You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#31 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 382 weeks ago
It gets worse....
A total of four Broward County Sheriff’s deputies failed to enter Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., during last week’s mass shooting, according to a new report. […]
…Peterson wasn’t the only one — three other Broward County Sheriff’s deputies also remained outside the school with their pistols drawn as they took cover behind their vehicles, CNN reports.
It appears that they didn’t enter the school even when police officers arrived later to the crime scene.
Additionally, the Coral Springs police officers who arrived at the school later were frustrated and surprised that the sheriff’s deputies did not accompany them as they entered the school, sources told CNN.
The Sheriff needs to stay the fuck off TV and needs to get his departments shit together, because his leadership sucks.
But surely armed teachers would've done a better job than these so-called trained professionals, right?
#32 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 382 weeks ago
I've given more than enough stats and solutions. You guys ignored them, so this his just drivel.
I will admit that I don't read everything in this thread... some of the thinking on display here is quite disheartening to read to be honest. But that whole "we're different" line of reasoning just really ticks me off... there's nothing inherently different about US citizens, they're not somehow genetically more inclined to shoot or murder people. It is fixable, but it's never going to get fixed if you just close your eyes, cover your ears and repeat that "won't work for us" mantra over and over again.
Were my stats somehow wrong then? Here are my references:
* Alpers, Philip, Amélie Rossetti and Daniel Salinas. 2018. Guns in the United States: Proportion of Households with Firearms. Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney.
* Alpers, Philip, Amélie Rossetti and Daniel Salinas. 2018. Guns in the United States: Homicides (All Means). Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney.
* https://www.service-public.fr/particuli … roits/N287
#33 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 382 weeks ago
Hey dufus, our population and population in relation to guns is COMPLETELY different. Ban guns? There's more guns than people by millions, the trade would get MORE dangerous.
Talk about special little snowflakes huh... "America is so special, the people are so different, what works in other countries will never work for us, 'cause you know... we're special..."
Lot of good your legal gun trade does you... "hey, that mass murderer bought that gun fair and square, and we can see exactly where he bought it, where he got his license, etc...". Whoopty fucking doo...
Look, I know I'm being an ass, I know there's cultural sensitivities that I'm probably missing or just flat out ignoring. I do understand it's hard to convince a nation of gun lovers to make certain changes. The fact that it's hard doesn't mean it's not the right approach.
See, I don't really think the problem in the US is gun legislation at all, I think the problem is gun glorification. America's gun laws are only somewhat less strict than comparably advanced and free countries, certainly not to the extent that it would lead to a 10-fold increase in gun violence. There are 5 times more murders per capita in the US compared to the UK, 6 times more than in Germany, 8 times more than in France, 12 times more than in Japan. I'm specifically quoting numbers for homicides in general 'cause I don't want people to weasel out of this by saying knives and baseball bats kill people too. And just to be clear, the numbers for gun-related homicides are even more diverging and make the US look even worse.
To the point of gun legislation though, consider the following: in the US one in three households owns one or more firearms; in Germany, it's one in 9 (one third), in France one in 8 (almost half). Just to compare, gun legislation in France for example is fairly loose. Everyone is allowed to own a gun, under the following conditions:
They are 18 years old (16 if they compete in international shooting competitions)
Have a hunting license, or are affiliated with a shooting range
Pass a medical check
You know, fairly simple stuff, similar to getting a driver's license. If you want to buy a semi-automatic rifle you do need to also attend at least three lessons with a professional instructor, and that license is only valid for 5 years, but still... fairly straightforward.
So given that the people in those countries are just as free to own a gun as you Americans are, why do the French, British, Germans, etc... not own more guns per capita then? The answer is SUPER simple... it's simply not a thing for them... it doesn't make them feel "free", or "in charge". They don't look at guns as their last and only line of defense. Most people in Europe will look at a machine designed to kill people in disgust, while a lot of Americans (I hesitate to say "most", but certainly the most vocal part) look at a gun and see it as a symbol of freedom. That's what's wrong with the US, that's what needs to be changed.
So no, I do not think lax gun legislation is the reason for America's gun woes. However, stricter gun legislation is needed to send a signal to gun lovers that change is coming, to stop that knee-jerk reaction some even on this very forum have to "get more good guys with guns to fight the bad guys with guns". Guns are not a solution, going into an arms race with idiots, the scum of society, is never a good idea.
And THAT is what Australia did so effectively, change the mindset about guns...
So before you dismiss what has worked in other countries on some vaguely defined premise of being "different", consider if you really want to be "different" from the rest of the free world in this regard. "different" might in this case simply be another word for "worse".
#34 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 382 weeks ago
TheMole wrote:misterID wrote:Yes. There are plenty who are trained and capable. You could place veterans as guidance counselors. Not all teachers, but there some who are more than capable.
Oh... my... god...
Yes, there might be some... but obviously there's no correlation between wanting to be an educator and wanting to wield a firearm. Making it a requirement, or in any other way a "plus" that gets you hired for the job of teaching impressionable young kids, will obviously lead to worse teachers on average... obviously... I mean... come on...
And you know this how? Victims don’t have a moral high ground. They’re dead.
Tell me how there is a correlation then.
#35 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 382 weeks ago
No offense, but you don't know what you're talking about. Banning guns would create a black market that's more profitable and dangerous than the drug trade. And guess what, you couldn't track ANY gun. Not to mention the rise in militias and federal standoffs. Our countries are not the same and aren't comparable, not in size, population or dynamics.
