all woman, then is not "gun violence"... What scenario is better?
First off, one month from now, I will be doing a post following up on Trump's "bump stock memo" and the Congressional action he claimed he was for this morning. Let's see if anything comes of either. If so, great. I'm not holding my breath.
But a thought for this morning: isn't it a little rich that the people who don't believe teachers should have tenure think they are qualified to act as armed guards in their own classroom?? Also, this "plan" would like put hundreds of millions of dollars right back into the pockets of the gun manufacturers.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/
https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association
You might also want to consider the fact that the National Rifle Association does not appear to include any statistics on the impact of guns on crime on their web-site. They also lobby hard, i.e. pay politicians, to prevent government sponsored research in this area. The reason why they do that seems obvious to me - they know that the evidence directly contradicts their stated position on the value of guns and therefore do their best to prevent that evidence becoming more widely known to the public.
Also, he asked a question regarding the relatively high number of mass shootings. Probably better to answer that before posing more of your own.
Pointing out that, let's say, a ban on bump stocks inconveniences legal gun owners and won't stop criminals doesn't really add to the conversation. Would such a ban actually have an impact on decreasing gun violence? Would it be more or less effective than other measures available? Would it pass constitutional muster? If so, is the loss of individual liberty an acceptable trade-off for the projected impact? These are where the discussion gets difficult, yes, but also interesting.
And before someone claims 'loss of individual liberty is never an acceptable trade-off': even enumerated constitutional rights are not absolute, though it sets a substantial bar to overcome. The classic example of non-protected free speech is yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater. It's because your individual liberty to free speech--yelling 'fire'--is not outweighed by the liberty lost by the other patrons having life and limb endangered.
The unique south american country in this list is Uruguay. And Uruguay have about 0.5% of Brazil murder numbers. The European countries with more guns / 100 hab are safer than countries with strict gun control.
Uruguay is the safest country in South America and the country with more guns / 100 hab - Self defense is not homicide
- Suicide is not homicide
- But according to "gun violence statistics" are forms of gun violence.
A homicide with poison, car, knife, etc still a homicide. People who advocate from gun control ignores that guns can be obtained illegally and that there are a lot of other ways to kill. Also if i wanna kill someone, i rather do with a illegal arm.
I believe I saw something that said the NYPD is happy with a hit rate for it's officers of like 18%. That's great to give teachers guns and have them hit their target 18% of the time. I feel it is beyond stupid idea to arm teachers. First of all they are highly underpaid as it is, these are not people that need additional expenses. Their job is to teach children. That's tough enough without taking on additional roles as armed prison guards.
This guy is such a clown.
What's the 45? His shirt size or to remind him he's president and got the most votes ever for one candidate except for the zillions of illegal votes for clinton. hahaha this guy.
I guess this debunks a bit that he can't read. Apparently he can sorta read. I don't think that's his handwriting if you've ever seen his squiggly line signatures he does on his executive orders you'd not think so.
One thing for sure is he doesn't hear them, his mind is old and he's stuck in his ways. He'll never change unless to be more of a mean bigoted old man.
As for Uruguay it may have less of a problem with gang violence than some other South American countries, but it still has higher gun deaths per capita than the US. A better comparator for the US would be Sweden, which has virtually the same per capita number of guns as Uruguay, but less than 15% of the gun deaths (the position on gun deaths and per capita ownership is similar in many other countries, e.g. Germany, Norway, France, Canada, Iceland).
The easy availability and cultural significance of guns in the US is the reason why suicides are so high there, so I think this certainly deserves attention as well as the homicide rate. The article I posted earlier includes links to evidence in relation to gun suicides as well as gun homicides.
There are certainly other ways to kill, but not as quickly and easily as with guns. Mass shootings occur every week or so in the US. I don't remember a single mass knifing being reported there.
Lowest crimialty by region :
Europe : Switzerland and Czech republic
South America : Uruguay
Middle east : Israel and Cyprus.
All countries have high gun ownership compared with other countries in same region. Gun control will not make USA like UK in criminality. Will make all USA cities to be like Chicago/Detroid. Homemade guns and illegally imported guns from eastern europe... Any Finish can get a gun
Of course, this system really boils down to "eliminate the Electoral College", which probably isn't a bad thing (as we have discussed here before). Getting rid of the EC would force Presidential hopefuls to campaign outside of large urban areas in some States--in Illinois if you carry Cook County you carry the State--and it will change campaign strategy. Right now, before a Democrat has even been nominated, the future nominee can already count on 55 EC votes from California; if they could count on only 40 of those votes, however, they may approach different States differently rather than ignoring them as irrelevant because they are too small.
Anyway, as several of us have noted here the EC is a holdover from our very early days as a primarily agricultural society and the university-educated landowners wanted to make sure they couldn't be outvoted by the dirty, mostly-illiterate farmers who actually worked the land.
On a tangentially-related topic, our school calendar is a holdover from those days, as well. Why are students released from school for the summer? So they can stay at home and work the summer harvest on the family farm. This is 2018, not 1818--time to change the system.
Since we are changing the school system, we might as well do away with textbooks and issue students a tablet-based e-reader that has a digital copy of all their books and assignments on it--less to carry, they can't forget their books (but they may still misplace the reader from time to time), the readers can be centrally updated with book revisions as needed, etc.
Apparently I am all over the map today.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/01/22/common-illicitly-homemade-submachine-guns-brazil/
Gun control din't prevented anyone from getting this submachine guns...
"A British STEN gun should be VERY easy to make with CNC machinery! And CNC equipment is available in the US. Heck even a good lathe operator could make them! And ammo? So much illegal drugs come in I don't see why illegal ammo wouldn't come in to.
That is if a simple nitrate factory didn't make the powder and primers while a simple metal shop made the primers, cases, and slugs. 9mm would be the only one needed."
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/01/22/common-illicitly-homemade-submachine-guns-brazil/
This talking about homemade guns. There are 30 milion illegal immigrants in USA. How much ammo and weapon can illegally enter in USA?
Apparently getting a gun is sufficiently difficult that that particular terrorist decided to stage their attack using a knife instead of a gun.
I've had my say (and probably more than my say) on guns though, so won't be responding further on that topic for the time being.