What the fuck is so different about the "dynamics"? How does the size of the country impact how you do effective gun control (Australia is almost as big as the US, Canada is bigger)? How does population stop you from reducing the number of deaths by firearm?
#36 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 382 weeks ago
mitchejw wrote:You think a teacher wants the responsibility of having let alone shooting a gun?
Yes. There are plenty who are trained and capable. You could place veterans as guidance counselors. Not all teachers, but there some who are more than capable.
Oh... my... god...
Yes, there might be some... but obviously there's no correlation between wanting to be an educator and wanting to wield a firearm. Making it a requirement, or in any other way a "plus" that gets you hired for the job of teaching impressionable young kids, will obviously lead to worse teachers on average... obviously... I mean... come on...
#37 Re: Guns N' Roses » Blind item on crazydaysandnights.net » 387 weeks ago
And yes, on TSI I loved the mix. Sorum sounded huge and Slash’s tone and this Mix on Ain’t It Fun was damn perfect. Sonically it is THE best GNR sounding album.
Yes, I very distinctly remember an ad on TV here (I was 13 years old, or thereabouts) that featured the opening riff to Ain't It Fun. It was basically just the album cover slowly spinning into frame with that riff playing in the background. Once the album was completely in view, text would appear: "Guns N Roses, The Spaghetti Incident. New Album in stores now"
It was awesome...
#38 Re: The Garden » Net Neutrality » 388 weeks ago
I’m all for NN, but it’s a nonexistent problem that needs fixed. Competition is what America needs to improve its already pretty damn good broadband. But my bet is within 5 years, everything will be wireless and wired internet will go the way of the dodo, making a lot of this discussion moot.
Wireless spectrum is not finite, as a matter of fact we're nearly at the limit as it is today. That's why it's a prime example of a natural resource that needs to be regulated by the government, but also why it's never going to be a full replacement for wired internet.
The point of Net Neutrality is not that access providers shouldn't be able to pay for fast lines from their infrastructure to the ISP's. It is that ISP shouldn't be able to bill you depending on what you do with your internet. They shouldn't be able to charge you more for you streaming 100mb worth of Netflix data than 100mb worth of Hulu data, THAT is what Net Neutrality is trying to protect.
#39 Re: The Garden » Net Neutrality » 388 weeks ago
I have a bundled package with cable (every channel) and phone. $200 a month for 300 mbps down and like 30 up. My internet alone would be about $70
The equivalent is about €85-€95 for an all-in package here in Belgium (200mbps down and 20mbps up, but who cares about the speed difference with numbers like that) and we're about 15% more expensive than the average in Europe. I'll refer to my post in the original thread for my stance on Net Neutrality (tl;dr: we need it):
Randall Flagg wrote:I'm still trying to formulate an opinion, and all the doom and gloom pretending the FCC saved the internet under Obama isn't helping. There was no "net neutrality" (which I've found is really a buzzword and has no actual definition) prior to 2015 and the internet was just fine. Like I said, Canada lacks a net neutrality law, and they don't have any issues. Same with the Netherlands.
The Netherlands was the first European country to enact a net neutrality law. It's only recently that this legislation has been challenged due to a new EU directive that might prohibit The Netherlands from enforcing some of the stricter parts of their legislation. But in practice, today, The Netherlands still has Net Neutrality legislation.
Randall Flagg wrote:Capitalism and competition is what forced Verizon and AT&T to start offering unlimited data plans at a fair rate in order to compete with Sprint and T-Mobile.
Yes. But unfortunately, there is no real competition in fixed broadband internet in the US. You typically only have one cable provider and one dominant DSL provider per area, making it so the forces of capitalism can't really work as they should. That's why in the US, you pay nearly twice as much for broadband internet service than in most of Europe.
Randall Flagg wrote:I think I'm in favor of net neutrality, but the scare tactics and nonsense populating the dialogue turns me off. I'd much rather see the feds break up the major ISPs and treat the cable lines like we do the electric and water companies.
That's effectively what the FCC did under Tom Wheeler: regulate internet as a Title II communications service. It's not entirely the same as regulating it as a utility, but it's the closest thing that was feasible back then. Now, even title II seems a pipe dream.
Net neutrality is needed because there is just not enough competition, and the cost of entry for new players is staggeringly high (prohibitively so), and often hampered by building permits, zoning regulations and other publicly managed resources. There's just no real chance for new competitors to come up and disrupt things.
Net Neutrality legislation has become a necessity due to the recent consolidation in the industry (comcast/time warner/cox, at&t/directv, ...). There are other ways to achieve similar results, but net neutrality is a simple principle: just like PG&E does not get to charge different rates depending on what you do with your electricity, your internet provider should not charge you depending on what you do with your bytes. You pay for throughput and volume, not the contents of your internet packets.
#40 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 394 weeks ago
How much lower are we going to go?
In a society where some boys wear dresses to school, girls join boy scouts, a tranny bathroom on every street corner, a white girl identifies herself as a black man, a student needs a cup of hot chocolate and a trauma dog if someone calls them a bad name.....
Trump's not even close to scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Why is this such a big deal for you? Why even bring this up in this discussion? How is supporting a pedophile for political gains not lower than wearing a fucking dress to school?? Even if you're right, and we're becoming a society of whiney pussies that need safe spaces and genderless pronouns to keep us from crying in a corner somewhere... why the hell do you bring it up now??
I'm not trying to be an asshole here, I just cannot even begin to imagine what the connection is...
